Beast, the translation of ‫בְּ הֵ מָ ה‬, behemah′, dumb animals, quadrupeds, the most usual term;

also of ‫בִּ עִּ יר‬, beïr′, grazing animals, flocks or herds, Exod. 22:5; Num. 20:4, 8, 11; Psa. 78:48;
once beasts of burden, Gen. 45:17; ‫חַ י‬, chay, Chaldee ‫חַ יָא‬, chaya′, a wild beast, frequently
occurring; ‫ ֶנפֶׁש‬, ne′phesh, creature or soul, only once in the phrase “beast for beast,” Levit. 24:18;
‫טֶ בַ ח‬, te′bach, slaughter, once only for eatable beasts, Prov. 9:2; and ‫כִּ ְּרכָרֹות‬, kirkaroth′, “swift
beasts,” i.e. dromedaries, Isa. 60:20 [see CATTLE]; in the New Test. properly ζῶον, an animal;
θηρίον, a wild beast, often; κτῆνος, a domestic animal, as property, for merchandise, Rev. 18:13;
for food, 1 Cor. 15:39; or for service, Luke 10:34; Acts 23:24; and σφάγιον, an animal for sacrifice,
a victim, Acts 7:42. In the Bible, this word, when used in contradistinction to man (Psa. 36:6),
denotes a brute creature generally; when in contradistinction to creeping things (Lev. 11:2–7;
27:26), it has reference to four-footed animals; and when to wild mammalia, as in Gen. 1:25, it
means domesticated cattle. TSIYIM′, ‫“( צִּ יִּ ים‬wild beasts,” Isa. 13:21; 34:14; Jer. 50:39), denotes
wild animals of the upland wilderness. OCHIM′, ‫“( אֹ ִּחים‬doleful creatures,” Isa. 13:21), may,
perhaps, with more propriety be considered as “poisonous and offensive reptiles.” SEÏRIM′,
‫ ְּשעִּ ִּירים‬, shaggy ones, is a general term for apes—not satyrs (Isa. 13:21; 34:14; much less
“devils,” 2 Chron. 11:15), a pagan poetical creation unfit for Scriptural language; it includes
SHEDIM′, ‫“( ׁשֵ ִּדים‬devils,” Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37), as a species. See APE. TANNIM′, ‫תַ נִּ ים‬, are
monsters of the deep and of the wilderness—boas, serpents, crocodiles, dolphins, and sharks. See
ANIMAL.
The zoology of Scripture may, in a general sense, be said to embrace the whole range of
animated nature; but, after the first brief notice of the creation of animals recorded in Genesis, it
is limited more particularly to the animals found in Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and the
countries eastward, in some cases to those beyond the Euphrates. It comprehends mammalia, birds,
reptiles, fishes, and invertebrate animals. See each animal in its alphabetical order. Thus, in
animated nature, beginning with the lowest organized in the watery element, we have first ‫ׁשֶ ֶרץ‬,
SEH′RETS, “the moving creature that hath life,” animalcula, crustacea, insecta, etc.; second, ‫תַ נִּ ינִִּם‬,
TANNINIM′, fishes and amphibia, including the huge tenants of the waters, whether they also
frequent the land or not, crocodiles, python-serpents, and perhaps even those which are now
considered as of a more ancient zoology than the present system, the great Saurians of geology;
and third, it appears, birds, ‫עֹוף‬, OPH, “flying creatures” (Gen. 1:20); and, still advancing
(cetaceans, pinnatipeds, whales, and seals being excluded), we have quadrupeds, forming three
other divisions or orders: (1st.) cattle, ‫בֵ הֵ מָ ה‬, BEHEMAH′, embracing the ruminant herbivora,
generally gregarious and capable of domesticity; (2d.) wild beasts, ‫חַ יה‬, CHAYAH′, carnivora,
including all beasts of prey; and (3d.) reptiles, ‫ ֶרמֶ ש‬, RE′MES, minor quadrupeds, such as creep by
means of many feet, or glide along the surface of the soil, serpents, annelides, etc.; finally, we have
man, ‫אָ דָ ם‬, ADAM′, standing alone in intellectual supremacy. The classification of Moses, as it may
be drawn from Deuteronomy, appears to be confined to Vertebrata alone, or animals having a
spine and ribs, although the fourth class might include others. Taking man as one, it forms five
classes: (1st.) Man; (2d.) Beasts; (3d.) Birds; (4th.) Reptiles; (5th.) Fishes. It is the same as that in
Leviticus 11, where beasts are further distinguished into those with solid hoofs, the solipedes of
systematists, and those with cloven feet (bisulci), or ruminantia. But the passage specially refers
to animals that might be lawfully eaten because they were clean, and to others prohibited because
they were declared unclean, although some of them, according to the common belief of the time,
might ruminate; for the Scriptures were not intended to embrace anatomical disquisitions aiming
at the advancement of human science, but to convey moral and religious truth without disturbing
the received opinions of the time on questions having little or no relation to their main object. The
Scriptures, therefore, contain no minute details on natural history, and notice only a small
proportion of the animals inhabiting the regions alluded to. Notwithstanding the subsequent
progress of science, the observation of Dr. Adam Clarke is still in a great measure true, that “of a
few animals and vegetables we are comparatively certain, but of the great majority we know almost
nothing. Guessing and conjecture are endless, and they have on these subjects been already
sufficiently employed. What learning—deep, solid, extensive learning and judgment could do, has
already been done by the incomparable Bochart in his Hierozoicon. The learned reader may consult
this work, and, while he gains much general information, will have to regret that he can apply so
little of it to the main and grand question.” The chief cause of this is doubtless the general want of
a personal and exact knowledge of natural history on the part of those who have discussed these
questions (Kitto). See ZOOLOGY.
The Mosaic regulations respecting domestic animals exhibit a great superiority over the
enactments of other ancient nations (for those of the Areopagus, see Quintil. Justit. v, 9, 13; for
those of the Zend-avesta, see Rhode, Heil. Sage, p. 438, 441, 445), and contain the following
directions: 1. Beasts of labor must have rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10; 23:12), and in the
sabbatical year cattle were allowed to roam free and eat whatever grew in the untilled fields (Exod.
23:11; Lev. 25:7). See SABBATH. 2. No animal could be castrated (Lev. 22:24); for that this is the
sense of the passage (which Le Clerc combats) is evident not only from the interpretation of
Josephus (Ant. v, 8, 10), but also from the invariable practice of the Jews themselves. See Ox. The
scruples that may have led to the disuse of mutilated beasts of burden are enumerated by Michaelis
(Mos. Recht, iii, 161 sq.). The prohibition itself must have greatly subserved a higher and different
object, namely, the prevention of eunuchs; but its principal ground is certainly a religious, or, at
least, a humane one (see Hottinger, Leges Hebr. p. 374 sq.). 3. Animals of different kinds were not
to be allowed to mix in breeding, nor even to be yoked together to the plough (Lev. 19:19; Deut.
20:10). See DIVERSE. 4. Oxen in threshing were not to be muzzled, or prevented from eating the
provender on the floor (Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9). See THRESHING. 5. No (domestic) animal should
be killed on the same day with its young (Lev. 22:28), as this would imply barbarity (see Jonathan’s
Targum in loc.; Philo, Opp. ii, 398). The Jews appear to have understood this enactment to apply
to the slaughtering (‫ )ׁשָ חַ ט‬of animals for ordinary use as well as for sacrifice (Mishna, Chollin, ch.
v). Respecting the ancient law referred to in Exod. 23:19, see VICTUALS. (Comp. generally
Schwabe, in the Kirchenzeit. 1834, No. 20). Other precepts seem not to have had the force of civil
statutes, but to have been merely injunctions of compassion (e.g. Exod. 23:5; Deut. 22:4, 6, 7).
The sense of the former of these last prescriptions is not very clear in the original (see Rosenmüller
in loc.), as the Jews apply it to all beasts of burden as well as the ass (see Josephus, Ant. iv, 8, 30;

sq. sequent. = following.

sq. sequent. = following.

comp. Philo, Opp. ii, 39). Deut. 6:7 sq., however, appears to be analogous to the other regulations
under this class (Winer, ii, 610). See FOWL.
The word “beast” is sometimes used figuratively for brutal, savage men. Hence the phrase, “I
fought with wild beasts at Ephesus,” alluding to the infuriated multitude, who may have demanded
that Paul should be thus exposed in the amphitheatre to fight as a gladiator (1 Cor. 15:32; Acts
19:29). A similar use of the word occurs in Psa. 22:12, 16; Eccl. 3:18; Isa. 11:6–8; and in 2 Pet.
2:12; Jude 10, to denote a class of wicked men. A wild beast is the symbol of a tyrannical, usurping
power or monarchy, that destroys its neighbors or subjects, and preys upon all about it. The four
beasts in Dan. 7:3, 17, 23, represent four kings or kingdoms (Ezek. 34:28; Jer. 12:9). Wild beasts
are generally, in the Scriptures, to be understood of enemies, whose malice and power are to be
judged of in proportion to the nature and magnitude of the wild beasts by which they are
represented; similar comparisons occur in profane authors (Psa. 74:14). In like manner the King
of Egypt is compared to the crocodile (Psa. 68:31). The rising of a beast signifies the rise of some
new dominion or government; the rising of a wild beast, the rise of a tyrannical government; and
the rising out of the sea, that it should owe its origin to the commotions of the people. So the waters
are interpreted by the angel (Rev. 17:15). In the visions of Daniel, the four great beasts, the symbols
of the four great monarchies, are represented rising out of the sea in a storm: “I saw in my vision
by night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea, and four great beasts
came up from the sea” (Dan. 7:2, 3). In various passages of the Revelation (4:6, etc.) this word is
improperly used by our translators to designate the living creatures (ζῶα) that symbolize the
providential agencies of the Almighty, as in the vision of Ezekiel (ch. 1). The “beast” elsewhere
spoken of with such denunciatory emphasis in that book doubtless denotes the heathen political
power of persecuting Rome. See Wemys’s Symbol. Dict. s. v.1

sq. sequent. = following.

s. v. sub verbo = under the word.

1
M’Clintock, J., & Strong, J. (1880). Beast. In Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature (Vol. 1, pp. 709–710). New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.