Beast, the translation of ‫המָה‬ ֵ ְ ‫ב‬, behemah′, dumb animals, quadrupeds, the most usual term; also of

‫בִ ְעִיר‬, beïr′, grazing animals, flocks or herds, Exod. 22:5; Num. 20:4, 8, 11; Psa. 78:48; once beasts of
burden, Gen. 45:17; ‫חַי‬, chay, Chaldee ‫חיְ ָא‬ ַ , chaya′, a wild beast, frequently occurring; ׁ‫נֶפֶש‬, ne′phesh,
creature or soul, only once in the phrase “beast for beast,” Levit. 24:18; ‫טבַח‬ ֶ , te′bach, slaughter, once
only for eatable beasts, Prov. 9:2; and ‫כ ְִרְ כ ְָרוֹת‬, 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′, ‫“( צִיְִים‬wild beasts,” Isa.
13:21; 34:14; Jer. 50:39), denotes wild animals of the upland wilderness. Ochim′, ‫“( אֹחִים‬doleful
creatures,” Isa. 13:21), may, perhaps, with more propriety be considered as “poisonous and offensive
reptiles.” Seïrim′, ‫שְעִירִ ים‬, 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′, ‫“( שֵׁדִ ים‬devils,” Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37), as a species. See Ape. Tannim′, ‫תַנ ִ ְ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 ‫שֶׁרֶ ץ‬, Seh′rets, “the moving creature that hath life,”
animalcula, crustacea, insecta, etc.; second, ‫תַנ ִ ְינ ִם‬,
ְ 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, ‫עוֹף‬, 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, ‫המָה‬ ֵ ְ ֵ‫ב‬, Behemah′, embracing the ruminant
herbivora, generally gregarious and capable of domesticity; (2d.) wild beasts, ‫חיְה‬ ַ , Chayah′, carnivora,
including all beasts of prey; and (3d.) reptiles, ְ‫מש‬ ֶ ֶ‫ר‬, 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, ‫אָדָ 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 (‫ )שָׁחַט‬of 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; 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.