The Behemoth of Job 40 is a very interesting creature over which there are some very interesting debates. In this article, I want to thoroughly examine all the traits ascribed to this creature and show what we can say for certain, what we cannot say for certain, and what we can certainly say is not the case.
First, I want to say that although I used the NKJV in the original image, I have decided to use the KJV for the entire post. There is a reason for this. One of the candidates put forward for Behemoth's identity, and the one to which I find most likely, is a sauropod dinosaur. Modern Evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists, and Old Earth Creationists, could attempt to argue that more modern translations have been corrupted by modern Creation apologetics, and so they present Behemoth as more dinosaur-like than it is. This argument, however, cannot be applied to the KJV, which was originally published in 1611, long before Sir Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur", and certainly before Evolutionists started making up stories about the dinosaurs living and dying millions of years ago.
There are other candidates put forward for Behemoth. Some claim Behemoth is a mythical creature. It didn't actually exist, it was just there to symbolise God's strength. Other candidates include the hippo and the elephant. Both of these candidates are usually included in a footnote in modern translations, and the AMPC even goes as far as to include "hippopotamus" in brackets next to its name.
So there we have the four main candidates. Myth, hippo, elephant and dinosaur. Which of these candidates, if indeed any of them, is Behemoth? As a disclaimer, I want to say that ultimately, we don't know. The identity of the Behemoth may well be lost forever (though I'm still holding out hope that some ancient literature may one day be discovered, maybe even with illustrations). But the text does not leave us with nothing to go on. In the 9 verses describing Behemoth, God gives us several clues to its identity.
Is it a myth?
This identity is easy to throw out. In the broader context of the book, God is basically showing off to Job, using very real aspects of His creation to demonstrate that He is the sovereign Creator, and Job is just a man who knows basically nothing. To do this, He describes a number of very real creations. Referring specifically to animals, He describes lions, ravens, mountain goats, deer, donkeys, onagers, re'em (often translated as "wild ox"), ostriches, storks, horses, hawks, eagles, and only then does He describe the Behemoth. Are we to believe that the God, who was using His creations to demonstrate His omnipotence and omniscience, would then use a mythical creature to do the same? Or that He would boast "He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"? Why would the "chief of the ways of God" be a myth? Or why would God boast of being able to bring His sword against a myth?
And indeed, the very first verse precludes the possibility of this being a mythical creature. Aside from the wording "behold now behemoth", indicating that this was something Job could actually see, God also said "which I made with thee". God made Behemoth. Not only did He make Behemoth, He made Behemoth with man. In other words, Behemoth is exactly as real as Job was. It is essential to all logic and reason that we discount a myth as a candidate.
Is it an elephant?
In the modern world, the elephant is the largest known land-dwelling animal, and so it is conceivable that, had there been nothing larger in Job's day, an elephant could have been described as the "chief of the ways of God". But there is another attribute of Behemoth that doesn't fit the description of an Elephant. In verse 17, we are told "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." Elephant tails are not like a cedar, in form or movement. A cedar is a tree, an elephant's tail is barely like a twig. Therefore, the tail moving like a cedar is enough to discount the elephant as a candidate.
Is it a hippo?
Much like an elephant, a hippo has a small, twig-like tail that can hardly be considered capable of moving like a cedar. On top of that, because of its comparatively small size, so small that an elephant can bulldoze it, hippos also fail to receive the title "chief of the ways of God." Therefore, we can also discount the hippo as a candidate.
Is it a dinosaur?
I believe I've already made it quite clear that I hold to the interpretation that yes, Behemoth is a dinosaur. Allow me to explain why. First, let me copy the entire passage from the KJV: Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
I am confident that this describes a dinosaur. And with good reason. I remember debating one Evolutionist who, when I showed him this passage, admitted that this does sound like an ancient writer would describe a dinosaur, and the only reason he would not accept that interpretation is that he was not willing to change his belief that they died out 65 million years ago. But obviously, I'm not going to base my defence on the testimony of such an honest, yet admittedly amateur Evolutionist. Let's go through each trait ascribed to Behemoth and see if it matches a dinosaur.
First, we have established that Behemoth actually exists, or at least it did. Did dinosaurs exist? Yes, absolutely. And while Evolutionists scoff at the idea that they were made along with man, for the Christian, this is inescapable. We believe all of creation took place in 6 days. Land animals, like dinosaurs, were created on the 6th day, along with us. And this makes sense historically and scientifically, too.
One other thing Evolutionists used to mock is the idea that dinosaurs lived with grass. Whereas dinosaurs supposedly died 65 million years ago, it was said that grass had not evolved until 55 million years ago. But that all changed when fossilised dinosaur poo proved they actually ate it. What does the Bible say Behemoth ate? Grass.
Then we are told "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly." Larger animals naturally require such strength to be able to stand and walk. Sauropods are so large, it was once suggested that they wouldn't even be able to support their own weight at all, and would actually have had to spend their lives in water. We now know from their footprints that this isn't the case. While they would have been perfectly at home in the water, they were land animals, walking almost exclusively with their tails above the ground, not dragging along the floor as was previously believed.
For diplodocus specifically, the hips were the highest point of its core body. The rest of its body would have balanced on these hips. It is even believed that this animal could rear up on its back end, using its tail and hind legs to balance. This would require huge amounts of strength in both its hips and its stomach muscles.
Then we come to the cedar tail. Opponents of the dinosaur interpretation like to be tricky with this one, claiming that the verse doesn't say the tail itself is like a cedar, only that it moves like one. But I have never seen a supporter of the dinosaur interpretation claim otherwise. We always quote the verse word for word. And this doesn't help the hippo/elephant interpretation one bit. From muscle attachment locations on sauropod bones, we see that the muscles were so tightly knit that each step sauropods made, their huge, very much non-twiggy tails would necessarily have swayed side to side. Or, to put it the way a Hebrew author might have written it, sauropods would have moved their tails like cedars when they walked.
We're also told "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron." Translations vary here, with the NKJV and the KJV both being somewhat anomalous in their rendering. Most translations render it tubes of bronze or brass. This, too, is significant. Sauropods have the largest leg bones of any animal, and the way they are constructed are like tubes of metal. They are completely solid on the outside, but the inside is not so solid. Inside this powerful shell is spongy marrow and blood vessels. The ribs, by contrast, lacked this hollow design. They were solid bone all the way through. The title "chief of the ways of God" is easily won by sauropod dinosaurs. Had they survived until 1611 and beyond, I have no doubt the dispute over Behemoth's identity would be settled.
This same verse also says that God can approach Behemoth with a sword. This is interesting, because the sword can be both literal and figurative in the Bible. When God speaks of His sword, He doesn't often seem to be talking about a single individual, but about corporate judgement. In Ezekiel 21, for example, Babylon is described as the sword of God. In Revelation 2:16, Jesus threatens to come against the compromising Church of Pergamos with the "sword of His mouth". When God says He can approach Behemoth with a sword, He is almost certainly not suggesting he will take the form of a man and walk up to Behemoth with a long iron blade. No, a more likely interpretation is that God was actually telling Job "I can create these things, I can destroy them as well." Thus, it is possible, and I dare say even probable, that God foretold the extinction of the dinosaurs to Job.
God's description of the Behemoth's habitat is a very lush one. The mountains yield food for it, it lies under lotus trees in a covert of reeds and marsh, the willows by the brook surround it. This huge creature would not have been comfortable in a desert or savanna. It needed to be constantly surrounded by food, likely having to spend its entire day eating just to survive. We also see that it is exclusively herbivorous, not just eating grass on the side, because "all the beasts of the field" play near it. Whereas these creatures would logically flee from a carnivore or omnivore, they're not so afraid of this large herbivore, and may even stay near it for protection. If I'm not mistaken, African herbivores still exhibit this behaviour with giraffes.
Finally, Behemoth is described as being quite at home in the Jordan river. This is the largest river in Israel, though its power has been significantly reduced today. It would take a huge animal to stand in it undisturbed. Sauropods certainly fit this description. Some of them are believed to have weighed around 70 tonnes, more than enough to stand firm in the Jordan at full power.
All of this information combined allows us to safely, though not dogmatically, believe that Behemoth was a sauropod dinosaur. We cannot say this for sure, but it is such a powerful interpretation that even an Evolutionist can be satisfied that it makes sense. While we cannot be dogmatic about whether or not Behemoth was a dinosaur, we can be 100% sure that dinosaurs, as land animals, were created on the 6th day of creation, along with man, and that their existence in no way threatens the historical narrative given in Genesis. Rather, dinosaurs are just one more of God's brilliant creations with which He displays His own power.