Beast

VIEW:47 DATA:01-04-2020

BEAST (in Apocalypse).—In Revelation, particularly ch. 13, are symbolic pictures of two beasts who are represented as the arch-opponents of the Christians. The first beast demands worship, and is said to have as his number 666—a numerical symbol most easily referred to the Emperor Nero, or the Roman Empire. In the former case the reference would be undoubtedly to the myth of Nero redivivus, and this is, on the whole, the most probable interpretation.
If instead of 666 we read with Zahn, O. Holtzmann, Spitta, and Erbes, 616, the number would be the equivalent of Gaius Cæsar, who in a.d. 39 ordered the procurator Petronius to set up his statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. This view is, in a way, favoured not only by textual variations, but by the fact that Revelation has used so much Jewish apocalyptic material. However this may be, it seems more probable that the reference in Rev_17:10-11, as re-edited by the Christian writer, refers to Nero redivivus, the incarnation of the persecuting Roman Empire, the two together standing respectively as the Antichrist and his kingdom over against the Messiah and His kingdom. As in all apocalyptic writings, a definite historical ruler is a representative of an empire. Until the Messiah comes His subjects are at the, mercy of His great enemy.
The present difficulty in making the identification is due not only to the process of redaction, but also to the highly complex and, for the modern mind, all but unintelligible fusion of the various elements of the Antichrist belief (see Antichrist).
Shailer Mathews.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Representing two distinct Hebrew words, bihemah and chay, "cattle" and "living creature," or "animal." Beir means either collectively all cattle (Exo_22:4; Psa_78:48) or specially beasts of burden (Gen_45:17). The "beheemah" answer to the hoofed animals. In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 some principal divisions of the animal kingdom are given; the cloven footed, chewing the cud, ruminantia. The aim of Scripture is not natural science, but religion. Where system is needful for this, it is given simple and effective for the purposes of religion. If Scripture had given scientific definitions, they would have been irrelevant and even marring to the effect designed. The language is therefore phenomenal, i.e. according to appearances.
Thus the hare and hyrax have not the four stomachs common to ruminant animals, but they move the jaw in nibbling like the ruminants. The hare chews over again undigested food brought up from the aesophagus though not a genuine ruminant. The teeth of the rodentia grow during life, so that they necessarily have to be kept down by frequent grinding with the jaws; this looks like rumination. The hare and the coney represent really the rodentia; (the Coney, or Hyrax, though a pachyderm, is linked with the hare, because externally resembling the rodentia;) swine, pachydermata; "whatsoever goeth upon his paws," "all manner of beasts that go on all four," carnivora: only those of a limited district, and those at all possible to be used as food, are noticed, it is noteworthy that it is only "every animal of the field" that Jehovah brought to Adam to name, namely, animals in any way useful to man (Gen_2:19), mainly the herbivora. (See CONEY; HYRAX.) Dominion is not specified as given over the (wild, savage) "beasts of the earth" (mainly carnivora), but only "over all the earth."
So in Psa_8:7 man's dominion is over "the beasts of the field." Noah is not said to take into the ark beasts of the earth; but in Gen_9:9-10, "beasts of the earth" are distinguished from "all that go out of the ark." Next to fear of a deluge was their fear of the beasts of the earth; but God assures men "the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth" (Gen_9:2). Symbolically, man severed from God and resting on his own physical or intellectual strength, or material resources, is beastly and brutish. He is only manly when Godly, for man was made in the image of God. So Asaph describes himself, when envying the prosperous wicked," I was as a beast before Thee" (Psa_73:22). "Man in honor (apart from God) abideth not, he is like the beasts that perish" (Psa_49:12).
The multitude opposing Messiah are but so many "bulls" and "calves" to be stilled by His "rebuke" (Psa_68:30). Those "that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, as natural brute beasts, are made only to be taken and destroyed" (2Pe_2:12). So persecutors of Christians, as Paul's opponents at Ephesus (1Co_15:32). The "beast" (Revelation 13; Revelation 15; Revelation 17; Revelation 19) is the combination of all these sensual, lawless, God opposing features. The four successive world empires are represented as beasts coming up out of the sea whereon the winds of heaven strove (Daniel 7). The kingdom of Messiah, on the contrary, is that of "the Son of MAN," supplanting utterly the former, and alone everlasting and world wide. In Revelation 4; 5, the four cherubic forms are not "beasts" (as KJV), but "living creatures" (zoa).
The "beast" (theerion) is literally the wild beast, untamed to the obedience of Christ and God (Rom_8:7). The "harlot" or apostate church (compare Rev_12:1, etc., with Rev_17:1, etc.; Isa_1:21) sits first on the beast, which again is explained as "seven mountains upon which she sitteth"; probably seven universal God-opposed empires (contrast Jer_51:25 with Isa_2:2) of which the seven-hilled Rome is the prominent embodiment, namely, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Mede Persia, Greece, Rome (including the modern Latin kingdoms), and the Germano-Sclavonic empire.
The woman sitting on them is the church conformed to the world; therefore the instrument of her sin is retributively made the instrument of her punishment (Ezekiel 23; Jer_2:19; Rev_17:16). "The spirit of man," even as it normally ascends to God, whose image he bore, so at death "goeth upward"; and the spirit of the beast, even as its desires tend downward to merely temporal wants, "goeth downward" (Ecc_3:21). God warns against cruelty to the brute (Deu_22:6-7). He regarded the "much cattle" of Nineveh (Jon_4:11). He commanded that they should be given the sabbath rest. As to the creature's final deliverance, see Rom_8:20-23.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

bēst: This word occurs often in both Old and New Testaments and denotes generally a mammal (though sometimes a reptile) in distinction to a man, a bird, or a fish. In this distinction the English is fairly in accord with the Hebrew and Greek originals. The commonest Hebrew words behēmāh and ḥai have their counterpart in the Arabic as do three others less often used, be‛ı̄r (Gen_45:17; Exo_22:5; Num_20:8 the King James Version), nephesh (Lev_24:18), and ṭebhaḥ (Pro_9:2). Behēmāh and Arabic bahı̄mah are from a root signifying vagueness or dumbness and so denote primarily a dumb beast. Ḥai and Arabic ḥaiwān are from the root ḥāyāh (Arabic ḥaya), ?to live,? and denote primarily living creatures. Be‛ı̄r, ?cattle,? and its root-verb, bā‛ar, ?to graze,? are identical with the Arabic ba‛ı̄r and , ba‛ara, but with a curious difference in meaning. Ba‛ı̄r is a common word for camel among the Bedouin and the root-verb, ba‛ara, means ?to drop dung,? ba‛rah being a common word for the dung of camels, goats, and sheep. Nephesh corresponds in every way with the Arabic nephs, ?breath,? ?soul? or ?self? Ṭebhaḥ from ṭābhaḥ, ?to slaughter,? is equivalent to the Arabic dhibḥ from dhabaḥa, with the same meaning. Both θηρίον, thērion (?wild beast?), and ζῷον, zō̇on (?living thing?), occur often in the Apocalypse. They are found also in a few other places, as mammals (Heb_13:11) or figuratively (Tit_1:12). Thērion is used also of the viper which fastened on Paul's hand, and this has parallels in classic al Greek. Beasts of burden and beasts used for food were and are an important form of property, hence, κτῆνος, ktḗnos (?possession?), the word used for the good Samaritan's beast (Luk_10:34) and for the beasts with which Lysias provided Paul for his journey to Caesarea (Act_23:24).
For ?swift beast,? kirkārōth, ?dromedary? (Isa_66:20 the King James Version), see CAMEL. For ?swift beast,? rekhesh, see HORSE (Mic_1:13 the King James Version; 1Ki_4:28 the King James Version, margin; compare Est_8:10, Est_8:14). See also WILD BEAST.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Dan_7:3 (a) These beasts represent four great kingdoms, all of them cruel, evil and Satanic in their power and influence. They caused great sorrow and desolation in the earth. These four kingdoms were the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian under Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire.

1Co_15:32 (a) The word is used here by the servant of GOD to indicate the character of the men who opposed Paul and persecuted him in Ephesus. We often use the term "beast" to describe men who are unusually cruel, fierce and heartless.

Tit_1:12 (a) Paul used the word "beast" to describe selfish men who lived for their own comfort and pleasure and oppressed others in order to obtain what they wanted for themselves.

2Pe_2:12 (b) The animal here is typical of ungodly men who live lustful, fleshly lives. They are not interested in cultivating the refining, ennobling things of life, but seek to gratify the lusts of the flesh.
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.

Beast
the translation of בְּהֵמָה, behemah', dumb animals, quadrupeds, the most usual term; also of בִּעִיר, beir', grazing animals, locks or herds, Exo_22:5; Num_20:4; Num_20:8; Num_20:11; Psa_78:48; once beasts of burden, Gen_45:17; חִי, chay, Chaldee חִיָּא, chaya', a wild beast, frequently occurring; נֶפֶשׁ, ne'phesh, creature or soul, only once in the phrase “beast for beast,” Lev_24:18; טֶבִח, to'bach, slaughter, once only for eatable beasts, Pro_9:2; and כִּרְכָּרוֹת, kirkaroth',
“swift beasts,” i.e. dromedaries, Isa_9:20, 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, 1Co_15:39; or for service, Luk_10:34; Act_23:24; and σφάγιον, an animal for sacrifice, a victim, Act_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; Lev_27:26), it has reference to four-footed animals; and when to wild mammalia, as in Gen_1:25, it means domesticated cattle. TSIYIM', צִיִּים (“wild beasts,” Isa_13:21; Isa_34:14; Jeremiah 40:39), denotes wild animals of the upland wilderness. OCHIM', חִים (“doleful creatures,” Isa_13:21), may, perhaps, with more propriety be considered as “poisonous and offensive reptiles.” SEIRIM', שְׂעִירִים, shaggy ones, is a general term for apes — not satyrs (Isa_13:21; Isa_34:14; much less “devils,” 2Ch_11:15), a pagan poetical creation unfit for Scriptural language; it includes SHEDIM', שֵׁדִים(“devils,” Deu_32:17; Psa_106:37), as a species. SEE APE. TANNIM', תִּנִּים, 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 mammilla, 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 שֶׁרֶוֹ, SHE'RETS, “the moving creature that hath life,” animalcula, crustacea, insecta, etc.; second, תִּנִּינִם, 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, עו ֹŠOPH, “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, בֵּהֵמָה, BEHEMAH', embracing the ruminant herbivora, generally gregarious and capable of domesticity;
(2d.) wild beasts, חִיּה, CHAYAH', carnivora, including all beasts of prey; and
(3d.) reptiles, רֶמֶשׂ, 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, אָדָם, 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 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. 5, 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 (Exo_20:10; Exo_23:12), and in the sabbatical year cattle were allowed to roam free and eat whatever grew in the untilled fields (Exo_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 tie interpretation of Josephus (Ant. 5, 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, 3, 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; Deu_20:10). SEE DIVERSE.
4. Oxen in threshing were not to be muzzled, or prevented from eating the provender on the floor (Deu_25:4; 1Co_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. 2, 398). The Jews appear to have understood this enactment to apply to the slaughtering (שָׁחִט) of animals for ordinary use as well as for sacrifice (Mishna, Chollin, ch. v). Respecting the ancient law referred to in Exo_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. Exo_23:5; Deu_22:4; Deu_22:6-7). The sense of the former of these last prescriptions is not very clear in the original (see Rosenmuller in loc.), as the Jews apply it to all beasts of burden as well as the ass (see Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 30; comp. Philo, Opp. 2, 39). Deu_6:7 sq., however, appears to be analogous to the other regulations under this class (Winer, 2:610). 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 (1Co_15:32; Act_19:29). A similar use of the word occurs in Psa_22:12; Psa_22:16; Ecc_3:18; Isa_11:6-8; and in 2Pe_2:12; Jud_1:10, 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; Dan_7:17; Dan_7:23, represent four kings or kingdoms (Eze_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. i). 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.



CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores