Can you find scholarly support that Behemoth is an example of humble submission?

Questions: Can you find scholarly support that Behemoth is an example of humble submission? Is Behemoth placid, trusting, secure and humble, representing the life submitted to God, as suggested by William W. Wells? Is Behemoth good? Answer to the first question: I’m afraid not.

This is not something I’ve ever read before, although it is an interesting point of view. Even though nobody knows which animal the behemoth was, within the context of Job we know that its great size and strength is compared to Job’s frailty and human weakness.

The Bible tells us that the behemoth is a plant-eater (Job 40:15) with a massive tail that “sways like a cedar” (verse 17). It is very strong and muscular (verses 16, 18.) It lives near water (verses 21–23) and is at home even in a flooded, raging river (verse 23). The behemoth “ranks first among the works of God” (verse 19), and only its Creator can master it. Hunting the behemoth is futile, because it cannot be captured (verse 24). Matthew Henry makes these comments:

Some understand it of the bull; others of an amphibious animal, well known (they say) in Egypt, called the river-horse (hippopotamus), living among the fish in the river Nile, but coming out to feed upon the earth. But I confess I see no reason to depart from the ancient and most generally received opinion, that it is the elephant that is here described, which is a very strong stately creature, of very large stature above any other, of wonderful sagacity, and of so great a reputation in the animal kingdom that among so many four-footed beasts as we have had the natural history of (Job 38:1-39:30) we can scarcely suppose this should be omitted.

Ps. 36:6. “It is behemoth, which I made with thee; I made that beast as well as thee, and he does not quarrel with me; why then dost thou? Why shouldst thou demand peculiar favours because I made thee (Job 10:9), when I made the behemoth likewise with thee? I made thee as well as that beast, and therefore can as easily manage thee at pleasure as that beast, and will do it whether thou refuse or whether thou choose. I made him with thee, that thou mayest look upon him and receive instruction.”

The behemoth perhaps is here intended (as well as the leviathan afterwards) to represent those proud tyrants and oppressors whom God had just now challenged Job to abase and bring down. They think themselves as well fortified against the judgments of God as the elephant with his bones of brass and iron; but he that made the soul of man knows all the avenues to it, and can make the sword of justice, his wrath, to approach to it, and touch it in the most tender and sensible part. He that framed the engine, and put the parts of it together, knows how to take it in pieces. Woe to him therefore that strives with his Maker, for he that made him has therefore power to make him miserable, and will not make him happy unless he will be ruled by him. Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Job.40.15-Job.40.24

The NIV Study Bible makes this comment regarding Job 40:15 and 19 where the Hebrew word translated as behemoth means “beast par excellence”:

The Hebrew underlying this phrase (first among the works of God)... Here the descriptive phrase stresses the importance of the behemoth as an example of a huge animal under the control of a sovereign God.

Whether the behemoth was an elephant or a sauropod (ten times heavier than elephants) matters not. The behemoth is like putty in the hands of our creator God, who alone can subdue it.

Edit: As for Leviathan, the Hebrew word has the root meaning of “coiled” or “twisted.” Isaiah 27:1 speaks of Leviathan the gliding serpent, the coiling serpent, the fearsome monster of the sea. The NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

A symbol (drawn from Canaanite myths) of wicked nations, such as Egypt.

The conclusion of the matter: “Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me” (Job 41:10–11).

Is Behemoth Good?

While William Wells; commentary is edifying to read as a faithful Christian (I read the full treatment), but when we try to consider the original meaning from the book of Job's author perspective it looks like the scholarly consensus identifies Behemoth (together with Leviathan) with chaos or evil.

I found a paper The Meaning of "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" in Job published in Bibliotheca Sacra Vol 173 (Oct-Dec 2016), a publication of the Dallas Theological Seminary, with the following abstract:

Examination of four prominent theories about the identities of Behemoth and Leviathan in Job finds that they represent evil in general or Satan.

where the author, René A. López, focuses on the two Hebrew word studies בהמות‎ and לִוְיָתָן drawing on how they appear in other near eastern ancient languages like Ugaritic, natural history possible animal references in ancient times, near eastern mythologies, possible interpretations of the author of Job using them as hyperbolic terms, and finally extrabiblical and biblical evidence for interpreting both creatures as representing evil in general.

He opts to consider Behemoth probably "as an aspect belonging to Leviathan and not as a separate beast".

His conclusion:

Of the major interpretations, it is most likely that Behemoth and Leviathan are emblems representing evil or Satan. Yahweh’s second speech (40:1–8) began with the same challenge-pattern as in the previous chapters (38–39). He told Job to notice Behemoth’s and Leviathan’s enormous power and challenged him to catch them (or him, if the two are one creature)—an impossible task (40:15– 41:26). Thus the focus shifts to the only one able to succeed: Yahweh.

Then he quotes another paper by Elmer B. Smick "Semeiological Interpretation in Job" showing his preference to interpret the author of Job as using the two creatures in the larger context which includes the Prolog of the book:

If [these creatures] are graphic symbols of cosmic powers such as Satan in the Prolog then the speech is a fitting climax. The Accuser cannot be openly mentioned without revealing to Job information he must not know if he is to continue as a model to his readers who suffer in ignorance of God’s explicit purpose. So Job never learns about the events in the divine council. But his repentance shows he has gotten the message of the second speech—that God is also omnipotent in the moral sphere. He alone will put down all evil and bring to pass all his holy will. There is nothing else Job needs to know, except that this Sovereign Lord of the Universe is his friend (42:7, 8).

Continuing with the conclusion:

Thus, these beasts may be understood as mythopoetic language meant to teach Job his lesson. The impossibility of a human doing battle with Satan to control evil is compared with the silliness of justifying oneself to God (25:4; 32:2; 40:8) and deifying oneself (a satanic motif present at the fall in Genesis 3:5 that seems to be reiterated in 40:9–14, resulting in Job’s arrogance by justifying himself above God). Hence God’s response does not “solve” the issues of theodicy and of innocent sufferers. He says only, “Because I am God, righteous and sovereign, and you are not (40:8– 14), I know best (42:1–5).” But in another sense, God does answer Job. Having a relationship with God rather than looking to one’s abilities, achievements, and positions (a symptom of the pride that is characteristic of the Leviathan-dragon motif), is the most important thing in life. God’s speeches were meant to move Job to have a deeper relationship with him, not because of what he can do but simply because of who he is. Hence, God allows Job to experience suffering so that he may know that suffering is just as much a part of knowing God’s mercy and righteousness as are blessings. In fact, suffering drives Job back to God like nothing else. Thus, the book ends by driving home this point: Your option is not to trust God instead of suffering, but to be patient while trusting Him in spite of it, because being patient is one of his key attributes.

You are quite correct, that very few writers try to explain Behemoth, dealing instead with Leviathan. I also note a heavy tendency to try to say what animals they might have been, whereas the book of Job is dealing with massive, eternal issues of suffering, pain, and God’s justice. Surely we should see God’s comments about Behemoth and Leviathan as His answer to those issues?

Yet some years ago I read this comment by a Christian (using a pseudonym), on a Website where a Q had been asked about this. He dealt with a literal interpretation of Behemoth, what kind of a creature it could have been:

The description of Behemoth matches that of a sauropod. In the Congo, when indigenous tribes are shown pictures of bears, moose and other animals not native to the region, they understandably do not recognize the creatures; however, when shown a picture of a sauropod, they excitedly recognize the creature, claiming it's about the size of an elephant and lives in the water, but is rarely seen. So there is the possibility that it may exist. … Alexander the Great, Marco Polo and others claim in their writings to have encountered dragons during their expeditions. "Dragons" were what large reptiles were called back then. (Leviathan appears to have been some aquatic species of dragon/dinosaur.) When partially fossilized dinosaur bones are found containing soft tissue, that could be evidence for them.”

However, a scientist has written about this in his book (below) viewing the biblical account of Job as an early pointer for us to understand the natural world but without any need to delve into taxonomy. He uses the Bible book of Job to urge us to ask different questions, to put science and faith together, to get a better understanding that will give us biblical wisdom. Tom McLeish says in Faith & Wisdom in Science,

“Chapters 40 and 41 of Job sing "in exquisitely detailed praise the power of two monstrous creatures, the Behemoth and Leviathan (sometimes interpreted as the hippopotamus and the crocodile, but textually more splendid and terrible)… this is a 'decentralising' text that places humans at the periphery of the world, looking on in wonder at its centerpieces... Although the book of Job is the least anthropocentric of ancient cosmologies, passing by humans to exalt the great Leviathan as the pinnacle of creation, still mankind retains a special place in regard to the potential possession of wisdom. Our examinations of the Lord's answer to Job has identified the same unreasonable optimism that the great wisdom questions of nature can one day be answered... The double Hebraic encouragement to search for 'wisdom and understanding' (the practical and cognitive aspects of knowing) that we have met in Job and elsewhere resonates strongly with the dual methodology of experiment and theory, and with the deeply-lying longing for wisdom that their meeting can release."

This scientist author, who is also a Christian, then considers Behemoth as the climax of God’s response to Job’s human questioning about pain. In one sense Job was asking the wrong question, yet Job’s thread of God’s justice in managing His creation is woven into Job’s disputation. A surprising new picture enters the tapestry – Behemoth. The author says:

“With trepidation, and against the weight of opinion, I am therefore suggesting that the Lord’s answer is an answer to Job’s complaint – possibly the only adequate answer. There are five lines of argument that point this way.”

(1) Creation is not out of control. The way Job and his friends viewed ‘control’ was wrong.

(2) The experience of pain cannot be divorced from the confrontation of human hope and a universe of freedom, and this perspective is foundational to the acquisition of wisdom that deals with matters in extreme tension with each other.

(3) God invites a new relationship with the physical world that leaves behind the irresponsibly polarised positions of Job and his friends.

(4) God’s physical structures are not a sideshow; the failure to acquire wisdom in working with nature hurts both the world and ourselves; there is a biblical ‘creation covenant’.

(5) God’s answer is eschatological. Science affirms that nature matters; knowledge has an ancient history and we need to participate in learning and understanding more. There is to be reconciliation between the human and the non-human, a theme of the New Testament. (Tom McLeish, "Faith & Wisdom in Science", pp110 & 145-6 (Oxford University Press 2014)

I cannot do justice to the author with my brief selection of points but I refer to him for his use of those two creatures to advocate combining science and faith to grasp God’s answers to our oft-misguided questions that can show ignorance on our part which a deeper knowledge of God’s created order could rectify.