the Fourth Week of Advent
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Animals
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or ANIMALS.—It cannot be said that animals play a very important part in the life and teaching of our Lord; yet the Gospel references cover a wider range than is usually imagined. The Evangelists use no fewer than 40 different Greek words denoting animals, and, apart from such general terms as ‘birds of the air,’ ‘wild beasts,’ and ‘serpents,’ they mention at least 20 particular kinds. The references may best be classified under the headings ‘Domestic’ and ‘Wild.’
i. Domestic Animals.—1. The beasts of burden in Palestine in the time of our Lord were the ass and the camel. The horse is not mentioned in the Gospels, its use in the East being restricted to purposes of war. Thus the horse becomes prominent in the military imagery of the Apocalypse.
A general term for ‘beast of burden’ occurs in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34 κτῆνος). In Revelation 18:13 ‘beasts of burden’ are distinguished from horses. Josephus (Ant. iv. vi. 3) uses the word of asses in particular. In Acts 23:24 a ‘beast’ is provided to carry St. Paul to Caesarea; in the NT therefore κτῆνος is clearly some ‘beast of burden’ which is not a horse. Probably the Good Samaritan rode on an ass, or possibly on a mule.
The ass is denoted by four other words in the Gospels, viz. πῶλος, ὀνάριον, ὄνος, and ὑποζύγιον. The animal on which our Lord made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem is described by all four Evangelists as a colt (πῶλος, Matthew 21:2; Matthew 21:5; Matthew 21:7, Mark 11:2; Mark 11:4-5; Mark 11:7, Luke 19:30; Luke 19:33; Luke 19:35, John 12:15). The word is not used elsewhere in the Gospels, and in John it occurs only in the quotation from Zechariah. St. John describes the colt as ὀνάριον, a young ass. St. Matthew introduces the she-ass, the mother of the colt, into the story. In the Matthaean form of the quotation from Zechariah (Matthew 21:5) the mother ass is further described as a draught beast (ὑποζύγιον).
The meaning of this fulfilment of prophecy is well brought out by Chrysostom. Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on an ass, ‘not driving chariots like the rest of the kings, not demanding tributes, not thrusting men off, and leading about guards, but displaying His great meekness even hereby’ (Hom. 66 in Mt.).
The triumphal entry into Jerusalem is the only incident in the life of our Lord in which an ass is concerned; but in His teaching, as reported by St. Luke, there are two other references. The synagogue-ruler, who forbade people to come to be healed on the Sabbath, received the rebuke, ‘Hypocrites, does not each one of you loose his ox or ins ass (τὸν ὄνον) from the stall on the Sabbath and lead him away to watering?’ (Luke 13:15). On another occasion, with reference to the same question of Sabbath healing, our Lord asked, ‘Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a Sabbath day’ (Luke 14:5).
The text of the latter passage is uncertain, the evidence of א and B being divided. B reads υἱὸς, adopted by Westcott and Hort; while א reads ὄνος, retained by the Revisers. Possibly neither is the correct text; but if we follow the Revisers, we may notice that on the only two occasions when the ass is mentioned in our Lord’s teaching, it is coupled with the ox, as if to imply that the Jewish farmer took equal care of each. ‘The ox, the ass, and the sheep are the (chief) domestic animals with which an Israelite household is provided’ (O. Holtzmann).
The ass occupies a much more important place in the farm life of the East than his neglected descendant occupies in England to-day. The finer breeds are regularly used for riding, while the commoner breeds draw the plough and carry burdens. ‘The ass is still the most universal of all beasts of burden in Bible lands’ (Post, in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible).
The camel (κάμηλος) figures in two sayings of our Lord which have a proverbial ring. (Thomson notes that the camel is still the subject of many Arabian proverbs). The three Synoptics record the saying, ‘It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God’ (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25). There is no need to stumble at the hyperbole involved in ‘a needle’s eye,’ nor is it necessary to explain the phrase as a reference to a particularly small gate (see art. ‘Camel’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible). The second reference is found in the denunciation of the Pharisees, who strain out a gnat while they gulp down a camel (Matthew 23:24). A camel-caravan would be one of the sights of our Lord’s boyhood, and the awkwardness of meeting a camel in the narrow street, which modern travellers experience, was not unknown nineteen hundred years ago. The camel must have been the largest animal with which our Lord was familiar, and in both sayings it is mentioned for its size.
The only other reference to the camel occurs in the description of the dress of John the Baptist, whose garment, like that of Elijah, was of camel’s hair (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6).
On this Sir Thomas Browne notes: ‘a coarse garment, a cilicious or sackcloth garment, suitable to the austerity of his life—the severity of his doctrine, repentance—and the place thereof, the wilderness—his food and diet, locusts and wild honey.’
2. Of larger cattle,* [Note: The word ‘cattle’ is used to tr. θρέμματα in John 4:12. The word is also found in the AV of Luke 17:7.] oxen, bulls, and calves find a place in the Gospels.
The ox (βοῦς) is mentioned three times in Luke, twice in connexion with the ass in the passages previously cited (Luke 13:15; Luke 14:5), and again in the parable of the Great Supper, when one of the invited guests excuses himself on the ground that he has bought five yoke of oxen which need to be tested (Luke 14:19). The ox was employed in the East for ploughing and threshing; it was also used for sacrifice, as appears from the only other passage in the Gospels where oxen are mentioned, viz. St. John’s account of the cleansing of the Temple court. Sheep and oxen (John 2:14 f.) were driven out along with their vendors.
Bulls (ταῦροι) and fat beasts (σιτιστά)† [Note: Wyclif, following the Vulg. altilia, translates ‘my volatilis (fowls)’; but fatted cattle are probably meant.] are mentioned only in Matthew 22:4. They form samples of the rich dainties prepared for the marriage feast of the king’s son, and illustrate the magnificent scale of the entertainment which those summoned to partake so insolently spurned. Similarly the fatted calf (ὁ μόσχος ὁ σιτευτός), which appears only in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:23; Luke 15:27; Luke 15:30), indicates an unusual feast, made to celebrate an unusual joy. The fatted calf is contrasted with the kid, the customary repast, which Oriental hospitality provides to this day. The elder brother complains that he has never been allowed to offer his friends the entertainment which his father is wont to provide for any chance visitor; while for the graceless prodigal is killed the fatted calf, which is destined only for high festivals. The bulls and fatlings in the parable of the Marriage Feast, and the fatted calf in the parable of the Returning Prodigal, alike stand for the lavish generosity of God’s love, which the Scribes and Pharisees could not appreciate, even when offered to themselves, the king’s invited guests, much less when those prodigals, the publicans and sinners, were likewise embraced therein.
3. Of smaller cattle, goats and sheep are mentioned.
Goats (ἔριφος, ἐρίφιον, lit. ‘kid,’ a meaning retained in Luke 15:29; in LXX Septuagint the word = ‘goat’ as well as ‘kid’) appear only in the picture of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:32 f.), where they are contrasted with sheep. The point of the contrast lies in the colour rather than the character of the animals, the sheep being pure white, while the goats are covered with long jet-black hair. So in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 4:1) the locks of the beloved are compared to ‘a flock of goats that appear from Mt. Gilead.’ The Son of Man shall separate all the nations ‘as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats,’ and the simile is quite true to pastoral life. Tristram (Nat. Hist. p. 89) says that sheep and goats pasture together, but never trespass on each other’s domains; they are folded together, but they do not mix; they may be seen to enter the fold in company, but once inside they are kept separate.
The Syrian goat, Capra mambrica, is the most common breed in Palestine. It is distinguished by long pendant ears, stout recurved horns, and long black silky hair. Flocks of goats are most frequent in hilly districts from Hebron to Lebanon, where their habit of browsing on young trees tends to deforest the country.
A kid (ἔριφος, some MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] ἐρίφιον) is mentioned in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:29). The kid formed the ordinary dish at an Eastern feast, as lambs were preserved for the sake of wool, and were, as a rule, slain only in sacrifice. For the contrast between the kid and the fatted calf see above, s. ‘fatted calf.’ There is no other direct mention of the goat in the Gospels, though the wine-bottles (ἀσκοί) referred to in Matthew 9:17 (| Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37 f.) were doubtless made of goat-skin. These bottles were made by cutting off the head and legs, and drawing the carcass out by the neck, and then tying the neck, legs, and vent, and tanning the skin, with the hairy side out (Post, in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ii. 195).
The word for sheep (πρόβατον) is to be found in the Gospels no fewer than 36 times, while words connected with sheep, e.g. ποίμνη, ποίμνιον, ‘a flock,’ are not infrequent. Sheep were so often in the thoughts of Jesus that we have postponed fuller consideration of these passages to § iv.
Of the two words for lamb, one, ἀμνός, is applied only to our Lord, whom John the Baptist twice describes as ‘the Lamb of God,’ adding in one case ‘which taketh away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29; John 1:36). The title implies sacrifice.
Whether the Baptist was thinking of the Paschal lamb or of the lamb daily offered in the temple matters little. In Jesus he saw ‘the reality of which all animal sacrifice was the symbol’ (Marcus Dods). No doubt the patience of the lamb is implied in the title, as unfolded in Isaiah 53:7 ‘as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.’ The purity of the lamb, without spot and without fault, on which St. Peter dwells (1 Peter 1:19), is also involved. But the idea of redemption through sacrifice is fundamental in the Baptist’s words.
The second word for ‘lamb’ occurs in two forms, ἄρνας (acc. pl.) and ἀρνίον. The diminutive form is found only in John 21:15, where our Lord bids Peter feed His lambs. ‘Lambs’ is used instead of ‘sheep,’ to bring out more strongly the appeal to care, and the consequent complete confidence in Peter (M. Dods). In the Apocalypse our Lord is called ‘the Lamb’ (τὸ ἀρνίον) no fewer than 27 times. The form ἄρνας is confined to Luke 10:3 ‘Behold, I send you forth as lambs into the midst of wolves.’
The parallel Matthew 10:16 reads ‘sheep,’ but the Lukan form is supported by Clement of Rome, Ep. ii. 5, ‘Ye shall be as lambs (ἀραια) in the midst of wolves. But Peter answered him, saying, If then the wolves tear the lambs in pieces? Jesus said to Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves, after they (the lambs) are dead.’ Further support for the reading ‘lambs’ may perhaps be derived from Justin’s casual description of Marcionites as lambs torn by wolves (ἄρνες συνηρτασμενοι, Apol. circa (about) 58).
4. Poultry were kept in Palestine in the time of our Lord, as is clear from the references to the cock (ἀλέκτωρ) and the hen (ὄρνις). If we except the mention of cock-crow (see sep. art.) in Mark 13:35, the cock appears only in the story of Peter’s denial, and our Lord’s prediction of it (Matthew 26:34; Matthew 26:74 f., Mark 14:30 (Mark 14:68), Mark 14:72, Luke 22:34; Luke 22:60 f., John 13:38; John 18:27). The hen (ὄρνις) affords a simile in the lament over Jerusalem. ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens (Lk. ‘her brood’) under her wings!’ (Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34). The action by which the hen gives rest and protection to the chickens under the shelter of her wings is too well known to need comment. The tenderness of the simile witnesses to the love of Jesus for His own countrymen, and His longing to avert national disaster. The words used for ‘chickens’ and ‘brood’ (νοσσίον and νοσσιά) are found here only, though a word from the same root is employed in the phrase ‘two young pigeons’ (νοσσοὺς περιστερῶν, Luke 2:24).
5. To the list of domestic animals we may add dogs and swine, which were classed together as unclean.
Dogs (κύνες) are mentioned twice. In the Sermon on the Mount the disciples are warned not to give that which is holy to dogs (Matthew 7:6). The pariah dogs that infest Eastern towns, and have to be cleared off periodically with poison, are ‘a lean, mangy, and sinister brood,’ acting as scavengers and living on offal. Naturally these animals do not possess a fastidious palate, and their manner of life is disgusting enough to justify the Jews’ contempt for them. To call a man a dog is throughout the Bible a customary form of abuse. These wild dogs, says Tristram (Nat. Hist. p. 80), were the only dogs known in Palestine, with the exception of the Persian greyhound; and though they could be trained enough to act as watch-dogs for the sheep-folds,* [Note: It would be truer to say that the pariah dogs have degenerated from the sheep-dogs than that the latter have developed from the former.] they hardly became companions to man [the dog of Tobit 5:16; Tobit 11:4 is altogether an exceptional case]. To the Jew the dog was a very fitting symbol of the man who had depraved his moral and spiritual taste by evil living. In the Didache, ‘Give not that which is holy to dogs’ is interpreted to mean, Do not administer the Eucharist to the unbaptized; but the principle involved in the text is capable of wider application. A Christian is not required to wear his heart on his sleeve! In the parable of Dives and Lazarus it is said that these street-dogs came and licked the beggar’s sores (Luke 16:21). This is an aggravation rather than an alleviation of Lazarus’ suffering. It shows his destitute and defenceless condition, that he could not even keep the dogs away! A diminutive form of κύων, viz. κυνάριον, occurs in the story of the Syro-Phœnician woman. ‘It is not right,’ said the Master, ‘to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs.’ ‘Yea, Lord,’ replied the woman, ‘yet the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table’ (Matthew 15:27 f., Mark 7:27 f.). Bochart treats the diminutive κυνάριον as doubling the contempt inherent in the word. But it is clear from the woman’s reply that the dogs in question are kept within the house; they are household pets. Tristram says that he found no difficulty in making a pet of a puppy taken from among the pariah dogs (Nat. Hist. p. 80). Probably the κυνάρια were puppies which had been taken into Jewish households as pets in a similar way. The word is not intended to add to the harshness of our Lord’s saying; the woman saw in it her ground for appeal.
Swine (χοῖρος, not ὗς) appear in the story of the Gadarene demoniac (Matthew 8:30 ff., Mark 5:11 ff., Luke 8:32 f.). ‘The fact that swine were kept in Palestine at all is evidence of the presence of the foreigner’ (O. Holtzmann). Cf. Leviticus 11:7, Deuteronomy 14:8, Isaiah 65:4. The country on the east side of the Lake was much under Gentile influence. The Prodigal Son is put to tend swine. The nature of the task is evidence at once of the difference between his home and the far country, and of the want and degradation into which he has fallen (Luke 15:15 f.) The only further reference to swine is the saying, ‘Cast not your pearls before swine’ (Matthew 7:6), in which our Lord emphasizes the necessity of tact in religious work.
ii. Wild Animals.—1. θηρίον, the general word for wild beast, is found in the Gospels only once. Mark 1:13 tells us that during the Temptation our Lord was with the wild beasts. Thomson says that ‘though there are now no lions (in Palestine), wolves, leopards, and panthers still prowl about the wild wadys’ (Land and Book, ‘Central Palestine,’ p. 594). ‘In the age of Jesus, the chief beast of prey in Palestine was, as to-day, the jackal. Mark’s addition indicates Jesus’ complete severance from human society’ (O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 143 f.).
The word θηρίον is now to he found in the second of the five new Saving recently recovered by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt: ‘The birds of the air and whatever of the beasts are on the earth or under it are they who draw us into the kingdom.’ Here the word is not confined to ‘beasts of prey’; it stands for the whole kingdom of wild animals. There is a similar use of the word in a saying of our Lord as given by Justin Martyr: ‘Be not anxious as to what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on: are ye not much better than the birds and the beasts?’ (1 Apol. 15). These considerations support the conclusion that St. Mark’s addition does not imply physical danger, but is rather intended to suggest that our Lord was alone with Nature.
Two beasts of prey mentioned by name in the Gospels are the fox (ἁλώπηξ) and the wolf (λύκος). The fox, which has at least a hole to live in, is contrasted with the homeless Son of Man (Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58). In Luke 13:32 our Lord speaks of Herod as ‘that fox.’ The cunning and perhaps the cowardice of the animal are the basis of the comparison. ‘The name,’ says O. Holtzmann, ‘must have been given to Herod because he was inimical, yet, not daring to make any open attack, timidly prowled about until he found an opportunity to murder in secret’ (Life of Jesus, p. 364).
The wolf is mentioned only in connexion with or in contrast to sheep. The wolf is the chief enemy against which the shepherd has to guard his flock. ‘A single wolf,’ says Tristram, ‘is far more destructive than a whole pack of jackals’ (Nat. Hist. p. 153). Eastern shepherds employ dogs (if they employ them at all) not to help in herding the sheep, but to ward off wolves. In contrast to the hireling, the Good Shepherd faces the wolf even at the risk of his life (John 10:12). False prophets are wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15). The contrast between outward profession and inward character could not be more vividly expressed. The same antithesis is used by our Lord to portray the contrast between the Church and the world, between the patient non-resistance of the one and the brutal violence of the other. The disciples are sent forth as sheep (Lk. as lambs) into the midst of wolves (Matthew 10:16, Luke 10:3).
2. The general term for wild birds is τὰ πετεινά, ‘the birds,’ often τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὑρανοῦ, ‘the birds of heaven.’ They are mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Consider the birds: they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns’ (Matthew 6:26; in the parallel passage, Luke 12:24, the reading is κόρακας, ‘ravens,’ which, however, are themselves called πετεινά at the end of the verse). Dean Stanley says that the birds most in evidence round the Sea of Galilee are partridges and pigeons. Finches and bulbuls are also abundant, according to Thomson. For the doctrine of providence involved in this and similar sayings of our Lord, we must refer our readers to § iv. Like the foxes, the birds are contrasted with the Son of Man; they have nests, while He hath not where to lay His head (Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58). The birds appear in the parable of the Sower, where they pick up the seed that falls by the wayside (Matthew 13:4, Mark 4:4, Luke 8:5). No doubt the fields round the lake, with the birds busy upon them, could be seen from the place where Jesus stood to teach the people. Probably the parable was spoken early in the year. The parable of the Mustard Seed also introduces the birds, which come and lodge in the branches of the full-grown tree (Matthew 13:32, Mark 4:32, Luke 13:19). Here the imagery seems to be drawn from Daniel 4:12; Daniel 4:21, where the kingdom of Nebuchadrezzar is likened to a tree ‘upon whose branches the birds of the heavens had their habitations.’ Daniel interprets the tree to represent the greatness of Nebuchadrezzar’s dominion, which is to reach to the end of the earth. The description in the parable carries with it the same implication with regard to the kingdom of heaven. There is one other reference to ‘the birds’ in Luke 12:24 ‘How much better are ye than the birds!’
The following particular wild birds are mentioned in the Gospels:—dove (pigeon), eagle, raven, sparrow, turtle-dove.
In all four Gospels the dove appears as the symbol of the Holy Ghost at our Lord’s Baptism. In Matthew 3:16 the vision of the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove (ὡσεὶ περιστεράν) seems to have been granted to all present at the Baptism. In Mark 1:10 and Luke 3:22 the vision is apparently addressed more especially to Jesus Himself. In John 1:32 it is a sign given to John the Baptist. In the story of the Creation, a metaphor from bird-life is employed to describe the Spirit of God fluttering ((Revised Version margin) ‘brooding’) over the waters (Genesis 1:2). The same Spirit rests on the Saviour with whom begins God’s new creation. But the mention of the dove naturally carries us back to the story of the Flood (Genesis 8:11). For Jesus the dove with olive-leaf after the Flood is the emblem of the Spirit (A. B. Bruce in Expositor’s Greek Testament, on Matthew 3:16). The Holy Ghost in the form of a dove typifies the hope of the gospel, peace between man and God. In cleansing the Temple-court our Lord came upon them that sold doves for sacrifice. It is to these dove-sellers that the words in John 2:16 are addressed, ‘Take these things hence.’ The cattle can be driven out: the doves must be carried out. This detail, which is perfectly natural, is recorded only in John, who consequently mentions ‘doves’ twice (John 2:14; John 2:16), while Matthew and Mark have only one reference each (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15).
The word περιστερά is used in the LXX Septuagint where the Authorized and Revised Versions reads ‘pigeon’ as well as where it reads ‘dove.’ The same bird is probably meant by the two English words. But in the directions for sacrifice in Leviticus, the word ‘pigeon’ is regularly used, and in Luke 2:24 περιστερά is translated ‘pigeon,’ though elsewhere in the Gospels it is rendered ‘dove.’ In Leviticus 12:6 a poor woman, ‘if she be not able to bring a lamb, shall bring two turtles or two young pigeons.’ The mother of Jesus brings the poor woman’s sacrifice.
To the ancients the dove symbolized purity (Aristotle mentions the chastity of the dove), and this fact perhaps made birds of this class suitable for sacrifice. The only other reference to the dove in the Gospels is found in Matthew 10:16, where the disciples are bidden to be as pure (ἀκέραιοι) as doves, a command which St. Paul echoes in Romans 16:19 and Philippians 2:15.
The turtle-dove (τρυγών) is mentioned only in the quotation from Leviticus 12:8 in Luke 2:24. There are three species of turtle-doves in Palestine. The collared turtle (T. risorius) is the largest, and frequents the shores of the Dead Sea. The palm turtle (T. Senegalensis) ‘resorts much to the gardens and enclosures of Jerusalem.’ ‘It is very familiar and confiding in man, and is never molested.’ The common turtle (T. auritus) is the most abundant of the three species.
The eagle (ἀετός) is the subject of a proverbial saying recorded in Matthew 24:28 || Luke 17:37 ‘where the carcass is, there shall the eagles be gathered together.’ According to Post, there are four kinds of vultures and eight kinds of eagles to be found in the Holy Land. Here the term ‘eagle’ is generic. Thomson describes the eagles’ flight as majestic, and their eyesight and, apparently, sense of smell, are both extremely keen.
The exact force of the above saying is hard to determine. Some old commentators, following the Fathers, take it to refer to ‘the conflux of the godly to the light and liberty of the Gospel’ (Master Trapp). More modern exegesis regards the passage as hinting at the gathering of the Roman eagles round the moribund Jewish nation. But Bengel rightly observes that in Matthew 24 the reference of Matthew 24:28 goes back to the false prophets and false Christs of Matthew 24:23. In the decay of Judaism as a religious faith, such men will find their opportunity, and will turn popular fanaticism to their own profit. In Matthew the proverb is perfectly general in form, and is capable of wider application. National ruin and feverish religiosity go hand in hand. False Messianism marked the final overthrow of the Jews in a.d. 135; and when the barbarians laid siege to Rome in 408, even a Pope consented to resort to Etruscan magic rites! (Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 126). In Luke 17:37 the ‘wheresoever’ becomes ‘where,’ and the saying is in answer to a definite question regarding the signs that are to mark the sudden return of the Son of Man. Here it is difficult not to interpret the eagles of the Roman standards. For St. Luke evidently does not take the saying as a statement of a general law. The Matthaean form and position give the more attractive interpretation.
The raven (κόραξ) is mentioned only in Luke 12:24, ‘Consider the ravens how they neither sow nor reap.’ The parallel Matthew 6:26 reads, ‘birds.’ The whole passage and the force of Luke’s change will be considered in § iv. The term ‘raven’ includes the numerous tribes of crows. Tristram mentions eight different species as common in Palestine. God’s care for the ravens is twice mentioned in OT (Job 38:41, Psalms 147:9). These passages may have influenced Luke, if he changed ‘birds’ into ‘ravens.’ Again, they may have been in the mind of our Lord, if Luke gives the original form of the saying.
The sparrow (στρουθίον) is twice mentioned in sayings recorded both in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew 10:29 we read, ‘Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?’ and in Luke 12:6 ‘Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings?’ In Tatian’s Diatessaron the words in taberna, ‘in the cookshop,’ are added. Doubtless we have here the prices current in popular eating-houses in the time of our Lord. ‘Sparrows, two a farthing; five a halfpenny.’ In Matthew 10:21 and Luke 12:7 our Lord adds, ‘Ye are much more worth than many sparrows.’ For a discussion of these references to sparrows and of their bearing on our Lord’s teaching, we must again refer our readers to § iv.
3. For fish, three words are used, ἰχθύς, ἰχθύδιον, and ὀψάριον. The latter term is confined to John. In the feeding of the five thousand, the Synoptics speak of ‘two fishes’ (δύο ἰχθύας, Matthew 14:17; Matthew 14:19, Mark 6:38; Mark 6:41; Mark 6:43, Luke 9:13; Luke 9:16). The parallel narrative in John reads δύο ὀψάρια, which is also translated ‘two fishes’ (John 6:9; John 6:11). But while the Syn. ἱχθύς is a general term, ὀψάριον, says Edersheim, ‘refers, no doubt, to those small fishes (probably a kind of sardine) of which millions were caught in the lake, and which, dried and salted, would form the most, common savoury, with bread, for the fisher-population along the shore’ (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 682). The parable of the Drag net (Matthew 13:47-50) is taken from the life of the Galilaean fisher-folk. But this definite meaning of ὀψάριον cannot always be maintained: for in John’s narrative of the miraculous draught of fishes, ὀψάριον and ἰχθύς are interchanged as equivalents (ὀψάριον, John 21:9-10; John 21:13; ἰχθύς John 21:6; John 21:8; John 21:11). Jesus says to the disciples, ‘Bring of the fish (ὀψαρίων) which ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and dragged the net to shore full of great fishes’ (ἰχθύων). Both in the narratives of the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes and in His post-resurrection appearance by the lake, our Lord makes use of the disciples’ own resources, while adding to them something of His own. In the similar miracle recorded in Luke 5, ἰχθύς is the word used (Luke 5:6; Luke 5:9). I When narrating the feeding of the four thousand, both Matthew and Mark speak of a few small fishes (ὀλίγα ἰχθύδια, Matthew 15:34, Mark 8:7). These are probably the same as the ὀψάρια of John 6. In Matthew 15:36 ἰχθύς reappears. The remaining references to fish do not require much comment. Matthew 17:27 is concerned with the stater in the fish’s mouth. This passage contains the only reference to line-fishing in the Gospels: ‘Cast a hook and take the first fish (ἰχθύν) that cometh up.’ In Luke 24:42 we read that our Lord convinced the disciples of the reality of His resurrection by eating before them a piece of cooked fish (ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ μέρος). In Matthew 7:10 ||Luke 11:11 the word ἰχθύς, ‘fish,’ is found in the teaching of Jesus. In Matthew the passage runs thus; ‘What man is there among you who, if his son ask for bread, will give him a stone? or if he ask for fish, will give him a serpent?’ Here fish and bread are the subject of joint reference, as in the narratives of the feeding of the five and four thousands. Bread and fish are clearly the customary diet of the common people of Galilee, and in the form of these questions, as in so many other details, the teaching of Jesus closely reflects the daily life of His countrymen.
In the Catacombs the figure of a fish was often used as a symbol of Christ. The letters which make up ἰχθύς form the initial letters of Ἰησοῦς Χριστὀς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήρ, so that the word served as a summary of the faith. See art. Christ in Art.
4. The general word for serpent (ὄφεις) occurs 7 times in the Gospels. No human father will give his son a serpent as a substitute for fish (Matthew 7:10, Luke 11:11). Some small reptile as common as the scorpion must be meant, as Luke twice (Luke 10:19; Luke 11:12) couples scorpions and serpents (ὄφεις). The disciples are to be as wise as serpents [or ‘as the serpent,’ reading ὁ ὄφις for οἱ ὄφεις: the sense is the same in either case] (Matthew 10:16). The ideal of discipleship is a combination of the prudence of the serpent with the guilelessness of doves. As in the saying about not casting one’s pearls before swine, our Lord here condemns recklessness and tactlessness in religious work. ‘Religion without policy is too simple to be safe: Policy without religion is too subtle to be good’ (Trapp). In Matthew 23:33 the word ‘serpents’ is applied to the Pharisees.
In the later appendix to Mark’s Gospel, power to take up serpents is numbered among the signs that are to follow faith in Christ (Mark 16:18). The passage is paralleled in Luke 10:19 ‘Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the might of the evil one.’ WH [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.] here note a reference to Psalms 91:13 ‘Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder.’ Possibly the passage is to be interpreted metaphorically, and the ‘serpents’ are to be explained by the might of the Evil One. The words, however, find a more literal fulfilment in St. Paul’s experience at Melita (Acts 28:3; Acts 28:6).
The viper (ἔχιδνα) is referred to only in the phrase γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, ‘offspring of vipers,’ and the phrase is applied only to scribes and Pharisees. John the Baptist thus addressed the Pharisees that came to his baptism, ‘O offspring of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’ (Matthew 3:7, Luke 3:7). According to Mt., our Lord on two occasions adopted the same mode of address (Matthew 12:34; Matthew 23:33). Sand-vipers about I foot long are common in Palestine. The young are said to feed upon the mother. But the force of the phrase, Bochart observes, is not to be derived from any such special characteristic; the sense implied is simply ‘bad sons of bad fathers.’ This comment satisfactorily interprets Matthew 23:33 : but perhaps we may read a little more into the phrase. The words of John the Baptist suggest the familiar picture of vipers roused from torpor into activity by the approach of heat (cf. Acts 28:3). In Matthew 12:34 the phrase receives added point from the fact that the Pharisees have just been attempting to poison the popular mind against Christ by suggesting that the miracles were the work of Beelzebub; there is something spiteful and venomous about their attacks on our Lord.
5. Scorpions (σκορπίος), which we are told may be found under every third stone in Palestine, are twice mentioned in Luke. The disciples are to tread on scorpions with impunity (Luke 10:19). However we interpret the passage, the addition of ‘scorpion’ seems to imply that the disciples are to be protected against some small, frequent, and at the same time serious danger. The other reference is in Luke 11:12. If a son asks for an egg, the father will not give him a scorpion. In both passages the scorpion and the serpent are mentioned together, being common objects of the country in Palestine. The scorpion at rest is said closely to resemble an egg in appearance.
6. The worm (σκώληξ) is mentioned only in Mark 9:48 in the phrase ‘where their worm dieth not,’ a description of Gehenna based on the last verse of Isaiah (Isaiah 66:24).
In the TR [Note: R Textus Receptus.] the verse appears 3 times, Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 9:48, and there is something impressive in the repetition: WH [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.] , however, retain only Mark 9:48. Whether literally or metaphorically understood, the phrase must not be taken as the basis of a Christian doctrine of future retribution. The worm does not stand for remorse: it is simply part of a picture of complete physical corruption. A man has sometimes to choose between losing a limb and losing his life: the part has to be sacrificed to save the whole. The same law of sacrifice, says Christ, holds good in the spiritual world.
7. Of insects the bee is indirectly referred to, while the gnat, the locust, and the moth are all mentioned. In Luke 24:42, the Western Text says the disciples gave our Lord part of a bees’ honeycomb (ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου), i.e. the product of hived bees. John the Baptist, on the other hand, lived on wild rock honey, i.e. honey deposited in clefts of the rock by wild bees; this honey was often very difficult to get.
Bees, wild and hived, are very common in Palestine. Tristram (Nat. Hist. p. 325) says: ‘Many of the Bedonin obtain their subsistence by bee-hunting, bringing into Jerusalem skins and jars of the wild honey on which John the Baptist fed.’ Bee-keeping is much practised, especially in Galilee. The hives are very simple in construction; being ‘large tubes of sun-dried mud, about 8 inches in diameter and 4 feet long, closed with mud at each end, having only a small aperture in the centre.’
The gnat (κώνωψ) is mentioned in Matthew 23:24. As one of the smallest animals, it is contrasted with the camel, one of the largest. The Pharisees strain out a gnat with scrupulous care, while they will swallow a camel. They are careful to tithe mint, but they fail to do justice. The Pharisees may have adopted a practice which is still in use among the Brahmans, viz. of drinking through muslin in order to avoid swallowing any fly or insect present in the water.
Locusts (ἀκρίδες) formed part of the food of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6). The LXX Septuagint uses ἀκρίς for the third of the four kinds of edible locusts mentioned in Leviticus 11:22. They formed a common article of diet in Palestine, and there is no need to alter the text, as one or two MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] have done, reading ἐγκρίδες, ‘cakes.’
The moth (σής) is mentioned as disfiguring earthly treasures (Matthew 6:19-20, Luke 12:33). The common clothes-moth is meant, of which there are many species in Palestine. ‘In this warm climate it is almost impossible to guard against their ravages’ (Post). There is an indirect reference to the saying of Jesus in James 5:2.
8. A sponge (σπόγγος) full of vinegar was offered to our Lord on the cross (Matthew 27:48). Of sponges, the finest in texture and the most valued is the Turkish or Levant sponge. The sponge-fisheries of the Mediterranean have always been and still are very considerable. For the method of diving for sponges see Post in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iv. 612b.
iii. The place of animals in the life of our Lord.—In this connexion it may be worth while to point out that the part played by animals in many of the incidents in which their presence is recorded, serves to emphasize the humility of Jesus. The two young pigeons which Mary brings as an offering when she presents Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:24), are a mark of her poverty. Jesus belonged to a poor family. The peaceful character of Christ’s teaching, which is marked at the outset by the descent of the dove at His baptism, is confirmed at the close by the fact that He rode into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:3-7 ||) not on the warrior’s horse, but on the ass, which, as prophecy foretold, was to be a sign of the lowliness of the coming Messiah.
iv. The place of animals in the teaching of our Lord.—We have reserved for discussion under this head the imagery drawn from pastoral life in which Jesus described His own mission, and the doctrine of providence unfolded more especially in His sayings about the birds of the air.
1. Our Lord’s mission illustrated.—(a) Jesus confined His earthly ministry to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 15:24). When He sent forth the Twelve on a preaching tour, He bade them observe the same limits (Matthew 10:6). We need not suppose from this phrase that the work of Jesus embraced only the outcasts of Israel. ‘The lost sheep of the house of Israel’ describes the nation as a whole [grammatically the words ‘of the house of Israel’ (οἴκου Ἰ.) are best taken as a defining genitive, i.e. ‘the lost sheep who are the house of Israel’]. The very sight of a Galilaean crowd touched the heart of Jesus, for they were like worried and scattered sheep that have no shepherd [Matthew 9:36, Mark 6:34). In the eyes of Jesus, the spiritual condition of His countrymen agreed with the description of the shepherdless people given in Ezekiel 34. More particularly the Jews needed guidance in their national and religious aspirations. They had mistaken alike the character of the coming Messiah and the nature of the coming kingdom. The hope to re-establish by force the throne of David made the people the helpless victims of political agitators like Judas the Gaulonite (Acts 5:37), and led at length to the chastisement inflicted an the nation by the Roman power.
The exact interpretation of John 10 is exceedingly difficult, but it may in part be understood, in relation to this view given in Matthew and Mark, of the nation as a shepherdless flock. Jesus speaks of Himself as the door of the sheep, through which if a man enters, he shall be saved (Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
