Animals

or living creatures are often represented in sacred buildings within mouldings and on tombs merely as ornaments from early days, such as dolphins, doves, griffins, monsters, birds, and the like. In the mediaeval period, effigies rest their feet on a lion or dog, the types of constancy and strength; but in the catacomb and church, the lion, the horse, the lamb, the hart, the stag, the dove, peacocks, and fish are emblems. The lion represented vigilance; the lamb, innocence; the hart, flight from sin; the hare or the horse alluded to the Christian course (1Co 9:24; 2Ti 4:7); the dolphin typified speed and diligence, and, from heathen fables of Elian and Pliny, loving affection; while birds, among foliage and flowers, portrayed the deliverance of the souls of the blessed from their earthly habitations (Psa 124:6). In the ceremony of canonization, the pope is offered, among other presents, caged birds, as emblematical of the virtues of saints. Doves and serpents refer to Mat 10:16. SEE SYMBOLISM.

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 (Luk 10:34 κτῆνος). In Rev 18:13 ‘beasts of burden’ are distinguished from horses. Josephus (Ant. iv. vi. 3) uses the word of asses in particular. In Act 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, Mat 21:2; Mat 21:5; Mat 21:7, Mar 11:2; Mar 11:4-5; Mar 11:7, Luk 19:30; Luk 19:33; Luk 19:35, Joh 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 (Mat 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?’ (Luk 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’ (Luk 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’ (Mat 19:24, Mar 10:25, Luk 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 (Mat 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 (Mat 3:4, Mar 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 Joh 4:12. The word is also found in the AV of Luk 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 (Luk 13:15; Luk 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 (Luk 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 (Joh 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 Mat 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 (Luk 15:23; Luk 15:27; Luk 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 Luk 15:29; in LXX Septuagint the word = ‘goat’ as well as ‘kid’) appear only in the picture of the Last Judgment (Mat 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 (Son 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 MS^{S [Note: SS Manuscripts.]} ἐρίφιον) is mentioned in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luk 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 Mat 9:17 (| Mar 2:22, Luk 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’ (Joh 1:29; Joh 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 Isa 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 (1Pe 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 Joh 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 Luk 10:3 ‘Behold, I send you forth as lambs into the midst of wolves.’

The parallel Mat 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 Mar 13:35, the cock appears only in the story of Peter’s denial, and our Lord’s prediction of it (Mat 26:34; Mat 26:74 f., Mar 14:30 (Mar 14:68), Mar 14:72, Luk 22:34; Luk 22:60 f., Joh 13:38; Joh 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!’ (Mat 23:37, Luk 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, Luk 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 (Mat 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 Tob 5:16; Tob 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 (Luk 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’ (Mat 15:27 f., Mar 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 (Mat 8:30 ff., Mar 5:11 ff., Luk 8:32 f.). ‘The fact that swine were kept in Palestine at all is evidence of the presence of the foreigner’ (O. Holtzmann). Cf. Lev 11:7, Deu 14:8, Isa 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 (Luk 15:15 f.) The only further reference to swine is the saying, ‘Cast not your pearls before swine’ (Mat 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. Mar 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 (Mat 8:20, Luk 9:58). In Luk 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 (Joh 10:12). False prophets are wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat 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 (Mat 10:16, Luk 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’ (Mat 6:26; in the parallel passage, Luk 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 (Mat 8:20, Luk 9:58). The birds appear in the parable of the Sower, where they pick up the seed that falls by the wayside (Mat 13:4, Mar 4:4, Luk 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 (Mat 13:32, Mar 4:32, Luk 13:19). Here the imagery seems to be drawn from Dan 4:12; Dan 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 Luk 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 Mat 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 Mar 1:10 and Luk 3:22 the vision is apparently addressed more especially to Jesus Himself. In Joh 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 (Gen 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 (Gen 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 Mat 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 Joh 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 (Joh 2:14; Joh 2:16), while Matthew and Mark have only one reference each (Mat 21:12, Mar 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 Luk 2:24 περιστερά is translated ‘pigeon,’ though elsewhere in the Gospels it is rendered ‘dove.’ In Lev 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 Mat 10:16, where the disciples are bidden to be as pure (ἀκέραιοι) as doves, a command which St. Paul echoes in Rom 16:19 and Php 2:15.

The turtle-dove (τρυγών) is mentioned only in the quotation from Lev 12:8 in Luk 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 Mat 24:28 || Luk 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 Mat 24:28 goes back to the false prophets and false Christs of Mat 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 Luk 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 Luk 12:24, ‘Consider the ravens how they neither sow nor reap.’ The parallel Mat 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, Psa 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 Mat 10:29 we read, ‘Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?’ and in Luk 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 Mat 10:21 and Luk 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, Mat 14:17; Mat 14:19, Mar 6:38; Mar 6:41; Mar 6:43, Luk 9:13; Luk 9:16). The parallel narrative in John reads δύο ὀψάρια, which is also translated ‘two fishes’ (Joh 6:9; Joh 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 (Mat 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, Joh 21:9-10; Joh 21:13; ἰχθύς Joh 21:6; Joh 21:8; Joh 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 (Luk 5:6; Luk 5:9). I When narrating the feeding of the four thousand, both Matthew and Mark speak of a few small fishes (ὀλίγα ἰχθύδια, Mat 15:34, Mar 8:7). These are probably the same as the ὀψάρια of John 6. In Mat 15:36 ἰχθύς reappears. The remaining references to fish do not require much comment. Mat 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 Luk 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 Mat 7:10 ||Luk 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 (Mat 7:10, Luk 11:11). Some small reptile as common as the scorpion must be meant, as Luke twice (Luk 10:19; Luk 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] (Mat 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 Mat 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 (Mar 16:18). The passage is paralleled in Luk 10:19 ‘Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the might of the evil one.’ W^{H [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.]} here note a reference to Psa 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 (Act 28:3; Act 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?’ (Mat 3:7, Luk 3:7). According to Mt., our Lord on two occasions adopted the same mode of address (Mat 12:34; Mat 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 Mat 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. Act 28:3). In Mat 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 (Luk 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 Luk 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 Mar 9:48 in the phrase ‘where their worm dieth not,’ a description of Gehenna based on the last verse of Isaiah (Isa 66:24).

In the T^{R [Note: R Textus Receptus.]} the verse appears 3 times, Mar 9:44; Mar 9:46; Mar 9:48, and there is something impressive in the repetition: W^{H [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.]} , however, retain only Mar 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 Luk 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 Mat 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 (Mat 3:4, Mar 1:6). The LXX Septuagint uses ἀκρίς for the third of the four kinds of edible locusts mentioned in Lev 11:22. They formed a common article of diet in Palestine, and there is no need to alter the text, as one or two MS^{S [Note: SS Manuscripts.]} have done, reading ἐγκρίδες, ‘cakes.’

The moth (σής) is mentioned as disfiguring earthly treasures (Mat 6:19-20, Luk 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 Jas 5:2.

8. A sponge (σπόγγος) full of vinegar was offered to our Lord on the cross (Mat 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. 612^b.

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 (Luk 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 (Mat 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’ (Mat 15:24). When He sent forth the Twelve on a preaching tour, He bade them observe the same limits (Mat 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 [Mat 9:36, Mar 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 (Act 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 (Joh 10:7; Joh 10:9). The only hope of salvation for the Jews lay in their realizing, through the teaching of Jesus, that God’s kingdom was not of this world. Those who offered themselves as leaders before Christ, and who proposed to subdue Rome by arms, were thieves and robbers who came only to steal and destroy (Joh 10:8; Joh 10:10). The best comment on these thieves and robbers, and their treatment of those helpless sheep, the house of Israel, is perhaps Josephus’ account of the Judas above mentioned—

‘There was one Judas a Gaulonite, … who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw (the people) to a revolt; who both said that this taxation (under Cyrenius) was no better than an introduction of slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honour and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.… All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree: one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends, who used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murders of our principal men. This was done in pretence of the public welfare, but in reality from the hopes of gain to themselves’ (Josephus Ant. xviii. i. 1).

If Barabbas was one of these robbers (cf. Joh 18:40 with Joh 10:8), the fact that the Jews chose Barabbas in preference to the Good Shepherd shows the bewilderment of the popular mind, which led Jesus to compare the house of Israel to lost sheep. Jesus further describes Himself as the Good Shepherd in contrast to the hirelings, who care nothing for the sheep (Joh 10:11; Joh 10:15). If the thieves and robbers betoken political agitators like Barabbas and Judas, ‘the hirelings’ are probably the Pharisees and Sadducees, the shepherds who, in the words of Ezekiel, ‘fed themselves and did not feed the sheep.’

The interpretation here suggested is not usually adopted. Godet, for example, understands the thieves and robbers to be the Pharisees. The wolf (Joh 10:12) he takes as a further symbol of the same party, the hirelings being the scribes and priests, whom cowardice kept from opposing Pharisaic domination. This latter interpretation fits in well with the context, i.e. with ch. 9 (see Godet, St. John, vol. ii. pp. 375–397).

But without attempting to decide questions of exposition, it is sufficient for us to point out that the imagery of the parable is true to life.

‘A sheep-fold in the East is not a covered building like our stables, but a mere enclosure surrounded by a wall or palisade. The sheep are brought into it in the evening, several flocks being generally assembled within it. The shepherds, after committing them to the care of a common keeper, a porter, who is charged with their safe keeping during the night, retire to their homes. In the morning they return, and knock at the closely barred door of the enclosure, which the porter opens. They then separate each his own sheep, by calling them: and after having thus collected their flocks, lead them to the pastures. As to robbers, it is by scaling the wall that they penetrate into the fold’ (Godet, l.c. p. 378).

The details are confirmed by all Eastern travellers. Thus, speaking of the power of the sheep in distinguishing between the voice of the shepherd and that of a stranger, Thomson tells us that, if a stranger calls, they stop, lift up their heads in alarm; and if the call is repeated, they turn and flee from him. ‘This is not the fanciful costume of a parable, but a simple fact. I have made the experiment often’ (‘Central Palestine,’ p. 594).

Godet cites ‘the well-known anecdote of a Scotch traveller, who, meeting under the walls of Jerusalem a shepherd bringing home his flock, changed garments with him, and thus disguised proceeded to call the sheep. They, however, remained motionless. The true shepherd then raised his voice, when they all hastened towards him, in spite of his strange garments’ (l.c. p. 382).

All the sheep distinguish the voice of a shepherd from that of a stranger: a shepherd’s own sheep distinguish his voice from that of any other shepherd (Joh 10:3). The practice of naming sheep (φωνεῖ κατʼ ὂνομα, Joh 10:3) is common in the East. The picture of the shepherd thrusting his sheep out of the enclosure (ἐκβάλῃ, Joh 10:4, implies the use of a certain amount of force) and then placing himself at the head of the flock, is likewise a simple fact, and not fanciful imagery.

Though the historical application of the parable in John 10 is not easy to determine, yet it is clear that the chapter deals with the relation of Christ to the Church and to the individual Christian, and it is unnecessary to draw out in detail the lessons that follow from the fact that Christ is for us the door of the sheep and the Good Shepherd. It is, however, important to notice that in John 10 our Lord speaks of the Jewish nation as a whole and of His disciples alike as sheep (‘his own sheep,’ i.e. the disciples, are distinguished from the other flocks in the fold, i.e. the Jewish people), and that He compares His mission towards both to the work of a shepherd. These ideas are common to St. John and the Synoptists, and the pastoral imagery we are considering links the Fourth Gospel to the other three.

(b) We have seen that in the Synoptics our Lord spoke of the people as lost sheep. But though the Matthaean phrase ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ applies to the nation as a whole, the parable of the Lost Sheep in Mat 18:12 f. is a defence of Christ’s view of children, and in Luk 15:3-6 (where alone in Luke the word πρόβατον is used) a similar parable forms an answer to the criticism of the Pharisees, who could not understand our Lord’s eating with publicans and sinners. In a sense all the Jews were like lost sheep; in a very special sense the comparison applied to these social outcasts. ‘No animals are more helpless than sheep that have strayed from the flock: they become utterly bewildered, for sheep are singularly destitute of the bump of locality. They have to be brought back’ (Thomson). The figure of the lost sheep illustrates to some extent the character of the publicans and sinners. In the East, says Thomson, the sheep have to be taught to follow the shepherd: they would otherwise leave the pasture lands and stray into the corn-fields. Naturally some sheep follow the shepherd closely, while others straggle and have to be recalled to the path by means of the crook. So a lost and wandering sheep is an ill-trained and troublesome one. But the main point of the parable is the action of the shepherd, who would regard it as part of his ordinary duty to seek the lost. Though Jesus does not call Himself the Good Shepherd in the Synoptics, yet the parable recorded in Mt. and Lk. shows us how naturally He came to compare His ministry to the work of a shepherd, and how He used the comparison to justify His friendly attitude to publicans and sinners. According to Mat 12:11 f., our Lord also adduced an owner’s care for a single sheep as a defence of His healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath-day.

(c) If the weakness and the helplessness of sheep supplied Jesus with similes whereby to describe the Jewish people as a whole, the purity symbolized by their white wool, their harmlessness and patience, led Him to speak of His own disciples in similar terms. The disciples are sent forth as sheep (or as lambs) into the midst of wolves (Mat 10:16, Luk 10:3; Clem. Rom^{. [Note: Roman.]} Ep. ii. 5). Christians are to be ready even to suffer death without resistance, so at least the epistle attributed to Clement interprets the saying (see above under ‘lamb’).

(d) In the Synoptics the few other passages where the disciples are described as sheep throw little light on the subject. In Matthew 25 the righteous and the wicked are contrasted as sheep and goats; but, as has already been pointed out, the character of the animals concerned has little to do with the comparison. The words ‘I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered’ (quoted from Zec 13:7 in Mat 26:31, Mar 14:27), serve only to show that the death of Christ would place the disciples in the same leaderless bewilderment which, in the eyes of our Lord, marked the nation as a whole. But in a somewhat different connexion (Luk 12:32) our Lord spoke of His disciples as a little flock. After bidding them forego anxiety about earthly goods and seek the kingdom, our Lord adds, ‘Fear not, little flock: for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.’ The reassuring words were needed, no doubt, because the disciples were but a little feeble band. But surely the little flock implies something as to character as well as number. It is the duty of the shepherd at all times to find suitable pasture, and in the autumn and winter he has to provide fodder. Sheep cannot fend for themselves. Similarly the disciples, intrusting to God the care of their earthly interests, will appear to the world at once foolish and ineffectual; yet this little flock is to inherit the kingdom. God chooses the weak things of this world (1Co 1:27).

Further references to sheep in the Gospels are less important. Mat 7:15 speaks of the false prophets who are sheep in appearance and wolves in reality, a saying which also appears in Justin, Dial. 35. In Joh 21:16 f. Peter is bidden to tend (ποιμαίνειν) Christ’s sheep (προβάτια, ‘lambs,’ is given as a variant in W^{H [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.]} ). Here we have in germ the pastoral view of the ministerial office. See art. Shepherd.

Jesus’ description of Himself as the Good Shepherd laid hold from the first of the Christian imagination. In the NT Jesus is twice spoken of as the Shepherd (Heb 13:20; 1Pe 2:25). In the Catacombs no symbol of Christ is more frequent than the picture of the Good Shepherd. See Christ in Art.

2. Our Lord illustrates His teaching concerning God’s providence by one or two sayings about the birds. He bids His disciples ‘consider the birds of the air: for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?’ (Mat 6:26). In conjunction with this passage, we must examine the reference to sparrows in Mat 10:29; Mat 10:31, Luk 12:6 f. ‘Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? yet not one of them shall fall to the earth without your Father.… Fear not then: ye are of more value than many sparrows.’ Bochart well brings out the force of Luke’s mention of ‘ravens’ instead of ‘birds of the air,’ and he rightly discerns the bearing of the reference to the sparrows, when he says, ‘Express mention is made of ravens and sparrows among the other birds, to make it clear that God’s providence is not only concerned with birds in general, but even extends to the most worthless and the most despised among birds: so that men, especially those that believe, may the more certainly draw from this fact the conclusion that God cares for them, since He will not deny to those who worship Him and call upon Him, the care which He so graciously bestows on animals of the lowest order.’ Bochart further dwells on the harsh grating voice, the ugly black colour, and the awkward movements of the raven, which make him a despicable bird. Concerning the sparrows, Thomson says they are ‘a tame, troublesome, vivacious and impertinent generation: they nestle just where they are not wanted. Their nests stop up stove-pipes and water-gutters. They are destroyed eagerly as a worthless nuisance’ (‘Lebanon,’ etc., p. 59). Jesus then insists that the birds which men hold cheap are not unthought of by God: ‘our Lord has taught us that God providently caters for the sparrow, and Himself conducts its obsequies.’

By taking the references to sparrows and ravens closely together, we may save ourselves from a onesided interpretation of Mat 6:26 which has found favour with many. Thus O. Holtzmann (Life of Jesus, p. 102) says: ‘With the drudgery and toil of human labour, Jesus contrasts the toilless life of nature, in which God feeds the raven and clothes the lilies.’ A parallel saying from the Talmud is cited in Delitzsch’s Jewish Artisan Life, which suggests the same view of our Lord’s teaching. ‘Didst thou ever see in all thy life,’ says Rabbi Simeon, son of Eleazar, ‘a bird or an animal working at a craft? And yet these creatures, made simply for the purpose of serving me, gain their living without difficulty. But I am created to serve my Creator: and if those who are created to serve can gain their livelihood without difficulty, shall not I, who am made to serve my Creator, earn my living without trouble?’ If this saying is modelled on Mat 6:26, then Rabbi Simeon and O. Holtzmann seem to agree in interpreting our Lord’s teaching to the effect that ‘the birds are fed, without working: surely we may expect God to feed us too, without our toil.’ Such an interpretation makes Mat 6:26 the magna charta of idleness. But the superiority of the birds does not lie in their not working, but in their not worrying. If we may paraphrase the passage, ‘the birds do not engage in any methodical toil: yet they trust God for daily food, and praise Him for His care: men are better than birds, a superiority shown in the fact that men work in an orderly manner: now, if God feeds the birds, which live a haphazard kind of life, how much more will He reward men’s patient labour without their needing to be anxious?’ This section of the Sermon on the Mount is best interpreted by St. Peter’s words, ‘casting all your care (i.e. your worries and anxieties) on him; for he careth for you’ (1Pe 5:7), or by St. Paul’s lesson of contentment under all circumstances (Php 4:11-13). Our daily wants are the care of God. The saying about the sparrows forbids us to assume that daily needs will be met exactly in the way we expect. We are not to assume that food and raiment will be provided amply and at all times. Privation and suffering may fall to men’s lot; but suffering even unto death is not to be feared, because the very death of a sparrow is not forgotten before God.

Our Lord’s teaching as to the trust in God’s providence, which may be learnt from the animals, appears to be summed up in the second of the five new Sayings recently discovered by Grenfell and Hunt. They restore this logion as follows: ‘Jesus saith (ye ask? who are those) that draw us (to the kingdom, if) the kingdom is in Heaven?… The fowls of the air, and all beasts that are under the earth or upon the earth, and the fishes of the sea (these are they which draw) you, and the kingdom of Heaven is within you; and whoever shall know himself shall find it. (Strive therefore?) to know yourselves and ye shall be aware that ye are the sons of the (almighty?) Father; (and?) ye shall know that ye are in (the city of God?) and ye are (the city?).’ The restoration of the saying is highly conjectural, but it seems to be based in part on Job 12:7-8. ‘Ask now the beasts and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air and they shall tell thee. Or speak to the earth and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.’ And the conclusion which the saying is intended apparently to enforce may be stated in the following verses taken from the same passage in Job. ‘Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing and the breath of all mankind’ (Job 12:9 f.). In effect we are taught that converse with nature should produce a calm trust in God.

It does not fall within the scope of this article to discuss the wider aspects of our Lord’s attitude towards Nature. But the place taken by animals in His teaching bears out the truth of the following words of a recent writer. ‘Jesus loved Nature as Nature: here as everywhere He was in touch with the actual. Plenty of people—from aesop to Mrs. Gatty—have made or drawn parables from Nature, but not like His. His lost sheep have no proverbs: His lilies may be dressed more charmingly than Solomon, but they have not Solomon’s wisdom: and His sparrows are neither moralists nor theologians, but sparrows,—two for a farthing, sparrows chirping and flying about and building their nests,—just sparrows! But the least motion which they made seemed a thrill of pleasure.… Sparrows, lilies, lost sheep, hens and chickens, midnight stars and mountain winds,—they all entered into His mind and heart, and spoke to Him of the character of God, of His delight in beauty, and His love’ (T. R. Glover).

Literature.—Without attempting to provide a complete bibliography, it may be worth while to give a list of books that the present writer has found helpful. Bochart’s Hierozoicon (ed. Rosenmüller) is encyclopaedic. Tristram’s Natural History of the Bible is a most handy manual of compact and accessible information. References to animals are frequent in books of Oriental travel: e.g. Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine; Robinson’s BR^{P [Note: RP Biblical Researches in Palestine.]} ; and Thomson’s Land and the Book [the latest edition of Thomson’s work in 3 vols, is especially valuable, though the information is widely scattered and is not always easy to find]. The articles on natural history and on particular animals in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible and the Encyc. Bibl. may be consulted with advantage. The standard ‘Lives of Jesus’ deal with the references to animals incidentally; Edersheim is perhaps the fullest and most reliable. There are some fresh, though not always accurate, observations on the subject in the Life of Jesus by O. Holtzmann. Of the many commentaries that expound the passages in the Gospels which concern our subject, the present writer has found vol. i. of the Expositor’s Greek Testament (‘Synoptics’ by A. B. Bruce, ‘St. John’ by M. Dods) most useful.

H. G. Wood.

See Treatment of Animals; Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings.

Since the Israelites were mainly an agricultural people, animals played a large part in their lives. Israelites raised cattle, sheep and goats extensively throughout their land, and these provided them with food products and materials for clothing (Num 32:1; 2Ch 26:10; Pro 27:26-27). They used oxen to pull carts, plough fields and thresh grain (Num 7:6-8; 1Ki 19:19; Amo 2:13; 1Co 9:9). They were to treat their working animals kindly and give them proper food and rest (Deu 5:14; Deu 22:10; Deu 25:4). (For further details see FARMING.)

Israelites did not keep pigs, considering them to be unclean animals whose meat was not fit to be eaten (Lev 11:7; Pro 11:22). However, there were pig farmers among non-Israelites who lived in the region (Luk 8:26; Luk 8:32; Luk 15:15). Another animal that the Israelites loathed was the dog, for most dogs in those days were savage, disease-ridden animals that roamed the streets and fed on filth (2Sa 16:9; 2Ki 9:33-36; Psa 22:16; Psa 59:6; Mat 7:6; Luk 16:21; 2Pe 2:22).

For transport people in Bible times used asses (Jos 9:4; 1Sa 9:3; 1Sa 25:20; Mat 21:2-5), camels (Gen 24:10; Gen 30:43; Gen 31:17; Gen 37:25; Isa 30:6) and horses (Isa 28:28), though the latter were kept mainly for warfare (Jos 11:4; 1Ki 10:28-29; Isa 30:16; Isa 36:8). Mules, which combined the strength of the horse with the endurance of the ass, sometimes played an important part in Israel’s communications (1Ki 18:5; Ezr 2:66).

Many different animals lived in the forest and semi-desert regions of Palestine: lions (1Sa 17:34; Psa 7:2; Isa 31:4; Jer 5:6; Nah 2:11-12), bears (1Sa 17:34; 2Ki 2:24; Amo 5:19), foxes (Jdg 15:4; Mat 8:20), wolves (Jer 5:6; Joh 10:12), hyenas (Isa 13:22), jackals (Isa 34:13; Isa 43:20), wild asses (Job 39:5-8; Jer 14:6), wild oxen (Job 39:9; Psa 22:21), wild boars (Psa 80:13), and deadly snakes (Num 21:6; Isa 30:6; see SNAKE). The Israelites did not hunt for sport, but on occasions had to kill wild animals to defend themselves (Exo 23:29; Jdg 16:5; 1Sa 17:34-36; 2Ki 17:26).

There were many other animals which, though wild, were not fierce, such as the hart, gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, ibex, antelope, rock badger, rabbit, hare and porcupine. The Israelites hunted some of these for food, but there were others that they were forbidden to eat (Lev 11:1-8; Deu 14:3-8; Isa 14:23; Isa 34:11; see UNCLEANNESS). Hunters used bows and arrows, slingstones, and traps of various kinds such as nets and pits (Gen 21:20; Gen 27:3; 1Sa 17:40; Psa 57:6; Psa 124:7; Eze 19:8).

In the Bible, "animals" refers to all living (and extinct) creatures except humans and plants. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Animals are important in many Bible stories, including:

• when God created the world,

• when Adam and Eve disobeyed God,

• when Noah saved the animals from the great flood,

• when God sent ten plagues to Egypt,

• when the Hebrew people used animals in their worship, and

• during the life of Jesus.

The people who lived in Bible times, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, spent much of their time around animals. They knew a lot about different kinds of animals. This is why Jesus and the people who wrote the Bible often used animals as examples to teach important ideas.

The Bible and modern science group animals in different ways.

Modern scientists group animals based on what they look like on the outside and inside. This way of grouping animals was started by Carolus Linnaeus, a plant expert who lived in Sweden during the 1700s.

The Bible groups animals based on where they live. In Genesis 1, God created different types of animals, such as:

• animals that live in the sea (Genesis 1:20),

• animals that live in the sky (Genesis 1:21),

• animals that crawl on the ground (Genesis 1:24),

• domesticated animals that live with humans (Genesis 1:24), and

• wild animals (Genesis 1:24).

This same way of grouping animals appears in other parts of the Bible, including Leviticus 11.

Because these two ways of grouping animals are different, we list the Bible's animals in order from A to Z. This list includes:

• reptiles (cold-blooded animals that usually have scaly skin, such as snakes),

• fish (animals that live in water, such as sardines), and

• invertebrates (animals without backbones, such as insects, spiders, and worms).

Specific types of animals are listed below. Birds are discussed in a separate article (see Birds). Click on an animal listed below to access the full-length article.

Types of Animals

• Adder: Several kinds of poisonous and nonpoisonous snakes, particularly the common viper in Europe and Asia.

• Ant: A small, hard-working insect that lives in colonies and builds underground nests.

• Antelope: An antelope is a fast-running, deer-like animal with slender legs and curved horns.

• Ape: A large, intelligent primate that has no tail.

• Asp: A venomous snake known for its quick strike and smooth, pale-colored scales.

• Donkey: A strong, hoofed animal with long ears, often used for carrying loads or pulling carts.

• Rock Badger: A small mammal about the size of a rabbit that lives among rocks and cliffs and shelters in narrow cracks.

• Bat: A small, nighttime animal that flies with its soft, thin wings and uses sound to find its way in the dark.

• Bear: A large, strong animal with thick fur, known for living in forests and often eating plants or animals.

• Bee: Flying insects that produce honey and wax.

• Behemoth: A large, powerful creature mentioned in the Bible, often thought to be a giant animal or symbol of strength.

• Camel: A large animal with a hump on its back, known for living in deserts and able to go without water for long periods.

• Caterpillar: Wormlike larva of a butterfly, moth, and some other insects.

• Cattle: Large farm animals that are raised for their milk, meat, and leather.

• Chameleon: A small lizard known for changing its color to blend into its surroundings.

• Coral: A small ocean-dwelling animal that lives in groups and builds hard, colorful structures known as coral reefs.

• Cricket: A small insect with long legs that makes a chirping sound, often heard at night.

• Crocodile: A large, reptile with a long, tough body, sharp teeth, and lives in rivers and swamps.

• Deer: A gentle animal with antlers (in males) and is known for living in forests and grasslands.

• Dog: A dog is a loyal, friendly animal often kept as a pet, known for its barking and companionship.

• Donkey: A strong, hoofed animal with long ears, often used to carry loads or pull carts.

• Dragon: A large, imaginary creature often shown with wings, scales, and the ability to breathe fire.

• Fish: A cold-blooded animal that lives in water, has scales, and breathes through gills.

• Flea: A small, jumping insect that lives on the blood of animals, often causing itching.

• Fly: A small insect with wings that can quickly fly and is often seen buzzing around food.

• Fox: A small, clever animal with a bushy tail, known for living in forests and fields.

• Frog: A small, jumping animal that lives in water and on land, known for its smooth skin and croaking sound.

• Gazelle: A fast, graceful antelope with slender legs and curved horns, often found in grasslands.

• Gecko: A small lizard known for its ability to climb walls and make a chirping sound.

• Gnat: A tiny flying insect that is often found in swarms and can bite, causing itching.

• Goat: A strong, hardy animal with horns, often raised for its milk, meat, or wool.

• Grasshopper: Plant-eating insect with long hind legs used for leaping.

• Hare: A small, fast, long-eared mammal similar to the rabbit.

• Hippopotamus: A large, heavy animal that lives in rivers and lakes, with thick skin and big teeth.

• Horse: A large, strong animal with hooves, often used for riding, farming, or racing.

• Hyena: A wild animal with a strong body and a distinctive laugh-like sound, known for living in groups and scavenging for food.

• Jackal: A wild animal that looks like a small wolf, often found in deserts or grasslands, and is known for hunting in groups or scavenging.

• Leech: A slimy, blood-sucking worm that lives in water or damp places.

• Leopard: A large, spotted cat known for its strength and ability to climb trees.

• Leviathan: A great sea monster or large aquatic reptile.

• Lion: A large, powerful cat with a mane (in males) and is known for living in groups.

• Lizard: A small reptile with scaly skin, four legs, and a long tail.

• Locust: Various insects known especially for their swarming, mass migration, and tremendous destruction of vegetation.

• Mole: A small, burrowing animal with dark fur, known for its strong front paws and poor eyesight.

• Moth: A flying insect with soft wings, often active at night, and is attracted to light.

• Mouse: A small, furry animal with a long tail, often found in homes and fields.

• Mule: A strong, hybrid animal that is the offspring of a donkey and a horse, often used for carrying loads.

• Pig: An animal with a snout, known for being intelligent and raised for its meat.

• Porcupine: A porcupine is a small animal covered in sharp quills that it uses to protect itself.

• Red Heifer: A red heifer is a young female cow with a a red-brown color.

• Scorpion: A scorpion is a small animal with a curved tail and a stinger, often found in dry places.

• Sheep: An animal with soft wool, often raised for its wool, meat, and milk.

• Snail: A small animal with a soft body and a hard, spiral shell on its back.

• Snake: A long, slithering animal without legs, known for its smooth scales and ability to crawl.

• Spider: An eight-legged insect that spins webs to catch its food.

• Sponge: A soft, porous animal that lives in water and filters tiny particles for food.

• Unicorn: In the Bible, the term "unicorn" is used in some translations, but it likely refers to a wild ox or an animal with a strong, single horn, rather than the mythical creature commonly known today.

• Whale: A large marine mammal that lives in the ocean, known for its size and ability to breathe air through a blowhole.

• Wild Ox: A large, strong animal that lives in the wild and is known for its horns and strength.

• Wolf: A wild, meat-eating animal that lives in packs and is known for its sharp teeth and howling sound.

• Worm: A small, soft-bodied animal that lives in the soil and helps break down organic matter.

Aquifer Open Bible Dictionary © 2026 Mission Mutual, an adaptation of the Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary © 2023 Tyndale House Publishers. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

A category of living creatures that dwell mainly on the land, distinguished from fishes, birds and insects. Scripture stresses that all animals are created by God and are subordinate to human beings.

Dictionary of Bible Themes © 1999 Martin H. Manser. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.