ANIMALS ACTING ODDLY: PART 2

An entirely different zoological mix of oddities appears in the rest of the Bible.

Job 39:13-18; Lamentations 4:3

Both of these passages cite the proverbial cruelty of the ostrich in leaving its egg unprotected. But if that is so, it is amazing that the species has survived at all. However, Hartley points out that this bird often runs away when predators strike in order to draw them away from her egg. And Marvin Pope offers additional understandings for her seemingly odd behavior:

    The female ostrich will “abandon” her eggs at sundown, but only so that the cock can take her place on the nest during the night.

    When she does leave the nest for short periods of time during the day, she will cover the eggs with a thin layer of sand to protect it from predators and the sun.

    When observed in captivity, the ostriches lose their natural parental instincts and will attack newly hatched chicks.

But doesn't all the above merely prove that the Bible has perpetrated a scientific error in its statements? Not really since biblical descriptions of natural phenomenon are almost always given in terms of how they appear to the observer – this is called phenomenological language. By contrast, today we almost always try to go to the reason behind the phenomenon instead using more scientific language. One obvious exception is our continued use of phrases such as “the sun set,” “the moon rose,” “shooting stars,” etc.

Ecclesiastes 10:20

This verse contains a warning to watch what you say because “a bird of the air may carry your voice.” Today we still use the expression: “A little birdie told me.” So we are not talking about an instance of a parrot hearing our words and later repeating them to someone else. Instead, this odd bird turns out not to be that odd at all; he is a proverbial bird instead. And the meaning of this proverb is the same as our even odder concept that “the walls have ears.”

Jonah 1:17

Now we come to a truly unusual animal, the large fish (not whale) that God provided to swallow up Jonah. Supposedly, there is at least one historical account of sailor being recovered alive after having been swallowed whole by a large fish. So perhaps Jonah's fish is not a unique case. Another possibility is that Jonah died inside the fish and was miraculously resuscitated when he was thrown only the shore.

Jonah 2:10

In this verse it becomes clear that the fish is obtaining his orders directly from God as he vomits Jonah up on dry land.

Jonah 3:6-8

As the people of Nineveh repent, we are treated here to the ridiculous picture of even the animals going around wearing sackcloth to indicate their regret over their sins. This is not so much the question of odd animals but of the odd notions that the Ninevites held.

Jonah 4:7

And finally, toward the end of the book God not only gives Jonah a miraculous vine that grows so large in one day that it provides shade for Jonah, He also “appointed” a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered. It appears that the single worm had almost as much voracious appetite as the carnivorous cows in Genesis.

Because of the many comic and supernatural touches present in the Book of Jonah, many scholars (including evangelicals) prefer to treat this book as an extended parable ironically exposing the self-righteous Jewish religious leaders of the day.

Matthew 8:30

In this narrative, Jesus casts the “legion” of demons out from a tormented man, but He allows them to enter into a herd of swine nearby. They all run into the sea and are drowned. This is a New Testament story that animal-right activists hate so much that they refuse to treat it as a literal miracle by Jesus. Instead they fabricate a far-fetched interpretation as a parable which is a veiled attack on the Roman “legions” who are occupying the land. It is doubtful that any real Bible scholars would ever subscribe to such irresponsible eisegesis. And it is amazing that these same critics don't pay any attention to the huge quantities of animals slaughtered for sacrifice at the annual festivals in the Jewish calendar, or even to the fact that Jesus ate fish on several occasions that we know about.

Whether or not you wish to blame Jesus for his “immoral” action, it is obvious that the pigs decided that a quick death by drowning was preferable to being infested with demons.

Matthew 17:27

This is the story of Peter being told by Jesus to look into the mouth of the first fish that he catches. Peter complies and finds a coin suitable for paying the temple tax. Sticklers for historical and scientific accuracy do point out that bottom feeders in the Mediterranean area have been known to swallow strange objects from the sea floor. Therefore there is really nothing unusual about the fish, only the foreknowledge Jesus demonstrates and/or the command he gave the fish beforehand.

Mark 6:38-43

This story of the multiplication of the fishes and the loaves to feed the crowd demonstrates that Jesus is able to do miraculous things with dead animals as well as live ones. Since this such an obvious nature miracle, Bible critics have had a field day trying to provide alternative explanations for such a well-documented event. The most common is the suggestion that everyone had already brought a hidden picnic lunch with them but didn't want to share it with anyone else until they were shamed into it by the generous action of the small boy.

Luke 5:6-9; John 21:6-11

These two similar miraculous catches of fish have been labeled as a “doublet” by some Bible scholars. But the completely different settings and time periods distinguish clearly between the two events. There are several ways to explain the event:

    It was mere coincidence that Jesus knew where to direct the apostles to cast their nets.

    It was a case of supernatural knowledge on Jesus' part.

    From Jesus' different vantage point, Jesus could detect the movement of fish in the water while the fishermen couldn't.

    Jesus supernaturally created a swarm of fish just for the purpose.

    Jesus directed the fish to where he wanted them by communicating to them.

Only the last explanation would be the result of an oddity residing in the fish themselves, but it would have close parallels with several OT examples in which God or His representative communicated directly to animals.

Acts 12:20-23

The final example is that of King Herod Agrippa's death recorded in Acts 12:20-23. We learn that the king has just refused to give proper glory to God when he was personally praised by the populace. Immediately, “an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.” Notice carefully the order of events. Agrippa was not eaten by worms after he died, but before. Thus, we have another example of God directing the action of “worms” (see Jonah 4:7). However, in this case the worms are probably some sort of intestinal parasites. Josephus has recorded a parallel account of Agrippa's death and attributes the cause to some sort of stomach ailment.

So, in conclusion we can say that the unusual behavior of some animals in the examples above can be attributed to supernatural influences on them, a phenomenological description rather than a scientific one, some sort of figurative usage instead of a literal one, or a case of Jesus' foreknowledge of otherwise normal behavior.