Leviathan and his Prophet:

a Biblical Monster turned into Political Messiah

Ionut Untea

Published in the online Conference Proceedings of

"Monstrous and the Monstrous",

Inter-disciplinary net, Oxford, 2008.

Permanent link:

http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Monsters/M6/untea%20paper.pdf
 Leviathan and his Prophet: a Biblical Monster turned into
Political Messiah
Ionut Untea
Abstract:
Up to the 17th century, Leviathan, the monster described in the Old
Testament had determined divergent interpretations. Influenced primarily by the
description of Leviathan, as the ultimate enemy before the coming of the
messianic kingdom (Isaiah 27:1), Christian Fathers and Reformation Doctors
took it as the symbol for the devil. This is the reason why the political
philosopher Carl Schmitt considered that Thomas Hobbes, one of the fathers of
Liberalism, was wrong when choosing the name of this monster for the state. In
the present paper I attempt to show what determined the English philosopher to
make the choice of a more optimistic interpretation towards the figure of the one
considered to be the king over “all the children of pride” (Job, 41:34). Generally,
the roots of Hobbes’s choice lay in his pessimistic view of the nature of man, and
in his protestant theological convictions.
Keywords: Hobbes, representation, frontispiece, state, Job, Bible, Behemoth,
Schmitt, pride, Eschatology.

1. Introduction.
In his major political work, Leviathan: or the Matter, Form, and Power
of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil, published for the first time in 1651,
Thomas Hobbes quoted or referred to over 600 biblical texts1. He used the greater
part of them especially for two goals: one was to criticize some theological
concepts which, in his view, had no scriptural basis;2 the other was to use them as
arguments for a political theory in a Christian state and even as arguments for a
universal political theory3. For the second goal one of these texts was Job, 41:24:
which he used as a plea for the universal necessity of political life. Hobbes
reproduced this text in Latin on the frontispiece of his work, above the image of
the creature to which he gave the name ‘Leviathan’: ‘Non est potestas Super
Terram quae Comparetur ei’.4
In his book, dedicated to the political symbol of Hobbes and published
in 1938, Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes; meaning and failure of
a political symbol, the German jurist Carl Schmitt saw a link in the thought of
Hobbes between the idea of absolute power of Leviathan, expressed in the text of
Job, and the Christian patristic principle Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus5.
Transferred from theology into political theory and amplified by the idea of
2 Leviathan and his Prophet: a Biblical Monster turned into
Political Messiah

unlimited power of the state, the formula becomes: Extra Civitatem nulla
Securitas, namely, no security outside the state6. However, the problem in the
interpretation of Schmitt is the way in which he further valorised it. Right at the
beginning of his book he criticizes Hobbes for not choosing well the name for his
masterpiece of political theory; in his opinion the English philosopher ignored
that before him Leviathan was for a long time considered a symbol of evil and of
the devil himself.7 For Schmitt the significance of the omitted aspect weights
much more than what Hobbes wanted to achieve by exploiting other aspects of
the mythical figure. This is why he was not necessarily interested in searching for
an internal coherence of the symbol in the body of the hobbesian text; instead he
was preoccupied with emphasizing how posterity understood Leviathan as a
political symbol for the state. In his view, Hobbes, by using the symbol of
Leviathan, unwillingly united evil with absolute power, which generally
characterizes the divinity, and with mechanism, which is the creation of the
human mind, in one body: the state8. For Schmitt the main characteristic of
Hobbes as a political philosopher was to be the “prophet of the Leviathan”9. But,
as he suggests in his book, the English thinker failed to create and communicate a
coherent message for posterity in what concerns “that dreadful name”,
Leviathan.10
Influenced by the interpretation of Schmitt, exegetes today believe also
that the symbol of Leviathan in the homonymous book of Hobbes is at least
ambiguous, their major starting point being that, in spite of the great amount of
biblical texts, in the over 700 page book, there are only three passages, excepting
the title, in which Hobbes uses the name Leviathan11. Like the German jurist,
some commentators stand away from the quest of an internal coherence of
Hobbes’s work through the symbol of Leviathan, in favour of an external one,
namely the consistence of the English Philosopher with external exegetical
traditions of the Leviathan or of some mythological monsters.12
Not without emphasizing the importance of taking into account the
direct or indirect influence on Hobbes of the way other traditions, Judaic,
Christian, or even pagan, read off the Leviathan or the mythological monsters, in
this paper I attempt to show that what matters first is an interpretation of
Leviathan which can be achieved by interrogating especially two major sources:
the text of the book of Hobbes, especially the places where he compares the
present earthly kingdom with the future kingdom of Christ, and the only source
he cites as the basis for his use of the term Leviathan: the Book of Job, especially
chapter 41. In the conclusion of my paper I’ll try to show that Schmitt is right to
 Ionut Untea 3

reckon Hobbes the prophet of Leviathan, because the English thinker really
believed that God set the conditions for the apparition into this world of a mortal
messiah, whose task was, among others, to prepare individuals for the kingdom
of the immortal one in the world to come.

2. Leviathan before Leviathan: the Christian and the Judaic exegetical

traditions.
The sole inspirational source Hobbes mentions in his 1651 work is the
Book of Job, more precisely chapter 41. However, in the Old Testament there are
other texts which refer to the monster. Generally, the content of the texts referring
to Leviathan can be briefed in two contradictory assertions: on the one hand,
Leviathan is the playmate of God (Ps. 104:26), who gave it the greatest strength
on earth (all the chapter 41 of Job); on the other hand, before the messianic
kingdom begins, God with his sword will “punish” the Leviathan (Isaiah:27:1),
he will cut it in pieces and will give its meat “to the people inhabiting the
wilderness” (Ps. 74:14).
A contemporary exegete of the Old Testament, David Wolfers, has
suggested that the two biblical perspectives on the monster are not contradictory,
because, even in the Book of Job, Leviathan is a symbol for Assyria13. This
means that what is different in the two contradictory portrayals of Leviathan is
not the Leviathan itself, but the attitude of God towards it. This attitude depended
on the historical situation of Israel. It is interesting however that this concrete
historical sense of the symbol wasn’t kept in the Jewish tradition; the legends of
the Jews show rather their preference for the fabulous descriptions which are
intended to complete some aspects left unclear by the biblical texts.
In this perspective, Leviathan is the king of the aquatic animals, like
Behemoth is the king of the creatures of the land, and like Ziz is the most
powerful bird.14. However, Leviathan is the most powerful among them, because
for his creation God manifested as much power as for the creation of all beings
together.15 He is not only powerful, but majestic. The fishes willingly give
themselves to be eaten.16 A popular theme disseminated especially in Hebrew
manuscripts in the 13th and 14th centuries in Western Europe was the messianic
banquet, inspired by the text of the Psalm 74:14.17 During this banquet, at the
beginning of the messianic kingdom, after a battle opposing it to Behemoth,
Leviathan will be sacrificed, together with its defeated adversary and with Ziz,
their flesh being eaten by the elected ones, who were spectators to the battle.18
The Zohar generally confirms the descriptions of a fabulous animal, but it adds
important aspects: first, individuals are compared with Leviathan, as in the
phrase: “you preserve man and beast”19, second it relates the Psalm 104 to the
4 Leviathan and his Prophet: a Biblical Monster turned into
Political Messiah

tribe of Levi, asserting that “Levi” is derived from “attachment”20. The Zohar,
shortly after its appearance in the 14th century was considered a central source for
kabbalistic doctrine. This is why the Zohar became very known, especially in the
late 15th century, the printed editions appearing in the 16th century.21
Unlike the Jewish traditions which accentuated rather the perspective of
the Leviathan as playmate of God who kills it only because he wants to entertain
his elect and to give a great banquet, the Christian tradition took as starting point
the text of Psalm 74:14, subordinated to that of Isaiah 27:1. This is why Cyril of
Jerusalem reads the episode of the destruction of the primordial monsters as a
symbol for the defeat of the forces of evil by Christ and by every Christian
through the holy water of baptism.22 Saint Gregory the Great also took Leviathan
as a symbol for the devil23. The Reformation doctors, in the process of trying to
leave aside the allegorical interpretation of the Scripture, came to see more and
more Leviathan and other monsters as normal animals; however, neither Luther
nor Calvin succeeded in completely detaching from the allegorical interpretation:
Calvin considered that it represented a serpent, a whale, or a fish, but that also it
could be applied to the king of Egypt, and through him, to all the enemies of the
Church. Using the etymology of the name of Leviathan in a similar way with the
Zohar, but inspiring himself rather from the image of the scales of the monster,
suggested in Job 41, Luther asserted that Leviathan is a name for the stubborn
people who stick together, leaving no place for the spirit of God to enter them24.
In what concerns etymology, Luther could have been influenced by the direction
of interpretation initiated in the Christian world by the converted Jew and Bishop,
Paul of Burgos, who pointed out that the consonants in the Jewish name of
Leviathan, “l-w-h” mean “joining together”.25 Henceforth, the name of Leviathan
will be associated with “society”.
A step forward was made in the seventeenth century by Jacques Boulduc
and other philologists who saw in the Leviathan the king, because the inhabitants
of a country were gathered together in order under him.26 However, this direction
of interpretation was not the dominant one; the work of Boulduc did not have a
large influence in the seventeenth century. This is why, for a contemporary and
friend of Hobbes, like Herbert of Cherbury, Leviathan was only a fish. For
Nathaniel Culverwell the laws of nature apply to all the animals, among which
Leviathan was counted.27 As Noel Malcolm asserts, the work of Boulduc could
have been made known to Hobbes through Mersenne while he was in Paris.28 He
certainly knew also the sense of Leviathan as a beast obedient to the laws of
nature.29 This is why, as we will see, he tries to make a very interesting synthesis
 Ionut Untea 5

of the previous understandings and also to give a new eschatological trait to the
symbol of the monster.

3. Hobbes’s perspective: Leviathan, a mortal god with a human face.

The greatest problem Thomas Hobbes faced after the publication of his
book was his contemporaries’ misunderstanding of the meaning of his Leviathan.
The first edition of Leviathan of 1651 as with the other editions as well, had a
frontispiece drawn after the indications of the author, a frontispiece which was
dominated by the central drawing: a giant with a human face, but with his body
composed entirely of little human individuals, who are close together, as scales
on the body of a snake or a fish.30 A contemporary commentator, Patricia
Springborg, sustains that the image of the frontispiece resembles rather the Gallic
Hercules, a giant who carried a crowd of men tethered by the ears to his tongue.
This is why she believes that the source of Hobbes’s image is not biblical.31
However, the major difference between Hobbes’s Leviathan and the Gallic
Hercules is that Leviathan had the individuals as part of his body, and moreover,
in Hobbes’s thought the individuals were not a crowd, and more particularly, they
were not dragged like slaves behind their sovereign. As we will see, Hobbes
wanted to emphasize that subjects in a state are one body, and that they are not in
disorder. This is why, even if one source of the image of Leviathan was really the
Gallic Hercules, it surely wasn’t the decisive one. The main source of Hobbes’s
image remains the biblical Leviathan. Even if the author attributed to the monster
a human face, that didn’t make him any less a Leviathan. The text of Job, the
only source cited by Hobbes, contains the idea of attachment, which led Hobbes
to indicate to the drawer the way in which he wanted the frontispiece to appear.
Setting forth his Leviathan, God tells Job:
“His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they
cannot be sundered.” (…) Upon earth there is not his like, who is
made without fear. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king
over all the children of pride”32.
Hobbes reproduces the same ideas in his portrayal of the body of the
commonwealth: in the nature of man the essential ingredient is pride, which,
together with other passions, has “compelled him to submit himself to
government”33; however, this doesn’t mean that Leviathan conquers them
because they are weak, but individuals “desire with all their hearts, to conform
6 Leviathan and his Prophet: a Biblical Monster turned into
Political Messiah

themselves into one firm and lasting edifice”34 This edifice is however animated,
it’s a machine with a living soul:
“For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a
COMMONWEALTH, or STATE, in Latin CIVITAS, which is
but an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength than
the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended;
and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life
and motion to the whole body.” 35
If in the case of the Jewish legends of Leviathan’s creation God had
manifested as much power as for the whole creation, in Hobbes’s version,
Leviathan’s creation is not God’s work. Hobbes’s change in the image of
Leviathan is not an effect of being influenced by Greek mythical Monsters, but it
is the mark of his Christian reading of the Book of Job and of the Book of
Genesis. In Jewish thought man was created on the sixth day of the Creation, so it
was de jure the king of creation. However, God tells Job that his supreme
creation is, in fact, Leviathan. For a Christian like Hobbes, humans could never
be in second place, because God, through Christ, had promised them eternal
life.36 This is why for Hobbes the human is “that rational and most excellent work
of nature”37. In the English philosopher’s view the creation of Leviathan is only
indirectly the work of God, because he was the creator of man. Like God, men
created Leviathan through their word: “Lastly, the pacts and covenants, by which
the parts of this body politic were at first made, set together, and united, resemble
that fiat, or the let us make man, pronounced by God in the creation”38. The result
of Hobbes’s argument is something paradoxical: Leviathan, the work of man, is
greater than the work of God.

4. The earthly Messiah and Hobbes’s incipient politics of eschatology:

from the mortal to the divine Leviathan.
As we have seen, in the Legends of the Jews the theme of the messianic
banquet occupies an important place. The elected ones watch the battle between
Leviathan and Behemoth, and after the former defeats the latter, they feast from
the flesh of both. In the case of Hobbes, the battle between the two mighty
enemies is transferred into this world; at the beginning of chapter 22 the author
makes the distinction between regular and irregular systems:
“By SYSTEMS, I understand any numbers of men joined in one
interest, or one business. Of which, some are regular, and some
irregular. Regular are those, where one man, or assembly of
 Ionut Untea 7

men, is constituted representative of the whole number. All

others are irregular.”39
According to the description, Leviathan is a regular system, because it
has a representative: the government; while, all other systems which don’t have a
representative are irregular. These systems play the role of Behemoth because
they may be the causes of a state’s destruction. Hobbes will even finish in 1668
writing a book entitled Behemoth: the History of the Causes of the Civil Wars of
England, and of the Counsels and Artifices by which they were carried on from
the year 1640 to the year 1660, which appeared posthumously in 1681. So, as in
the Jewish eschatology, in the present world every individual is witness to the
battle of the state with anarchy, even if the last one may appear as organized. The
major difference from the Jewish understanding is that, for Hobbes, in this battle
nobody may be considered neutral. Being neutral for him means to be in the state
of nature. In this last state nothing guarantees personal security: without the
protection of life and goods the individual is exposed to losing both at any time.
Hobbes praises Leviathan and demonizes Behemoth, because even if some may
conceive Behemoth as a place of security, Leviathan is much more than that.
Without the latter “there is no place for industry; (…) no culture
of the earth; no navigation, (…) no instruments of moving, and
removing, (…) no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account
of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all,
continual fear, and danger of violent death;”40
This is why the best and the only choice an individual can have is to be a
part of Leviathan, who is the “mortal god.”41 We observe that if in the Jewish
tradition the elect eat the body of Leviathan, in Hobbes’s thought the individuals
willingly give themselves to be eaten by it, in order to become a part of its body,
more exactly one of its scales. This is a symbolic transformation made possible
through the representation accomplished by the sovereign. This is a reversed
Eucharist: “it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person.”42
The fight between Leviathan and Behemoth does not stop at the end of
this world, even if the Leviathan, as men have created it, dies at the second
coming of Christ. But the reason for which it dies is not because God wants to
punish it; as a true Messiah, it dies in order to be resurrected again, this time as
the kingdom in which the function of representation is not accomplished by a
simple man, but by the man-God:
“Of the present world, our Saviour speaks (John xviii. 36) My
kingdom is not of this world.(…) Nevertheless we according to
his promise look for new heavens, and a new earth. This is that
WORLD, wherein Christ coming down from heaven in the
8 Leviathan and his Prophet: a Biblical Monster turned into
Political Messiah

clouds, with great power, and glory, shall send his angels, and
shall gather together his elect, from the four winds, and from the
uttermost parts of the earth, and thenceforth reign over them,
under his Father, Everlastingly”43.
The fight with Behemoth continues, but this time only in the mind of the
elect who are the only immortal: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth, shall awake; some to everlasting life; and some to shame, and everlasting
contempt.”44 Even if the contempt felt by the elect is everlasting, the reprobate
won’t live forever: “For though the Scripture be clear for an universal
resurrection; yet we do not read, that to any of the reprobate is promised an
eternal life.”45 Behemoth slowly fades away, until the last sinner perishes.

5. Conclusions.
Hobbes did not make very explicit his political theory of the Eschatology
especially because all he wanted was to be a prophet only for the Leviathan of
this world. He was aware that in the world to come some laws of nature may not
function as we know them, especially those related to human psychology. For
him the preaching of the earthly Leviathan, man’s greatest artifice, even greater
than God’s creation, was very important, because, by reason of their pride and of
other passions, people sometimes forget how important it is that their absolute
liberty be limited and they be part of a system meant to insure their security, and
moreover, to establish the conditions for cultural, economic, religious and moral
progress. However, at the end of this paper one may wonder why Hobbes
practically ignored Psalm 74 and the passage of Isaiah, which inspired the
Christian tradition of interpretation. This happened on account of a theological
conviction, which he acquired while studying the Bible: for him there was no
devil as an evil spirit. He argued that every time the bible refers to the devil, it
speaks actually about any enemy of someone’s integrity.46 To say that Leviathan
was the devil was a contradiction because the major goal of Hobbes’s political
theory was to emphasize the providential character of the state, as the artifice
which helps individuals to overcome the state of war. The place of the devil in
Hobbes’s political theory was already assigned to Behemoth. This means that the
contemporary critics and scholars failed to understand the coherence of Hobbes’s
political symbol because they ignored the other theological elements of the
political theory book of 1651. However, from this point of view Schmitt may be
right in that Hobbes failed to impose a new content in what concerns the function
 Ionut Untea 9

of Leviathan. Even if his theory may be found coherent, his mistake was to
confide too much in the theological open-mindedness of the generations to come.

Université Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle

Notes
1
Kim Ian Parker, “That ‘Dreadful Name, Leviathan’: Biblical Resonances in the
Title of Hobbes' Famous Political Work”. Hebraic political studies, Volume: 2
Issue: 4, Fall 2007, p. 446.
2
Some of the concepts Hobbes criticizes as not having enough Scriptural basis
are: transubstantiation (English Works 3, chapter 8, p. 69), eternal torments,
purgatory (EW 3, ch. 44, p. 616), devil (EW 3, ch. 45, p.639), hypostatical,
consubstantiate, eternal-now (EW 3 ch. 5, p. 35), etc. The references are from
Thomas Hobbes, ‘Leviathan: or the Matter, Form, and Power of a
Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil’, first edition, 1651 in The English
Works of Thomas Hobbes, volume 3, Molesworth Edition, John Bohn, London,
1839.
3
See especially the passages about Moses (EW 3, ch. 41, p. 480), Christ as not a
king for this world (EW 3, ch. 42, p. 509), person and representation (EW 3, ch.
41, p. 475), Saint Paul’s interdiction of the dominion over faith (EW 3, ch. 42, p.
491).
4
This is a variant of the text of Vulgate, informs us Kim Ian Parker (op. cit., p.
445. n. 50).
5
This saying was first uttered by St. Cyprian of Carthage, a Northern African
Father who lived in the 3rd Century A. D. It Catholic Church’s legislation it is
affirmed in the first canon of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. Apud Lutz
Kaelber, “Weber's Lacuna: Medieval Religion and the Roots of Rationalization”.
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 57, No. 3 , Jul. 1996, p. 482, n.70.
6
For more detail see, Carl Schmitt, The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas
Hobbes; meaning and failure of a political symbol. Greenwood Press, Westport
and London, 1996, p. 48.
7
Ibidem, pp. 6-7.
8
Ibidem, p. 19.
9
Ibidem, p. 5.
10
Hobbes uses the epithet ‘dreadful’ in his autobiographical poem, written in
1679. For more information see Kim Ian Parker, op. cit., p. 424.
10 Leviathan and his Prophet: a Biblical Monster turned into
Political Messiah

11
The first time, besides the title, Hobbes uses the name in EW 3, Introduction,
p. ix; the other two uses can be found at EW 3, ch. 28, p. 307. We will come back
to them in the second part of this paper.
12
See especially, the article of Johan Tralau, ‘Leviathan, the Beast of Myth:
Medusa, Dyonisos and the Riddle of Hobbes’s Sovereign Monster’. In Patricia
Springborg (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 61-81. The author tries to take Medusa
and other mythical monsters as models to discover Hobbes’s intention to use the
name Leviathan for his work.
13
David Wolfers, “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job”. Vetus
Testamentum, Vol. 40, Fasc. 4. (Oct., 1990), p. 487.
14
Lois Drewer, “Leviathan, Behemoth and Ziz: A Christian Adaptation”. Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 44. (1981), pp. 148-156.
15
Bernhard Heller, “Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews (Continued)”. The Jewish
Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 24, No. 4. (Apr., 1934), p. 416.
16
Ibidem, p. 416.
17
Lois Drewer, op. cit., p. 153.
18
Bernhard Heller, op. cit., p. 417. This aspect was especially emphasized by
Schmitt in order to argue that Hobbes ignored a part of the meanings Leviathan
had before him. See Carl Schmitt, op. cit., p. 8-9.
19
Excerpt from 49. Ki Tetze: 13. “The Leviathan”. From the online edition of
Zohar. Sponsor of site: The Kabbalah Centre, 1062 S. Robertson Blvd, Los
Angeles, CA 90035, Date of the creation of the site: 2004. Last visited 08.27.08.
https://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=bGV2aWF0aG
Fu&where=verses&sort=rate
20
40. Shlach Lecha: 47.”Moses’s birth”.
https://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=bGV2aWF0aG
Fu&where=verses&sort=rate
21
Boaz Huss, “The Anthological Interpretation: The Emergence of Anthologies of
Zohar Commentaries in the Seventeenth Century.” Prooftexts, Volume: 19, Issue:
1, 1999, p. 3.
22
Lois Drewer, op. cit., p. 155.
23
John M. Steadman, “Leviathan and Renaissance Etymology”. Journal of the
History of Ideas, Vol. 28, No. 4., Oct. - Dec., 1967, p.575.
24
Patricia Springborg, “Hobbes's Biblical Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth”.
Political Theory, Vol. 23, No. 2, May, 1995, p. 360.
 Ionut Untea 11

25
Kim Ian Parker, op. cit., p.433.
26
Ibidem, p. 433.
27
Patricia Springborg, op. cit., p. 358.
28
Kim Ian Parker, op. cit., p. 433.
29
In the chapter 28 of his book he asserts that Leviathan is ‘bound to obey’ the
laws of nature. EW 3, ch. 28, p. 307.
30
The title page of Leviathan, as part of the edition of 1651, can be found on the
internet on the site The Online Library of Liberty. Sponsor of site: Liberty Fund
Inc., 8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46250-1684, USA.
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/585/0051-03_Bk.pdf
Last visited 08.27.08. Some important studies about the frontispiece are Noel
Malcolm, “The Title Page of Leviathan”. In Noel Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 200-229. A. P. Martinich, Two Gods
of Leviathan : Thomas Hobbes on religion and politics. Cambridge University
Press, New York, 1992, pp. 362-367. Horst Bredekamp, “Thomas Hobbes’s
Visual Strategies”. In Patricia Springborg (ed.), Cambridge Companion to
Hobbes’s Leviathan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 29-60.
Patricia Springborg, op. cit., pp. 353-375.
31
Patricia Springborg, op. cit., p. 364.
32
Job, 41, 15-17, 33-34.
33
EW 3, Ch. 28, p. 307.
34
EW 3, ch. 29, p. 308.
35
The capital letters and the italics pertain to the author. EW 3, Introduction, ix.
36
See for example EW 3, Ch. 36, p. 408.
37
EW 3, Introduction, ix.
38
Author’s emphasis, EW 3, Introduction, ix.
39
Author’s emphasis, EW 3, Ch. 22, p. 210.
40
EW 3, Ch. 13, p. 113.
41
EW 3, Ch. 17, p. 158.
42
EW 3, Ch. 17, p. 158.
43
EW 3, Ch. 38, p. 456.
44
EW 3, Ch. 38, p. 449.
45
EW 3, Ch. 38. p. 450.
46
EW 3, Ch. 38., p. 448.