The Book Of Tobit, What Do You Know?

[Rhamiel]

well the angel of the pool of Bethesda being Raphael came from the idea that Raphaels name means "God heals" so it would make sense that he was at the pool

 

[stone]

It is not an inspired book, which is why it is not in the protestant canon. It is considered un-inspired and was rejected because it did not harmonize with the other books of the Bible on key doctrinal issues, for example in Tobit there is a couple of verses that indicate the ability to buy your way out of hell by paying alms. Of course, if you believe in purgatory and its related doctrines then you won't have much of a problem including Tobit.

Oh, it isn't so difficult to believe this, after all, isn't there one man that paid a price for many to not go to hell? It's not really a stretch now is it?

Oh, and that quote of yours about guns, love it! I copied it to a sheet and printed it out. I've got it pinned up next to the network printer.

 

[stone]

I have read Tobit and I do not understand why the angel lied about who he was - why would angels from God lie?

To you it may appear as a lie, but if it is a command from god to not reveal his identity, then to him, it's a commandment.

 

[stone]

I have read Tobit and I do not understand why the angel lied about who he was - why would angels from God lie?

Here are those verses from ch 5:

2 Tobiah went to look for someone acquainted with the roads who would travel with him to Media. As soon as he went out, he found the angel Raphael standing before him, though he did not know that this was an angel of God. Tobiah said to him, "Who are you, young man?" He replied "I am an Israelite, one of your kinsmen.
so there, Raphael told Tobit that he was an Israelite and kinsman of his. and again he lied about who he was to Tobit's father as well:

Tobit replied, "I wish to know truthfully whose son you are, brother, and what your name is."
13 Raphael answered, "I am Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder, one of your own kinsmen."

This part from ch 6 about the fish is strange and is supposedly some sort of pagan customs or witchcraft or something.

Now when the boy went down to wash his feet in the river, a large fish suddenly leaped out of the water and tried to swallow his foot. He shouted in alarm. 4 But the angel said to him, "Take hold of the fish and don't let it get away!" The boy seized the fish and hauled it up on the shore. 5 The angel then told him: "Cut the fish open and take out its gall, heart, and liver, and keep them with you; but throw away the entrails. Its gall, heart, and liver make useful medicines." 6 After the lad had cut the fish open, he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he broiled and ate part of the fish; the rest he salted and kept for the journey. 7 Afterward they traveled on together till they were near Media. The boy asked the angel this question: "Brother Azariah, what medicinal value is there in the fish's heart, liver, and gall?" 8 He answered: "As regards the fish's heart and liver, if you burn them so that the smoke surrounds a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, the affliction will leave him completely, and no demons will ever return to him again. 9 And as for the gall, if you rub it on the eyes of a man who has cataracts, blowing into his eyes right on the cataracts, his sight will be restored."


I have not read all of the apocryphya yet, but here is one article about why it is not included in the Protestant Canon http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html[/quote Wow, that sounds wierd. Some say that Raphael was the angel that stirred the waters at the pool of Bethesda, if that story is true about the waters being stirred. I know it's not in every Bible.

In the Torah, those parts of animals were to be burnt as a food offering to God. However, i don't recall those being burnt from fish, only clean mammals. It does line up however.

 

[E.C.]

It is not an inspired book, which is why it is not in the protestant canon. It is considered un-inspired and was rejected because it did not harmonize with the other books of the Bible on key doctrinal issues, for example in Tobit there is a couple of verses that indicate the ability to buy your way out of hell by paying alms. Of course, if you believe in purgatory and its related doctrines then you won't have much of a problem including Tobit.

You picked a bad book from the Deutero-canon to spread evil from mere hearsay.


I'm ashamed yet proud to say that the Book of Tobit is the only book from the Old Testament which I have read in its entirety. From my recollection, there is no verse saying one can buy themselves out of hell. Even if there were, it would probably be somewhat irrelevant since we as Christians are supposed to be more concerned with the New Testament which is actually about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and not merely all the stuff before Him. We are also to be more concerned with His Church and the New Israel rather than the Old and all its beliefs which refused to believe that He was sent to fulfill them.

From what I can remember, Tobit was mostly a sort of love story. Tobit was send by his parents to some distant relatives in another city (maybe even country) who had a bride waiting for him.
Yes, the Book of Tobit gave me hope and inspiration in a time of need. I am sure that it has done something similar for many so woe upon those whom deem it uninspired just because it doesn't jive with the Sola Scripturist ways.

Glory be to God for lighting the way the one time I read a whole book from the Old Testament!

 

[SummaScriptura]

It is not an inspired book, which is why it is not in the protestant canon.

Trivia question: In what year was the Protestant Bible canonized?

It is considered un-inspired and was rejected because it did not harmonize with the other books of the Bible on key doctrinal issues, for example in Tobit there is a couple of verses that indicate the ability to buy your way out of hell by paying alms. Of course, if you believe in purgatory and its related doctrines then you won't have much of a problem including Tobit.

Please don't state this sort of thing without citing the passage that teaches this. This is how disinformation is passed forever, "I heard someone say so-and-so, it must be true". There is nothing in Tobit about paying your way out of hell.

 

[MamaZ]

To you it may appear as a lie, but if it is a command from god to not reveal his identity, then to him, it's a commandment.

So a Holy God commands an angel to lie? When scriptures tell us all liars have their part in the lake of fire?

 

[MamaZ]

To lie is to sin people. Lying is the opposite of God for He speaks nothing but truth.

 

[callitfreedom]

It's not a lie Mamaz, it's just a literary device. It is a story, exactly as Exodus is, where God is supposed to exterminate the first born of Egypt just to show off how powerful He is.

 

[MamaZ]

It's not a lie Mamaz, it's just a literary device. It is a story, exactly as Exodus is, where God is supposed to exterminate the first born of Egypt just to show off how powerful He is.

So the angel did not lie?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Did Rahab lie concerning the Hebrew spies? She is listed as a woman of faith in Hebrews 11 because of it. Did the Hebrew midwives lie when they said the Hebrew children were being born before they could kill them?

 

[christianmomof3]

Did Rahab lie concerning the Hebrew spies? She is listed as a woman of faith in Hebrews 11 because of it. Did the Hebrew midwives lie when they said the Hebrew children were being born before they could kill them?

Actually, I am not sure if the Hebrew midwives lied or not. It could be that during that time the Lord did help the women to give birth on their own - the Bible is not clear on that. Rahab did hide the spies. However, they are both people, and we are sinners. Angels, on the other hand, as far as I understand either don't lie, and are on God's side, or they do lie and are on Satan's side. I am not aware of any examples in the Bible of angels sent by God telling lies.

Here is my personal favorite site about the Bible Canon (I used to teach middle school) http://www.bibledudes.com/bible/canon.php
and one quote from it:

we do know that the books of the Apocrypha were left out on purpose. First of all, these writings were clearly later than most of the writings in the Hebrew Bible. But also, mainstream Jewish doctrine in those days held that miracles and God's revelation to prophets stopped in the 5th century BCE, the days of that priest dude Ezra. As the Apocrypha reported thingies like miracles and divine revelation long after Ezra, the rabbis like said "sayonara Apocrypha!"

 

[Brennin]

It is not an inspired book, which is why it is not in the protestant canon. It is considered un-inspired and was rejected because it did not harmonize with the other books of the Bible on key doctrinal issues, for example in Tobit there is a couple of verses that indicate the ability to buy your way out of hell by paying alms. Of course, if you believe in purgatory and its related doctrines then you won't have much of a problem including Tobit.

If anything, you are thinking of 2 Maccabees, not Tobit.

 

[Brennin]

EO consider it scripture because it was part of the LXX, which was widely used and quoted by Christ and the Apostles.

Many consider it apocryphal - which should mean that it is secondary, but still useful for reading and instruction.

Unfortunately, there are also those who take this to mean that it is somehow not Christian or even heretical. There is absolutely no basis for this belief.

Maybe you should read it.

What he said.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I believe the Book of Tobit to be inspired scripture and its place is rightfully between the covers of one's Bible.

Having said that, the book of Tobit poses unique problems for proper biblical exegesis and interpretation which should be addressed.

One of the fundamental aspects of interpreting any book of the Bible is to determine the genre in which the book has been written. One cannot interpret the Book of Joshua with the same sorts of rules as we might approach the Book of Romans, for instance. The genre of the Book of Joshua is narrative sacred history and the genre of the Book of Romans is didactic epistle.

The Book of Tobit, (as well as the Book of Judith), introduces to the Bible a genre which is unique, that of edifying romance novel; there may be a better category for this and we should discuss that. I cannot speak for everyone but I am certainly able to leave room for God to include this sort of writing within the Old Testament Hagioprapha.

In fact, the author of Tobit somewhat heavy-handedly indicates this book is not to be considered sacred history right in the introduction by introducing a number of historical impossibilities which would have been immediately obvious to his Jewish audience. For instance, Tobit says of himself that he was living at the time when the Northern Kingdom of Israel separated itself from Judah under King Rehobaom (1:4 NRSV); if I calculate this right that would have occurred about 900 BC, right? Tobit then indicates he was living too when the Nothern Kingdom was carried into captivity in 722 BC, about 180 years later (1:3 NRSV) . Tobit is said to die at the ripe old age of 112, however. (14:2 NRSV) There are other indicators as well. The writer is queuing the reader in obvious ways the historical setting of his book is fictional and to prevent the book from being considered in the genre of sacred history.

Having said that, the book nevertheless communicates much about how life must have been for Jews in the Diaspora before the life of Christ. There is also much to derive from the book that it inspirational, edifying and enlightening.

Lest someone be tempted to think the book is thus lacking anything revelatory, think again... The Apostle John needed a "Revelation" from God to see the future New Jerusalem bedecked in Jewels and gold, how then does one explain the description of the enameled city recorded in Tobit long before John received his Revelation,

"For Jerusalem will be built as his house for all ages.
How happy I will be if a remnant of my descendants
should survive to see your glory and acknowledge the King of heaven.

The gates of Jerusalem will be built with sapphire and emerald,
and all your walls with precious stones.
The towers of Jerusalem will be built with gold,
and their battlements with pure gold.
The streets of Jerusalem will be paved with ruby and with stones of Ophir.

The gates of Jerusalem will sing hymns of joy, and all her houses will cry,
'Hallelujah! Blessed be the God of Israel!'
and the blessed will bless the holy name forever and ever."
(13:16-17 NRSV)

The writer of Tobit thus demonstrates revelatory insight of the kind we find in all the books of the Bible.

Problems with Tobit.

In the West, the expostion, interpretation and exegesis of Tobit has suffered neglect for more than a millenium. Beginning with Jerome, the Book of Tobit was translated in a paraphrastic fashion.

"Sometime between 405 and 407 he also translated Tobit and Judith, though not with the same care given his other translations." Kevin Edgecomb, "The Vulgate Prologues"
http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html

When the KJV was translated, Tobit was given a similar rushed treatment as had been done in the Vulgate. In 1892, the Revised Version was posed to address this problem, but failed to do so due to a lack of human resources.

In this light there is a crying need for Tobit and other books to be given the care and attention needed for proper expostion as has been done historically for other books of the Bible.

It is often stated the Book of Tobit endorses the use of magic and gives how-to intructions in the deliverance from the demonic. Closer and more even-handed attention to this assertion will show this is not the case. One cannot hold narrative portions of scripture to be purely didactic; in other words you cannot promote doctrine and practice from a single narrative portion alone. This is the same principle we apply to the Gospels is it not? Do we take Peter's catching of a fish with a coin in its mouth as a how-to for paying our taxes? Do we take Jesus' rubbing mud and spittle on someone's eyes as a how-to on healing the blind? No. Then why hold Tobit to a different standard than the Gospels?

It is also stated Tobit teaches salvation by works.

"To all those who practice righteousness give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High." (Tobit 4:6-11 NRSV)

That sounds more like a practice substituted by Jews living in Diaspora for the temple tax under the Mosaic economy to me. I don't have trouble with it. All such practices were shadows of the reality that was yet to come in Christ.

In conclusion, there are some difficult passages in the Book of Tobit. We should not hold Tobit to higher interpretive standards than the rest of scripture. Understanding the genre of the book is also helpful to this end.

Bob Burns
December 11, 2008

 

[Kristos]

Reps for that post.

Wow, is all I can say.

 

[Thekla]

Reps for that post.

Wow, is all I can say.

ditto to that

 

[champuru]

I haven't really thought much about it. I haven't even read it. It is in only one of the several bibles (both catholic and protestant) that I have. I guess I consider it apocryphal or like some sort of religious novel. I wouldn't say that it is heretical though. But again, I have never really thought about it before.

 

[simonthezealot]

It seems to me verses like this seem a little outside of God inspired...
And as he was sleeping, hot dung out of a swallow's nest fell upon his eyes, and he was made blind.

 

[Thekla]

It seems to me verses like this seem a little outside of God inspired...
And as he was sleeping, hot dung out of a swallow's nest fell upon his eyes, and he was made blind.

compared to what happened to Job