It has some things that do not agree with canonical truth.
It has some things that do not agree with canonical truth.
§ 182. [IV] In some places this book contains material not in harmony with canonical truth and the analogy of faith. First, in Tobit 5:18, the angel, the companion of the younger Tobias, says that he is a kinsman of Azariah and of Hananiah the Elder. In Tobit 11:3, Tobias and his angel companion were asked by Raguel from where they came, and they answer: “Of the captive sons of Naphtali in Nineveh.” The angel, therefore, is lying that he is of the children of Israel, that he is the son of Azariah, and that he belongs to the tribe of Naphtali. Yet nowhere in canonical Scripture is lying attributed to the holy angels. In fact, that is a very serious sin.
The author of the Glossa ordinaria responds: “The angel’s words should be understood in a mystical sense. He belonged to the number of angels who are ‘children of Israel’ because they always see God face-to-face and are often sent to protect Israel, that is, ‘those who see God.’ “Lyra interprets this in almost the same way: “Azariah means ‘God’s helper.’ The angels, however, are His helpers in as much as through their ministry the elect are directed to salvation.” And later: “‘The son of Hananiah’: Hananiah is interpreted as the grace of God, whose sons are angels. They are called the ‘sons of glory’ when their glory is consummated.” Dionysius goes off into the same opinion: “The angel calls himself the ‘son of Hananiah,’ that is, of God, who is called ‘Hananiah’ because he responds, that is, he responds kindly to our prayers. But he calls himself ‘Azariah’ because God had sent him to bring help to Tobias. Angels are called ‘children of God’ with regard to creation.”
So much for these, about which we point out some things briefly. (1) The angel says one thing; Tobias understands another. (2) Not only does the angel call himself the “son of Hananiah” but also says he belongs to the tribe of Naphtali, and that requires a new explanation. Cardinal Hugh [of St. Cher] responds: “This was true about Tobias as far as the letter is concerned; with regard to the angel this was true as far as the meaning of the name is concerned. For he says ‘Naphtali,’ which means ‘enlargement,’ and the angel was of those who were enlarged with love.” But how can one explain—or, rather, twist—the fact that the angel (3) says that he was of the captivity of Nineveh? Were angels also deported into the Assyrian captivity? (4) All this is to say nothing of the fact that a different etymology is given for the names “Israel” and “Naphtali” in Gen. 30:8; 32:28. (5) In the Greek he is called “the son of Hananiah, the brother of Tobias.” Is God, then, someone’s brother? Nevertheless, whatever mystical explanation one may bring for those words, there always remains the doubt that the angel responded figuratively and mystically to a literal question and that Tobias and Raguel took what the angel said in a mystic sense as being spoken literally. Note that these authors—Lyra, Dionysius, Cardinal Hugh [of St. Cher], etc.—offer these explanations not to claim canonical authority for this book (because they reject it along with us) but to make the point that nothing false is contained in this book that has been inserted into the biblical canon.
§ 183. Second, in Tobit 6:8 the angel says to the younger Tobias: “The smoke of a heart taken from a fish and placed on the coals removes every kind of demon from either a man or a woman so that it does not approach them again.” Yet: (1) In the “whole armor” against the devil that the apostles prescribed (Eph. 6:11; 1 Pet. 5:8), no mention is made of this smoke. (2) Christ says the opposite: “This kind of demon is not cast out except by prayer and fasting” (Matt. 17:21). Therefore it is false that every kind of demon may be cast out by the smoke of the heart of a fish. (3) Not even Christ cast out demons “so that they could never return” (Matt. 12:43; Luke 11:24). In fact, the devil who was assailing Christ departed from Him only “for a time” (Luke 4:13). With what appearance of truth, then, does the angel make his statement about the smoke of a fish’s heart, which causes demons to flee, never to return? Petrus Comestor, author of Histor. scholastic., writes in his account of Tobit: “This is not unusual because the smoke of a burning tree is said to have the same power.” Josephus (Antiq., bk. 8, c. 2) related regarding Eleazar: “He drew out through the nostrils of an obsessed man a demon by means of a root that Solomon had shown him.” In De bello Judaic., bk. 7, c. 23, he calls that root baaram.
However, Lyra responds correctly: “If demons had bodies naturally united to themselves, it would not be impossible for corporeal things to make an impression on them by reason of their bodies. But because they are simply intellectual substances, no corporeal creation can make an impression on them.” If anything like this were to happen, he says that this happens “not by virtue of such [corporeal] things; rather, demons do this voluntarily to keep people in error.” Therefore Lyra gives his answer in a different way: “That smoke did not drive out the demon but signified the power of prayer.” This explanation, however, does not agree with the angel’s words: “The smoke of a heart removes every kind of demon.” The angel is speaking about the gall as a cause, so he is also speaking in this way about the heart and liver. (This is added correctly in the Greek version, as appears from the complement.) And, in Tobit 8:2, the angel first speaks of “the demon put to flight by the smoke of the liver.” Later, then, “Tobias arose to pray.”
§ 184. Third, Tobit 12:9: “Almsgiving frees a man from death and cleanses from sin.” There is another statement in conformity with this: Tobit 4:11: “Almsgiving frees man from death and does not allow him to enter into darkness.” These statements can be reconciled with the analogy of faith with difficulty, for the analogy of faith teaches that we must attribute to the blood of Christ alone the ability to purge sin, and this becomes ours by faith, not by almsgiving. Nevertheless by “death” the temporal punishments for sins could be understood, which God often removes or eases when we are beneficent to the needy by both faith and love (Ps. 41:[3]). It is in this sense that some take the prophet’s statement in Dan. 4:27: “Pay for your sins by almsgiving.” (Cf. our article On Repentance [Commonplace XVIII], § 90.)
§ 185. Fourth, in Tobit 12:15 the angel is said “to offer our prayer and entreaties to God.” This honor, however, is proper to Christ as our mediator and intercessor (Rom. 8:34; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 2:1). When our prayers are said to be offered to God, this is not to be understood to happen in humble and earthly fashion (as petitions are accustomed to be offered to princes through agents [ministri]) but in a heavenly manner, namely, when, because of the mediating intercession of Him who offers them, God hears and accepts them kindly. You see, there is a relationship between offering prayers and accepting or listening to them. Acts 10:4: “Your prayers have ascended as a memorial before God.” This is explained in v. 31 as follows: “Your prayers have been heard.” But now, God hears our prayers by the mediating merit and intercession of Christ alone. Also, this honor befits Christ alone: that He offers our prayers to God. To Him it is said: “You are a priest forever” (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:25). Heb. 13:15: “Through Him prayers are to be offered up to God,” just as in the Old Testament the priest alone was allowed to offer up the burnt offering (Exod. 30:7), which denotes our prayers (Ps. 141:2) that the Angel of Great Counsel, that is, Christ, standing before the altar as our mediator and supplicant, offers to God (Rev. 8:3). Here, we conclude that Christ is understood by “the angel” from the fact that the angel is set forth as a priest and that He obviously is set apart from the rest of the angels when another angel is said to have stood before the altar. That is the way this is explained by Augustine, Primasius, Bede, and Haimo. Blasius de Viegas, Apoc., p. 340:
Most exegetes confess that this angel is Christ the Lord, for what is set down in this passage cannot be applied suitably to another. Who else in the entire Church has the responsibility of offering up the incense, that is, prayers, in the golden censer with such an appearance of majesty? Who else but Christ had the responsibility to send part of the fire with which the censer was filled into the lands and to kindle them with the fire of divine love and the fiery gifts of the Holy Spirit?
We must not set up other mediators of this Mediator because we do not come to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). To be sure, Plato (in Symposium) establishes demons as “the interpreters and bearers between God and men.” But Augustine refutes this opinion (De civ. Dei, bks. 9-10; Confess., bk. 10, c. 42).
We know that that great theologian Dr. Chemnitz also lists among the duties of angels that “they offer our prayers to God” (vol. 1, Loci, p. 335). To support this idea, he brings in the prophet’s statement in Zech. 1:12, where the angels pray for us, as well as Job 33:23; Acts 10:4; and Rev. 8:3. If we wish to attribute any such thing to the angels, however, we shall have to make the necessary distinction between the simple (
) offering of prayers and the propitiatory (
) offering of them, through which our prayers are made pleasing and acceptable to God. This office must be left to Christ alone. No altar is pleasing to God except Christ, His Son.
§ 186. Fifth, in Tobit 12:[15] Raphael says that he is “one of the seven angels who stand before God.” This is related to the fables of the Talmud mentioned by Cornelius Agrippa (De occult. philosophia, bk. 2, c. 30), Reuchlin (Cabbalae, bk. 3), and Franciscus Junius (on Tobit 12). Because only seven angels stand before God and these also preside over the seven planets, they also place a special angel in charge of each day of the week: Raphael of Sunday; Gabriel of Monday, Samuel of Tuesday, Michael of Wednesday, Zidchiel of Thursday, Hanael of Friday, and Nephargel of Saturday. They set up these angels as lords of the entire administration necessary on that day. Canonical Scripture, however, knows nothing about that responsibility of the angels and claims a far greater number for those who are said to stand before God. Dan. 7:10: “A thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”