Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Elihu A Teacher Of Wisdom Like Jeremiah



“Then I said, ‘Ah Sovereign Lord, I don’t know how to speak; I am only a child.’
But the Lord said … ‘You must go on whatever errand I send you.’“

—Jeremiah 1:6,7

 
 
Elihu: The Messenger of God
Now comes the part of the whole story that is my personal favorite, at least my favorite character. You see, sitting back and listening to everything that was being said was a young man named Elihu. He was never mentioned before, probably because he was too young to be noticed. But once he starts talking, there is no doubt he possessed a spiritual discernment unknown by the others.
 
Elihu’s Modesty
It’s pleasant to notice Elihu’s modesty and tact in entering the discussion with his elders. It says that his “wrath was kindled” against Job and the three friends. This is explained later when he talks about the constraining of the Spirit within him, so that he was “ready to burst.”
Ezekiel refers to this “heat of the Spirit” when the Lord had moved him to speak. Jeremiah spoke of God’s word being “in his heart like a burning fire” and being “weary of holding it in. Indeed (he) could not” (Jeremiah 20:9). When “the Sovereign Lord has spoken, who can but prophesy” (Amos 3:8)? “Woe to me, if I do not . . .” (I Corinthians. 9:16).
Who could blame Elihu? Here he was sitting there as he saw Job becoming more and more concerned about clearing his own character than justifying the love and character of God. He also watched as his elders condemned Job without mercy and never were able to find an answer to Job’s complaints or to explain to him God’s purpose.
Elihu realizes that he is in a very delicate position for a young man. How is he going to speak to these dignified seniors? He holds himself back, waits and watches for the right moment. If indeed the Spirit of God has chosen him to be the “interpreter,” he will wait until He opens the way for him.
That is where many of us miss it. We think that just because we have a message from the Lord, whether it is to a specific brother or sister or in a congregational time of worship, we have to give it now! Do you notice the urgency? I’m sure we have all said, “Lord, what would you have me to say?” However, we also need to ask, “Lord, when would you have me say it?”
Proverbs 15:23 says: “A man has joy in making an apt answer and a word spoken in the right moment—how good it is!”
So finally, there’s a pause. The friends “stopped answering Job” and “the words of Job are ended.” The Lord’s message comes to Elihu and he obediently speaks. He takes from the beginning a place of humility and acknowledges his youthfulness and confesses how he had shrunk from saying what was on his heart because of their age and his respect for them. He knows there’s “a spirit in man,” and that it’s “the breath of the Almighty” alone that gives understanding and not age or position. So he is going to be obedient to the Lord and boldly say “Listen to me” although he is young.
He had waited and listened very attentively to every word that the older men had “searched out to say” while they were reasoning with Job, but he saw that they had utterly failed to convince him. “Not one of you has proved him wrong and none of you has answered his arguments. Look, Job hasn’t said anything to me, so I’m not going to answer anything he said. All I want to do is speak for the truth, not revenge.”
After all that, Elihu pauses almost as if he was waiting for some kind of encouragement from them or something. But they just sit there.
“You sit there baffled and embarrassed with no more replies. Should I just sit here and wait because you haven’t said anything?” No, he must be faithful to God regardless of their silence. He has to fulfill his “part” in God’s purpose and give the light that has been given to him.
Many times, we fail to imitate his example. It seems that we need the support and encouragement of our listeners. Their silence intimidates us and consequently we miss the anointing of the Lord on our words. A portion of the Epistle of Barnabas says “When you are in the company of unbelievers, be careful how you use the Word of God. Do not cheapen it by introducing it at an inappropriate moment, when it may lead to ridicule or blasphemy.” This is wise counsel, but if the Lord has truly given permission to proceed, you cannot let anything hold you back. The Lord instructed Jeremiah very distinctly to “tell them whatever I tell you to say. Don’t be afraid of them, or else I will make a fool out of you in front of them because I have made you impervious to their attacks. They cannot harm you.” He told Ezekiel to “go to the people and whether or not they will listen, tell them: This is what the Lord God says!” Elihu had no choice. He must be obedient.
The older men had searched out what to say to Job and when they finally figured it out, it was powerless and unconvincing. Elihu was “full of words.” He was in every sense the messenger of God. The Spirit within him was pouring the message into his mind, so that he would have to speak to find relief. No matter how uncomfortable he felt because of his youth and position, he had no alternative but to deliver his message. He would beg their forgiveness if he did not speak as respectfully as he should but he did not want to show any partiality or do anything that would prevent him from giving the message of God. He did not want to use any flattering titles, he just wanted to be very frank, or the Lord would put him aside and he would not be entrusted with this honor again.
 
....
 

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

".... only Elihu understood why Job suffered".


 
 
[Interesting article. AMAIC would not necessarily endorse all the theology here]
 
 
 

Why Job Suffered

by Tom Brown

Often, when I speak on healing and prosperity, people will ask me about Job. They'll question me, "If healing and prosperity belongs to us, why did Job suffer sickness and poverty?" That is a good question, and it deserves to be answered.

First of all, the book of Job was written as a play. Nevertheless, this is not a work of fiction. Job really existed. Ezekiel 14:14 lists Job as a real righteous man who once lived long ago. In this play called Job, we find eight characters: God, Satan, Job, Job's wife, Job's three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar) and finally a young man named Elihu.

The play begins with the narrator telling the story about Job and describing him as the greatest man among all the people of the East. His integrity was world-renowned. He was so upright in the way he lived that even God bragged on Job. He told Satan to take note of Job's outstanding life.

Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. (Job 1:8)

Satan was disgusted with Job's lifestyle of holiness, so he told God that the only reason Job lived right and worshipped God was because he was so healthy and prosperous. Satan believed that if Job was sick and broke he would quit serving God. So God was going to prove to Satan that Job would serve Him no matter what kind of trials he went through. From there Satan destroyed everything that Job had-- his wealth, his children and his health.

It is this fact that God lets Satan destroy everything which causes all the controversy. Why did God do that?

Well, some charismatics simply blame Job's fears as being the open door to Job's trials. They point to Job 3:25, "What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me."

"You see," some exclaim, "Job was operating in fear. This is why Satan was able to attack him."

It is true that fear can cause a lot of bad things to happen to us, but it is also clear that the book of Job is not teaching about fear. You cannot simply take one statement from Job and build an entire theory on it and say that Job lost it all because of fear. I believe that this interpretation is an over-simplified attempt to explain Job's suffering.

On the other hand, many evangelicals love this story because it proves to them that good men should expect to suffer. The trouble with their view is they forget to point out that Job was healed and blessed twice as much after his trial. In other words, Job did not stay sick or broke. He was healed and blessed.

James reminds us to consider the latter end of Job's life: "You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy" (James 5:11).

Isn't it amazing that when people think of Job they think of his trials and not the end of his trials? Yet, James tells us to consider the victory that Job experienced, and to let him be an example for us--that if we are suffering sickness or poverty, we should persevere in faith and God will bring about victory for us, too.

Yet, that still doesn't answer why God let Job suffer in the first place.

WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE?

Some think that the book of Job is trying to answer the age-old question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Well, the answer is simple if you don't believe in God. You simply say that life is full of chances. Without God you don't have to answer the question. But for people who believe in God the question is even harder, "If God is love and has all the power to remove suffering, why does He allow good people to suffer?" Tough question, isn't it? In fact, not only is it tough to answer, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER!

What do I mean? Simple. It is possible to ask a question that can't be answered. I do it by asking a question with assumptions. An assumption is something that most people think is true but has not yet been proven. In other words, if I assume something is true, then I cannot ask for an answer to a question unless I am willing to forgo my assumption.

For example, a wife can ask a question with an assumption by saying, "I don't understand how my husband can be a good Christian and yet commit adultery?" Well, he can't be a good Christian and commit adultery. He can be a Christian and commit adultery, but he cannot be a good Christian and commit adultery. Do you see that a person can ask a question that can't be answered?

The same is true of asking the question, "How can God be love and have all power, and yet still allow good people to suffer?"

This question has three assumptions to it:

1. God is love.

2. God has all power.

3. Good people suffer.

To assume something is not necessarily wrong. In this case, are any of these three assumptions wrong?

First of all, is God love? Of course He is. The Bible says so. "God is love" (1 John 4:16).

Well, how about God's power. Does God have the power to remove suffering?

It is this second assumption that caused a Rabbi to write a best-selling book on suffering. Basically he said that God is love but is not willing to use his power for us. He prefers to let us live our own lives without His intruding on us. He sees God as a little boy who winds up a toy and then lets it go. He believes God made us and then left us on our own.

But this is not what the Bible teaches--either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Christians rightly refuse to believe that God does not become active in our lives. In the Bible we find that God helped Israel out of slavery, delivered Judah from its enemies and Jesus healed the sick and helped the poor. God is active in helping us.

So, the second assumption is correct. God has all power to help us. "For nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).

That brings us to the third assumption, "Do good people suffer?"

Job's three friends thought, "No!" They believed that if a person suffered it was because they sinned against God. So throughout the book of Job, they constantly try to get Job to confess his hidden sin. They were very eloquent, knowledgeable, but fault-finders.

Every time they tried to say something to convince Job that he had sinned, Job would come back claiming innocence. Job knew that he had not sinned. He knew that he was not at fault. He didn't understand why God was punishing him since he had not committed any sin.

It is clear from the first chapter that Job had not done anything bad; in fact, the opposite is true. He was more righteous than anyone including his friends. He was suffering not because he had done anything bad, but because he was the best man in all of the East. God was putting Job on display.

However, Job's friends did not know this. Instead of seeing Job as being the most righteous man among them, they saw him as the greatest sinner. How wrong they were! If only they had known the beginning of the book. They would have shut up.

Because Job was so righteous among men and yet he suffered, people assume good people suffer. In answering the question, "Do good people suffer?" you might answer, "Yes, of course they do. Job is the prime example. He was a good person, yet he suffered." So people think that the book of Job answers "Yes" to the question, "Do good people suffer?" But if the answer is yes, then God could no longer be just. How can God allow good people to suffer and still be just? He can't.

"Wait a minute! Are you saying that Job was not a good person?" you might ask.

Let me ask you, "Was Job a good person?" Yes!? Maybe!? Are you sure? Job was not "good" in the sense that the Bible describes what is good!

A rich young man came to Jesus and said, "Good teacher." Jesus interrupted and said, "There is no one good but God alone."

Paul writes, "...There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is not one who does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10-12).

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that no one is considered righteous in God's sight. Now in man's sight, there are good people. Job was one of them.

The Bible says that Job was the best man in all of the East. That doesn't mean that he was righteous and good in God's sight. He was simply the best man from a human perspective, but even the best man is a sinner in God's sight, and that includes Job. A sinner has no right-standing or rights with God.

THE UNFORGOTTEN HERO

Do you remember the last character in the book of Job? Elihu is his name. He was not one of Job's friends. He was simply listening to Job's friends judging him and Job defending himself. As he began to listen to all four, God gave him insight into the true nature of Job's sufferings.

Out of all the human characters, only Elihu understood why Job suffered. It is amazing that I haven't heard anyone ever mention Elihu. We almost forget him. But the truth is, Elihu was the only one with true insight, not only into the sufferings of Job but, insight into the sufferings of all mankind. This is why Elihu is the last to speak concerning Job's sufferings. It is interesting to note that when God appeared to Job, He rebuked Job for not having insight and He rebuked Job's three friends for falsely judging Job. Yet God never rebuked Elihu. Why? Because Elihu was correct in understanding suffering.

Elihu begins by saying,

I am young in years, and you are old; that is why I was fearful, not daring to tell you what I know. I thought, "Age should speak, advanced years should teach wisdom." But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding. (Job 32:6-8)

Notice, Elihu is about to give wisdom not because of any human understanding, but because God's Spirit gave him understanding. The first thing he does is correct Job's friends.

I waited while you [Job's three friends] spoke,I listened to your reasoning; while you were searching for words, I gave you my full attention. But not one of you has proved Job wrong; none of you has answered his argument. (Job 32:11-12)

Elihu showed Job's friends that they were wrong in judging him. The second thing Elihu does is correct Job, but he does it in humility.

But now, Job, listen to my words; pay attention to everything I say. I am about to open my mouth; my words are on the tip of my tongue. My words come from an upright heart; my lips sincerely speak what I know. The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Answer me then, if you can; prepare yourself and confront me. I am just like you before God; I too have been taken from clay. No fear of me should alarm you, nor should my hand be heavy upon you. But you have said in my hearing--I heard the very words-- "I AM PURE AND WITHOUT SIN; I AM CLEAN AND FREE FROM GUILT.." (Job 33:1-9)

Elihu saw one fundamental flaw in Job: that Job believed that he was without original sin. Job was self-righteous. Yes, he was righteous as far as men are concerned, but he was not righteous as far as God was concerned.

Since Job thought he was sinless and not under the curse of sin, he could not figure out how he could suffer. This bothered Job. But Elihu points out the fact that Job was a sinner like everyone else and is subject to the curse of sin which includes sickness and poverty.

People erroneously think that the book of Job was written to try to answer the question: Why does God allow good people to suffer? But Elihu has no trouble with that question because he knows that there are no truly "good" people in God's sight. The thing that perplexed Elihu was not the fact that Job was suffering, but why weren't he and Job's friends suffering along with Job. In fact, Elihu is wondering why everyone doesn't suffer all the time since everyone is a sinner.

Elihu realized that sinners are under the curse of sin, and therefore have no legal right to get mad when they suffer. They should realize that they deserve to suffer and if they are not suffering, they should praise God even more because He is having mercy on them.

WHY ARE SINNERS BLESSED?

Elihu asked the right question, "Why does God allow sinners to be blessed?" The answer: Because God is merciful.

In other words, before Job had his trials, he experienced the mercy of God. But when Job had his trials, he experienced the justice of God--he only got what he deserved.

Immediately after Elihu spoke, God answered Job in a whirlwind and rebuked him for falsely accusing God of injustice. Job wisely repented.

You might be saying, "I understand what you are saying, but how can we claim our healing and prosperity, if we are sinners? Sinners, after all, have no right to healing and prosperity."

That was true, before the cross! But, through the cross, we have been made the righteousness of God, therefore we have right-standing with God. We are living after the cross. This is why God commanded Job's three friends to offer a sacrifice.

God appeared to Eliphaz, the leader of Job's friends, and told him, "I'm angry with you three. You and your two friends should take seven bulls and seven rams and go to Job and sacrifice a burnt offering. And when Job prays for you, God will show mercy on you all and not bring on any tragedy that Job experienced." God showed Job and his three friends that only through the shedding of blood is there forgiveness of sins.

This is the point: Before Jesus died on the cross for our sins, mankind had no legal right to healing and prosperity. They could only plead for mercy. But now since Christ has died for our sins, sicknesses and poverty, we now have a right to the grace of God.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRACE AND MERCY

Grace is unmerited favor. We do not claim healing and prosperity based on our good works, but based on Christ' good work on the cross.

Remember the scripture in the previous chapter of this book, 2 Corinthians 8:9: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, he became poor for you." He became poor through His Substitutionary sacrifice on the cross, and because of it, we have access into God's grace, which is far better than mercy.

The Bible tells us to grow in the grace of God. Nowhere does the Bible say to grow in the mercy of God. Many people interchange the word "grace" with "mercy." They think these two are the same, but they definitely are not.

Hebrews 4:16 says, "Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." Notice that God's throne is the throne of "grace" not mercy. Yet at His throne people can receive both "mercy" and "grace." These are two different things. Unfortunately, most people are trying to receive mercy when they should be finding grace. Grace is better.

What's the difference between mercy and grace? Mercy is when God does not bring on you the punishment you deserve. Grace is when God brings on you the benefits that He paid for. The only similarity between grace and mercy is that both have to do with unmerited favor. However, mercy is not based on legal rights. Grace is!

Let me illustrate the difference. Suppose you are eating a nice meal at a restaurant, and afterwards, you go to the cash register to pay for it. When you reach into your pocket, you discover that you forgot to bring your money. You don't have cash, checks or credit cards. You apologize to the manager that you don't have the money to pay for it.

What do you need? MERCY! Let's suppose the manager has compassion on you and tells you to forget the bill. You enjoyed the meal without paying for it. This illustrates mercy.

What is grace? Grace is when someone gives you a gift certificate which entitles you to a free meal. So you go to the restaurant and order your favorite food, and you enjoy every bite of it. After the meal, you walk over to the cash register and hand the worker your gift certificate. Do you know what you experienced? Grace.

In both cases, you did not pay for the meal. That's unearned favor. In the first case, fear gripped you because you knew you didn't have the money. You were not sure what the manager was going to do to you. There was not assurance or peace until you were forgiven, but even then you still felt unworthy because the meal was never paid for.

You see, this is how the Old Testament saints, including Job, operated. They pleaded for mercy but were never sure if God would show it. This is why Job said that he was fearful of tragedy. He was not confident that blessings would abound in his life all the time, because he operated by mercy.

In the second case, you enjoyed the meal knowing that someone else paid for it. As long as you had the gift certificate you ate in peace and confidence. It didn't bother you that someone else paid for it. You did not walk to the worker at the cash register and say, "Oh, I'm so unworthy to have eaten this delicious meal. I am undeserving of it. Someone else paid for it and gave me this certificate. Do you suppose that you could accept this certificate on my behalf?" NO! NO! NO! A thousand times no! You went to the register without feeling inferior, knowing that the meal was paid for.

Friend, this is what the New Testament teaches about grace. God has already paid the price for your sins, sicknesses and poverty. You simply come boldly to His throne to find grace in your time of need. You already know that the price is paid. Just enjoy the benefits.

....

Taken from: http://tbm.org/why_job_suffered.htm

Elihu of Book of Job Very Like Prophet Ezekiel

 


 
....
Elihu

and the prophets


2. Ezekiel

Nigel Bernard

There are several similarities between Elihu and Ezekiel. Comparisons include whirlwinds; sitting for seven days; not speaking; and rebuking elders even though they themselves were much younger.



IN LAST MONTH’S article we considered Elihu and Elijah. In this second article we consider Elihu and Ezekiel. As in the previous study, a whirlwind plays an important role.



Whirlwind




In the opening chapter of Ezekiel we read of a whirlwind: "And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (v. 4). Just as the speech of Elihu was terminated by a whirlwind, the first vision that Ezekiel sees begins with a whirlwind. In Job the whirlwind provided a demonstration of power out of which God spoke. The whirlwind in Ezekiel is spoken of in more detail, and from it emerge the cherubim.
 

Sat seven days





When Job’s friends came to him (and we know that Elihu was also there) we read, "So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day" (2:13; 3:1). Likewise, Ezekiel spent a period of seven days simply sitting with a group of people, apparently saying nothing—at least, not words from God: "Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar, and I sat where they sat, and remained there astonished among them seven days. And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came unto me, saying . . ." (Ezek. 3:15,16).





In Job 21:5 Job says, "Mark me, and be astonished, and lay your hand upon your mouth". Ezekiel later follows in the spirit of Job’s request, being "astonished", and effectively having his hand upon his mouth. Yet, in the case of Job, all the time Elihu was indeed laying his hand upon his mouth, no doubt humble enough to be astonished too.


Dumb




As we read the speeches of Job and his three friends, the presence of Elihu can be felt. We know that he is there listening, but he restrains himself from speaking: "And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion" (32:6). He was voluntarily dumb, a dumbness out of respect and fear for his elders, on the basis that "Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom" (v. 7).

Ezekiel was also to be silent, speaking only when God caused him to speak. But his silence, unlike Elihu’s, was miraculously enforced, for he was made dumb: "and I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover: for they are a rebellious house. But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house" (Ezek. 3:26,27).






Ezekiel was made dumb because the house of Israel were rebellious. In contrast, after Elihu and God had spoken, Job showed humility towards God and repented "in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6).


Elders



As we have seen, Elihu says to Job’s friends, "I am young, and ye are very old". This theme of a younger person rebuking elders is also echoed in Ezekiel. Assuming that it is his age which is being spoken of, Ezekiel tells us that it was in his "thirtieth year" that he saw "visions of God" (1:1). At his comparatively young age he had to deal on more than one occasion with the elders of Israel, as the following verses show:
"And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD [Yahweh] fell there upon me" (8:1);
"Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me" (14:1);
"And it came to pass in the seventh year, in the fifth month, the tenth day of the month, that certain of the elders of Israel came to enquire of the LORD [Yahweh], and sat before me" (20:1); "Son of man, speak unto the elders of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; Are ye come to enquire of Me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh], I will not be enquired of by you" (v. 3).




 
 









 


 





 
In the case of both the friends of Job and the elders of Judah, old age proved to be no guarantee of wisdom or obedience. Their rebuke by younger men only served to heighten their folly.


Priest and ancestry


Ezekiel is described as "the priest, the son of Buzi". That he was both a priest and the son of Buzi provides a link with Elihu. Malachi wrote that "the priest’s lips should keep knowledge" (2:7). Although not a priest [sic?], Elihu sought to live the spirit of these words, for he said, "my lips shall utter knowledge clearly" (Job 33:3).

Elihu is said to be "the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram" (32:2). That Elihu was a Buzite could mean that he was a descendant of Buz, the son of Nahor (see Gen. 22:20,21), and/or he lived in a territory called Buz. According to Strong, "Buzi" in Ezekiel 1:3 is the same word as "Buzite" in Job 32:2. This is a rare name in Scripture. That both Elihu and Ezekiel have this name mentioned in their ancestry alerts us to look for other similarities between these two men.

Other links




There are other significant connections between the book of Job and Ezekiel, which, although not relating directly to Elihu, form an important background to the links we have seen.





For example, some aspects of the cherubim reflect the words used by God of creation in His speech to Job. God asks Job, "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). In Ezekiel it is said of the cherubim, "and out of the fire went forth lightning" (1:13). God also asks Job, "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?" (Job 39:26). The Hebrew word for "hawk" is related to the word translated "sparkled" in Ezekiel 1:7, where it is stated that the feet of the cherubim "sparkled like the colour of burnished brass". As the hawk flew swiftly south, it did so with a flashing brilliance, sparkling against the sun. As such, as the cherubim came sparkling from the north, it was like the hawk flying toward the south.

The Hebrew word Shaddai occurs forty-eight times in the Bible and is always translated ‘Almighty’. It is a key word in Job, occurring thirty-one times. It is used only four times in all of the prophets: once in Isaiah, once in Joel, and twice in Ezekiel. It is significant that a key word in Job, so rare in the prophets, should occur twice in Ezekiel.

Of course, Job is actually mentioned in Ezekiel: "though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]" (14:14). Furthermore, the phrase "these three men" is itself taken, ironically, from the book of Job, ironic because here it refers to the three friends of Job, who were delivered as a consequence of the prayer of Job: "So these three men ceased to answer Job . . ." (32:1).

Conclusion





As we have seen in this and the previous article, there are several connections between Elihu and the two prophets Elijah and Ezekiel. As well as helping us to understand the work of Elijah and Ezekiel, these comparisons also help us to see Elihu in a new light, supporting the view, in my opinion, that Elihu’s speech was vital for preparing the mind of Job for when God would speak to him.

(Concluded)



The Testimony, April 2010

....

Taken from:
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/apr2010/bernard.pdf





Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Reasons to Accept Elihu’s Speech

 
 

Many Bible interpreters disavow what Elihu has to say in the Book of Job. Below I will give a few reasons why I believe his speech to Job is true and is good theology.

1) God never rebukes Elihu. After God has finished speaking, He states that His wrath is upon the three other friends that gave counsel to Job. God does not include Elihu into the group of people who have not spoken rightly. (Job 42:7)

2) There is a break in the text to introduce him. The words of Elihu in Job 32:1-3 are not continuing what the other three friends have said, but stating something new. There is a break in the text that introduces something new. Elihu should not get lumped into the group of the other three friends with bad theology.

3) Six chapters are given to Elihu in the Book of Job. The writer of this Book devotes six chapters to Elihu. With much space given to Elihu, surely there is some importance to it.

4) Elihu shows how Job’s other friends are wrong. God also rebuked Job’s other three friends.

5) Elihu claims to be full of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 32 Elihu uses similar language to what Jeremiah used. He reminds me of Jeremiah saying, that the word of the Lord it is like a fire shut up in his bones. Elihu says, “For I am full of words; the spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; it is ready to burst like new wine skins. I will speak, that I may find relief…”

6) Elihu signals Gods coming to speak. In 37:11-12 Elihu is describing a whirlwind and attributes the whirlwind to God. We see just a few verses later that God is answering Job out of the whirlwind.

Verse one in chapter 38 states, “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind.” Notice the writer of this book did not say “A” whirlwind. But he says, “THE” That means that there must have been a whirlwind that was taking place, that had already been mentioned previously in the Book of Job. All throughout Elihu’s speech we see him referring to nature. I believe that Elihu is referring to what was actually taking place in front of Job and his three friends. He is describing what was going on while also signaling that God is coming to speak.

What do you think?


....

Taken from: http://markblock.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/reasons-to-accept-elihus-speech/

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Greeks substituted goddess Athene for angel Raphael (Azarias)

 
 
 


....


The Son’s Travels


(a) The Heavenly Visitor

The prayers of Tobit and Sarah, on the one hand, and of Odysseus and Penelope, on the other, were heard. Almighty God appointed the angel Raphael to assist the former two. And Zeus (supreme god of the Greeks) appointed the goddess Athene to assist the latter two.

With Odysseus still languishing as Calypso’s captive, and the suitors at play back at his home, “the almighty Father” sent Athene to Ithaca. “… she bound under her feet her lovely sandals of untarnished gold, which carried her with the speed of the wind …. Thus she flashed down from the heights of Olympus. On reaching Ithaca she took her stand on the threshhold of the court in front of Odysseus’ house; and to look like a visitor she assumed the appearance of a Taphian chieftain named Mentes, a bronze spear in hand (I, 27-28).

The reader will quickly be able to pick up the similarities between this text and this relevant part of the Book of Tobit: “The prayer of [Tobit and Sara] was heard in the presence of the glory of the great God. And Raphael was sent (3:16, 17)”. “Then Tobias … found a beautiful young man, standing girded, as it were ready to walk. And not knowing that he was an angel of God, he saluted him …. ‘I am Azarias, the son of the great Ananias’” (5:5, 6, 18).


(b) The Questioning

Tobit had interrogated the angel about the latter’s identity, asking: ‘My brother, to what tribe and family do you belong? Tell me …’ (5:9-12). Later Raguel would do the same: ‘Where are you from brethren? …. Do you know our brother Tobit? …. Is he in good health?’ (7:3, 4). [Cf. Isaiah 39:3; Judith 5:3, 4; Jonah 1:8].

In the Odyssey, too, the pattern is again most frequent, almost monotonous but with a Greek seafaring slant – e.g. the mention of a “vessel”). Telemachus, for instance, quizzes Athene: ‘However, do tell me who you are and where you come from. What is your native town? Who are your people? And since you certainly cannot have come on foot, what kind of vessel brought you here? (I, 29). [Cf. also pp. 72; 118; 164; 175; 208; 220].

Athene then replied to Telemachus, using a phrase that I suggest may have come straight out of the Book of Tobit, towards the end of which story the angel Raphael says (emphasis added in both cases): I will not conceal anything from you’ (12:11). Thus Athene: “‘I will tell you everything’, answered the bright-eyed goddess Athene. ‘My father was the wise prince, Anchialus. My own name is Mentes, and I am a chieftain of the sea-faring Taphians’.” Now Anchialus, the name that Athene (in masculine guise) gave for her presumed father, has at least a vague resemblance to the name, Ananias, which the angel Raphael (also in masculine guise) attributed to his presumed father from the tribe of Naphtali. Athene also describes herself as a Taphian, in which name we might perhaps also glimpse Naphtalian.

....







Sunday, October 20, 2013

Prophet Amos or a Jonah?


So You See Yourself as a Prophet? An Amos or a Jonah?
by Vernard Eller

This work may be freely reproduced and distributed provided that that no changes are made, no revenues are collected beyond the nominal cost of media, and credit is given to the author. Any other use requires the written permission of the author. Citing this material on other Internet sites is encouraged, but is to be done only by providing a hypertext reference to this file on this server.
Bible selections are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989 (NRSV) by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
With some regularity today's social activists of the Christian Left appeal to the Old Testament prophets as precedent for their confrontational protest-witness against the powers. I here want to suggest that we will be in better position to evaluate that claim if we first decide whether, by "Old Testament prophet," we mean Amos or Jonah. There's a difference.
To launch the inquiry I now offer parallel, diagrammed sentences characterizing the work and message of Amos and of Jonah (conveniently ignoring Obadiah, whose book accidentally is sandwiched between the two we want to compare):
AMOSJONAH
1THE HOLY GODThe Tandem of HOLY GOD and HOLY-JEW JONAH
2acts in weeping judgmentacts in dry-eyed condemnation of
3UNHOLY HUMANITYUNHOLY NINEVITES
4to bring it to his Wine Festivalto bring them to Destruction

Amos (1)

Both Amos and Jonah betray a certain reticence regarding their callings--though the significance is entirely different in the two cases. First, regarding Amos, notice that he is not so much as named in the sentence-diagram pertaining to him. That is at his own request:
I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son; (Amos 7:14a)
"It would be wrong to name me along with the Holy God--as though I were somehow his colleague, confidant, or representative."
but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees,, and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, "Go, prophesy to my people Israel." (Amos 7:14b-15)
"If you insist on naming me in your sentence, it should be down at No. 3, under 'Unholy Humanity.' God did commandeer my mouth--but I deserve no credit for that nor does it in any way affect my status. It clearly was not the case that he chose me because I was a 'prophet,' a holy man, an authority on holiness, or anything of the sort. I certainly hope you haven't been hearing me as thought I think I have the right and capability of making moral judgments on peoples, kings, and nations--showing them where they are wrong and telling them what they will have to do to get right in my eyes. I'm no prophet--nor even as much as a son of one."

Jonah (1)

Jonah, on the other hand, sees no problem at all in being identified with the Lord God of Israel. In fact, particularly in the face of no-good pagans, he is positively eager to so identify himself (whether God agrees or not):
I am a Hebrew .... I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land. (Jon. 1:9)
Well, yes, he was stretching it a bit as to how much he worships the Lord; yet it doesn't hurt to strike a little fear into dumb pagans by letting them know with just whom they are dealing. And thus Jonah's reticence regarding his prophetic calling comes at a quite different point from Amos'. Jonah had a premonition (correct, as it proved) that the Lord might not let him be as big, tough, and damning a prophet as he had in mind for himself to be.
"What kind of a God of 'holy justice' do you think you are? --Going soft on these Ninevite devils just when we were set to really lay it in 'em."
Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing. (Jon. 4:2)
"And for that matter, just what kind of a 'prophet' do you think this leaves me looking like? Nothing doing. Either the word is 'Yet forty days and poof (and really mean it)--or else I quit."
Where, in the Amos sentence, appears the word "judgment," in the Jonah sentence is the word "condemnation." They are in no wise the same. When the Judge involved is the LORD, then "judgment" is but the necessary first word--the word of diagnosis as to precisely what is the sin-illness at the root of the difficulty, and this word comes first just so the next step of that "judgment" might be whatever redemptive punishment is called for in getting the problem corrected. However, completely to the contrary, "condemnation" is always a last word, after which there is nothing more to be said. Amos speaks judgment--gracious judgment.

Amos (3)

With No. 3, things fall into a true and properly theological alignment. God alone--the one true HOLY--is in the top spot; and all humans and everything that is human (Jews and Gentiles, prophets (including Amos himself), priest, and king) everything here falls equally under God's ultimately-gracious judgment.

Jonah (3)

However, the counterpart Jonah-alignment is not theological at all but is sheerly intra-human partisan politics. Although posing as a zeal for God, the business shows not a hint of the true God's ("gracious, merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and repenting of evil") actual involvement. No, the only "holy" is Jonah's holy Jewish self-righteousness and "God" but a name Jonah uses to justify his human-Jewish holy hatred of Ninevites. Under the guise of a "prophet of God," one sinful worldly (leftist) party that deems itself "holy" takes the opportunity to vent its spleen against another sinful worldly (rightist) party it has deemed "demonic." There is nothing of God in it--just political ideologies.

Amos (4)

With Amos, it turns out that--even through all the painful threat and punishment--God's actual purpose was to get people to his Wild and Wonderful Wine Festival:
The time is surely coming, says the LORD, when the one who plows shall overtake the one who reaps, and the treader of grapes the one who sows the seed;
the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it. (Amos 9:13)
Anyone who undertakes to drop a grape seed had better be prepared to leap smartly to one side to avoid having his heels clipped by the cluster-clippers coming closely behind. (Even if God's word is inerrant, I can't help but feel that Amos is exaggerating a bit.) The hills will be loaded with liquor--and the plains inevitably inundated. (I, too, feel the problem that comes with this scripture and so have initiated inquiries as to whether Amos might not permit the insertion of a not to the effect that non-alcoholic beverages will be available for pious prudes like myself.)

Jonah (4)

The very opposite of Amos, with Jonah we wind up with nothing but "grapes of wrath"--and these, too, growing fast and all over the place.
"Jonah," it is the Lord God who speaks, "you are an abomination and object of wrath to me. You are a 'prophet of God' who proclaims your own false Jingoistic Jewish Justice in place of my true justice. Because it offends your own perverted sense of righteousness, you flatly refuse to mention or to represent the grace and mercy of my righteousness. And now here you are bawling your eyes out over the loss of a dumb plant whose shade you valued--while trying to deny me the right to bewail the loss of a whole big cityful of my Ninevite children. I damn you, Jonah: if you can't bring yourself to regard Ninevites, can't you at least shed one little tear fro all those poor Ninevite cows? Amos has the grace to say he is not a prophet, yet is as true a one as they come. You have the gall to call yourself a prophet, but are as far from being one as can be."
I leave it to the readers to judge to what extent this analysis applies to those confrontational activists of the Christian Left who presently clam the status of Old Testament prophets. I will observe only that, in the tradition, being "a prophet of God" certainly is nothing a representative of the tradition takes any joy in being "speaker of judgment"; and our most honored examples were either reluctant to take on God's assignment or were on the lookout for opportunities actually to resign it. And conversely, in scripture, those who do seek the post or take satisfaction in it--these regularly turn out to be the Jonahs, Zedekiahs, Hananiahs, and other "politicians" who are in the wrong spot, doing the wrong thing, for the wrong reasons, in the service of the wrong master.

....

Taken from: http://www.hccentral.com/eller1/prophet.html

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The possibility that Darius the Mede is to be identified with Cyrus the Persian king.



D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,”

D. J. Wiseman, ed.,

Notes on Some
Problems in the Book of Daniel
l. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965. pp. 9-18.


Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel
D. J. Wiseman

A. DARIUS THE MEDE
....


3. The ‘Cyrus’ Theory.
In 1957 I put forward as a working hypothesis the possibility that Darius the Mede is to be identified with Cyrus the Persian king.
19 It may be helpful to review this theory in the light of criticism made of it by Dr. Whitcomb.
20 The basis of the hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28 can be translated ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Such a use of the appositional or explicative Hebrew wa„w construction has long been recognized in Chronicles 5:26 (‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria’) and elsewhere.
....

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Edna in the Book of Tobit



Edna: Apocrypha


In the Book of Tobit, Edna is Raguel’s wife, Sarah’s mother, and the mother-in-law of Tobias, Tobit’s son. Edna has no biblical namesake; unlike the other women named in Tobit (Anna, Deborah, Eve, Sarah), her name does not evoke images from the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the author of Tobit means to recall Eden’s idyllic existence, or, more likely, to convey by the name something about the type of woman, wife, and mother Edna is.
What makes Edna a “delight” may be her deportment within her family. One cannot help comparing Edna with Anna, the other matriarch in Tobit. Both women are devoted mothers and good wives, but unlike Anna, Edna never appears outside the home or argues with her husband. She does what her husband asks (Tob 7:13, 15; 8:12, 19) and seems to be always in accord with him. Raguel, in turn, treats her as his partner, not his servant (Tob 8:21). On her daughter’s wedding night, Edna encourages Sarah (Tob 7:16), who has reason to be apprehensive (Tob 3:8). She welcomes Tobias, whom she has just met, into her family as a son (Tob 10:12). The author may want readers to see Edna as the ideal wife and mother and chooses her name as a hint to that effect.
Edna operates only within the home and almost exclusively in conjunction with her husband. Although the text mentions Raguel twice (Tob 3:7; 6:11) before Tobias and his companion arrive in Ecbatana, the reader first encounters Edna only when the guests come to her house (Tob 7:2). Whenever Edna appears in the story, she is usually either in the company of Raguel (Tob 7:8; 8:21; 14:13) or Sarah (Tob 7:16), or doing something Raguel has told her to do (Tob 7:13, 15; 8:12, 19).
However, there are unexpected, if small, challenges to the patriarchal view that Edna’s subordination to her husband upholds. Edna, not Raguel, interviews their guests, even though Raguel is present (Tob 7:2–8). According to one manuscript tradition, she may also have actively participated in the signing of her daughter’s marriage contract; the Greek says, “they set their seals to it” (Tob 7:13; emphasis added). This would give Edna a larger part in the proceedings than does the other manuscript tradition, in which she merely fetches the scroll for her husband. Finally, she blesses Tobias at the newlyweds’ departure, performing a function rarely associated with biblical women (Tob 10:12).
If the meaning of Edna’s name indeed reflects her character, then her charm stems from both the way she fits her patriarchally defined role and the way she gently nudges its limitations. Matriarch of a harmonious household, she is an agreeable but not silent partner for her husband, a loving and supportive mother, a warm mother-in-law and a gracious host—all delightful aspects.

Bibliography

Bow, Beverly, and George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy with a Twist: Men and Women in Tobit.” In “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, edited by Amy-Jill Levine, 127–143. Atlanta: 1991.
Meyers, Carol, General Editor. Women in Scripture. New York: 2000.

....

Taken from: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/edna-apocrypha

Monday, September 16, 2013

Further Greek Borrowing From Book Of Tobit



Taken from: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f

....

.... some readers have found in Tobit similarities to still other pagan themes, such as the legend of Admetus.18 More convincing, I  believe,   however, are points of contact with classical Greek theater. Martin  Luther observed   similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy,19 but  one is even more   impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a  work of Greek tragedy—the Antigone of Sophocles. In both stories the  moral stature of the heroes  is chiefly exemplified in their bravely burying  the dead in the face of official prohibition and at the risk of official  punishment. In both cases a venerable   moral tradition is maintained against a  political tyranny destructive of piety.   That same Greek drama, moreover,  provides a further parallel to the blindness   of Tobit in the character of  blind Teiresias, himself also a man of an inner   moral vision important to the  theme of the play.
 
Bearing just as obvious a connection with non-biblical literature, I  believe,   is the demon Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8), who is doubtless to be identified,  on purely   morphological grounds, with Aeshma Daeva, a figure well known in  ancient Iranian   religion.20 Moreover, Tobit’s nephew Ahikar (1:22) is  certainly   identical with a literary character of the same name, time, place,  and circumstances, found in the Elephantine papyri from the late fifth century  B.C.21   In short, whatever may be the case relative to questions of  historical dependency, Tobit’s cultural contacts with the ancient world of  religion, philosophy,   and literature are numerous and varied.
 
....

Saint Jerome Had Noted The Resemblance Of Tobit To Homer's Odyssey



See our:
 
Was Homer’s “Odyssey” Based on the Hebrew Books of
Job and Tobit?
 
 
....

The Wide World of Tobit

The Apocrypha’s Tobit and Literary Tradition
 

by Patrick Henry Reardon

Tobit is a short book. Indeed, Jerome tells us that translating it into  Latin   cost him only “the labor of one day.”1 It should be remarked,    however, that this small book belongs in a big world, with a rich and very wide   cultural setting.
I like to think of the Book of Tobit as a kind of universal essay, in the    sense that its author makes considerable effort to place his brief, rather  simple   narrative within a literary, historical, and moral universe of  surprising breadth   and diversity, extending through the Fertile Crescent and  out both sides. To   find comparable dimensions of such large cultural exposure  among biblical authors,   one would have to go to Ezekiel, Luke, or the narrator  of Job.
It is the intention of the present article to indicate and outline several    aspects of the Book of Tobit that join the work to other streams of literary    history. These aspects, which include a fairly wide range of themes, images,    and historical references, will serve to link Tobit to three bodies of  literature   in particular: the Bible; the larger world of Near and Middle  Eastern religious   philosophy, history, and literature; and the tradition of  Christian exegesis   down through the Latin Middle Ages.
 
Tobit and the Bible
The world of Tobit is, first of all, the world of biblical literature and    history. Not only does the book provide an elaborate description of the  religious   deterioration of the Northern Kingdom in the eighth century, and  then the deportation   and consequent social conditions2 of those  tribes after 722, but it   explicitly quotes a prophet of that century, Amos,  and makes reference (14:4)   to the preaching of Jonah at Nineveh.3 Tobit thus presupposes the history   narrated in Kings, Chronicles, and the  eighth-century prophets.
Tobit’s explicit reference to Jonah is of considerable interest in the    light of certain affinities between the two books. First and second, both  stories   take place about the same time (the eighth century) and both in  Mesopotamia.   Third, both accounts involve a journey. Fourth, the distressed  Tobit, like Jonah,   prays to die. Fifth and most strikingly, his son Tobias  encounters a fish that   attempts—with less success than Jonah’s fish—to swallow  him!   Finally, in each book the fish serves as a special instrument of Divine  Providence.
Besides Jonah, Tobit shows several remarkable affinities to the Book of Job,   some of which were noted rather early in Christian exegesis. For example, the   title characters of both works shared a zeal for purity of life, almsgiving,    and other deeds of charity (Job 1 and 31; Tobit 1–2), patient endurance   of  trials sent by God,4 a deep weariness of life itself (Job 7:15;   Tobit  3:6), a final vindication by the Lord at the end of each book, and perhaps    even a common hope of the resurrection.5 As early as Cyprian in the    third century, it was also noted that both men were similarly mocked by wives    unable to appreciate their virtue and faith in God.6
Moreover, the book’s description of long-suffering Sarah, whose seven    husbands all died on their wedding night, carries on another major theme of    Holy Scripture: the barren woman, of which the elder Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel,    Hannah, and Elizabeth are better known examples. Indeed, the mockery that the    younger Sarah receives from her maids in this regard readily puts one in mind    of Hagar’s attitude toward the older Sarah, as well as Peninnah’s   unkind  treatment of Hannah at the beginning of First Samuel.7
The moral teaching of Tobit is also of a piece with the covenantal ethics    of the Bible generally. For example, its prohibition against marrying outsiders   in 4:12f. reflects the strict view of Ezra and Nehemiah (and, down the road,    1 Corinthians 7).8 Then, in the very next verse is found the mandate    about prompt payment of the laborer’s salary, which is clearly based on    Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14f. And so forth. The moral teaching of    Tobit shows endless parallels with both the Torah and Israel’s Wisdom    tradition, and its solicitude for social justice and service is at one with    the teaching of the eighth-century prophets. No matter what is to be said  relative   to its canonical status, the setting, imagery, and moral doctrine of  Tobit is   of a piece with the rest of our biblical literature.
 
The Larger World
Even when the Book of Tobit most closely touches the other biblical  literature,   however, it sometimes does so along lines reminiscent of, and  running parallel   to, more extensive traditions outside the Bible.
An obvious and rather large example is the “Golden Rule” in Tobit   4:15,  “Do not do to anyone what you yourself hate.” Not only does   this prohibition  substantially contain the biblical command to love one’s   neighbor as oneself;9 not only, furthermore, does it stand   in canonical  continuity with the more positive formulation of the same Golden   Rule  preserved in the Gospels;10 it is also the equivalent to an ideal    found in other ethical philosophies. These latter include Greek authors like    Herodotus and Isocrates11 and even classical Confucianism.12   This use of the Golden Rule thus assured Tobit a featured place in the entire    history of religion and moral philosophy.13
A similar assessment is true, I believe, concerning the way that Tobit  develops   the religious symbolism of the journey. Obviously that motif had long  been part   of the Bible, particularly in those sections associated with the  Exodus wandering   and the return from Babylon,14 but it was a topic  not limited to the   Bible. Back near the beginning of the second millennium  B.C., the Mesopotamian    Gilgamesh Epic had inchoatively explored the  religious symbolism of   the journey, and that exploration would continue down  through some of our greatest   literature: the Odyssey, of course,  diverse accounts of Jason and the   Argonauts, the Aeneid, etc., and  eventually the Divine Comedy,   itself inspired by all of them. In a  more secular form the journey imagery continued   with such works as the  Endymion of Keats,15 even after it   had been assumed within  the ascetical literature of the Church as xeneteia,   conceived as both  exile and pilgrimage. A classical example of the latter use   is found in Step 3  of The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John of Mount   Sinai.
The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost   on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail    of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary    merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish    Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the  Odyssey—namely,   the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in  11:9—Tunc   praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius  adveniens blandimento   suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been  with them   in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news,  showed his   joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”16 No other  ancient   version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome,  ever the   classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but  feeble   old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of  Odysseus   to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail”  (Odyssey   17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to  Jerome’s rejection   of Tobit’s canonicity!
Thus, when young Tobias made his trip to Ecbatana and then, like Odysseus,    journeyed back to the home of his father, he traveled with a vast company of    classical pilgrims. He was neither the first nor the last to decide: “I   will  arise and return to my father.” On that trip, moreover, Tobias enjoyed   the  fellowship of an angel and a dog, symbolically representing the two worlds   of  spirits and beasts, both associated with Paradise and both mysteriously joined    together in the human being that they accompany.17
Furthermore, some readers have found in Tobit similarities to still other    pagan themes, such as the legend of Admetus.18 More convincing, I  believe,   however, are points of contact with classical Greek theater. Martin  Luther observed   similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy,19 but  one is even more   impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a  work of Greek tragedy—the    Antigone of Sophocles. In both stories the  moral stature of the heroes   is chiefly exemplified in their bravely burying  the dead in the face of official   prohibition and at the risk of official  punishment. In both cases a venerable   moral tradition is maintained against a  political tyranny destructive of piety.   That same Greek drama, moreover,  provides a further parallel to the blindness   of Tobit in the character of  blind Teiresias, himself also a man of an inner   moral vision important to the  theme of the play.
Bearing just as obvious a connection with non-biblical literature, I  believe,   is the demon Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8), who is doubtless to be identified,  on purely   morphological grounds, with Aeshma Daeva, a figure well known in  ancient Iranian   religion.20 Moreover, Tobit’s nephew Ahikar (1:22) is  certainly   identical with a literary character of the same name, time, place,  and circumstances,   found in the Elephantine papyri from the late fifth century  B.C.21   In short, whatever may be the case relative to questions of  historical dependency,   Tobit’s cultural contacts with the ancient world of  religion, philosophy,   and literature are numerous and varied.
 
The History of Exegesis
And this consideration brings me to what I suggest is a major question of    the Book of Tobit: How does a loyal servant of God live in this very big and    complex world? How does one spiritually survive, and even thrive, in   this world, without being of this world? The preoccupation of Tobit    is, I submit, moral and ascetical. It is a book about how the loyal servant   of  God must live.
In this respect, it is instructive to observe that early Christian exegesis   of the Book of Tobit was of a predominantly moral and ascetical interest. With   very few exceptions, patristic interpretation of Tobit was straightforward and   literal, with relatively little, and hardly any sustained, appeal to hidden    symbolisms. The longest extant patristic work devoted to Tobit, that of Ambrose   of Milan, exemplifies this approach convincingly. After drawing attention to    the major moral features of Tobit’s character, Ambrose devotes the rest   of his  discourse to a robust condemnation of avarice and usury.22 That   is to  say, Ambrose went to Tobit almost exclusively for moral teaching.
To be sure, a modest measure of patristic exegesis of Tobit was allegorical,   in the sense of finding hidden references to the mysteries of the Christian    faith. For example, attention was sometimes drawn to Tobias’s fish, whose    various body parts were used to remedy the problems of the family. Given the    common and widespread Christological symbolism of the fish (ichthys)    among believers, it was virtually inevitable that Tobias’s fish, too,   who  quite literally gave his life for the family, should be regarded as a  foreshadowing   of the Savior. This symbolism is found in the fourth century,  first in the mural   iconography of the Roman catacombs23 and then in a  few literary references.24
Similarly, Isidore of Seville believed that young Tobias, inasmuch as he  healed   his parent’s blindness, “had an image of Christ.”25   Nonetheless, such recourse to allegorical symbolism to interpret the Book of    Tobit was relatively rare among earlier Christian writers.
This assessment, however, does not hold true for the Latin writers of the    Middle Ages. The highly detailed commentary of Venerable Bede26 is    the example that comes first to mind. To leave Ambrose’s fairly sober,    subdued, and straightforward remarks on Tobit and then turn to Bede’s    elaborate interpretation of the same book is something on the order of moving    to another planet. In Bede’s commentary, not even the most minute item   in the  Tobit narrative is without its hidden doctrinal significance, to be ferreted    out by a rich imagination.
Bede’s approach was followed by other medieval exegetes who turned their    very creative fancies loose on the book: Walafrid Strabo, Hugh of St. Victor,    and Isaac of Stella.27 At their hands, the Book of Tobit became a rich   mother-lode of hidden Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, sacramentology,    and so forth.
These medieval interpreters certainly present us with a whole new  hermeneutic   world. One may legitimately question, however, whether it is any  longer the   world of Tobit. Indeed, in these medieval works the overwhelmingly  moral interest   of Tobit’s universe is hardly touched at all, so that the major  preoccupation   of the book—how does the servant of God live in this  world?—becomes   almost entirely lost. This is my chief objection to the  approach taken to the   Book of Tobit among medieval Latin exegetes.
Since his Glossa Ordinaria became a link between Bede and later  medieval   writers, Walafrid Strabo may be particularly cited by way of  illustration. Strabo   begins his interpretation of Tobit by observing,  correctly enough, that the   book “abounds in the greatest examples and  exhortations of the moral life,”28   but then he goes on to explain the  book in great detail without a single scrap   of moral or ascetical teaching.  Tobit’s principal message and concern   thus become hopelessly dispersed in  considerations alien to the book.
It is my persuasion that the message of Tobit should begin with a proper  analysis   of its moral message exactly as it appears at the literary level,  without recourse   to hidden symbolisms that its author himself could scarcely  have suspected and   that float, in fact, without sufficient grounding in  ancient patristic and liturgical   texts.
This is not to say that Tobit should be interpreted apart from the biblical   canon (whatever one holds about its canonical status) or from the context of    Christian theology. Indeed, I maintain the very opposite thesis—namely,   that  Tobit (and, for that matter, all other biblical literature handed down   in the  Tradition of the Church) should be read and understood within that double    interpretive context of Canon and Christology. I believe, nonetheless, that    this approach is best made on the basis of Tobit’s literal meaning, the    meaning it has as moral literature, not fanciful symbolisms unsustained in  either   biblical, patristic, or liturgical testimonies.
Having now placed Tobit within literary history, I propose, in a subsequent   article to be published in these pages, to explore further the book’s   great  moral message and its importance in the Christian life.

Notes:

1. Jerome, Praefatio in Librum Tobiae (PL 29.26A). Among Latin  writers    Jerome stands very much alone, and even eccentric, in his denial of  canonicity   to the Book of Tobit. It was cited somewhat less often by the Greek  Fathers   than by the Latins, however, the question of its canonicity being more  complex   and protracted in the East. This questioned canonicity of Tobit also  accounts   for the unparalleled freedom that copyists took in the transmission  of the text.   We have received Tobit in two major manuscript traditions so  disparate that   Rahlfs’s standard edition of the Septuagint prints them  separately. Because   I will frequently refer to them, I take this occasion to  identify the two earliest   extant manuscripts, both of them from early  fourth-century Egypt: the Codex   Vaticanus (hereafter B) and the Codex  Sinaiticus (hereafter S). Because of its   importance to Latin writers, I will  also refer often to Tobit’s Vulgate   text, translated by Jerome from both Greek  and Aramaic sources.
2. Origen early recognized Tobit’s value as a source of historical and    sociological information on the period; cf. Epistola ad Africanum 12     (Bibliotheke Hellenon Pateron [hereafter BHP, followed by volume and    page numbers] 16.359f.).
3. Thus in B and Vulgate; also see Jerome, In Jonam (PL 25.1119A).   S here says Nahum.
4. Job and Tobit were thus compared by Augustine, De Divinis  Scripturis   28 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum [hereafter CSEL with   volume and page numbers] 12.436); Ambrosiaster,  Quaestiones Veteris et Novi   Testamenti 99.2 (CSEL 50.191); in the  Latin Middle Ages, Bernard of Clairvaux,    Sententiae 2.25  (Opera, Vol. 6/2, Rome: Editiones Cistercienses,   1972, p. 31); and  still later, John of the Cross, Llama de Amor Viva   2.28 (Obras  Completas, Madrid: BAC, 1991, pp. 960f.).
5. Job 19:23–27; Tobit 2:18 in the Vulgate. Paulinus of Nola commented    that Tobit’s burial of the dead manifested “a holy and sanctified   hope”;  Epistolae 13.4 (PL 61.209–210).
6. Cyprian, De Mortalitate 10 (PL 4.588); among the Greeks,  Asterios   Sophistes, In Psalmos 4.4 (BHP 37.170); among medieval  Latins, Peter   Comestor, Historia Libri Tobiae 1 (PL 198.1433C); and  Peter Damien,    Sermones 4.5 (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio  Medievalis   [hereafter CCM with volume and page numbers] 57.20).
7. This resemblance was likewise remarked by Cyprian, Testimoniorum   Libri 1.20 (PL 4.688–689).
8. Again, cf. Cyprian, Testimoniorum Libri 3.62 (PL 4.767–768).
9. Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 6:27;  Romans   12:17–19; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.
10. Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31.
11. Herodotus, Histories 3.142; Isocrates, Niklokles 61.
12. Cf. Ku Hung Ming, The Conduct of Life: A Translation of the Doctrine   of the Mean, London: John Murray, 1906, p. 26.
13. Tobit’s form of the Golden Rule was maintained, not only in the    apocryphal (e.g., Ps.-Aristeas, Epistle to Philocrates 207) and  rabbinical   traditions (e.g., Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a;  Targum Yerushalmi   I of Leviticus 19:18), but also in Christian  sources as diverse as the    Didache 1.2 (BHP 2.215); the Coptic  Gospel of Thomas 6; the    Apostolic Constitutions 1 (BHP  2.6); Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis   2.22 (BHP 7.359); Didymus the  Blind, De Spiritu Sancto 39 (PG 39.1068);   John Chrysostom,  Homiliae de Statuis 13.3 (PG 49.140); Augustine, Sermones   in  Vetus Testamentum 9.14f. (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina   [hereafter CCL with volume and page numbers] 41.135f.); Gregory the Great,  Moralia   in Job 6.35.54 (CCL 143.323); 10.6.6 (539); and, from the  Latin Middle   Ages, Peter Damien, Sermones 14.9 (CCM 57.69); Stephen  of Grandmont,    Regula 28 (CCM 8.83); and Isaac of Stella,  Sermones 3.3 (PL   194.1698A); 31.6 (1791B). Among later ascetical  writers in the East, there is   Paisy Velichkovsky, Field Flowers 23  (Little Russian Philokalia,   Vol. 4, The Brotherhood of St. Herman of  Alaska, 1994, p. 87.). Sometimes Christians   have spontaneously juxtaposed  Tobit’s negative form with the positive   form from the Gospels; e.g.,  Barsanuphius and John of Gaza, Letters   687 (Correspondance, Solesmes, 1971, p. 442); and the anonymous eleventh-century   Mont-Saint-Michel  manuscript, Expositio ad Galatas 5.14 (CCM 151.202).
14. In the New Testament, the journey motif will play a structural role, not   only in Luke-Acts, but also in Mark 8–10.
15. Cf. Andrès Rodríguez, The Book of the Heart: The Poetics,   Letters,  and Life of John Keats, Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press, 1993,   pp.  44ff.
16. Douay-Challoner translation of the Vulgate.
17. Angels and beasts are also the companions of Jesus in the desert; see    Mark 1:13 along with the comment of Euthymius Zigabenus, In Marcum   (PG 129.776C). Particularly in our hagiography, this motif of angelic and animal   companionship is ubiquitous. Cf. Joanne Stephanatos, Animals and Man: A    State of Blessedness, Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1992.
18. I confess that this one is lost on me, having gone over my Apollodorus    (3.9.15) repeatedly without discerning any really convincing similarity to  Tobit.
19. Indeed, he even speculated that the Greeks borrowed from the Jews in  this   respect; cf. Luther’s Works, Volume 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress    Press, 1976), p. 345.
20. Cf. Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from  Antiquity   to Primitive Christianity, Ithaca: Cornell University Press,  1977, pp.   215, 217.
21. A translation of “The Words of Ahiqar” is found in J. B. Pritchard,     Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton,    1969, pp. 427–430. The story itself appears to go back to Mesopotamia   at least  a century earlier. I hazard passing remarks here on two curious features:   (1)  this text is narrated, like the opening chapters of Tobit, in the first    person; (2) the plan to kill a eunuch slave in place of Ahikar, so that the    latter could later be restored to favor (p. 428, left column), most certainly     does bear comparison to the Admetus legend.
22. Ambrose, De Tobia (PL 14.759–794). Not one paragraph in   ten  of this work is allegorical. See also Ambrose’s simple remarks on   Tobit in  Epistolae 19.5 (PL 16.984A), later echoed by Salvian of Marseilles,     Adversus Avaritiam 2.4 (PL 53.193B).
23. Cf. Henri Leclercq, “Tobie,” Dictionnaire d’Archéologie   Chrétienne  et de Liturgie, Vol. 15, Paris: Letouzey, 1953, cols.   2418–2420.
24. Optatus of Mileve in Numedia, De Schismate Donatistarum 3.2 (PL   11.991); and the anonymous De Promissionibus et Praedictionibus Dei   2.39 (PL 51.816).
25. “Christi imaginem habuit”—Allegoriae Quaedam Scripturae    Sacrae 123 (PL 83.116A).
26. Venerable Bede, Interpretatio in Librum Tobiae (PL 91.923–938).   Cf. the analysis of Bede’s exegesis of Tobit by Johann Gamberoni, Die    Auslegung des Buches Tobias, Munich: Kösel, 1969, pp. 107–123.
27. Walafrid Strabo, Glossa Ordinaria (PL 113.725–732); Hugh   of  St. Victor, Allegoriae in Vetus Testamentum 9.2 (PL 175.737–744);    Isaac of Stella, Sermones 7.11–14 (PL 194.1715). I cite only   those  writers that I know first-hand. For other examples, see Gamberoni, op.    cit., pp. 124–146.
28. Strabo, op. cit. (PL 113.725B).

The substance of this article appeared in Epiphany in  1996.

Read more:  http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f#ixzz2f1euwlrb