Book of Tobit Typology

[Peter_Dawson]

Ok I am getting some questionable items here. Are you trying to tell me that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary are errors of the Church??? I may have misunderstood??? Arianism is a whole different subject in its own. Arianism is Heresy and it was humans that brought it in and humans that wiped it out. I don’t want to go deep into Arianism in this thread, we would have to open a different thread that could lead to trouble. Again the Church didn’t err, it was error on man. The Church never abandon the concept of the Trinity. We have had some bad Popes no doubt. They erred not the Church. If you want to talk more about Arianism, I suggest that we open another thread. Did you bother reading the article from New Advent I linked for you???

Hi, Toby. You do misunderstand.

Of course the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not errors.

But you seem to be missing the point.

I’m not talking about the Immaculate Conception.

I’m not talking about the Assumption.

I’m not talking about Arianism.

I’m talking about your statement, “The Church does not err; humans err.”

Pope Liberius appears to have approved of one of the Arian formulas for the Trinity, and then he condemned his own teaching, thus seeming to consciously teach, in statement #2, that he taught error, in statement #1.

Athanasius wrote that Liberius erred.

Jerome wrote that Liberius erred.

The Arian Emperor of Rome implied that Liberius backed his position when he boasted, “It’s Athanasius against the world!”

Father Hardon, in his Catechism, is where I learned of this. (I talked to Father Hardon about this back in the 1980s. He said he believed that whatever Inerrancy and Infallibility are, they have to make room for an error by Pope Liberius.)

I wanted to see how you handled this. For instance, would you retreat to the “cheap” position that the only time in its history the Church spoke ***ex cathedra ***is on the Immaculate Conception and on the Assumption?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi, Toby. You do misunderstand.

Of course the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not errors.

But you seem to be missing the point.

I’m not talking about the Immaculate Conception.

I’m not talking about the Assumption.

I’m not talking about Arianism.

I’m talking about your statement, “The Church does not err; humans err.”

Pope Liberius appears to have approved of one of the Arian formulas for the Trinity, and then he condemned his own teaching, thus seeming to consciously teach, in statement #2, that he taught error, in statement #1.

Athanasius wrote that Liberius erred.

Jerome wrote that Liberius erred.

The Arian Emperor of Rome implied that Liberius backed his position when he boasted, “It’s Athanasius against the world!”

Father Hardon, in his Catechism, is where I learned of this. (I talked to Father Hardon about this back in the 1980s. He said he believed that whatever Inerrancy and Infallibility are, they have to make room for an error by Pope Liberius.)

I wanted to see how you handled this. For instance, would you retreat to the “cheap” position that the only time in its history the Church spoke ***ex cathedra ***is on the Immaculate Conception and on the Assumption?

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not the only times in history the Church ex-Cathedra. The Church doesn’t teach that I don’t think. Correct me if I am wrong. So you agree that man err and not the church???

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not the only times in history the Church ex-Cathedra. The Church doesn’t teach that I don’t think. Correct me if I am wrong. So you agree that man err and not the church???

As far as I can see, the teaching of Pope Liberius on Arianism was error.

As far as I can see, the teaching of Pope Martin I in 649 A.D. that Jesus came out of Mary without breaching the integrity of her tissues – so that it is perfectly impossible that Jesus was “born” as opposed to Jesus “beaming down” – was error. (Father Hardon agreed with my perspective on this, too.)

If that isn’t “the Church teaching,” what is?

Yet, both positions seem to be errors.

As far as I can see, what I just wrote in this post is honest, and moral.

As far as I can see, if I follow Pope Liberius’ teaching #1, then I am following him OUT of the Church! Pursuant to Liberius’ own teaching #2!

As far as I can see, if I believe that Jesus did not breach the integrity of Mary’s womb, then I am believing that Luke 2:22-24 is a lie.

So, no, I do not understand “inerrant,” and I do not understand “infallibility,” and if I say, “I believe that the Church is inerrant and infallible,” in effect I am saying something without real meaning.

I, personally, think that the best thing I can say, as a Catholic, is that those things may be true in some sense, but I don’t know how.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I should add that I bow to the Church’s authority to a limited extent: If I can’t give an articulable, logically-respectable rationale for disagreeing with Church teaching, then I am bound.

That is precisely my problem with Pope Liberius and Pope Martin I – I CAN give an articulable, logically-respectable rationale for rejecting the teaching in those cases.

 

[grannymh]

As far as I can see, the teaching of Pope Liberius on Arianism was error.

As far as I can see, the teaching of Pope Martin I in 649 A.D. that Jesus came out of Mary without breaching the integrity of her tissues – so that it is perfectly impossible that Jesus was “born” as opposed to Jesus “beaming down” – was error. (Father Hardon agreed with my perspective on this, too.)

If that isn’t “the Church teaching,” what is?

Yet, both positions seem to be errors.

As far as I can see, what I just wrote in this post is honest, and moral.

As far as I can see, if I follow Pope Liberius’ teaching #1, then I am following him OUT of the Church! Pursuant to Liberius’ own teaching #2!

As far as I can see, if I believe that Jesus did not breach the integrity of Mary’s womb, then I am believing that Luke 2:22-24 is a lie.

So, no, I do not understand “inerrant,” and I do not understand “infallibility,” and if I say, “I believe that the Church is inerrant and infallible,” in effect I am saying something without real meaning.

I, personally, think that the best thing I can say, as a Catholic, is that those things may be true in some sense, but I don’t know how.

I have Father Hardon’s Catechism. What pages are those “teachings” on?

 

[grannymh]

If that isn’t “the Church teaching,” what is?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition

So, no, I do not understand “inerrant,” and I do not understand “infallibility,” and if I say, “I believe that the Church is inerrant and infallible,” in effect I am saying something without real meaning.
.

You are not alone.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I have Father Hardon’s Catechism. What pages are those “teachings” on?

P. 130, 1975 softback edition.

I called Fr. Hardon (a Jesuit, easily contacted after my Jesuit education at St. Joseph’s University) because the P. 130 material seemed contradictory. He admitted that, yes, Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching, seeming to verify, and thus “teach,” by that act, that he, Liberius, had taught error.

 

[grannymh]

I should add that I bow to the Church’s authority to a limited extent: If I can’t give an articulable, logically-respectable rationale for disagreeing with Church teaching, then I am bound.

That is precisely my problem with Pope Liberius and Pope Martin I – I CAN give an articulable, logically-respectable rationale for rejecting the teaching in those cases.

Peter, I think I understand what is happening. My apology that I cannot delve into it until after the weekend. However, my guess is that some of the posters also recognize the difficulty and can do a better job explaining than I can.

First of all – there is a real purpose to what was happening during the first centuries of Catholicism. There is an underlying theme in Paul’s letters in that he was unifying the different colonies of Catholic converts and at the same time correcting conduct and liturgy. My suggestion is to look at this period as the Church responding to the promised Holy Spirit.

Second – there is a tendency on the forums to look at the back-and-forth discussions of major parts of our Catholic Faith as if they were taking place today. It’s like people are trying to invent the wheel. Why?

Third – The reason to examine initial heresies is because of their impact on modern history. There is no need to figure out which side was right and who’s opinions one should follow. That has already been decided and the results are in the current Catholic Catechism.

Fourth – I have used Father Hardon’s Catechism and one will find his references in the current Catechism. However, regarding his personal conversations decades ago, one needs to remember that those were most likely his personal opinions and not necessarily official church teaching. There is a saying that philosophers like to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Fifth – will be added by other posters

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

P. 130, 1975 softback edition.

I called Fr. Hardon (a Jesuit, easily contacted after my Jesuit education at St. Joseph’s University) because the P. 130 material seemed contradictory. He admitted that, yes, Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching, seeming to verify, and thus “teach,” by that act, that he, Liberius, had taught error.

I was writing a post while you posted. My suggestion is to check Father Hardon’s catechism …

Did you know, that his cause for sainthood is being pursued?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I was writing a post while you posted. My suggestion is to check Father Hardon’s catechism …

Did you know, that his cause for sainthood is being pursued?

No, I didn’t know that. All I know is that he was a gentle, gentle, gentle soul.

 

[tobinatorstark]

As far as I can see, the teaching of Pope Liberius on Arianism was error.

As far as I can see, the teaching of Pope Martin I in 649 A.D. that Jesus came out of Mary without breaching the integrity of her tissues – so that it is perfectly impossible that Jesus was “born” as opposed to Jesus “beaming down” – was error. (Father Hardon agreed with my perspective on this, too.)

If that isn’t “the Church teaching,” what is?

Yet, both positions seem to be errors.

As far as I can see, what I just wrote in this post is honest, and moral.

As far as I can see, if I follow Pope Liberius’ teaching #1, then I am following him OUT of the Church! Pursuant to Liberius’ own teaching #2!

As far as I can see, if I believe that Jesus did not breach the integrity of Mary’s womb, then I am believing that Luke 2:22-24 is a lie.

So, no, I do not understand “inerrant,” and I do not understand “infallibility,” and if I say, “I believe that the Church is inerrant and infallible,” in effect I am saying something without real meaning.

I, personally, think that the best thing I can say, as a Catholic, is that those things may be true in some sense, but I don’t know how.

Again error of man with Pope Liberius and Pope Martin. Not Church error

 

[DebChris]

As I follow this thread, it seems to have strayed from the original purpose.
There is a Hasidic tradition in which scripture is dissected and debated to its smallest points. These are the types of questions Jesus was asked by the Pharisees, keeping in mind of course that many of the questions were meant to trip him up. While the Bible does not go into detail into the types of questions Jesus was asked as a 12 year old, it would appear those are closer to the Hasidic tradition.
Of course, scripture itself warns against quibbling.
I have not read Pope Benedict XVI’s book about Jesus. It is my understanding that he explicitly states in the introduction that it is okay to disagree with his conclusions.
That being said, let’s return to the OP. As already stated I see the dog as a faithful companion. It is either in Proverbs or Sirach where the value of companionship is praised.
Because of our differing backgrounds, few people read even ordinary literature the same.
There are actually very few scriptural passages to which the Church has given definitive meaning. The one that most readily comes to mind is Jesus giving Mary to John as they stood at the foot of the cross. Church teaching tells us when Jesus gave Mary to John as his mother, He also gave her to the Church as our mother and we became her children. It was more than an ordinary gesture based on the expectations of the times.
The question becomes, does how I read scripture bring me into closer relationship with Jesus Christ. How can I apply what I have read to my own understanding and to this current moment in my life?
What is the best way to read scripture? The answer to that question, from a scripture course I took, was simply to read as if I were a child sitting on my Papa’s lap and listening.to the story. In other words, keep it simple. Become as a child, not necessarily looking for any great theological insight. “Don’t look for the answers. Look for the questions.”
Monks in the monastery will read scripture until they come to a single passage upon which they reflect throughout the day. My spiritual director had me use this Lectio Divina as the starting point for my daily journal. The verse becomes the first sentence. There is to be no judgment as to where my writing takes me.
To journal is to journey. I can look back on my writing and see the progress made on this journey. Where did I go astray? What did I learn? How did I find my way back to the right path?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

One of the folks here noticed that I said that the Book of Tobit is extremely rich in typology – symbolism generated by the Holy Spirit – and wanted me to enlarge on that. Here, IMHO, is a sample…

**2 When the boy left home, accompanied by the angel, the dog followed Tobiah out of the house and went with them. The travelers walked till nightfall, and made camp beside the Tigris River.
3 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. Tobit 6:2-6. **

Believe it or not, here, in my opinion, you’re looking at a typological word picture of the Sacrament of Reconciliation followed by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Here’s a line-by-line analysis…

2 When the boy left home, accompanied by the angel, the dog followed Tobiah out of the house and went with them. The travelers walked till nightfall, and made camp beside the Tigris River. “Dogs” = “sinners.” So, maybe the dog tailing Tobit is sin afflicting mankind. You’ll see why I suggest this now. Travelers walki9ng = people following “The Way.” “Nightfall” = the Darkness Type = “God’s condemning judgment.” Note that in Genesis 2:14 the Tigris = “the third river.” The Tigris = a River Type analog = “salvation.” “Third” = a Three Type analog = “Gopd’s Will” or “the commandments.”
3 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. Washing the feet, to remove the dust, or sins, picked-up while walking along The Way = the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Tobit does so in “the third river” – “salvation by the commandments” – locking-in our Sacrament of Reconciliation interpretation. Another thing does, too: The big fish which figuratively bites off his dirty foot, following Christ’s suggestion at Matthew 18:8. Who is that fish? It’s Christ, taking the sins of mankind upon Himself, the same thing Adam, the OT Christ, did when he received the fruit from Eve. Why a fish, though? Normally, fish are sinners from “the Sea of Damnable Souls.” But as Paul observes at 2 Corinthians 5:21, Christ became “He Who did not know sin Who was made to be sin.” This concept is frequently taught in the OT when Christ is symbolized by sin symbols. So, in the Book of Jonah, we see Jonah the Christ Figure “becoming sin” when he is swallowed by the big fish. As Leviathan, Christ continues in that state. The big fish coming up to bite off Tobit’s dirty foot is Christ the Jonah Fish/Leviathan doing what Christ said should be done.
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,… That’s mankind sacrificing Christ.
…he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he broiled and ate part of the fish;… – there it is – eating the actual flesh of Christ by consuming the Real Presence in the Eucharist!
**…the rest he salted and kept for the journey. **

Hi Peter!

This is great. I want you to know that I have been saving all of your typology posts, just in case your book takes too long to publish. Your interpretations are AWESOME! I was staying away from CAF for awhile because a lot of the posts were getting too repetitive, nasty and/or closemined, but I checked in today and found your post, thank heavens! :clapping:

Is there a typology for the demon and the seven husbands who died? Why did Tobit lose his eyesight?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi Peter!

This is great. I want you to know that I have been saving all of your typology posts, just in case your book takes too long to publish. Your interpretations are AWESOME! I was staying away from CAF for awhile because a lot of the posts were getting too repetitive, nasty and/or closemined, but I checked in today and found your post, thank heavens! :clapping:

Is there a typology for the demon and the seven husbands who died? Why did Tobit lose his eyesight?

I missed you, kid. I’m glad that someone else here appreciates Bible typology, instead of claiming to know enough about it and then ignoring it

Women in the Bible stand for mankind, or, twice, they stand for Christ (because He came to Earth in our form). Here there is no sign that Sarah stands for Christ. So, she is us.

Men in the Bible stand for (1) God, or (2) a representative of God, or (3) empowered by God. The Number Type “seven” stands for “perfect,” “perfected” or “complete” or “completely.” Note that “seven husbands” could refer to the “perfect” form of the Man Type, God! So, Asmodeus killing Sarah’s first 7 husbands before consummation probably refers to the devil interfering with the marriage between Man and God.

Birds stand for “demons” or “sin.” “Blindness” stands for a lack of faith. So, birds blinding Tobit with their defecation = demons destroying Tobit’s faith.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I missed you, kid. I’m glad that someone else here appreciates Bible typology, instead of claiming to know enough about it and then ignoring it

Women in the Bible stand for mankind, or, twice, they stand for Christ (because He came to Earth in our form). Here there is no sign that Sarah stands for Christ. So, she is us.

Men in the Bible stand for (1) God, or (2) a representative of God, or (3) empowered by God. The Number Type “seven” stands for “perfect,” “perfected” or “complete” or “completely.” Note that “seven husbands” could refer to the “perfect” form of the Man Type, God! So, Asmodeus killing Sarah’s first 7 husbands before consummation probably refers to the devil interfering with the marriage between Man and God.

Birds stand for “demons” or “sin.” “Blindness” stands for a lack of faith. So, birds blinding Tobit with their defecation = demons destroying Tobit’s faith.

Thanks Peter, that makes a lot of sense. What are some of the other meanings of numbers in the Bible, such as 3, 40 and 70?

 

[DebChris]

Thanks Peter, that makes a lot of sense. What are some of the other meanings of numbers in the Bible, such as 3, 40 and 70?

According to the Glossary of Common Symbols in The Catholic Source Book, the dog stands for fidelity, loyalty, orthodoxy,and watchfulness…

Numbers and their Significance (The Catholic Source Book):
1=Unity
3=Omne trinum estperfectum, Everything in threes is perfect
4= Numerical signature of nature as in the number of seasons
6=7-1=the imperfect number, being one short of seven.
7=3+4=the perfect number, the signature of totality.
8=The number of regeneration. Baptism, and completion is found in the octagonal baptismal font.
9=3x3=the number of mystery, the trinity of trinities, the perfect plural.= the number of choirs of angels.
10=the complete number signifying order and worldly power. Any number multiplied by 10 or 10s signifies the highest possible
12=3x4=the universal number=maturity and totality. See Revelations 22:2
15=ascent and progression
40=one generation=a long time
50=7x7+1=the fulfillment of divine promise
100=plenitude
666=Perfect imperfection=falling three times short of seven.
1000=an indefinitely large number; too large to be counted
144,000=12x12x1000=a totality derived by adding up the traditional 12 tribes of Israel, with each digit magnified 1000 times

To forgive 7X70 times is to forgive an infinite number of times.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

According to the Glossary of Common Symbols in The Catholic Source Book, the dog stands for fidelity, loyalty, orthodoxy,and watchfulness…

Numbers and their Significance (The Catholic Source Book):
1=Unity
3=Omne trinum estperfectum, Everything in threes is perfect
4= Numerical signature of nature as in the number of seasons
6=7-1=the imperfect number, being one short of seven.
7=3+4=the perfect number, the signature of totality.
8=The number of regeneration. Baptism, and completion is found in the octagonal baptismal font.
9=3x3=the number of mystery, the trinity of trinities, the perfect plural.= the number of choirs of angels.
10=the complete number signifying order and worldly power. Any number multiplied by 10 or 10s signifies the highest possible
12=3x4=the universal number=maturity and totality. See Revelations 22:2
15=ascent and progression
40=one generation=a long time
50=7x7+1=the fulfillment of divine promise
100=plenitude
666=Perfect imperfection=falling three times short of seven.
1000=an indefinitely large number; too large to be counted
144,000=12x12x1000=a totality derived by adding up the traditional 12 tribes of Israel, with each digit magnified 1000 times

To forgive 7X70 times is to forgive an infinite number of times.

Thanks! This is great!

The dog in Tobit seems like it is a friendly dog, but dogs in general in the Bible are thought of as being dirty and sinful.

For example the dogs who ate filthy Jezebel.

Or “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly” (Proverbs 26:11).

There are dog references in the bible are those in which humans are called “dogs” as a term of contempt or scorn, and also those in which a person humbles himself by calling himself a dead dog. “His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, . . . Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough . . .” (Isaiah 56: 10-11). “What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?” (II Samuel 9:8).

 

[DebChris]

Thanks! This is great!

The dog in Tobit seems like it is a friendly dog, but dogs in general in the Bible are thought of as being dirty and sinful.

For example the dogs who ate filthy Jezebel.

Or “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly” (Proverbs 26:11).

There are dog references in the bible are those in which humans are called “dogs” as a term of contempt or scorn, and also those in which a person humbles himself by calling himself a dead dog. “His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, . . . Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough . . .” (Isaiah 56: 10-11). “What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?” (II Samuel 9:8).

I am familiar with the term “dirty dog,” as James Cagney used in the movie. We also have the story of the Canaanite woman whom Jesus asked if the food that belongs to the Israelite children should be given to “dogs.” She replied that even the scraps under the table are given to dogs.
I lived overseas as a child and became familiar with the Japanese fable about the faithfulness of a dog who waited for his master’s return even to the point that he died.
The dog as a symbol of faithfulness is universal.
At the same time, there are wild dogs who tear apart the flesh of the dead. I do remember a wild pack that terrorized the neighborhood until my mother discovered their trick for hiding from animal control. They hid on their backs under the bushes so that their legs looked like the trunks of the bushes.
One way to look at this, if you will, is that our sinful impulses can be tamed just as a dog can be trained to become a loyal companion.

The Catholic Source Book references Psalm 124:7 for the meaning of birds
Birds–The faithful; caged; soul iin body; released; soul’s flight at death.
Tobit lived as a captive. He and Sarah both prayed for death.

The intro in my copy of the NAB states that The Book of Tobit “combines piety and morality with oriental folklore.” Ahiqar, to whom Tobit is related is a hero of ancient Near Eastern folklore.

Crow=The devil’s temptings, because the call “caw, caw” is similar to the Latin for “tomorrow, tomorrow” (the temptaton to procrastinate) bad luck (like ravens and owls)
Heart=Love, devotion. Love casts out all fear.
Incense=Faithful’s prayer (Psalm 141:2), thanksgiving.
Lizard=the transforming power of the Gospel, healer of spiritual blindness (because it was believed of old that when the lizard is old and blind he can regain his sight by stretching his head toward the rising sun).
Magpie=bad luck
Owl=Mourning, desolation, wisdom, bad luck (like ravens and crows), a “funeral bird” (screeching before bad weather).
Rooster=watchfulness, vigilance, call to prayer
The three steps to the altar=Faith, hope, and charity
Swallow=Resurrection
Whale=Satan
Wolf=Satan, false prophet (Matthew 7:15), hypocrisy, famine, cruelty, lust

I didn’t find liver which many cultures consider to be the source of life.
Perhaps, the different meaning for dog comes from dog being used to describe wolves (wild dogs).

Jonah lay in the belly of the Whale (Satan) for three days. Christ was swallowed by death which entered the world. Death (Satan) was destroyed by Christ.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am familiar with the term “dirty dog,” as James Cagney used in the movie. We also have the story of the Canaanite woman whom Jesus asked if the food that belongs to the Israelite children should be given to “dogs.” She replied that even the scraps under the table are given to dogs.
I lived overseas as a child and became familiar with the Japanese fable about the faithfulness of a dog who waited for his master’s return even to the point that he died.
The dog as a symbol of faithfulness is universal.
At the same time, there are wild dogs who tear apart the flesh of the dead. I do remember a wild pack that terrorized the neighborhood until my mother discovered their trick for hiding from animal control. They hid on their backs under the bushes so that their legs looked like the trunks of the bushes.
One way to look at this, if you will, is that our sinful impulses can be tamed just as a dog can be trained to become a loyal companion.

The Catholic Source Book references Psalm 124:7 for the meaning of birds
Birds–The faithful; caged; soul iin body; released; soul’s flight at death.
Tobit lived as a captive. He and Sarah both prayed for death.

The intro in my copy of the NAB states that The Book of Tobit “combines piety and morality with oriental folklore.” Ahiqar, to whom Tobit is related is a hero of ancient Near Eastern folklore.

Crow=The devil’s temptings, because the call “caw, caw” is similar to the Latin for “tomorrow, tomorrow” (the temptaton to procrastinate) bad luck (like ravens and owls)
Heart=Love, devotion. Love casts out all fear.
Incense=Faithful’s prayer (Psalm 141:2), thanksgiving.
Lizard=the transforming power of the Gospel, healer of spiritual blindness (because it was believed of old that when the lizard is old and blind he can regain his sight by stretching his head toward the rising sun).
Magpie=bad luck
Owl=Mourning, desolation, wisdom, bad luck (like ravens and crows), a “funeral bird” (screeching before bad weather).
Rooster=watchfulness, vigilance, call to prayer
The three steps to the altar=Faith, hope, and charity
Swallow=Resurrection
Whale=Satan
Wolf=Satan, false prophet (Matthew 7:15), hypocrisy, famine, cruelty, lust

I didn’t find liver which many cultures consider to be the source of life.
Perhaps, the different meaning for dog comes from dog being used to describe wolves (wild dogs).

Jonah lay in the belly of the Whale (Satan) for three days. Christ was swallowed by death which entered the world. Death (Satan) was destroyed by Christ.

Thanks this is really interesting!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

That being said, let’s return to the OP. As already stated I see the dog as a faithful companion. It is either in Proverbs or Sirach where the value of companionship is praised.

Bible types, or symbols, may not be read like symbols in literature in an English 101 honors course.

Instead, we look to the Bible itself to define the symbolic or “typological” value of “dog.”

In the Bible, dogs are uniformly reprehensible. There is nothing good about them.

INDEX VERSE: Psalm 22:17 (foreshadowing Christ’s thoughts on the cross): 17 Many dogs surround me; a pack of evildoers closes in on me. Note well: “Dogs” = “evildoers.”

EXEMPLARY VERSES: Deuteronomy 23:19 (respecting sacrifices acceptable to the Lord): **19 You shall not offer a harlot’s fee or a dog’s price as any kind of votive offering in the house of the LORD, your God; both these things are an abomination to the LORD, your God. ** Note well: God finds even the price of a dog disgusting.

Proverbs 26:11 (comparing fools to dogs): **11 As the dog returns to his vomit, so the fool repeats his folly. ** Not very complimentary.

Phillipians 3:2 (throwing dogs in with evil workers): ** 2 Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! Beware of the mutilation! ** Not very desirable.