Book of Tobit Typology

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi, Christine.

Here’s the Number Types…

1 = ? (1 may have no value as a type, perhaps because every story has “1” of something, right?)

2 = Church.

3 = Will of God; commandments.

4 = “everyone.”

5 = “Christ.”

6 = “evil.”

7 = “perfect,” “complete,” “perfectly,” “completely,” “perfected,” “completed,” like that.

8 = “saved.”

9 = “unsaved.”

10 = “very much.”

11 = “very full.”

12 = “all of tribes of God’s people.”

40 ’ “preparation,” “testing.”

Number Types may be multiplied or divided by the Bible text," to generate implicit “Number Type sentences.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

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?

3 = “will of God” or “commandments,” depending on context.

40 = “preparation” or “testing.”

70 = 10 x 7 = “very much completed” or “very much perfected,” depending on the context.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hi, Christine.

Here’s the Number Types…

1 = ? (1 may have no value as a type, perhaps because every story has “1” of something, right?)

2 = Church.

3 = Will of God; commandments.

4 = “everyone.”

5 = “Christ.”

6 = “evil.”

7 = “perfect,” “complete,” “perfectly,” “completely,” “perfected,” “completed,” like that.

8 = “saved.”

9 = “unsaved.”

10 = “very much.”

11 = “very full.”

12 = “all of tribes of God’s people.”

40 ’ “preparation,” “testing.”

Number Types may be multiplied or divided by the Bible text," to generate implicit “Number Type sentences.”

Thanks Peter. Why is 9 unsaved? Where is 11 used in the Bible?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Thanks Peter. Why is 9 unsaved? Where is 11 used in the Bible?

Re 9, here is an INDEX VERSE: 17 Jesus said in reply, “Ten were cleansed, were they not? Where are the other nine?
18 Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God?”
19 Then he said to him, “Stand up and go; your faith has saved you.”" Luke 17:17-19.

Re 11, here is an INDEX VERSE: **1 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal, daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.
2 He did what was evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as Jehoiakim had done.
3 Indeed, what was done in Jerusalem and in Judah so angered the LORD that he cast them out from his presence. Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. ** Jeremiah 52:1-3. In other words, what happened during Zedekiah’s reign was SO full of evil that God cast the people out of His presence!

 

[PJM]

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. **

Interesting, and nothing you share is against Church teaching, but be careful in self interpetation. It can be risky.

Gof bless,

 

[grannymh]

Interesting, and nothing you share is against Church teaching, but be careful in self interpetation. It can be risky.

Gof bless,

Would it be risky??

The Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. Because Jesus Christ is True God, would it be risky to say that Divinity “is symbolized by sin symbols” in the Old Testament?

Would it be risky to talk about “eating the actual flesh of Christ”? In the Catholic Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is substantially present under the appearances or signs of bread and wine. Furthermore, at the Resurrection Christ had a glorified Body which passed through doors, therefore it was not actual human flesh.

 

[DebChris]

My source for the use of symbols and numbers comes straight from The Catholic Source Book (2007).
Nihil Obstat Rev. Dr. Steven Olds. S.T.D., Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: Most Rev. Thomas Wenski , Bishop of Orlando

I=Unity. There is only one God.

This source is also in agreement with what I have learned during retreats and seminars.

6=7-1=the imperfect number, the number of man
3=God
If 666 is the number of a man (Nero), it is man trying or pretending to be God.
I have been able to use this explanation in discussion with non-Christians who did not necessarily read Revelations as a book of encouragement for persecuted Christians.
Yes, I do know that that the 666 is the numerical correspondence for the letters in his name.

There is no question that dogs roamed the streets of cities like Jerusalem and that they were often poorly treated. Yet It is dogs who licked the wounds of Lazarus, whose status was less than theirs (Luke 16:21). It is dogs who “eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters” (Matt15:25). Dogs remain faithful despite how they are seen. Just as a swallow may be bought for a few pennies, I would expect a pet dog to also be cheap. Nobody is going to buy something that has no value, at least as a watch dog,to keep away intruders, or that they see as reprehensible. While I am aware of the negative portrayal of dogs,there is no reason to see the dog accompanying Tobias as anything other than a faithful companion and protector.

I would agree with what others have posted when it comes to over analyzing and reading too much symbolism into a passage, an honors English exercise.
That does not mean you are wrong. As I have already stated, there are actually few passages in Scripture for which the Church has mandated a set interpretation.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Would it be risky??

The Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. Because Jesus Christ is True God, would it be risky to say that Divinity “is symbolized by sin symbols” in the Old Testament?

Would it be risky to talk about “eating the actual flesh of Christ”? In the Catholic Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is substantially present under the appearances or signs of bread and wine. Furthermore, at the Resurrection Christ had a glorified Body which passed through doors, therefore it was not actual human flesh.

Granny, please, relax. If you were a Marine sniper, I’d be dead already!

You’ve said enough, and, more importantly, you’ve been humble enough, so that I can “get a handle” on the kind of person you are, and you are clearly a good person.

Please, bear with me. Be patient. I am a loyal son of the Church. If you are patient, you will see that what I articulate is a little bit avant-garde, but it is actually also ultimately the most conservative, most pro-Church material afoot in the Church today.

I promise you that my material is pro-Church. And I love the feedback of folks like you, because it helps my faith to mature. But you don’t have to be suspicious!

 

[DebChris]

I found another source for the meaning of numbers used in the Bible:vic.australis.com.au/hazz/Numbers.html

The perfect numbers are 3, 7, and 10
3=Divine Perfection
7=Spiritual Perfection
10=Ordinal Perfection

1=Unity, primacy, the first, the last, the best, the only
2=Unity + another=Incarnation=The first number by which we can divide another
3= 1st geometric figure= All things that are complete and entire
God’s Attributes=omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent
Sum of all human ability=thought, word, and deed

4= All that is created
5= 4+1 = creation + another = grace

6= 4+2 = the number of man; 7-1= mankind’s coming short of spiritual perfection
8=7+1= the start of a new order
9= last of the single digits= finality or judgment
11= 10+1= an extra measure
13= 12+1= the breakdown of perfect government, corruption, rebellion (I think I see where we get the idea that 13 is bad luck)
14=Spiritual difference or spiritual contrast
15= 3x5=8+7=Divine grace
23=Prosperity, abundance
37=Word of God

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I found another source for the meaning of numbers used in the Bible:vic.australis.com.au/hazz/Numbers.html

The perfect numbers are 3, 7, and 10
3=Divine Perfection
7=Spiritual Perfection
10=Ordinal Perfection

1=Unity, primacy, the first, the last, the best, the only
2=Unity + another=Incarnation=The first number by which we can divide another
3= 1st geometric figure= All things that are complete and entire
God’s Attributes=omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent
Sum of all human ability=thought, word, and deed

4= All that is created
5= 4+1 = creation + another = grace

6= 4+2 = the number of man; 7-1= mankind’s coming short of spiritual perfection
8=7+1= the start of a new order
9= last of the single digits= finality or judgment
11= 10+1= an extra measure
13= 12+1= the breakdown of perfect government, corruption, rebellion (I think I see where we get the idea that 13 is bad luck)
14=Spiritual difference or spiritual contrast
15= 3x5=8+7=Divine grace
23=Prosperity, abundance
37=Word of God

Ah, these jive more closely with Peter’s number types. All of these number types from you and Peter have been enlightening Numbers seem extremely significant. Like music, they seem to be closely aligned to God-Man communication.

 

[PJM]

=tobinatorstark;5314777]Private interpretation of scripture isn’t allowed. And to suggest that Church privately interprets scripture is making the Church look like it is professing heresy. The Church does interpret scriptures via the Holy Spirit and not privately. Saying the Church does teach something when it doesn’t in spreading heresy. I honestly don’t think you know what I mean. BY no means does that mean you are speaking heresy because you didn’t know something was heresy when it was spoke.

What the heck is this about:shrug:

While one is “foolhardy” to try to personally interpet Sacred Scritpture, one is nevertheless free to do so at their our risk, with possibily salvation hanging in the balance.

God only promised to insre and guareentee The Truth for His Catholic Church, no one, and no other church has the surety of God’s very words but the RCC.

There is a reason for a 2,000 year continous and broken set of beliefs. It is God’s Church, He will NOT allow the Church [not its people, except for Official Teachings] He started to be in error on matters of Faith and or Morals.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, please, relax. If you were a Marine sniper, I’d be dead already!

You’ve said enough, and, more importantly, you’ve been humble enough, so that I can “get a handle” on the kind of person you are, and you are clearly a good person.

Please, bear with me. Be patient. I am a loyal son of the Church. If you are patient, you will see that what I articulate is a little bit avant-garde, but it is actually also ultimately the most conservative, most pro-Church material afoot in the Church today.

I promise you that my material is pro-Church. And I love the feedback of folks like you, because it helps my faith to mature. But you don’t have to be suspicious!

Note: Marine snipers have to be relaxed or they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Granted, I have read some pro-Church material of yours. But one needs to go back to the referred two posts regarding being “risky.” So please keep your above promise and tell me how Christ being “symbolized by sin symbols” in the Old Testament is pro-Church. Also, please explain how an improper meaning of Transubstantiation is pro-Church.

Regarding being suspicious–that is my middle name spelled with a capital S.

Blessings,
grannymh

All human life is sacred.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Note: Marine snipers have to be relaxed or they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Granted, I have read some pro-Church material of yours. But one needs to go back to the referred two posts regarding being “risky.” So please keep your above promise and tell me how Christ being “symbolized by sin symbols” in the Old Testament is pro-Church. Also, please explain how an improper meaning of Transubstantiation is pro-Church.

Regarding being suspicious–that is my middle name spelled with a capital S.

Blessings,
grannymh

All human life is sacred.

Well, friend, your attitude does not seem appropo for one with an open heart and open ears. So, I tried, but I will not try more. I’ll just pray. God bless you.

 

[grannymh]

Well, friend, your attitude does not seem appropo for one with an open heart and open ears. So, I tried, but I will not try more. I’ll just pray. God bless you.

And I shall pray for you that your love for the Church will continue to deepen within your heart and mind. Remember Father Hardon and his gentle love.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[PJM]

=Peter Dawson;5316584]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?

Friend, I am a member of the Certified Marian Catechesit Apostolate And I was blessed to have been mentored by Father Hardon.

If I understand you’re position you are espousing “The Virgin Birth” of Jesus? Correct?

Yet, both positions seem to be errors. As far as I can see, what I just wrote in this post is honest, and moral.

Can you be a bit more specific on “seem to be errors?”

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!

What were these teachings?

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 God is no longer "all powerful?"

Here is the Haydock Catholic Comentary on it: Ver. 23. "Every male opening the womb.[2] This translation is more conformable to the doctrine of the Fathers, that Christ was born without opening the womb; which Ven. Bede calls the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Witham) — See Exodus xiii. 2. and Numbers viii. 16."

"The term open the womb" was used to fulfill Bibical Prophecy of Exo. 13: 11 “And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your fathers, and shall give it to you, 12 you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb.”

***My understanding of the verse is that it is saying explicitly that Jesus was born of and through Mary. Was it a “vaginal birth?” YES! Did Mary retain her Virginity? YES!

Implied is that God Willed that she retain her virginity to as to remain “perfected” *which is a wholly necessary element of becoming the Mother of God. Because God is perfect, God could not become Incarnate, through an “imperfect person.” This has nothing to do per sae with Mary [beyond her freewill fiat; her YES] and everytging to do with the Will and Power of God, through the merits of her son, Jesus. **

Keep in mind TRUTH does not require our understanding it, to be "The truth."

Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, * the Lord is with you!” * 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35* And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born * will be called holy, the Son of God.

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.

“Inerrent” = without error
“Infallibilty” without a possibility of error.References; 2 Cor. 13: 8; Gal. 2:5; 2 Tim. 1: 13-14Jn. 16: 12-15; Jn. 17: 14-19; Eph. 11: 13-14; Jn. 14: 25; Jn. 14:15;

Everything in the Bible is “true” however not everything in the Bible is "factual."

www.adormusbulletin.org/ Pope Benedict/ Speaks to Pontifical Bible College

Just published an article explaining Bible translation, that you may wish to read.

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.

Fair enough, but would not Father Hardon urge you to find out how?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[grannymh]

Friend, I am a member of the Certified Marian Catechesit Apostolate And I was blessed to have been mentored by Father Hardon.
Love and prayers,
Pat

Are you aware that Father Hardon’s cause for sainthood is being explored?

 

[DebChris]

PJM
My reading of “open the womb” as used in Luke 2:22-24 is simply to be born of woman. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. He was born without sin, yet like all other first born males needed to be presented to the Lord as ransom.
For that reason, the word I add after “fruit of your womb, Jesus_____” when praying the 4th joyfull mystery of the Rosary isredeemer Christ came to redeem us from our sins. He is our ransom.
A couple of years ago, I read the vision of St. Brigit regarding the birth of Christ. While men debate the issue, St. Brigit’s vision clearly confirmed that Christ was born of a virgin.
He will not break the tender reed (Isaiah 42:3).

 

[PJM]

=grannymh;5336753]Are you aware that Father Hardon’s cause for sainthood is being explored?

Yes,

I receive regular updates.

With Bisop Burke now being in Rome, one can start to see how wonderfully mysterious are Gods works and plans.

THANK YOU so much

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Friend, I am a member of the Certified Marian Catechesit Apostolate And I was blessed to have been mentored by Father Hardon.

If I understand you’re position you are espousing “The Virgin Birth” of Jesus? Correct?

Can you be a bit more specific on “seem to be errors?”

What were these teachings?

So God is no longer "all powerful?"

Here is the Haydock Catholic Comentary on it: Ver. 23. "Every male opening the womb.[2] This translation is more conformable to the doctrine of the Fathers, that Christ was born without opening the womb; which Ven. Bede calls the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Witham) — See Exodus xiii. 2. and Numbers viii. 16."

"The term open the womb" was used to fulfill Bibical Prophecy of Exo. 13: 11 “And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your fathers, and shall give it to you, 12 you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb.”

***My understanding of the verse is that it is saying explicitly that Jesus was born of and through Mary. Was it a “vaginal birth?” YES! Did Mary retain her Virginity? YES!

Implied is that God Willed that she retain her virginity to as to remain “perfected” ***which is a wholly necessary element of becoming the Mother of God. Because God is perfect, God could not become Incarnate, through an “imperfect person.” This has nothing to do per sae with Mary [beyond her freewill fiat; her YES] and everytging to do with the Will and Power of God, through the merits of her son, Jesus.

Keep in mind TRUTH does not require our understanding it, to be "The truth."

Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, * the Lord is with you!” * 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35* And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born * will be called holy, the Son of God.

“Inerrent” = without error
“Infallibilty” without a possibility of error.References; 2 Cor. 13: 8; Gal. 2:5; 2 Tim. 1: 13-14Jn. 16: 12-15; Jn. 17: 14-19; Eph. 11: 13-14; Jn. 14: 25; Jn. 14:15;

Everything in the Bible is “true” however not everything in the Bible is "factual."

www.adormusbulletin.org/ Pope Benedict/ Speaks to Pontifical Bible College

Just published an article explaining Bible translation, that you may wish to read.

Fair enough, but would not Father Hardon urge you to find out how?

Love and prayers,
Pat

Fr. Hardon was a Jesuit whom I consulted on the telephone respecting some proposed periodicals on The Faith I could not get any magazine interested in, at the time.

I attended St. Joe’s University in Philly, so, locating him and talkking to him was easy to arrange.

Fr. Hardon was a good man.

The thing I called him about was Pope Liberius, on the great Arian Heresy. Fr. Hardon seemed to contend, in his book, that he believed that at one point Pope Liberius taught Arianism. I called him, and he confirmed that my reading of the implication of his book was correct. He agreed that when Pope Liberius condemned HIS OWN teaching, Pope Liberius fundamentally confirmed Fr. Hardon’s implication.

I’ll cover the subject of ***in partu ***virginity in another thread.

 

[PJM]

Fr. Hardon was a Jesuit whom I consulted on the telephone respecting some proposed periodicals on The Faith I could not get any magazine interested in, at the time.

I attended St. Joe’s University in Philly, so, locating him and talkking to him was easy to arrange.

Fr. Hardon was a good man.

The thing I called him about was Pope Liberius, on the great Arian Heresy. Fr. Hardon seemed to contend, in his book, that he believed that at one point Pope Liberius taught Arianism. I called him, and he confirmed that my reading of the implication of his book was correct. He agreed that when Pope Liberius condemned HIS OWN teaching, Pope Liberius fundamentally confirmed Fr. Hardon’s implication.

I’ll cover the subject of ***in partu ***virginity in another thread.

Thanks for your reply.

Love and prayers,
Pat