I recently read Tobias for the second time. I was reminded as I read that several years ago I had once before, but they story had made no lasting impression on me. At the first time I intended to read the ‘Apocrypha’ to see how it ‘measured up’ as Scripture; I was determining, then, if I would become Catholic. By an unmerited grace, my readig of the whole Scripture, including those books yet unknown to me was put off till I put my faith in the Church which canonized them, and what is this but to put faith in the Lord who established the Church, For, what blind wickedness is this, for a mere man to place himself as judge of the veracity of the Word Written?! Kindly, the Lord saw fit that I should not read the full Catholic Bible until I had submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church. And I do, at least to this point, have unwavering faith that the Douay-Rheims, along with attending commentary, is an authoritative representation of the Scripture given by divine revelation for the instruction of the faithful.
The only true Scripture being through the Latin, which is itself only a reflection of the original texts of Hebrew, Greek, with fragments of Assyrian, and such. And it is further known that our Lord spoke the Word’s of Life in Aramaic, so no text is a pure transcription of His spoken words. But, even these accounts are filtered through the inspired writer's dispositions. Not to produce error, but also not to be mere dictations, at least not for the most part of the Record: there are of course those direct words of God such as the Ten Commandments, the voice of the ephod, and that of the prophets, and most clearly those of our Blessed Lord when He walked with mankind. Without the eye of faith, and trust in the divine authority of of the collection of writings we call Holy Scripture, we will indeed be full of doubt as to their veracity, and once we begin this process of proving, not one of the books of Scripture will remain undoubted by the textual criticism of sanctimonious ‘experts’.
So, it is none of my business to question the veracity of Tobias or any other book of Sacred Scripture canonized by the Church, as my Protestant forefathers did. How is this not of the houses of Cain and Jeroboam? It is only for me to take this as an opportunity to enact my new and growing faith in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, to receive Tobias, and Judith, and all the other books that were so impiously rent from the Scripture, as the latter fruits of my walk. Though I am still in the process of making the ‘personal choice’ as to where this Church exists today, I do most certainly believe, without doubt, that it existed in the past and up until the year of my birth, 1965, it could be found within the social and material structure which is call the Catholic Church. Tobias, a godly man in exile, is certainly of that earlier period, as is the cannon which elevates his story to Scripture. And what is his book if not a hagiography? The Church teaches us to see that though there was an age of transition, a period of grace between the Old, principally ethnic Covenant of Moses, and the ethnically open, New Covenant in Christ, yet there is no absolute division between these Old and New Covenants, so I can look to Tobias as an honoured fore bearer. He is most certainly a Christian!
The single passage from Tobias we look at here is, like all Scripture, plain in delivery, yet dense with implication.
Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. And [Tobias’] father that was blind, rising up, began to run stumbling with his feet: and giving a servant his hand, went to meet his son. Tobias 11: 9-10
I am so blessed by this vignette of human existence with dogs. Apart from this passage in Tobias, dogs get mostly negative report in Scripture: they lick blood from chariots, or consume the body of Jezebel (though carefully leaving the palms of her hands and the soles of her feet!) Or, By our Lord, dogs are presented as they to whom it would be disgraceful to give your children’s food. And of course this would be disgraceful. Yet, by this delightful scene, we know this loyal creature clung to the younger Tobias on his long journey away from and back to home, and with a devotion which we are so often slack in toward our Master. It is made apparent he was part of the family as all dogs are when allowed to wait around the masters table for crumbs and handouts. And he knew, as dogs do, without language, that a happy reunion was coming, and if he could speak he would have shouted as the harbinger of this great joy, “Be of good cheer, your son returns!”.
It seems that this canine scene may have offended Protestants, and may have been a justification Tobias’ removal from their Bible. I say this only by the evidence of the footnote on verse nine from the Douay-Rheims Online. I am happy to be corrected, but I understand these notes have collected over time from the initial publication. Many of them contend with Protestant misuse of Scripture, along with other errors and heresies. So, the statement bellow, that such seemingly insignificant events should be recorded in Scripture, fits in with this apologetic motive.
"The dog": This may seem a very minute circumstance to be recorded in sacred history: but as we learn from our Saviour, [Matt 5:18], there are iotas and tittles in the word of God: that is to say, things that appear minute, but which have indeed a deep and mysterious meaning in them. Footnote to Tobias 11:9
Scripture, while not normally burdened with such fine details, does at times give a more vivid vision of a scene. The case of Jezebel above, for example. Commonly the Scripture plainly records that someone “was slain”, and other times gives the shocking details, Such as Judas’ or Herod’s deaths in the Acts. Or by way of more edifying details, such as when our Lord tells the damsel's parents to “Give her something to eat”. Was this because He who raised the dead could not also fill her belly? Ha. No! Perhaps our Lord was by a singular grace allowing the parents to participate in the restoration of their daughter to life. Perhaps He was teaching us all that she is still mortal. Perhaps there are many true reasons this detail is included. And as the Douay-Rheims footnote from Tobias 7:9 states, these little details “have indeed a deep and mysterious meaning in them”.
A principle theme of Tobias is loyalty. Tobias the elder, is a man of simple devotion who even after suffering the indignity of being made blind when “hot dung out of a swallow’s nest” fell into his eye in Chapter 2 verse 11. he blesses rather than curses the Lord. And this accident happened when he has found himself sleeping in the rough because exhausted through his pious alms-work; Tobias hid by day the bodies of fellow Israelites, slain in the land of their captivity, to bury them under cover of night, so as not to be seen by the Assyrian authorities. Tobias’ friends and relations mock his continued simple devotion, asking where is the reward of all his service to the Lord through His people. But Tobias exhorts plainly,
For we are the children of the saints, and look for that life which God will give to those that never change their faith from him. Tobias 2:18
A dog will almost never turn on its master, even if abused. The Lord tries us, but never abuses, for, if we put these trials to good use, under a proper disposition, they will become blessings. The elder Tobias is as devoted to God as the dog is to the younger Tobias, and as the younger man is to the elder. Like a faithful pooch, there is no condition under which the father Tobias’ devotion can be turned from his Master. Though we would deny that the dog has a free will in the same measure or kind that a man does, the man, Tobias, has so fully given his life to the service of his God, that his will is free in God’s, rather than imprisoned in his own desires.
Imagine the joyful relief the dog’s coming brought to that sorrowfully waiting family, wagging and twisting his whole body, jumping up and licking the hands and face of the father. Tobias could not know by sight his son was returning, as was just reported by his wife Anna, who had been watching for days from a good vantage just without the city for the first sign of return; but this dog, he was a certain sign! And in anticipation of the soon restoration of his sight, Tobias leaps to his feet to go and meet his son, only after this act of blind faith, does he reach for a servant’s arm to guide his way. I pray I will grow to only a portion of Tobias’ canine faithfulness to my Mater, in the time that remains to me in this age of exile.