Bleakness of Ecclesiastes resolved in Jesus Christ

 

 

“… the sighing sadness of Ecclesiastes has been eliminated.

“Where, O death, is your sting?” writes Paul quoting Hosea”.

 

Stan Rock

 

 

Interesting writer, Stan Rock (2014)

Christus Victor: Existentialism Faces Eternity

 

Last week, we talked about how meaning is not objective. Every appeal for a rational justification of meaning in turn requires its own appeal.

 

This is the “infinite reference problem,” and pursuing it in search of some ultimate and rational end-point is a “chasing after the wind.”

 

We’re given this lesson from Ecclesiastes.

 

But, for us Christians, the future is not bleak. We have a unique solution, thanks to Jesus Christ.

 

It doesn’t solve the infinite reference problem, but it creates a practical meaning-fountain that annihilates the “existential monster.”

 

Everything is Meaningless

 

First, it’s vital to understand the extremely uncomfortable lesson given to us by Ecclesiastes.

 

In Ecclesiastes, the assumption is that when a man dies, he’s dead, and that’s it. You go to the grave. Your dust goes into the ground, your breath goes back to God. You’re finished.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:18-22

“I also said to myself, ‘As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same spirit/breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit/breath rises upward and if the spirit/breath of the animal goes down into the earth?’

 

So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?”

His early conclusion is to “just stop” on the axial value of enjoying your toil and lot.

Ecclesiastes 4:18

“This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them — for this is their lot.”

The essential premise of Ecclesiastes is that we’re not going to be around after we die.

 

Leaving a legacy still leaves uncertainty.

 

• Our bequests?
• Our treatises?
• Our progeny?

 

We cannot be certain in any of it.

 

Ecclesiastes 6:12

“For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?”

 

Thus, the “just stop” existential conclusion:

 

Ecclesiastes 9:9-10

“Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun — all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.”

 

Additionally, investments (though uncertain) are lauded (11:1-6), and obedience to God is demanded (11:7-10) because it’s our duty, and because we’ll risk his judgment — in life.

 

Many mainstream Christian teachers would like Ecclesiastes not to exist, or to say something other than what it does.

 

They’d prefer that it conclude with a rejection of “everything is meaningless,” as if teeing up a ball earlier only to finally smash it out of the park.

 

But that’s not what happens.

 

Ecclesiastes 12:6-10

“Remember [the Creator], before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit/breath returns to God who gave it.

 

‘Meaningless! Meaningless!’ says the Teacher. ‘Everything is meaningless!’ Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true.”

 

Meaning Generators

 

Even though everything is ultimately meaningless, we still create meaning since we’re beings with innate and/or molded interests. Each one of us is a “meaning fountain” — as is God himself.

 

It’s not about what simply is meaningful in a vacuum. It’s about what is regarded meaningful, according to the interests of beings with interests.

The writer of Ecclesiastes recognized that we generate meaning in this way through the provisions of life that we enjoy. We find meaning in food, drink, our projects, our families, our investments, and our thankful obligation to our Creator.

 

But, for us, that “generation” dies. In the end, we all go kaput.

That’s the sad and bleak part of all of this.

 

Then Comes Christus Victor

 

Paul tells us that man’s physical death is a consequence of his having sinned:

Romans 5:12-14

 

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

 

Through the appeal of baptism, we can voluntarily die to our sins. We are “baptized into his death,” which has a real and profound result:

Romans 6:3-5

“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

In Paul’s scathing first letter to the Corinthians, he calls out those who would deny the down-the-road resurrection of the dead.

 

He makes an argumentum ad absurdum in support of that general resurrection, which is this: Why the heck would we risk life and limb without a prospective purpose?

 

1 Corinthians 15:30-32a

“And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour [if there is no resurrection of the dead]? I face death every day — yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained?”

 

And then 32b:

“If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'”

 

That’s technically a quote from Isaiah — but it reminds you of another book, doesn’t it?

 

Without these resurrections, our faith is useless says Paul (v. 13-14).

 

Instead, we have a hope in that down-the-road resurrection, because of victorious Christ.

 

1 Corinthians 15:54,57b

“When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’ … Thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

In other words, we’re back in Ecclesiastes-Land without the general resurrection.

The general resurrection doesn’t make Ecclesiastes false. Ecclesiastes was correct — “upright and true” — when it said that there was no objective underpinning of meaning, and that meaning is generated by interests and experience.

 

But the sighing sadness of Ecclesiastes has been eliminated. “Where, O death, is your sting?” writes Paul quoting Hosea.

 

The Limitless Future

 

We’re in a pickle when we demand, for every statement of meaning, an appeal to a higher justification.

 

But what if we simply demand a future justification?

 

And what if our future keeps going?

 

Suddenly, while the infinite reference problem still exists (and can never be solved), it can at least be made practically moot by the fact that we’ll always have new and novel prospects — forever — after the advent of that “New Earth.”

 

Really, Really Limitless

 

Some folks are afraid that we’ll get bored.

 

While we have a sacred hope that being in the presence of God will be overwhelmingly satisfying, it’s a hope impossible to convey or even conceptualize.

 

So let’s also say: “Actually, eternity probably won’t ‘run out.'”

 

• First, our material brains don’t store things very well. Can you recall what you were doing exactly one year ago? No, you can’t. You even find new enjoyable elements in movies you’ve seen dozens of times. You take pleasure and satisfaction in that “weakness” of perception and memory.
  –
• Second, God’s universe is likely stocked with innumerable things to discover. And the time it would take to discover even a miniscule fraction of that universe would represent a period under which innumerable new potential discoveries would be born.
  –
• Finally, however God’s universe is brimming with things to discover, it’ll be brimming over exponentially more with things we’ll be building ourselves for his glory.

 

No “Objective Meaning”; Rather, Endless Meaning

 

Many apologists rely on the idea of “objective meaning” in order avoid existential anxiety. They also use it as a logical wildcard in service of a rubber sword “Godproof” — often, they’ll threaten the listener with existential emptiness if they don’t accept the “objective meaning” they’re selling.

This is a very, very common tactic. But it’s not Biblical.

 

The Biblical message is that meaning is not objective. It’s generated by subjects with interests.

 

The writer of Ecclesiastes didn’t say, ‘Everything is meaningful, because it is grounded on some objective source of meaning.’

 

Rather, he said, ‘Everything is meaningless, and this is an upright and true teaching.’

 

We attain our hope by means of Christ, by whom death is conquered and obliterated. This grants us a beautiful device that allows us to generate meaning forever — and it has an infinite-year warranty.

 

This is our grand and overwhelming “happy non-ending.”

 

 

Mary is Queen by right of conquest

 

 

“Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of conquest:

through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace,

by divine relationship, by right of conquest, and by singular election”.

 

Pope Pius XII

 

 

Library - The Father William Most Theological Collection | Catholic Culture

 

Co-redemption and Queenship in Ad Caeli Reginam

 

[American Ecclesiastical Review 133 (September 1955) 171-82.

(Also published as "De corredemptione et regalitate in epistula encyclica 

Ad Caeli Reginam", in Marianum, 1955.]

 

The brilliant light of a new Marian Encyclical, the Ad Caeli Reginam, illumined the closing days of the Marian Year [1954]. This Encyclical is important because it proclaims the new liturgical feast of the Queenship of Mary. But it also has special doctrinal significance, for in it, in the course of his explanation of the titles on which Mary's Queenship rests, the Pope has devoted several lengthy paragraphs to the subject of Mary's Co-redemption. This is the first time that a Pope has treated that subject at such length.

 

By way of providing a setting for our consideration of the present Encyclical, it will be helpful to review briefly an earlier Queenship message of the present Holy Father, the Bendito seja.¹ 

 

On May 13, 1946, the Pope made a broadcast over the Vatican Radio to Fatima, in which he also brought Mary's Co-redemption into relation with her Queenship. In the Ad Caeli Reginam, the Holy Father takes great pleasure in recalling that earlier message: "... it is especially pleasing to recall to memory the radio-message which we transmitted to the people of Portugal, when the wonderful image of the Virgin Mary, which is honored at Fatima, was crowned with a golden diadem ..."

 

The central portion of the Pope's words on Queenship in the Bendito seja reads as follows: "Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of conquest: through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest, and by singular election."² We note especially that the Holy Father says that Christ is King "by right of conquest." These words are perfectly clear when applied to Christ: they refer to the fact that by the great sacrifice of Calvary, He reconquered mankind from the captivity of the devil, by paying the price of our redemption.

 

But the Holy Father likewise says that one of the titles by virtue of which Mary is Queen is also "by right of conquest"! Now it is a general principle

of the interpretation of language, that when the same speaker, in the same context, uses the same words, he ought, unless he makes some qualification, to mean them in the same sense. The Holy Father did insert a qualification, saying that Mary is Queen only "through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him." But since he added no other restriction, we should not presume to add any other. Hence, to apply our principle, the words "by right of conquest" must mean that Mary, in subordination to Christ, shared in the reconquest, in the very payment of the price of our redemption in the sacrifice of Calvary!

 

In the Ad Caeli Reginam, the Pope restates this same truth with fresh emphasis and in many different ways. First of all, the very setting and context in which he places the paragraphs on Mary's co-operation in the redemption are quite illuminating. Before taking up her share in the redemption, he says:

 

"... the most Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only because of her Divine Motherhood, but also because she, by the will of God, had an outstanding part in the work of our eternal salvation."³ Here the Holy Father clearly distinguishes Mary's Divine Motherhood from her "outstanding part" in the work of redemption. Thus he makes clear that he has in mind more than just a remote, more than just a slight share in the redemption, for this role of hers is "outstanding" and is something different from, and therefore extending beyond Bethlehem.

 

After describing at length Mary's co-operation, the Holy Father again sums up the two grounds on which her Queenly title rests, and draws a conclusion:

 

... Mary ... as the Mother of Christ ... the associate in the work of the Divine Redeemer, and in His struggle with the enemy and in His victory gained over all, shares in the royal dignity ... from this association with Christ arises her royal power, by which she is able to dispense the treasures of the Kingdom of the Divine Redeemer....⁴

 

Thus we see that her "outstanding part" in the work of redemption is distinct not only from the Divine Motherhood,⁵ but that it is also distinct from her role as Mediatrix of all graces. It remains that the Pope must be speaking of an "outstanding part" taken by Mary on Calvary.

 

But let us turn now to the paragraphs in which the Holy Father explains more directly and explicitly what he means by this "outstanding part" that Mary played.

 

Immediately after the wards which we have already quoted, in which the Pope draws a distinction between Mary's Divine Motherhood, and her co-operation in the work of salvation, he quotes a passage from Pope Pius XI: "What is more pleasant ... to think of ... than that Christ rules over us not only by natural right, but also by an acquired right, that is, the right of redemption.... Christ has bought us 'with a great price'." By means of this sentence the Pope sets the scene, and shows us that he has in mind the very center of the redemption, the payment of the "great price" of the blood of Christ. In the very next sentence he continues: "Now in accomplishing this work of redemption, the most blessed Virgin Mary was certainly intimately associated with Christ...." We note the way the word "this" helps to place Mary's co-operation in the context of Calvary: for "this," being a demonstrative, points back to the previous sentence, which spoke of the death of Christ by which we were bought "with a great price."

 

The relation to Calvary is further indicated in the remainder of the above sentence, for the complete sentence reads:

 

Now in accomplishing this work of redemption, the most Blessed Virgin Mary was certainly intimately associated with Christ; rightly therefore do we sing in the Sacred Liturgy: "Holy Mary, the Queen ... stood sorrowful by the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."⁶

 

Let us suppose for a moment that in this passage the Holy Father really meant to limit Mary's association in the redemption to a remote co-operation, extending only to Bethlehem, not also to Calvary. Would it not be, to say the least, misleading language to say that "therefore" (because of a remote co-operation that would not extend to Calvary) "rightly" does the Liturgy sing of her on Calvary!

 

The passage that follows makes the extent of Mary's association entirely clear. After dwelling briefly in a general way on this intimate association of Mary, the Holy Father enters in the next paragraph on a closely knit chain of reasoning:

 

... if Mary, in obtaining spiritual salvation, was ... associated with Jesus Christ, the principle of salvation itself, and in a way quite similar to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the principle of death, so that it can be said that the work of our salvation was done according to a certain "recapitulation" ... and if she really was the one "who ... always most intimately united with her Son, as the New Eve, offered Him on Golgotha, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and love ..." then, without a doubt, we can conclude that just as Christ, the New Adam, should be called King not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, by a certain kind of analogy, the most Blessed Virgin is Queen not only because she is the Mother of God, but also because as the New Eve she was associated with the New Adam.⁷

 

Here the Holy Father teaches the truth of Mary's co-operation by the classic patristic comparison and antithesis Mary-Eve, Christ-Adam He says that Mary's position was similar to that of Eve. Now Adam was the head of the human race: if he alone had fallen, it would have been enough to involve us in ruin, while if Eve alone had sinned, it would have had a bad example, but no original sin. Yet, in the actual event, it was not Adam alone nor Eve alone who sinned-both co-operated, though on different levels. Only Adam could ruin mankind-but Eve did what she could, and in her inferior way shared in the fall.⁸

 

Now Eve, as we see, was involved in original sin, not just in some remote way, but in the very act of sin itself. Hence, if Mary's position is similar to that of Eve, she must have been involved with equal immediacy in the very act by which we were restored.

 

Some theologians have wondered whether we could confidently press the New Eve parallel so far as to include an immediate co-operation by Mary, that is, one extending even to Calvary. Were we left merely to the resources of our own deductions, such a doubt would be understandable. However, the Holy Father, whose place it is to interpret authentically for us the meaning of Scripture and Tradition, continues, and tells us as plainly as possible, in the words of his own Encyclical, Mystici Corporis,⁹ that Mary's co-operation with Christ did not begin with being His Mother, and then break off-rather, she was "always most intimately united with her Son" and she "as the New Eve, offered Him on Golgotha, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and love...." Surely, no more plain words could be found to say that the comparison of Mary to Eve extends even to Golgotha, where Mary "offered Him" and included in that offering "the holocaust of her maternal rights and love...."

 

But there is more: the Pope says that the reasons for Mary's Queenship form "a certain kind of analogy"¹⁰ with the reasons for Christ's Kingship. Now Christ is King, as the Holy Father had said earlier "not only by natural right ... but also by an acquired right ... Christ bought us 'with a great price'" - that is, He is King - "not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer."

 

The conclusion is obvious: Mary, by analogy, must have shared in the work of that Redeemer, in the payment of that price. Were we to deny her such a sharing the second half of the analogy would be destroyed.

 

Finally, as we have seen above, the Holy Father sums up his own thought, saying:

 

... Mary ... as the Mother of Christ ... the associate in the work of the Divine Redeemer, and in His struggle with the enemy and in His victory gained over all, shares in the royal dignity ... from this association with Christ arises her royal power, by which she is able to dispense the treasures of the Kingdom of the Divine Redeemer....

 

What is this "struggle" in which Mary is the associate or "ally" (socia) of Christ? Surely it is none other than that "struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son''¹¹ of which the same Holy Father wrote in the constitution defining the Assumption-the struggle which resulted in "that most complete victory over sin and death" of which "the resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign" and which, for Mary "had to be closed by the 'glorification' of her virginal body." In other words, it was the terrible struggle of Calvary, in which the "great price" was paid for our redemption: the struggle that was "common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son," in which she was His "associate" (socia).

 

To sum up, then, Mary is "intimately associated with Christ"-not only by virtue of the Divine Motherhood, not only by the "power by which she is able to dispense the treasures of the Kingdom"-but also by virtue of the fact that she "as the New Eve, offered Him on Golgotha"; so that the titles on which her Queenship rests are parallel to those on which the Kingship of Christ rests: both have royalty "by right of redemption," by victory in the "struggle,"¹² as well as by the fact that the One is God and the other, the Mother of God. ….

 

Playful archangel Raphael too clever for humans and demons

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

The subtle angel may also have had modern biblical exegetes well in mind when,

in answer to the question of Tobias: ‘Can you go with me to Rages in Media?

Are you acquainted with that region?’ The angel replied, ‘I will go with you;

I am familiar with the way …’. (Tobit 5:5-6).

  

The archangel Raphael appears in the form of a young man when Tobias is looking for someone to guide him to the land of Media at his father Tobit’s request (Tobit 5:3-8):

 

Then Tobit gave [Tobias] the receipt, and said to him, ‘Find a man to go with you and I will pay him wages as long as I live; and go and get the money’. So he went to look for a man; and he found Raphael, who was an angel, but Tobias did not know it. Tobias said to him, ‘Can you go with me to Rages in Media? Are you acquainted with that region?’ The angel replied, ‘I will go with you; I am familiar with the way, and I have stayed with our brother Gabael’. Then Tobias said to him, ‘Wait for me, and I shall tell my father’. And he said to him, ‘Go, and do not delay’. So he went in and said to his father, ‘I have found some one to go with me’. He said, ‘Call him to me, so that I may learn to what tribe he belongs, and whether he is a reliable man to go with you’.

 

The ancient Greeks enjoyed this colourful incident so much that they absorbed it into The Odyssey, with Telemachus taking the place of Tobias and the disguised archangel, Raphael, being replaced by, not surprisingly, a Greek deity, in this case the goddess Athena disguised as the young man, Mentes.

 

Mentes (King of the Taphians) - Wikipedia

“In Book I, the Goddess Athena disguises herself as Mentes, an old family friend of Odysseus, when she goes to visit his son, Telemachus. Athena, disguised as him, tells Telemachus that he is sailing to the city of Temese with his own crew, claiming that he is in search of bronze. …. Although Mentes had hardly any appearances in Greek myths of earlier antiquity, he became a symbol of a guardian and a mentor. …”.

 

While Raphael will help Tobias get the money (silver), Mentes “is in search of bronze”.

 

Tobit, old and presently blind, will be no match for the tricky Raphael when Tobit attempts to learn the young man’s name and origins (vv. 9-15):

 

So Tobias invited him in; he entered and they greeted each other. Then Tobit said to him, ‘My brother, to what tribe and family do you belong? Tell me’. But he answered, ‘Are you looking for a tribe and a family or for a man whom you will pay to go with your son?’ And Tobit said to him, ‘I should like to know, my brother, your people and your name’. He replied, ‘I am Azarias the son of the great Ananias, one of your relatives’. Then Tobit said to him, ‘You are welcome, my brother. Do not be angry with me because I tried to learn your tribe and family. You are a relative of mine, of a good and noble lineage. For I used to know Ananias and Jathan, the sons of the great Shemaiah, when we went together to Jerusalem to worship and offered the first-born of our flocks and the tithes of our produce. They did not go astray in the error of our brethren. My brother, you come of good stock. But tell me, what wages am I to pay you—a drachma a day, and expenses for yourself as for my son? 

 

And besides, I will add to your wages if you both return safe and sound’. So they agreed to these terms.

 

Surely, this must be the same elusive being as the mysterious one, “the man”, with whom the patriarch Jacob had wrestled and had hoped to wrest from him his identity – but to no avail (Genesis 32:24-29):

 

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, ‘Let me go, for it is daybreak’.

But Jacob replied, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me’.

The man asked him, ‘What is your name?’

‘Jacob’, he answered.

Then the man said, ‘Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome’.

Jacob said, ‘Please tell me your name’.

But he replied, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ Then he blessed him there.

 

Compare:

 

‘Please tell me your name’. (Genesis)

‘I should like to know, my brother, your people and your name’. (Tobit)

 

Jacob’s (and Tobit’s) question: ‘Please tell me your name’, like another ancient question, this time from Jacob’s father, Isaac, ‘Where is the lamb?’ (Genesis 22:7), will resound down through the centuries, until being definitively answered.

For, the angel Raphael will, late in the Book of Tobit, reveal his true identity (12:15): ‘ I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One’.

 

And Isaac’s question will be answered only upon the arrival of the Messiah whom Isaac had foreshadowed, when the Baptist declared: ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’ (John 1:29).

 

The archangel had brilliantly chosen an identity that was both accurate in its meaning, and one that lulled Tobit into thinking that he was a relative from a good family.  

 

Likewise, in The Odyssey, the goddess Athena will portray herself as a family friend. For, as we read above: “… the Goddess Athena disguises herself as Mentes, an old family friend of Odysseus, when she goes to visit his son, Telemachus”.

 

Chris Cammarata has well explained the archangel Raphael’s resorting to subterfuge:

 

In the Book of Tobit, angel Raphael pretends he is Azariah, the son of Hananiah the elder. Why did the Angel lie? Isn’t it a sin to lie? – Catholic Café

 

In the Book of Tobit, angel Raphael pretends he is Azariah, the son of Hananiah the elder. Why did the Angel lie? Isn’t it a sin to lie?

 

It is a sin to lie, but the angel isn’t exactly lying. In this situation it’s more like he isn’t revealing the whole truth–at least not yet.

 

The nature of St. Raphael’s mission required that he keep his angelic identity hidden. Other angels in the Old Testament did this as well. Angels are fearful, powerful, and glorious creatures–that’s why they often begin their messages with “do not be afraid!” Masking their angelic nature serves a practical purpose–and it also emphasizes that God is the one who deserves the glory, not the angel.

 

The reason St. Raphael gives the name Azariah to Tobit in the first place is because he urges the angel to tell him where he is from.  So Raphael gets around it with a funny trick: he gives Tobit and Tobiah the name “Azariah, son of Hananiah.” The name Azariah means “God has helped” and Hananiah means “God has shown mercy.” So basically Raphael is disguising his identity while at the same time secretly hinting at it–his whole mission, as revealed at the end of the story, began because Raphael brought their family’s prayer before the Lord and so was sent to help them (see Tobit 12:11-20). He calls himself a “kinsman” and an “Israelite” as a way of showing that they belong to the same spiritual family–the people of God.

 

So you can sort of think of Azariah as the angel’s “codename” for the mission!

 

And just to clear up any confusion on lying, the Catechism notes that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional” (CCC 2488). We have to judge in particular situations whether it is the right time and circumstance to reveal the truth. Being truthful requires prudence, too. Also, “no one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it” (CCC 2489). In the case of St. Raphael, Tobit and his family didn’t have the right to know his true identity–but in the end, he reveals it to them to “declare the works of God with due honor” (Tobit 12:11).The irony in the story of Tobit is that when St. Raphael first enters Tobit’s house and greets him, he tells him: “Take courage! God’s healing is near; so take courage” (Tobit 5:10). What does the name Raphael mean? “God’s healing” (or “God heals”)!

 

More angelic tricks

 

And Raphael, having revealed his name, lets slip another secret.

He was not actually eating, as he had appeared to be, when he was Tobit’s family (12:19): “All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision”.

 

Early during their trek to the land of Media, at the River Tigris, the angel will have to intervene to save Tobias from being devoured by a fish (6:1-3):

 

Now as they proceeded on their way they came at evening to the Tigris river and camped there. Then the young man went down to wash himself. A fish leaped up from the river and would have swallowed the young man; and the angel said to him, ‘Catch the fish’. So the young man seized the fish and threw it up on the land.

 

In this incident, the brilliant archangel will demonstrate his breadth of knowledge of God’s created world, of the healing properties of vital parts of a fish, of demonology and exorcism: (vv. 4-8):

 

Then the angel said to him, ‘Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely’. So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish.

And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana. 

 

Then the young man said to the angel, ‘Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?’ He replied, ‘As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured’.

 

Young Tobias was in the care of a very astute travelling guide.

 

The subtle angel may also have had modern biblical exegetes well in mind when, in answer to the question of Tobias: ‘Can you go with me to Rages in Media? Are you acquainted with that region?’ The angel replied, ‘I will go with you; I am familiar with the way …’. (5:5-6).

For, according to Fr. D. Dumm, writing on “Tobit” for The Jerome Biblical Commentary, the angel was confused about the way, leading Tobias in the wrong direction: “[The angel] Raphael knows the journey of life far better than the route to Media!” But, unlike our ignorant generation, the archangel well knew that the land of Media was situated to the west, not to the east of Nineveh - a fact that Richard Erickson has recently demonstrated (2020) quite independently of the Book of Tobit:

 

A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

(5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

More angelic subtlety

 

As the travellers neared Ecbatana in Media, Raphael informs Tobias about the “beautiful and sensible” Sarah, his future wife (6:9-12):

 

When they approached Ecbatana, the angel said to the young man, ‘Brother, today we shall stay with Raguel. He is your relative, and he has an only daughter named Sarah. I will suggest that she be given to you in marriage, because you are entitled to her and to her inheritance, for you are her only eligible kinsman. The girl is also beautiful and sensible. Now listen to my plan. I will speak to her father, and as soon as we return from Rages we will celebrate the marriage. For I know that Raguel, according to the Law of Moses, cannot give her to another man without incurring the penalty of death, because you rather than any other man are entitled to the inheritance’.

 

Tobias, however, knowing that Sarah has been tormented by a demon who had already killed her previous seven husbands, is none too keen about this proposal (vv. 13-14):

 

Then the young man said to the angel, ‘Brother Azarias, I have heard that the girl has been given to seven husbands and that each died in the bridal chamber. Now I am the only son my father has, and I am afraid that if I go in I will die as those before me did, for a demon is in love with her, and he harms no one except those who approach her. So now I fear that I may die and bring the lives of my father and mother to the grave in sorrow on my account. And they have no other son to bury them’.

 

The resourceful angel, though, had already made preparations for this very situation (vv. 15-17):

 

But the angel said to him, ‘Do you not remember the words with which your father commanded you to take a wife from among your own people?

Now listen to me, brother, for she will become your wife; and do not worry about the demon, for this very night she will be given to you in marriage. When you enter the bridal chamber, you shall take live ashes of incense and lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish so as to make a smoke. Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will never again return. And when you approach her, rise up, both of you, and cry out to the merciful God, and he will save you and have mercy on you. Do not be afraid, for she was destined for you from eternity. You will save her, and she will go with you, and I suppose that you will have children by her’. When Tobias heard these things, he fell in love with her and yearned deeply for her.

 

All went according to plan. Tobias and Sarah become happily married, and Asmodeus, “the worst of demons”, was bound by the archangel (8:3): “And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him”.

 

In The Odyssey, the demon is substituted by the evil god, Poseidon, who had pursued Odysseus relentlessly, and who goes off to Ethiopia, “the farthest limits of mankind”.

 

Another subtlety – the archangel’s use of the word “suppose” (Tobit 6:17): ‘You will save [Sarah], and she will go with you, and I suppose [ὑπολαμβάνω] that you will have children by her’.

Why does he say that?

Because, while he knows that Tobias and Sarah are, indeed, going to have children, many of them, he likewise knows that Tobias and Sarah, as Job and his wife, will tragically lose ten of them in one instant (Job 1:19).

 

The later Tobias-Job

 

Tobias-Job, as an old man, a prophet, still living at the time of the Medo-Persians, when the second Temple was nearing completion, and here under his Akkadian name, Habakkuk, will again be visited by he whom he had called in the Book of Job (16:19) his ‘witness … in heaven’, and his ‘advocate … on high’, surely the archangel Raphael.

 

The angel wants him to take food to Daniel, languishing in the den of lions in Babylon.

 

Once again, he who had a long time ago declared (Tobit 5:2): ‘…. I don’t know how to get to Media’, will now, as an old man, say to the angel: ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den’. (Daniel 14:35).

 

The resourceful angel, typically, will quickly fix that problem (14:36): “Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den”.

 

That’s what clever angels can do.