Remember that dog that wagged his tail? Consider where else in the Bible there is an animal that wags its tail: Revelation 12:4.

Vulgate:

Et cauda eius [draconis] trahebat tertiam partem stellarum caeli.

My translation:

And with his tail [the dragon's] he swept down a third of the stars of Heaven.

The stars are natural figures of the angels. Plato thought that the stars must have souls in order to move. Aristotle thought, rather, that angels moved them. By the middle ages they did not think that stars needed angels to move, but they still recognized that as part of the angels’ custody over material creation, some of them could be in charge of the stars. After all, God governs the universe through intermediaries. Besides all this, the stars are a natural symbol for the angels and likely contain some special connection with them. Thus, we have the traditional calculation that one third of the angels fell from grace.

Remember St Bede the Venerable’s words from our earlier reflection, the tail symbolizes the “end of operation (working)” since it is the end of the body. The dog in Tobit, with a wag of his tail, announces (”like a herald”) that the son whom they had taken for dead is about to return, that there is cause for joy, that the blind will be enlightened.

The tail of the dragon causes one third of the angels to fall from grace. The dragon is also opposed to the woman and the birth of her son who will rule all nations.

We begin to see a principle developing that the end of good operation, namely the end of love, of God’s law, is the unity of creation with God: the fellowship of angels and men (and beasts). The angels are elevated by grace, man is clearly elevated by the Incarnation, and the beasts are elevated by their association with man. See how all of the distinct parts of creation are united in the praise of God, who ennobles them.

Luke 19:40:

He answered them, “I tell you that if these [people] were silent, the stones would cry out.”

All of visible creation, made for man who is its summit, awaits the coming of that man who “reveals man to himself” (Gaudium et spes, 22).

Romans 8:22:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

All of creation was prepared for Christ. “Through him all things were made” (John 1:3) and he “recapitulates all things.” (Ephesians 1:10) Thus, all of invisible and visible creation tends toward the expectation of the new heavens and the new earth at the end of time (each thing according to its nature). Our souls await confirmation in grace. Our bodies will be raised. The elements, in turn, await their destruction by fire (and the coming of a new earth). This contingency pervades everything created because it is ex nihilo, but the tendency to return to nothing receives a new dynamic significance as we await the end of time. Nevertheless, Christ has saved us from this destruction by giving us so solid a foundation that we can survive the passing away of all things through our incorporation into him who remains. Thus, our expectation of the end of time is hopeful. We want to see him.

Finally, we men have a special place in all of this. Tobias, the son, journeyed away from home with a dog and an angel.

Mark 1:13:

And he [Jesus] was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Our Lord really did become “lower than the angels.” The startlingly unique boast of mankind is the hypostatic union. God is man. Satan’s hatred of God becomes a hatred of man, such that he wishes to devour the Son of the Woman of Revelation. An angel who has fallen to such depths that he is like a beast drags down one third of the stars of Heaven while a lowly dog with only a sensible soul announces the joyful return of a son and becomes the angel of an angel.

You may not find the following version of Tobit 11:9 in your Bible, but you will if you read the Vulgate or a translation thereof. Tobias has just come back from his journey with Raphael (but they don’t know that he is Raphael) to his father, who is still blind. There has been a dog with them on the journey.

Vulgate (Tobias 11:9):

Appropinquantibus domui praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat.

My translation:

As they approached the house, the dog, that had been on the road as well, ran ahead and, arriving like a herald, rejoiced with a wag of his tail.

There are some interesting notes. First, nuntius (messenger, herald) is a bit ironic since the dog has been traveling with Raphael. Remember that the Greek word for the Latin nuntius is angelos. So, the dog arrives “like an angel.” Second, though in English we say that a dog “wags his tail,” the Latin uses the word blandimentum, which refers not to the physical motion but to its social significance. It can mean “flattery,” “fawning,” and even “delight.” The dog was literally “rejoicing with the fawning of his tail.”

I’ve got to admit, I like this verse. I like the “small” and seemingly insignificant verses the Bible. Knowing that those details are the Word of God, helps me to appreciate the depth of revelation. There is also much more meaning that can be gleaned from such verses than you might think.

Let’s see what St Bede the Venerable said in his allegorical commentary on Tobit:

Non contemnenda est figura canis hujus, qui viator et comes angeli est. Doctores ergo, sicut et supra docuimus, exprimit Ecclesiae, qui saepe confligendo cum haereticis, lupos graves a Pastoris summi fugant ovili. Quibus bene congruit, quod canibus naturale est, beneficis rependere gratiam, et sollicitas excubias pro dominorum salute praetendere. Praecurrit ergo canis; quia prius salutem praedicat domui, deinde Dominus illuminator corda mundi. Et pulchre dicit quasi nuntius adveniens, quia nimirum doctor quisque fidelis nuntius est veritatis; pulchre, blandimento suae caudae gaudebat: cauda quippe, quae finis est corporis, finem bonae operationis, id est perfectionem, vel certe mercedem, quae sine fine tribuitur, insinuat. Blandimento ergo caudae gaudebat canis, cum tecta dominorum, quibus diu aberat, reviseret. Gaudent doctores de affectu sui operis, cum Judaeam per suum ministerium a Domino recolligendam intelligunt. Gaudent de praemii perceptione vitae sempiternae, et de hoc eodem praemio cunctis electis communi, corda eorum, quibus praedicant, exhilarant, dum eis adventuram confestim Christi gratiam promittunt.

Annuntiante igitur cane venisse Tobiam, exsurgens caecus pater ejus coepit offendens pedibus currere. Audito a doctoribus verbo salutis, exsurrexit populus
Hebraeorum de longo perfidiae suae veterno, currit amore ad Dominum; quamvis offendens gressibus operum, donec plenitudo fidei et operationis bonae, lucem recipiat regeneratus in Christo, et instructus.

My translation:

The figure of this dog, who is a way-farer and the companion of the angel, should not be spurned. Therefore, as we also taught above, it signifies the doctors of the Church, who often in struggling with heretics drive off troublesome wolves from the flock of the highest Shepherd. What is natural to dogs corresponded well to them, namely: to give back thanks for favors and to be concerned with watchful guard for the welfare of their masters. Thus the dog ran ahead because it first preaches salvation [In Latin, "welfare" and "salvation" are the same word] to the house, that is, the Lord who enlightens the hearts of the world. And it says beautifully “arriving like a herald” because each doctor is especially the faithful herald of the truth. Beautifully, also [it says that] “he rejoiced by wagging his tail” for the tail, which is the end of the body, points toward the end of good working, that is perfection or the reward that is given without end. So the dog rejoiced by wagging his tail when it saw again the roofs of its masters which it had not seen for so long. The doctors rejoice in the passion of their work since they understand that Judea will be reclaimed by the Lord through their ministry. They rejoice in seeing the prize of everlasting life, and their hearts rejoice in this same prize that is common to all the elect, to whom they preach, while they promise to them that the grace of Christ is to come at once.

Therefore, when the dog announced that Tobias had come, his blind father arose and began to run, stumbling. The Hebrew people, having heard the word of salvation from the doctors, rose from the long lethargy of their disbelief, runs to the Lord. It is as if they were stumbling in their works until, regenerated and taught in Christ, they could receive the light, the fullness of faith and good working.

This passage teaches us a lot about Advent:

Appropinquantibus domui praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat.

The dog runs out beforehand. He is the precursor to the coming of Tobias and Raphael, who will bring light and health into Tobit’s darkness. Tobit’s mother had already begun to despair of his ever returning, so these are the people who “sit in darkness and the shadow of death.” But, at the herald’s arrival (adventus), the father stands up. The herald’s message is one of joy (gaudium) and hope.

If you’ve been following Nancy Pelosi’s comments lately and the subsequent remarks by bishops and those in the blogosphere, you may have seen that the blog “Aliens in this World” has posted a translation of what St Augustine said.

A friend sent the Latin to me:

Utrum quod in utero formatum adhuc est, animatum posset intellegi.

80. (21, 22–25) Si autem litigabunt duo viri, et percusserint mulierem in utero habentem, et exierit infans eius nondum formatus; detrimentum patietur, quantum indixerit vir mulieris, et dabit cum postulatione.

Mihi videtur significationis alicuius causa dici haec, magis quam Scripturam circa huiusmodi facta occupatam. Nam si illud attenderet, ne praegnans mulier percussa in abortum compelleretur, non poneret duos litigantes viros, cum possit et ab uno hoc admitti, qui cum ipsa muliere litigaverit, vel etiam non litigaverit, sed alienae posteritati nocere volendo id fecerit. Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur.

Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intellegi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat.

Sequitur enim et dicit: Si autem formatum fuerit, dabit animam pro anima. Ubi quid aliud intellegitur, nisi, et ipse morietur? Nam hoc et in caeteris ex hac occasione iam praecipit: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede, combustionem pro combustione, vulnus pro vulnere, livorem pro livore: talionis videlicet aequitate. Quae Lex ideo constituit, ut demonstraret quae vindicta debeatur. Nisi enim per Legem sciretur quid vindictae deberetur, unde sciretur quid venia relaxaret, ut dici posset: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris? Debitores igitur Lege monstrantur, ut quando ignoscitur appareat quid dimittatur. Neque enim debita dimitteremus, nisi quid nobis deberetur Lege indice disceremus. Si ergo illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita. Quod autem dixit: Et dabit cum postulatione quod maritus mulieris, informi excluso, dandum constituerit, non est in promptu intellegere: quippe, quod graecus habet, pluribus modis intellegitur, et tolerabilius cum postulatione dictum est, quam si aliud diceretur. Fortassis enim postulabit ut det, ut eo modo satis Deo faciat, etiamsi maritus mulierve non expetat.

This is my own rendering:

Whether what is not yet formed in the womb can be understood as being ensouled.

80. (21, 22-25) “If two men quarrel and strike a pregnant woman, and the child (infans) that is not yet formed is expelled … he will pay whatever penalty the woman’s husband declares, and he will render it upon request.”

It seems to me that this is said for the sake of signifying something rather than that Scripture is concerned about deeds of this kind. For if did address it, so that a pregnant woman who has been struck would not be forced to miscarry, it would not suppose that there were two men fighting since this could also be perpetrated by one, who fought with the woman herself, or even if he did not fight with her, still willingly acted to harm another’s offspring. But it did not wish to regard the death of an unformed child as homicide, nor did it think what is borne in the womb to be a man.

Here the question regarding the soul usually comes up, whether what is not formed cannot be understood as ensouled, and therefore it would not be homicide since it cannot be said to be determined, if it still did not have a soul.

For it goes on to say: “If it was been formed, he will give a life for a life.” What else then should be understood except that he also should die? For it has established this already in the other cases of this type: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a would for a wound, a bruise for a bruise”: namely the justice of retribution. So the law established it to show what retributions would be owed. For unless it is known by the Law what retributions are owed, how would it be known what a pardon looses, as can be said: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive those in debt to us”? Debtors, therefore, are shown by the Law, as when it is not known it would be apparent what would be forgiven. For we would not forgive debts unless we had learned what is owed to us as the Law indicates. If therefore the offspring was unformed, but still in a certain way formlessly ensouled (since the great question concerning the soul must not be bound by the fear of an untested opinion), therefore the Law has did not wish to regard it as homicide, because it cannot yet be said that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sense, if it is such, not yet formed in the flesh, and therefore not yet provided with the senses. But, however, it said: “And he will render upon request what the woman’s husband established would be given for the expelled unformed offspring.” It is not easy to understand: naturally “Asioma,” what the Greek holds, is understood in several ways, and “upon request” is said to be more tolerable, than if it were said to be something else. For perhaps he would offer to render something, in order to satisfy God in this way, even if the husband or the woman did not ask.

I didn’t have a lot of time, so there may be errors.

Today is my mother’s birthday (also the optional memorial of the dedication of St. Mary Major, though the basilica is older than my mom). The occasion reminds me that I’ve used one’s mother’s birthday as an example before in a discussion about interpreting the Gospel for preaching.

Basically, my point was this: We need to avoid an approach that makes the stories in the Gospel generic. They’re not fables or fairy-tales. They contain archetypes, but they’re archetypal only secondarily. They are only exemplary because they are first concrete and unique occurrences in history.¹ When interpreting the Annunciation, for instance, we can’t let our preaching reduce it to a model of being called by God to do something that seems impossible or hard. Yes, it is a model, and the model applies to all of us, whereas none of us is going to be called to be the Mother of God. Nevertheless, it is first a unique event. The Annunciation is not only a species of the call-scene genus, it is more like the perfect form to which all other call-scenes are what they are by resemblance.

In a similar way, today is important to me not because it is an instance of “one’s mother’s birthday” but because it is my mom’s birthday.

---

1 Have you ever wondered why the Bible includes things that seem completely irrelevant at times? Why, for instance, do we need to know that the slave’s name was Malchus? Because that’s how it happened. Those little lines are powerful connections with people and events, not concepts.

Here’s a bad joke I came up with just now:

Q: What did Pontius Pilate say when St Thomas Aquinas asked him to prove Christ’s divinity?

A: “I find no cause in him” (John 18:38).

A commenter on my previous post on Philippians 2:6 has brought up some good points and moved me to look into the question of its meaning more deeply. While I still think the key is translating the second part as a verbal phrase (”that he was equal with God” / “for him to be equal with God”) rather than a nominal phrase (”equality with God”), I can see how “robbery” may not be the best translation.

“Who, being in the form of God, regarded the fact that he was equal with God not something to be clung to.” This could also work, perhaps. Even “something to be snatched/grasped” could be used assuming the rest is translated aptly, but I’m not ready to write off “robbery” yet completely.

Thanks for the lively discussion and for making me come to better knowledge of this passage.

In the Breviary, we say the Philippians 2 Canticle fairly often (I Vespers of Sunday Week I and III, to be precise). It’s beautiful in how it describes the Incarnation and the Ascension of Christ.

In the English Liturgy of the Hours, we read:

Though he was in the form of God,
Jesus did not deem equality with God
something to be grapsed at.

Rather, he emptied himself
and took the form of a slave,
being born in the likeness of men.

This is close to what many modern translations read (e.g., I believe the NIV, the NAB, and the RSV), but in the New Vulgate (which matches the Vulgate) the first line reads:

[Iesus] Qui cum in forma Dei esset
non rapinam arbitratus est
esse se aequalem Deo.

That is,

[Jesus] Who, since he was in the form of God
thought that it was not robbery
that he was equal to God.

Doesn’t that sound like almost the opposite idea? In the modern English, it sounds like Jesus was in the form of God but didn’t even begin to imagine that he could be equal with God. In the Latin, it sounds like Jesus was in the form of God and of course he knew that he was equal with God.

To be fair, translating that cum in the Latin is a little tough (the Greek lacks it for simple linguistic reasons but matches the Latin perfectly otherwise). Because esset is subjunctive, cum doesn’t refer to simple time (i.e., it does not just mean “when”), but since there’s not a hint of a tamen or anything else of the sort, the cum can’t be concessive (i.e., it doesn’t mean “though,” which is exactly what the English says). Rather, it seems like it should be causal (i.e., “because” or “since”). However, since the Greek lacks it, it may be better to omit it in English. Thus, something like “Being in the form of God …,” as I believe the Douay-Rheims has it, might be best.

I returned the other day from the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual convention, which was in San Diego this year. I had never been before, but I went with some of the other seminarians from Kenrick and Dr. Kitz, our Old Testament professor.

I enjoyed the conference very much, and some of the talks I attended were very good. At a minimum, almost all of them were thought-provoking. My overall impression is that Catholics have a huge advantage in interpreting the Bible for several important reasons: the living Tradition¹, the Magisterium, the sacraments², having the lived experience of ritual and liturgy, etc.

There was one talk on morality as presented in the Gospel according to John, which was particularly good. The thesis of the presentation was basically that scholars usually presume that John contains no moral teaching (other than, obviously, the Mandatum), but that, in fact, because of the genre of the Gospel as a biography, the emphasis of the entire work is on following the example of Jesus. This is heading in the direction indicated by Veritatis Splendor, which says “The way and at the same time the content of this perfection [of the moral life] consist in the following of Jesus” (19).

From a philosophical position, it’s nice to see somebody who can see Positivism for what it is. I’m not surprised that people don’t see “moral teaching” unless it’s spelled out in the form of “do this; don’t do that” commandments. While it would be impossible for this one talk to encompass the full consequences of the direction in which it was heading, it brought to my mind the following considerations.

The question about morality is summed up in the Synoptic Gospels by the question of the rich young man: “Good teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?” In John, the question does not need to be asked, and, in fact, Jesus gives the same answer in both the Synoptics and in John. In the Synoptics, he replies “keep the commandments,” but ultimately his answer is “follow me.” In John, he tells us, “I am the [...] life.” Thus, the Person of Christ himself gives us the content of morality.

The talk also mentioned how the Mandatum has been interpreted as exclusive to “the world,” that is, as something for the Johannine community alone. The presenter did well to point out that not every instance of “the world” in John is negative. One has only to attend any sporting event to see the guy in the rainbow “wig” testifying to John 3:16.³ In fact, if we understand the Mandatum properly in the context of John 3:16 (”love one another as I have loved you“), we necessarily regard loving as Jesus loves as non-introverted.

The question this raises is: “How is that possible?” We can’t love as Jesus loves. The only way we can fulfill the great commandment, indeed, the only way we can follow Jesus is if the love of God is “poured into our hearts” (Romans 5:5). Now, especially if John is written as late as is usually thought, this Gospel presumes the sacramental life of the community.

Therefore, John answers the question about morality in very concrete terms in a catechesis on the sacraments. How is the love of God poured into our hearts? John 3:5 tells us about Baptism, which makes it possible for us to have the Spirit that gives life (Cf. John 4, John 6). John 6, especially, answers the question about morality with the Eucharist.

“What must I do to have eternal life?”
“I am the life.”
“The water that I will give will become a spring welling up unto eternal life.”
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

The sacraments! Following Jesus is not an external imitation. Indeed, even if one were to give up his life but not have the love of God in his heart, he would profit nothing (Cf. 1 Corinthians 13). This love (the grace of Charity) is given through the sacraments. John’s catechesis to his community on the power of the sacraments is not only theologically profound but concrete; it directs them and us to the Lord where he can be found and not as if he were a distant exemplar from the past.

---

1 See the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. “So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’” (Acts 8:30-31)

2 I believe that unless someone receives the Eucharist, he is not going to be able to understand the Bible; even the literal sense of the text will sometimes escape him. See the story of the Road to Emmaus in Luke 24.

25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

[ ... ]

30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

3 You can thank “the brother” for the colorful phraseology.^3a
3a And for suggesting the phrase “colorful phraseology.”

In part of a collection of religious and liturgical images from Musica Sacra, I found this image containing the opening words and symbols of each of the four Gospels surrounding the Lamb of God as well as various figures which signify Christ.

It even contains explanations of the Christological symbols:

“The monoceros (The Greek word for “unicorn”) figures the form of the birth of Christ of the Most Holy Virgin.”

“The eagle figures the form of the ascent of Christ into Heaven to the Father.”

“The pelican figures the form of the suffering of Christ for the salvation of men.”

“The lion figures the form of the raising of Christ from the dead on the third day.”

While praying the Office of Readings the other day, I noticed the following phrase:

sed humiliasti nos in loco vulpium *
et operuisti nos umbra mortis (Psalm 43(44):20, Further revised New Vulgate)

My translation:

But you have set us low in a place of foxes *
and covered us with the shadow of death

When I read that, I remembered that foxes were considered as symbols of death and desolation because they scavenge for the dead.

For instance, Lamentations 5:18 says:

For the mountain of Zion, which is desolate: The foxes walk upon it.

And Nehemiah 4:3:

Now Tobiah the Ammonite was by him, and he said, Even that which they are building, if a fox go up, he shall break down their stone wall.

However, the reason I was startled by the verse at first was that I didn’t remember seeing it before.

The American version of the Liturgy of the Hours has this:

You have crushed us in a place of sorrows
and covered us with the shadow of death (Grail Psalter)

The Revised Standard Version renders it:

that thou shouldst have broken us in the place of jackals,
and covered us with deep darkness. (RSV, Psalm 44:19)

But, the Vulgate has:

quoniam deiecisti nos in loco draconum et operuisti nos umbra mortis (Vulgate, Psalm 44:20)

My translation of the Vulgate:

since you have cast us down in a place of dragons and covered us with the shadow of death

The Septuagint says:

οτι εταπεινωσας ημας εν τοπω κακωσεως και επεκαλυψεν ημας σκια θανατου (LXX, Psalm 43:20)

My translation of the LXX:

because you have set us low in a place of affliction and covered us with a shadow of death.

The relevant words from the Hebrew are: בִּמְקֹ֣ום תַּנִּ֑ים (WLC, Psalm 44:20) which literally means “in a place of dragons.” The word for ‘dragon’ is the same word that is used to describe sea-monsters, the golden serpent that Moses makes, etc.

Hmmm…