HistoricalChristian.Faith

Does Tobit 12:9 ("alms… shall purge away all sin") teach a works-righteousness that bars it from the canon?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: weak — the reading that Tobit 12:9's "alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin" is a works-righteousness foreign to the gospel, so that the book preaches "another gospel" and cannot be Scripture, does not hold on its best case. The verse is the ordinary biblical almsgiving idiom — "righteousness delivereth from death" is verbatim Proverbs 10:2 and 11:4; "break off… thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor" is Daniel 4:27; "alms maketh an atonement for sins" is Sirach 3:30; "charity shall cover the multitude of sins" is 1 Peter 4:8 — one node in a canonical arc (Gary Anderson: Daniel 4:27 → Tobit → Sirach → the Synoptics), so the proof-text proves too much, condemning protocanonical books with it. And screening the canon by a sixteenth-century sola fide is circular: Luther aimed the very same charge at James 2:24 ("by works a man is justified, and not by faith only"), the "epistle of straw," which Protestants keep. The genuine residue is real but narrower — Tobit presses almsgiving's atoning efficacy harder and more often than any single protocanonical verse (4:7–11; 12:9; 14:10–11) and became a Catholic proof-text for satisfaction, merit, and the treasury in heaven — a difference of systematic framework (faith working through love vs. strict sola fide), not a contradiction of the gospel that unbooks it · advanced by Kenneth J. Collins & Jerry L. Walls, Roman but Not Catholic (2017)

Related arguments: Tobit's alleged false teachings — see also Does Tobit's fish-organ remedy (Tobit 6) prescribe occult magic, barring the book from the canon?

Here the interpretation under weight is the Reformation claim that Tobit 12:9 teaches a sub-Christian works-salvation, adduced as a doctrinal reason to deny the book's canonicity.

The claim

"For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life."

— Tobit 12:9 (KJV/Apocrypha; the Catholic and modern renderings read "almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin").¹ The evangelical theologian Kenneth J. Collins and the Anglican philosopher Jerry L. Walls adduce this verse, in Roman but Not Catholic (2017), as a doctrinal ground for excluding Tobit from the canon: it is, they write, "theologically confused, for it not only contradicts the clear teaching of the apostolic testimony of Paul found in Romans 4–5, but also detracts from the unique and glorious atoning work of the Son of God incarnate, Jesus Christ."² The reasoning runs: Tobit 12:9 makes a human work — almsgiving — "deliver from death" and "purge away every sin," which is works-righteousness; that contradicts what is securely Scripture (Ephesians 2:8–9, "by grace are ye saved through faith… not of works"; Romans 3:28, "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law"); therefore Tobit is not Scripture — not even an edifying-but-uninspired book, but one teaching "a gospel contrary to that of Christ." The question this page weighs is not the polemic but the interpretation behind it: is the tension real, or is Tobit's "almsgiving atones" compatible with the same works-and-faith tension already standing inside the canon?

Who advances it

The proponents. The crisp modern form is Collins and Walls's, but the move is the Reformation's own. Luther returned the disputed books to the Hebrew canon partly because they carried proof-texts — Tobit 12 for almsgiving, 2 Maccabees 12 for the dead — that cut against his recovery of justification by faith alone; and his canon-criterion was explicitly doctrinal, was treibet Christum ("what presses Christ"). He aimed it not only at the deuterocanon but at a protocanonical book: the Epistle of James, "a right strawy epistle," because its "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24) seemed to him to contradict Paul.³ The adversaries. Catholic respondents (Dave Armstrong against Collins and Walls; Joe Heschmeyer) make two replies. First, methodological: one cannot use a contested doctrine to decide the canon, on pain of circularity — sola fide is precisely the point in dispute, and the same screen that ejects Tobit ejects James, which virtually all Protestants retain. Second, substantive: the sentiment of Tobit 12:9 is not foreign to undisputed Scripture but pervades it, and the Church it serves is not Pelagian.⁴

The evidence for the compatibility reading

The almsgiving idiom is canonical, not deuterocanonical. Tobit 12:9 says nothing the protocanon does not already say, often in the same words. "Righteousness delivereth from death" is verbatim Proverbs 10:2 and 11:4 — the very phrase Tobit echoes. Daniel counsels Nebuchadnezzar to "break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor" (Daniel 4:27); Proverbs that "by mercy and truth iniquity is purged" (16:6) and that "he that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD" (19:17). In the New Testament the idiom continues: "charity shall cover the multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8); "give alms… and, behold, all things are clean unto you" (Luke 11:41); Cornelius's "prayers and… alms are come up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4); and the sheep of Matthew 25 enter the kingdom precisely for feeding, clothing, and visiting "the least."⁵ The Old Testament scholar Gary Anderson has mapped this as a single developmental arc: the metaphor of sin as a debt to be repaid generated its counterpart, a "treasury in heaven" of meritorious credit, and the motif "begins in Daniel 4:27, continues in Tobit and Sirach, and flowers in the preaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels." Tobit is not an aberration on this reading but a link in a chain that runs straight through the protocanon into the words of Christ.⁶

Adversarial assessment

What holds — there is a genuine theological residue. The compatibility case can be overstated in the other direction, so grant the proponents their strongest point. Tobit does not merely glance at almsgiving's efficacy; it makes it a structural leitmotif, repeated and emphatic. "Alms do deliver from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness" (4:10); "alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin" (12:9); on his deathbed Tobit urges his son to "consider what alms doeth, and how righteousness doth deliver" (14:10–11). No single protocanonical verse presses the point so hard or so often, and the language of "purge away every sin" is stronger than Proverbs' "delivereth from death." Just here Tobit (with Sirach) became the textual backbone of a developed Catholic doctrine — satisfaction for the temporal debt of sin, the merit of good works, the treasury from which indulgences are drawn — that the Reformation rejected root and branch; Anderson himself adduces these texts in defense of the treasury of merit. So a real difference of systematic theology divides Tobit's reader from Luther's, and the proponents are not imagining it.⁷

What fails — the leap from that difference to "heretical, therefore non-canonical." Three joints give way.

1. The proof-text proves too much. If "alms… shall purge away all sin" is a gospel "contrary to that of Christ," then so is Daniel 4:27, so is Proverbs 10:2, so is Sirach 3:30 ("alms maketh an atonement for sins"), so is 1 Peter 4:8 and Luke 11:41. An argument that disqualifies Tobit on this ground disqualifies a swathe of the protocanon and the dominical teaching with it — which no party will accept. A reading that condemns the witness it needs to keep has misidentified the offense.

2. The faith-and-works tension is already inside the undisputed canon. James says flatly that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24) and that "faith without works is dead" (2:17, 26). Whatever reconciliation harmonizes James with Paul — works as the fruit and evidence of living faith, not its rival — does the same work for Tobit, whose almsgiving is the covenant faithfulness of a man already righteous, not a wage earned by a stranger to grace. That Luther felt the same tension in James, and reached for the same demotion ("epistle of straw"), shows the screen is not tracking a line between canon and apocrypha at all; it is tracking a line between two readings of justification, and slicing through the canon wherever it falls.⁸

3. Using a confessional doctrine as a canon-criterion is circular and anachronistic. Sola fide is a sixteenth-century formulation; Tobit is a roughly second-century-BC Jewish work that could not be addressing, still less contradicting, a Pauline polemic written two centuries later or a Reformation distinctive written eighteen centuries later. To read it as a rival scheme of atonement set against Christ's cross is to retroject a debate it never joined. And historically the canon was not settled by screening each book against a doctrine of justification — that test is itself the contested move — but by reception, the criterion this timeline traces. The Church it serves, moreover, is not the Pelagian caricature: Trent anathematizes anyone who says "man may be justified before God by his own works… without the grace of God through Jesus Christ," so the "purging" almsgiving of Tobit is, on its own defenders' terms, a grace-enabled work, not a wage.⁹

Assessment

Weak. The interpretation that Tobit 12:9 teaches a works-righteousness contrary to the gospel, such that the book preaches "another gospel" and is thereby excluded from the canon, does not hold on its best available case. The verse speaks the ordinary biblical idiom of almsgiving that atones and delivers — a line Gary Anderson traces from Daniel 4:27 through Tobit and Sirach into the Synoptics — so the charge, pressed consistently, would condemn Proverbs, Daniel, Sirach, 1 Peter, and Luke along with it; and the faith-and-works tension it raises stands already in James 2:24, at which Luther aimed the identical objection without ejecting James from his Bible. What survives the steelman is the narrower and true point that Tobit emphasizes almsgiving's expiatory efficacy more insistently than any single protocanonical text and became the proof-text for the Catholic doctrines of satisfaction and merit the Reformation denied — a genuine divergence of systematic theology, not a contradiction of the gospel. That divergence is a reason the book reads more naturally with the Catholic and Orthodox synthesis than with a strict sola fide; it is not a reason it cannot be Scripture, on pain of un-booking half the canon that says the same thing. (Its companion contested proof-text — 2 Maccabees 12:43–45 on prayer and offering for the dead — is weighed on the 2 Maccabees argument, there assessed contested.)

Sources