10109. 'And they shall eat those things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities. This is clear from the meaning of 'eating' as making one's own, dealt with above in 10106; and from the meaning of 'what has been expiated' as that which has been purified from evils and consequent falsities, dealt with in 9506. The words 'purified from evils and consequent falsities' are used because falsities as well as truths exist with those ruled by evil, and also falsities as well as truths exist with those who are governed by good. The falsities present with those ruled by evil are falsities of evil, and the truths present with them are falsified truths, which are dead. But the falsities present with those governed by good are accepted as truths, for those falsities are tempered by the good and put to good and useful purposes, and the truths present with them are the truths of good, which are alive. Regarding both kinds of falsity and truth, see what has been shown in 2243, 2408, 2863, 4736, 4822, 6359, 7272, 7437, 7574, 7577, 8051, 8137, 8138, 8149, 8298, 8311, 8318 (end), 9258, 9298.

[2] Since 'eating the holy things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities, anyone unclean was strictly forbidden to eat of those things; for uncleanness means defilement by evils and consequent falsities. For the situation is that as long as a person is steeped in evils and consequent falsities good cannot by any means be made his own. This is because evil comes up from hell and good comes down from heaven, and where hell is heaven cannot be, since they are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore to make a place for heaven - that is, for good from heaven - hell, that is, evil from hell, must be removed. From this it may be seen that good cannot by any means be made a person's own as long as he is ruled by evil. By making good his own the implanting of good in the will should be understood, for good cannot be said to have been made a person's own until it becomes part of his will. A person's will is the actual person, and his understanding also, to the extent that it derives from the will. For what is part of the will forms part of the person's love and consequently his life, since what a person wills he loves and calls good, and also when it is done by him it is felt to be such. The situation is different with those things which are part of the understanding but not at the same time part of the will. It should also be recognized that when a person is said to make good his own, no more should be understood than his ability to receive good from the Lord, an ability he is endowed with through regeneration. Consequently good as it exists with a person is not that person's; rather it is the Lord's with him. And he is maintained in it to the extent that he allows himself to be withheld from evils. The impossibility for good to become a person's own, that is, for it to be transmitted to him, as long as he is ruled by evil was the reason for the prohibition which prevented one who was unclean from eating the flesh and the bread of a sacrifice; for that eating represented making good one's own, as stated above.

[3] Those who were unclean were forbidden on pain of death to eat from holy offerings, as is clear in Moses,

Everyone who is clean shall eat flesh. The soul who eats the flesh of sacrifices while uncleanness is on him shall be cut off from his people. The soul who touches anything unclean - the uncleanness of a human being or an unclean beast or any unclean creeping thing whatever - and eats of the flesh of the eucharistic sacrifice shall be cut off from [his] people. Leviticus 7:19-21.

All those outward kinds of uncleanness represented inward kinds, which are a person's evils; and they are evils present in his will, having been made his own by the life he actually leads.

[4] This matter is described further elsewhere in Moses,

Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or suffers a discharge shall not eat of the holy things until he has been made clean. Whoever has touched anything made unclean by a corpse ¹ , [or any] man who has had an emission of semen ² , or [any] man who has touched any creeping thing by which he is defiled, or [has touched] a person by whom any one is defiled, as to all his uncleanness - the soul who has touched that thing shall be unclean until evening and not eat of the holy things. But when he has washed his flesh with water, and the sun has gone down, he shall be clean; and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his bread. No outsider shall eat what is holy; a stranger staying with a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat what is holy. If the priest buys a soul - a buying with his silver - [that soul] may eat of it, and one who is born in his house; these shall eat of his bread. When a priest's daughter has married a man, an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of holy things. But if the priest's daughter has been made a widow or divorced and has no seed, and has indeed returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread. Leviticus 22:1-16.

All these rules, it is plainly evident, serve to mean more internal considerations, that is, they imply the transmission of holy things to those in a receptive state of mind, who then make those things their own. The rule that no outsider could eat the holy things meant, not those who do not acknowledge the Lord within the Church, thus not those with whom none of the Church's truth and good exists. The rule that no stranger or hired servant could eat them meant, neither those with whom natural good exists devoid of the good of faith, nor those who do good for the sake of reward. The rule that those bought with silver and those born in the house could eat them meant, those who have been converted, and those with whom the Church's truth and good exists as the result of faith and love. The rule that a priest's daughter married to a man who was an outsider could not eat them meant that the good which had not been wedded to the Church's truths [but to something other] could not make the holy things of the Church its own. The rule however that a widow or a divorcee who had no seed could eat them meant that good can be made one's own after the removal of things which do not belong to the Church, provided that no notions have been hatched or born out of that union that have become an integral part of one's faith. The fact that such considerations are meant is evident from the internal sense of these specific rules.

[5] But hereditary evils do not prevent anyone from making good his own. This consideration too is described in Moses,

No man of the seed of Aaron in whom there is a blemish shall approach to offer the bread of God - no man who is blind, lame, mutilated, or [has a limb] too long; none who has a broken foot or hand, is a hunchback, is bruised, has a defect in his eye, has scabs, has warts, or has a crushed testicle. He shall not approach to offer the bread of his God; but he shall eat the bread of God from among the most holy and the holy things. Leviticus 21:17-23.

These defects, as has been stated, serve to mean hereditary evils, some specific evil being meant by each particular defect. The reason why these men should not offer bread or approach the altar as priests was that if they did so the people would catch sight of those imperfections or ills, and in what was caught sight of some representation would take shape, none of which would happen if those defects remained hidden. For although a priest, Levite, or the people were unclean inwardly, they were nevertheless called clean and also thought to be sanctified, provided that outwardly they were washed and looked clean.

Бележки под линия:

6269. 'And Israel put out his right hand and placed it on Ephraim's head' means that he considered truth to occupy the first place. This is clear from the meaning of 'putting out his right hand' as considering to occupy the first place - 'right hand' meaning in first place, as is self-evident; and from the representation of' Ephraim' as the understanding, and so the truth of faith since it dwells in the understanding part of a person s mind when sight provided by the light of heaven, thus spiritual sight, exists there, see 6222. The fact that Israel put his right hand on Ephraim's head and his left on Manasseh's is referred to in this verse and also in verses 17-19 below; and by that action is meant the fact that he considered the truth of faith to occupy first place and the good of charity second place. The reason he thought that way was that the spiritual man, represented by 'Israel', 4286, 6256, does not consider them, before he has been regenerated, any differently. For the spiritual man is directly conscious of what the truth of faith is; but he is not conscious of what the good of charity is since it comes to him by an interior route, whereas the truth of faith comes by an exterior one, just as factual knowledge does.

[2] But people who are not being regenerated say quite categorically that faith occupies the first place, that is, that it is the essential element of the Church, because they can then lead whatever kind of life they like and still say that they entertain the hope of salvation. This also is the reason why at the present day charity has disappeared so completely that scarcely anyone knows what it is, or even consequently what faith is since the one does not exist without the other. If charity occupied the first place and faith the second the whole appearance of the Church would be different, for in that case no others would be called Christians but those who led a life in keeping with the truth of faith, which is a charitable life. People would also know what charity was, and they would not on the basis of particular ideas about the truths of faith distinguish between and make many Churches out of different groups. Instead they would speak of one Church that included all leading a good life, and not only those within that part of the world where the Church exists but also those outside. If they spoke in this way the Church would have an enlightened view of such things as belong to the Lord's kingdom; for charity is what brings light, and never faith without charity. And the mistaken ideas that faith separated from charity introduces would also be clearly recognizable.

[3] From this one may see how different the whole appearance of the Church would be if the good of charity were to occupy the first place, that is, if it were the essential element, and the truth of faith occupied the second place, that is, if it were the outward form that expressed it. The whole appearance of the Church would then be like that of the Ancient Church, which identified the Church with charity and had no other teachings of the Church than those concerned with charity, as a consequence of which they had wisdom from the Lord. The nature of that Church is described by these words in Moses,

Jehovah encompassed him, instructed him, and kept him as the pupil of His eye. As an eagle stirs up its nest, hovers over its young, spreads out its wings, He took him, He carried him on His wing. Jehovah alone led him, nor was any foreign god with him. He caused him to ride on the heights of the land, and He fed [Him] from the produce of the fields; He caused him to suck honey out of the rock and oil out of the flinty rock - butter from the herd, and milk from the flock, with the fat of lambs and of rams, the breed ¹ of Bashan, and of goats, with the kidney-fat of wheat; and of the blood of the grape you drink unmixed wine. Deuteronomy 32:10-14.

Those who belonged to that Church are consequently in heaven, enjoying complete happiness and glory there.

Бележки под линия: