1186. “亚述” 是指推理. 这从圣言中亚述的含义清楚可知, 它经常用来表示那些属于理性的事物, 具有双重含义, 即表示理性事物和理论 (reasonings). 严格来说, 理智和理性之物用来表真实的事物, 而推理 (reasoning) 和理论 (reasonings) 用来表虚假的事物. 由于 “亚述” 表理性和推理, 故它常与 “埃及” 连起来用, “埃及” 表知识, 因为理性和推理就基于这些知识. “亚述” 表推理, 这一点明显可见于以赛亚书:

有祸呀, 亚述, 我怒气的棍子, 他不思想公义, 他心也不这样打算, 因为他说, 我所成就的事, 是靠我手的能力和我的智慧, 我本有聪明. (以赛亚书 10:5, 7, 13)

此处 “亚述” 表推理, 因此经上指着他说 “他不思想公义, 他心也不这样打算”, 还说他 “靠自己的智慧行事, 因为他本有聪明. ”

以西结书:

有两个女子, 同是一母的女儿, 在埃及行邪淫; 她们在幼年时行邪淫. 阿荷拉行邪淫, 贪恋所爱的人, 就是她的邻邦亚述人, 这些人都穿蓝衣, 作首领和官长, 都骑着马, 是可爱的少年人. 巴比伦人来到她那里, 与她行淫玷污她. (以西结书 23:2-3, 5-6, 17)

此处 “埃及” 表知识, “亚述” 表推理, “巴比伦” 表源于恶欲的虚假.

同一先知书:

耶路撒冷啊, 你也和埃及人行淫, 又与亚述人行淫, 多行淫乱直到那迦南陆地, 就是迦勒底. (以西结书 16:26, 28-29)

此处 “埃及” 同样表知识, “亚述” 表推理. 无论此处还是别处, 基于知识推理属灵和属天的事物都被称为 “行淫”. 谁都能看出, 这不是指与埃及人和亚述人行淫.

耶利米书:

以色列, 现今你为何在埃及路上要喝西曷的水呢? 你为何在亚述路上要喝大河 (幼发拉底河) 的水呢? (耶利米书 2:18, 36)

此处 “埃及” 同样表知识, “亚述” 表推理. 又:

以色列是打散的羊, 是被狮子赶出的. 首先是亚述王将他吞灭, 末后是巴比伦王将他的骨头折断. (耶利米书 50:17-18)

“亚述” 表对属灵事物的推理.

弥迦书:

这位必作平安, 当亚述进入我们的陆地, 践踏我们宫殿的时候, 我们就立起七个牧者, 八个首领攻击他, 他们必用刀剑征服亚述地和宁录地的关口; 亚述人进入我们的陆地践踏的时候, 他必拯救我们. (弥迦书 5:5-6)

这论及以色列, 或属灵教会, 关于它, 经上说 “亚述必不进入”, 即推理必不进入. “宁录地” 表宁录所表示的这类敬拜, 它里面有内在的恶和假.

在圣言中, “亚述” 还表教会成员所具有的理性, 他凭这理性清楚明白何为真, 何为善. 这一事实清楚可见于何西阿书:

他们必如雀鸟从埃及急速而来, 又如鸽子从亚述地来到. (何西阿书 11:11)

此处 “埃及” 表教会成员所具有的知识, “亚述” 表他的理性. 前面说过, “雀鸟” 表所知道和理解的记忆知识 (或科学知识), “鸽子” 表理性的良善.

以赛亚书:

当那日, 必有从埃及通亚述去的大道, 亚述人要进入埃及, 埃及人也进入亚述, 埃及人必服侍亚述人. 当那日, 以色列必与埃及, 亚述三国一律, 使地上的人得福, 因为万军之耶和华赐福给说, 埃及我的百姓, 亚述我手的工作, 以色列我的产业, 都有福了. (以赛亚书 19:23-25)

这论及以色列所表示的属灵教会, “亚述” 是它的理性, “埃及” 是它的知识. 这三者一个接一个依次而来, 构成属灵教会成员的知识力量.

别处所提及的亚述表要么真实要么虚假的理性 (如以赛亚书 20:1至末尾; 23:13; 27:13; 30:31; 31:8, 36, 37; 52:4; 以西结书 27:23-24; 31:3至末尾; 32:22; 弥迦书 7:12; 西番雅书 2:13; 撒迦利亚书 10:11; 诗篇 83:8). “亚述” 表推理 (何西阿书 5:13; 7:11; 10:6; 11:5; 12:1; 14:3; 撒迦利亚书 10:10), 所论及的以法莲表心智的理性部分, 但这里已败坏.

3670. 'And He will give you the blessing of Abraham' means the joining of the Divine itself to the good and truth of the natural. This is clear from the meaning of 'blessing' as a joining together, dealt with above in 3660, 3667, and from the representation of 'Abraham' as the Lord's Divine itself, which is called the Father, dealt with in 2011, 3251, 3439. And as these words are addressed to Jacob, who is to represent the Divine Good and Truth of the Lord's Divine Natural, it is a joining together of the Divine itself to the good and truth of the Natural - this joining together being meant in the internal sense by 'He will give you the blessing of Abraham'. In the sense of the letter it is possession of the land of Canaan that is meant by 'the blessing of Abraham', and also by the words that follow, 'to inherit the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham'. This also is what these words are taken to mean by all who believe that the historical descriptions of the Word do not embody anything more heavenly and deeper than that. This is especially so with the Jewish nation, which also claims from that sense to hold a superior position to all other nations and peoples. Their forefathers understood those words in the same way, especially Jacob, who had that kind of disposition, as becomes clear from what has been stated just above in 3667. That is to say, he did not know Jehovah and was unwilling to acknowledge Him unless He conferred bodily and worldly benefits on him. The fact that neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob were meant, but that Jacob represented the Lord's Natural which He was to make Divine is abundantly evident from the explanations given. The same applies to the character of any person who represents, whether evil or good; for the evil are no less able to represent, and have represented, the Lord's Divine, see 665, 1097, 1361.

[2] The same may be seen from the representatives which also exist at the present day. For all kings, no matter who they are or what they are like, represent the Lord through the kingly office itself residing with them; and in like manner all priests, no matter who they are or what they are like, do so through their priestly office. The kingly office itself and the priestly office itself are sacred, no matter who serves in them. Consequently the Word taught by someone evil is no less sacred; nor is the Sacrament of Baptism, or the Holy Supper, or similar ministrations any less so. From this it may also be seen that no king can possibly claim as his own the sacredness that goes with his kingly office, nor any priest the sacredness that goes with his priestly office. Insofar as he does claim it or attribute it to himself he brands himself with the sign of a spiritual thief, or the mark of spiritual theft. And insofar as he commits what is evil, that is, acts contrary to what is right and fair, and contrary to what is good and true, a king throws off his representation of the sacred kingly office, and a priest his representation of the sacred priestly office, and then represents the reverse of this. This explains why so many laws were laid down in the Jewish representative Church concerning the sacredness which was to be attached in particular to priests when ministering. More on this matter will in the Lord's Divine mercy be stated later on.