10129. And the altar shall be a holy of holies. That this signifies the celestial kingdom, where the Lord is present in the good of love, is evident from the signification of “the altar,” as being a representative of the Lord as to Divine good (see n. 9388, 9389, 9714, 9964), here as to Divine good in heaven and in the church (n. 10123); and from the signification of “a holy of holies,” as being celestial good, or the good of love from the Lord. That it is the celestial kingdom which is here signified by “the altar,” and the good in this kingdom which is signified by “a holy of holies,” is because in this kingdom is received the good of love from the Lord to the Lord, which is celestial good. For there are two kingdoms into which the heavens are distinguished, the celestial kingdom and the spiritual kingdom; in the celestial kingdom is received the good of love from the Lord to the Lord, and in the spiritual kingdom is received the good of charity toward the neighbor from the Lord (see the places cited in n. 9277, 9680, 10068).

[2] By the altar is represented the celestial kingdom, or what is the same, the Lord is represented where He is present in the good of love; and by the Tent of meeting outside the veil is represented the spiritual kingdom, or what is the same, the Lord is represented where He is present in the good of charity toward the neighbor. The good of the spiritual kingdom, or spiritual good, is called “holy;” but the good of the celestial kingdom, or celestial good, is called “holy of holies.” Celestial good, which is the good of love from the Lord to the Lord, is called “holy of holies” because through this good the Lord flows in immediately into the heavens; but through spiritual good, which is the good of charity toward the neighbor, He flows in mediately through celestial good (n. 9473, 9683, 9873, 9992, 10005). It is said “flows in,” because the Lord is above the heavens, and flows in from thence (n. 10106); and yet He is quite as present in the heavens.

[3] That celestial good, which is the good of love from the Lord to the Lord, is meant by “holy of holies,” is evident from the passages in the Word where mention is made of the “holy of holies,” as in Moses:

The veil shall divide unto you between the holy and the holy of holies. And thou shalt put the propitiatory upon the ark of the Testimony in the holy of holies (Exodus 26:33-34);

from this it is evident that that part of the Tent is called “holy” which was outside the veil, and that part the “holy of holies” which was within the veil. (That the Tent or Habitation outside the veil represented the spiritual kingdom of the Lord, or the middle heaven; and that the Tent or Habitation within the veil represented the celestial kingdom of the Lord, see n. 9457, 9481, 9485, 10001, 10025.) That part of the Tent which was within the veil is called “the sanctuary of holiness” (Leviticus 16:33). Because by the ark in which was the Testimony; and upon which was the propitiatory, was represented the inmost heaven where celestial good reigns, therefore the inmost part [adytum] of the temple, where the ark of the covenant was, is also called the “holy of holies” (1 Kings 6:16; 8:6).

[4] As the bread and the meat-offering signified the good of love from the Lord to the Lord, which is celestial good, these also are called “holy of holies” in Moses, where it is said that the bread of faces, or of setting forth, shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons in the holy place, because it is the holy of holies of the fire-offerings to Jehovah (Leviticus 24:9). (That the “bread of faces,” or of “setting forth,” signifies celestial good, see n. 9545.) In Moses:

The residue of the meat-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, the holy of holies of the fire-offerings to Jehovah (Leviticus 2:3, 10).

(That the meat-offering, which was unleavened bread, cakes, and also unleavened wafers mixed with oil, denotes celestial good, or the good of love, see n. 4581, 9992, 10079)

[5] In the same:

Every meat-offering, every sacrifice of sin and of guilt, which is for Aaron and his sons, is a holy of holies to Jehovah (Numbers 18:9).

These things were called “holy of holies” because these sacrifices signified purification from evils, and all purification from evils is effected in a state of the good of innocence, which good is also celestial good; wherefore in the sacrifices of sin and of guilt were offered female or male lambs, or rams, or bullocks, or turtle-doves, as is evident from Leviticus 4:5; and by these animals is signified this good. (That it is signified by “lambs,” see n. 3519, 3994, 7840; by “rams,” n. 10042; and by “bullocks,” n. 9391; that it is signified by “turtle-doves,” is evident from the passages in the Word where they are mentioned.) That purification from evils and regeneration are effected in a state of innocence, see n. 10021. For this reason these sacrifices are also called “holy of holies” in Leviticus 6:17; 7:6; 10:17; 14:13.

[6] That the altar of burnt-offering represented the Lord as to the good of love and its receptivity by angels and men, has been shown above, and therefore it is thus spoken of in Moses:

Thou shalt anoint the altar of burnt-offering, and all the vessels thereof, the laver thereof, and the base thereof. And thou shalt sanctify them, that they may be a holy of holies; whosoever toucheth them shall sanctify himself (Exodus 30:29).

[7] The incense, a portion of which was put before the Testimony in the Tent of meeting, is also called “holy of holies” (Exodus 30:36), because it signified celestial good in ultimates, and also the things which proceed from this good (n. 9475).

In Ezekiel:

This is the law of the house, upon the head of the mountain the whole border thereof round about shall be holy of holies (Ezekiel 43:12).

The house with the border round about it is called “holy of holies” because by “the house of God” is signified the celestial kingdom, and in the supreme sense the Lord as to the good of love (n. 3720); hence also it is said “upon the head of the mountain,” for by “the head of the mountain” the like is signified (n. 6435, 9422, 9434).

[8] In Daniel:

Seventy weeks are decreed upon the people and upon the holy city, to seal up the vision, and the prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies (Daniel 9:24);

speaking of the coming of the Lord, who alone is the anointed of Jehovah, and alone is holy, and also as to His Human is the Divine good of the Divine love, thus “the holy of holies.” (That the Lord as to the Divine Human is alone the anointed of Jehovah, see n. 9954; and that He alone is holy, n. 9229; and that He is the Divine good of the Divine love, see the citations in n. 9199.)

[9] That celestial good is “holy of holies,” but spiritual good is “holy,” is because celestial good is inmost good, and therefore also this good is the good of the inmost heaven; whereas spiritual good is the good thence proceeding, and is therefore the good of the middle heaven, and this good is so far good, and hence is so far holy, as it has celestial good within it; for this good flows into it, and conceives it, and begets it, as a father his son. By celestial good is meant the good of love from the Lord to the Lord, and by spiritual good is meant the good of charity toward the neighbor from the Lord. The very good of love to the Lord from the Lord is “holy of holies,” because through it the Lord conjoins Himself immediately; but the good of charity toward the neighbor is “holy,” because through it the Lord conjoins Himself mediately, and He conjoins Himself insofar as it has in it the good of love from the Lord.

[10] The good of love to the Lord from the Lord is in all the good of charity which is genuine, and likewise in all the good of faith which is genuine, because it flows in from the Lord; for no one can love the neighbor, and from love do good to him, from himself, but only from the Lord; and no one can believe in God from himself, but only from the Lord. Therefore when the Lord is acknowledged, and the neighbor is loved, then the Lord is in the love toward the neighbor, however little the man may know it. This is also meant by the words of the Lord in Matthew:

The righteous shall answer, Lord, when saw we Thee hungry, and fed Thee? Or thirsty and gave Thee drink? When saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee? And the King shall say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Insofar as ye did it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye did it unto Me (Matthew 25:37-40);

from this it is plain that the Lord is in the good of charity, and is this good, even though they who are in this good are unaware of it. By “brethren” in the proximate sense are meant those who are in the good of charity, and in a sense abstracted from person; the Lord’s “brethren” denote the very goods of charity (see n. 5063-5071).

4444. As they heard it, and the men were grieved, and they were very angry. That this signifies that they were in evil against the truth of the Church among the Ancients, is evident from the signification of being “grieved and very angry,” as being to be in evil. That this was against the truth of the Church among the Ancients, follows, because it was against Shechem the son of Hamor, by whom is signified the truth among the ancients, as before said (n. 4430, 4431). That they were in evil is evident from what follows, in that they spoke with fraud (verse 13), and then, after Shechem and Hamor had complied with their demands, they slew them (verses 26-29). Thus by being “grieved and very angry” is here signified that they were in evil. It appears as if these words signify zeal because he lay with their sister, according to the words which presently follow: “Because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter, and so it ought not to be done;” and at the end of the chapter: “They said, Shall he make our sister as a harlot?” (verse 31); but it was not zeal, for zeal is impossible with anyone who is in evil, being possible only with him who is in good, because zeal has good within it (n. 4164).

[2] It is true that the religiosity which existed with their posterity had good within it, for each and all things of it represented the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom; but as regards those who were in that religiosity it had no good within it, for they were in mere externals without internals, as shown above. The case herein is the same as it is with the religiosity of that nation as now prevalent among them: they acknowledge Moses and the prophets, thus the Word, which in itself is holy, but as regards them it is not holy, for in everything therein they regard themselves, and thus make the Word worldly, nay, earthly, for that there is anything heavenly in it they do not know and neither do they care. They who are in such a state cannot be in good when in their religiosity, but in evil, for nothing heavenly flows in, because they extinguish it in themselves.

[3] Moreover, it was according to a law known in the Ancient Church that he who forced a virgin should give a dowry and take her for his wife, as thus stated in Moses:

If a man persuade a virgin who is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall endow her with a dowry to be his wife. If refusing her father refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay silver, as much as is the dowry of virgins (Exodus 27:15-16).

And elsewhere:

If a man find a damsel who is a virgin, who has not been betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be caught, the man who lay with her shall give the damsel’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he forced her, and he may not put her away all his days (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

That this same law was known to the ancients is very evident from the words of Shechem to the damsel’s father and brothers: “Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye say unto me I will give. Multiply upon me exceedingly dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me, and give me the damsel for a woman” (verses 11-12). And as Shechem desired to fulfill this law, and Dinah’s brothers gave their consent provided that he would become as they were by circumcising every male, according to the words which follow: “Nevertheless in this will we consent unto you, if ye will be as we are, that every male with you be circumcised, we will both give our daughters to you, and will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will be one people” (verses 15-16), it is evident that Dinah’s brothers did not act from the law (thus not from good), but contrary to the law, and consequently from evil.

[4] It was indeed according to their law that they should not enter into marriages with the nations, as stated in Moses: “Lest thou take of their daughters for thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods” (Exodus 34:16); and again: “Thou shalt not contract kinship with the nations, thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, and his daughter thou shalt not take unto thy son, because he will turn aside thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4); but this law was given in regard to idolatrous nations, lest by marriages with them the sons of Israel should turn aside from truly representative worship to idolatrous worship; for when they became idolaters they could no longer represent the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom, but the opposites, which are infernal, for they then called forth from hell a certain devil whom they worshiped, and to whom they applied the Divine representatives, and therefore it is said, “Lest they go a whoring after their gods.” This law was given for the additional reason that by the “nations” were signified the evils and falsities with which the goods and truths represented by the sons of Israel were not to be commingled, consequently not diabolical and infernal things with heavenly and spiritual things (see n. 3024 at the end).

[5] But they were never forbidden to intermarry with the nations who accepted their worship, and who after being circumcised acknowledged Jehovah. These they called “sojourners sojourning with them,” who are thus spoken of in Moses:

If a sojourner shall sojourn with thee, and be willing to keep the passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as an inhabitant of the land; there shall be one law for the inhabitant and for the sojourner that sojourneth in the midst of you (Exodus 12:48-49).

And again:

When a sojourner shall sojourn with you, he shall keep the passover unto Jehovah; according to the statute of the passover, and according to the statutes thereof, so shall he do; one statute shall there be for you, both for the sojourner and for the native of the land (Numbers 9:14).

The reason why they were called “sojourners sojourning in the midst of them” and “with them” was that “to sojourn” signified to be instructed; and therefore a “sojourner” signified those who suffered themselves to be instructed in the statutes and doctrinal things. (That “to sojourn” and a “sojourner” have this signification may be seen above, n. 1463, 2025, 3672) In the same:

If a sojourner shall sojourn with you who shall have made a fire-offering of an odor of rest unto Jehovah, as ye do, so he shall do: as to the assembly, there is one statute for you and for the sojourner that sojourneth, a statute of eternity for your generations; as ye are, so is the sojourner before Jehovah; one law and one judgment shall be for you and for the sojourner that sojourneth with you (Numbers 15:14-16).

As the native of you shall be the sojourner that sojourneth with you (Leviticus 19:34).

One judgment shall there be for you, such as is for the sojourner, such shall be for the native (Leviticus 24:22).

[6] That this statute was known not only to Jacob and his sons, but also to Shechem and Hamor, is evident from their words; for the statutes, judgments, and laws that were given to the Israelitish and Jewish nation were not new, but such as had previously existed in the Ancient Church and in the second Ancient Church which was called Hebrew from Eber, as has been shown. That consequently this law was known is evident from the words, “The sons of Jacob said to Hamor and Shechem, We cannot do this word, to give our sister to a man who has a foreskin, for this is a reproach to us; nevertheless in this will we consent to you, if ye will be as we, to circumcise for you every male, we will both give our daughters to you, and will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you and will be for one people” (verses); and the same is evident from the words of Hamor and Shechem, in that they not only consented, but also caused themselves and every male of their city to be circumcised (verses 18-24).

[7] Hence it is evident that Shechem became a sojourner such as is spoken of in the law, and thus could take the daughter of Jacob for a woman; so that to kill them was a wicked deed, as Jacob also testified before his death (Genesis 49:5-7). That not only Judah, but also Moses, and also the kings of the Jews and of the Israelites, and also many of the people, took wives from the nations, is evident from the historicals of the Word; and that these wives received their statutes, judgments, and laws, and were acknowledged as sojourners, is not to be doubted.