6827. 'And Moses was feeding the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian' means that the law from God instructed those who were guided by the truth that went with simple good, 'the priest of Midian' being the good of the Church where those people were. This is clear from the representation of 'Moses' as the Lord in respect of the law of God, dealt with in 6752 (initially 'Moses' represented the Lord in respect of the truth that the law from God possessed, 6771, but here he represents Him in respect of that law itself - one is allowed to speak in this way of stages of development that took place in the Lord before He became the law of God itself in respect of His Human. The whole of the Word deals in its inmost or highest sense solely with the Lord and the glorification of His Human; but since that inmost or highest sense goes far beyond human understanding, let it be the internal sense of the Word that is explained here, the sense in which the subject is the Lord's kingdom, the Church and the establishment of it, and also the regeneration by the Lord of members of the Church. These are the subject in the internal sense because human regeneration is an image representative of the Lord's glorification, see 3138, 3212, 3245, 3246, 3296, 3490, 4402, 5688);

[2] from the meaning of 'feeding' as instructing, dealt with in 3795, 5201; from the meaning of 'the flock' as one who learns and is led by means of truth to the good of charity, dealt with in 343, so that in a general sense 'the flock' is the Church, 3767, 3768, here the Church where those people are who are guided by the truth that goes with simple good, who are meant by 'Midian', 3242, 4756; from the meaning of 'father-in-law' as the good from which, as from a father, sprang the good that was joined to truth, here the truth that the law from God possessed, which 'Moses' represents, see 6793 ('Jethro' being the essential nature of that good); and from the meaning of' the priest of Midian' as the good of the Church where those who were guided by the truth that went with simple good were, dealt with in 6775. From all this it is evident that 'Moses was feeding the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian' means that the law from God instructed those who were guided by the truth that went with simple good, and that 'the priest of Midian' is the good of the Church where those people were.

3246. 'And to the concubines' sons, whom Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts' means that places in the Lord's spiritual kingdom were allotted to spiritual people adopted by the Lord's Divine Human. This is clear from the meaning of 'the concubines' sons' as those who are spiritual, to be dealt with below; from the representation of 'Abraham' here as the Lord's Divine Human (so that the words 'whom Abraham had' mean that they - those who were spiritual - were adopted by the Lord's Divine Human); and from the meaning of 'the gifts which Abraham gave them' as allotted places in the Lord's spiritual kingdom.

[2] From what has been shown several times already about those who constitute the Lord's spiritual kingdom and who are called the spiritual, as in 3235 and elsewhere, it becomes clear that they are not sons of the marriage itself of good and truth, but of a certain covenant not so conjugial. They are indeed descended from the same father but not from the same mother, that is, from the same Divine Good but not from the same Divine Truth. Indeed with those who are celestial, since they are the product of the marriage itself of good and truth, good exists and truth rooted in that good. They never make investigations into what the truth may be but have a perception of it from good. Nor in conversation do they say more than this regarding what is true, 'Yes, that is so', in keeping with the Lord's teaching in Matthew,

Let your words be Yes, yes; No, no; anything beyond this is from evil. ¹ Matthew 5:37.

But those who are spiritual, since they are the product of a covenant not so conjugial, do not have any perception from which they can know what is true. Instead they call that the truth which parents and teachers have told them to be the truth. Consequently with them there is no marriage of good and truth. Nevertheless that which they believe to be the truth for the reason just given is adopted by the Lord as truth when goodness of life exists with them; see 1832. This now explains why the spiritual are here called 'the concubines' sons', which is used to mean all the sons of Keturah mentioned already, and also those descended from Hagar, dealt with shortly below in verses 12-18.

[3] In former times - to enable both those who are celestial and those who are spiritual to be represented in marriages - a man was allowed to have a concubine in addition to a wife. That concubine was given to the husband by his wife (uxor), in which case the concubine was called his wife (mulier), or was said to have been given to him as a wife (mulier), as when Hagar the Egyptian was given to Abraham by Sarah, Genesis 16:3, when the servant-girl Bilhah was given to Jacob by Rachel, Genesis 30:4, and when the servant-girl Zilpah was given to Jacob by Leah, Genesis 30:9. In those cases they are called 'wives' (mulier), but elsewhere concubines, as is Hagar the Egyptian in the present verse, Bilhah in Genesis 35:22, and even Keturah herself in 1 Chronicles 1:32.

[4] The reason why those men of old had concubines in addition to a wife, as not only Abraham and Jacob did, but also their descendants, such as Gideon, Judges 8:31; Saul, 2 Samuel 3:7; David, 2 Samuel 5:13; 15:16; Solomon, 1 Kings 11:3, was that they were permitted to do so for the sake of the representation. That is to say, the celestial Church was represented by the wife, and the spiritual Church by the concubine. They were permitted to do so because they were the kind of men with whom conjugial love did not exist; so that to them marriage was not marriage but merely copulation for the sake of begetting off-spring. With such persons those permissions were possible without any harm being done to love or consequently to the conjugial covenant. But such permissions are never possible among people with whom good and truth are present and who are internal people, or potentially so. For as soon as good and truth, and internal things, exist with the human being, such permissions come to an end. This is why Christians are not allowed, as the Jews were, to take a concubine in addition to a wife, and why such is adultery. Regarding the adoption of those who are spiritual by the Lord's Divine Human, see what has been stated and shown already on the same subject in 2661, 2716, 2833, 2834.

Poznámky pod čarou: