2658. 'For the son of this servant-girl shall not inherit together with my son, with Isaac' means that the merely human rational could not possess the same life as the Divine Rational itself, neither as to truth nor as to good. This is clear from the meaning of 'inheriting' as possessing the life of another, to be dealt with immediately below; from the meaning of 'the son of a servant-girl' as the merely human rational as to truth and as to good, dealt with in 2657; and from the meaning of 'my son, Isaac' as the Divine Rational as to truth, meant by 'my son', and as to good, meant by 'Isaac', dealt with in 2623, 2630. That 'Isaac' is the Divine Rational as to good is clear from verses 6-7 (in 2640, 2641, 2643) - from the meaning of 'laughter', from which he was named, as the affection for truth, or good that flows from truth. From this it is evident that 'the son of this servant-girl shall not inherit together with my son, with Isaac' means that the merely human rational cannot possess the same life as the Divine Rational, neither as to truth nor as to good. Its inability to possess the same life is clear from the single consideration that the Divine is life itself, and this being so possesses life within Itself, whereas the merely human is only an organ for life and that being so does not possess life in itself.

[2] Once it had become Divine the Lord's Human was no longer an organ or recipient of life; it was now Life itself, the same as that of Jehovah Himself. It had this life at the start from its very conception from Jehovah, as is plainly evident from the Lord's own words in John,

As the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. John 5:26.

The Divine Human is what is called 'the Son', 1729, 2159, 2628. In the same gospel,

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. John 1:4.

In the same gospel,

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. John 14:6.

In the same gospel,

Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me, though he die, will live. John 11:25.

In the same gospel,

The bread of God is that which ¹ comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world. John 6:33.

Man however is not life but an organ or recipient of it, see 2021, and in various places elsewhere. From this it may be evident that when the Lord was made Jehovah even as to the Human, that which was not life in itself, that is, the merely human, was banished. This is the meaning of the statement that the son of a servant-girl could not inherit together with the son Isaac.

[3] When 'inheriting' in the internal sense has reference to the Lord it means possessing the Father's life, and so possessing life within Himself; and when it has reference to men it means possessing the Lord's life, that is, receiving life from the Lord. This is clear from many places in the Word. Possessing life in Himself is the very Being (Esse) of life, which is Jehovah, whereas possessing the Lord's life, or receiving life from the Lord, is accepting the Lord in love and faith. And because such persons abide in the Lord and are the Lord's they are called His heirs and sons.

[4] In the Old Testament Word 'inheritance' is used to refer both to what is celestial, or good, and to what is spiritual, or truth, though what is celestial is expressed by one word, what is spiritual by another. The first word may be rendered as 'possessing by inheritance', but the second as 'inheriting'. In the original language the first word also implies possession, but the second a derivation from such possession, in the way that celestial and spiritual are related to each other, or good and truth are related. In the present verse, where 'Isaac' represents the Lord's Divine Rational or Divine Human, the word describing possession by right of inheritance is used, for the Lord's Divine Human is sole heir and possessor, as He also teaches in the parable recorded in Matthew 21:33, 37-38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14; and in various places declares that all that is the Father's is His.

[5] When 'possessing by inheritance' and 'inheriting' in the Word have reference to men, they mean receiving life from the Lord, and therefore receiving eternal life or heaven, for only those who receive the Lord's life receive heaven. This is clear in John,

He who overcomes will receive all things by inheritance, and I will be his God and he will be My Son. Revelation 21:7.

In Matthew,

Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters for My name's sake will receive a hundredfold and will be allotted the inheritance of eternal life. Matthew 19:29; 25:43; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18.

Here heaven is called 'eternal life', elsewhere simply 'life', as in Matthew 18:8-9; 19:17; John 3:36; 5:24, 29, the reason being that the Lord is life itself, and anyone who receives His life is in heaven.

[6] In David,

God will save Zion and will build the cities of Judah; and they will dwell there and possess it by inheritance; and the seed of His servants will inherit it, and those loving His name will dwell in it. Psalms 69:35-36.

Here 'possessing by inheritance' has reference to those in whom celestial love exists, 'inheriting' to those in whom spiritual love exists. In Isaiah,

He who trusts in Me will inherit the land, and will possess by inheritance My holy mountain. Isaiah 57:13.

Here the meaning is similar.

[7] In Moses,

I will bring you to the land over which I lifted up My hand to give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you as a hereditary possession. Exodus 6:8.

In the sense of the letter these words mean that the land of Canaan was to be granted to them as a hereditary possession, which did in fact happen. But in the internal sense they mean that heaven was to be granted to those in whom love to and faith in the Lord were present, for as the Lord is represented by 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' so are love itself and faith itself meant by them, and consequently people in whom love and faith are present, and who accordingly abide in the Lord. These are also meant by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with whom many will recline at table in the kingdom of heaven, in Matthew 8:11; for those who are in heaven are completely unaware of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, and know only of what is represented and meant by them. And the same goes for 'reclining at table (or eating) with them'. For all names mentioned in the Word mean real things, see 1224, 1264, 1876, 1888, and the land of Canaan means the heavenly Canaan or heaven, 1585, 1607, 1866, which is also referred to simply as 'the land', 1413, 1607, 1733, 2571. So too in Matthew,

Blessed are the meek, for they will receive the inheritance of the land. Matthew 5:5.

Poznámky pod čarou:

2417. 'Do not look back behind you' means that he was not to look to matters of doctrine. This is clear from the meaning of 'looking back behind him' when the city was behind him and the mountain in front of him; for 'a city' means doctrinal teaching, 402, 2268, 2451, while 'a mountain' means love and charity, 795, 1430. That this is the meaning will be evident in the explanation at verse 26, where it is said that his wife looked back behind him and she became a pillar of salt. Anyone may recognize that these words - 'looking back behind him' - have some Divine arcanum within them and that this lies too far down to be visible. For looking back behind him seems to involve nothing reprehensible at all, and yet it is of such great importance that it is said that he was to escape for his life, that is, he was to be concerned about his life to eternity by not looking back behind him. What is meant by looking to matters of doctrine however will be seen in what follows.

[2] Here let it be merely stated what doctrinal teaching is. Such teaching is twofold: one kind has to do with love and charity, the other with faith. Each of the Lord's Churches at the outset, while still very young and virginal, neither possesses nor desires any other doctrinal teaching than that which has to do with charity, for this has to do with life. In course of time however a Church turns away from this kind of teaching until it starts to despise it and at length to reject it, at which point it acknowledges no other kind of teaching than that called the doctrine of faith. And when it separates faith from charity such doctrinal teaching colludes with a life of evil.

[3] This was so with the Primitive or gentile Church after the Lord's Coming. At the outset it possessed no other doctrinal teaching than that which had to do with love and charity, for such is what the Lord Himself taught, see 2371 (end). But after His time, as love and charity started to grow cold, doctrinal teaching regarding faith gradually crept in, and with it disagreements and heresies which increased as men leant more and more towards that kind of teaching.

[4] Something similar had happened to the Ancient Church which came after the Flood and which was spread throughout so many kingdoms, 2385. This Church at the outset knew no other teaching than that which had to do with charity, for that teaching looked towards and permeated life; and so they were concerned about their eternal welfare. After a time however some people started to foster doctrinal teaching about faith which they at length separated from charity. Members of this Church called such people 'Ham' however because they led a life of evil, see 1062, 1063, 1076.

[5] The Most Ancient Church which existed before the Flood and which was pre-eminently called Man enjoyed the perception itself of love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbour, and so had teaching about love and charity inscribed within them. But there also existed at that time those who fostered faith, and when these at length separated it from charity they were called Cain, for Cain means such faith, and Abel whom he killed means charity; see the explanation to Genesis 4.

[6] From this it becomes clear that doctrinal teaching is twofold, one kind having to do with charity, the other with faith, although in themselves the two are one, for teaching to do with charity includes everything to do with faith. But when doctrinal teaching comes to be drawn solely from things to do with faith, such teaching is said to be twofold because faith is separated from charity. Their separation at the present day becomes clear from the consideration that what charity is, and what the neighbour, is utterly unknown. People whose teaching is solely about faith know of charity towards the neighbour as nothing other than giving what is their own to others and taking pity on everyone, for they call everyone their neighbour indiscriminately, when in fact charity consists in all the good residing with the individual - in his affection, and in his ardent zeal, and consequently in his life - while the neighbour consists in all the good residing with people which affects the individual. Consequently the neighbour consists in people with whom good resides - and quite distinctly and separately from one person to the next.

[7] For example, charity and mercy are present with him who exercises righteousness and judgement by punishing the evil and rewarding the good. Charity resides within the punishment of the evil, for he who imposes the punishment is moved by a strong desire to correct the one who is punished and at the same time to protect others from the evil he may do to them. For when he imposes it he is concerned about and desires the good of him who does evil or is an enemy, as well as being concerned about and desiring the good of others and of the state, which concern and desire spring from charity towards the neighbour. The same holds true with every other kind of good of life, for such good cannot possibly exist if it does not spring from charity towards the neighbour, since this is what charity looks to and embodies within itself.

[8] There being so much obscurity, as has been stated, as to what charity is and what the neighbour, it is plain that after doctrinal teaching to do with faith has seized the chief position, teaching to do with charity is then one of those things that have been lost. Yet it was the latter teaching alone that was fostered in the Ancient Church. They went so far as to categorize all kinds of good that flow from charity towards the neighbour, that is, to categorize all in whom good was present. In doing so they made many distinctions to which they gave names, calling them the poor, the wretched, the oppressed, the sick, the naked, the hungry, the thirsty, the prisoners or those in prison, the. sojourners, the orphans, and the widows. Some they also called the lame, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, and the maimed, and many other names besides these. It was in accordance with this kind of teaching that the Lord spoke in the Old Testament Word, and it explains why such expressions occur so frequently there; and it was in accordance with the same that the Lord Himself spoke, as in Matthew 25:35-36, 38-40, 42-45; Luke 14:13, 21; and many times elsewhere. This is why those names have quite a different meaning in the internal sense. So that doctrinal teaching regarding charity may be restored therefore, some discussion will in the Lord's Divine mercy appear further on as to who such people are, and what charity is, and what the neighbour, generally and specifically.