6148. 'Only the ground of the priests he did not buy' means that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself. This is clear from the representation of 'Joseph', about whom these things are said, as the internal, dealt with already; from the meaning of 'the ground' as the receptacle of truth, dealt with above in 6135-6137, at this point the capacity to receive good, for the capacity of something is its inherent ability to receive, which causes a receptacle to be a receptacle (that capacity comes from good, that is, from the Lord through good, for if the good of love did not flow in from the Lord no one would ever have the capacity to receive truth or good. That inflow of the good of love from the Lord causes everything present inwardly in a person to be of a receptive nature. The truth that the capacity to receive good comes from the natural is meant by the fact that the ground lay in Egypt, since 'Egypt' means the natural in respect of factual knowledge, 6142); from the meaning of 'the priests' as good, dealt with below; and from the meaning of 'not buying' as not taking those capacities to itself - not in the way that it made truths and forms of the good of truth, together with their receptacles, its own, which came about through periods of desolation and sustainment - for the reason that those capacities came from itself, from the internal. All these meanings serve to show that 'only the ground of the priests he did not buy' means that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself.

[2] The implications of all this are that a person's capacities to receive truth and good come directly from the Lord; he obtains them without any help at all from himself. A person's capacity to receive goodness and truth is maintained in him unceasingly; and from that capacity he possesses understanding and will. But a person does not receive them if he turns to evil. The capacity to receive does, it is true, remain, but its access to thought and sensitivity is blocked, on account of which his capacity to see what is true and have a sensitive awareness of what is good perishes. And it perishes to the extent that he turns to evil and in faith and life becomes firmly settled in it. The fact that a person contributes nothing whatever to his capacity to receive truth and good is well known from the Church's teaching that nothing at all of the truth of faith and nothing at all of the good of charity comes from man but from the Lord. Yet a person can destroy that capacity residing with him. From all this one may now see how one should understand the idea that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself. The expression 'from the natural' is used because the inflow of good from the Lord is effected by the Lord through the internal into the natural; and once the capacity to receive has been obtained from there, the inflow takes place, for now there is reception, see 5828.

[3] So far as the meaning of 'the priests' as forms of good is concerned, it should be recognized that there are two realities which go forth from the Lord - goodness and truth. Divine Good was represented by priests, and Divine Truth by kings; and this is why 'the priests' means forms of good and 'the kings' truths. Regarding the attribution of Priesthood and Kingship to the Lord, see 1728, 2015 (end), 3670. In the representative Ancient Church those two offices of priest and king existed jointly in one personage, the reason for this being that goodness and truth which go forth from the Lord are united; and they are also joined together in heaven among the angels.

[4] A personage in the Ancient Church in whom the two offices existed joined together was called Melchizedek, a name meaning king of righteousness. This may be seen from the following statement about Melchizedek who came to Abraham, ¹

Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; and he was a priest to God Most High. And he blessed Abraham. Genesis 14:18-19.

His representation of the Lord in both offices is evident from the fact that he was a king and at the same time a priest, and from the fact that he was allowed to bless Abraham and offer him bread and wine, which even at that time were the symbols of the good of love and the truth of faith. His representation of the Lord in both offices is further evident in David,

Jehovah has sworn and will not repent, You are a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek. Psalms 110:4.

These words were spoken in reference to the Lord. 'After the manner of Melchizedek' means that He is both King and Priest, that is, in the highest sense that Divine Good and Divine Truth go forth together from Him.

[5] Because a representative Church was going to be established also among the descendants of Jacob, they too were to have a single personage to represent jointly Divine Good and Divine Truth, which go forth from the Lord united. But on account of the wars and the idolatry of that people the two were in fact divided right from the start; those who ruled over the attended to sacred duties were referred to as the priests, who belonged to the seed of Aaron and were the Levites. At a later time the two functions were joined together in a single person, as they were in Eli and Samuel. Yet because the nature of the people was such that the representative Church could not be established among them, only a representative of the Church, on account of the practice of idolatry prevalent among them, the two functions were allowed to be separated. The Lord was then represented in respect of Divine Truth by kings and in respect of Divine Good by priests. The separation took place because the people desired it, not because the Lord took any pleasure in it, as is clear from the Word of Jehovah to Samuel,

Obey the voice of the people in all that they have said to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them; and show them the right of the king. 1 Samuel 8:7-end; 12:19-20.

[6] The reason why the two functions were not meant to be separated was that Divine Truth separated from Divine Good condemns all people, whereas Divine Truth united to Divine Good saves them. Judged by Divine Truth a person is condemned to hell, but Divine Good brings him out of there and raises him into heaven. Salvation comes of mercy and so sprigs from Divine Good; but damnation exists when a person rejects mercy and so casts Divine Good away from himself, as a consequence of which he is left to be judged by Truth. As regards 'kings' representing Divine Truth, see 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 5068.

[7] 'The priests' represented the Lord in respect of Divine Good, and for that reason good is meant by them. This becomes clear from the internal sense of all that was prescribed regarding the priesthood when Aaron was chosen, and after him the Levites, such as these prescriptions:

The High Priest alone should enter the Holy of holies and minister there. [Leviticus 16.]

Things holy to Jehovah were to be for the priest. Leviticus 23:20; 27:21.

They were not to have any portion or inheritance in the land, but Jehovah would be their portion and inheritance. Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:1.

The Levites were given to Jehovah instead of the firstborn, and they were given by Jehovah to Aaron. Numbers 3:9, 12-13, Numbers 3:40-end; 8:16-19.

The high priest and the Levites were to be in the middle of the camp when they pitched it and when they were journeying. Numbers 1:50-54; 2:17; 3:23-38; 4:1-end.

No one from the seed of Aaron who had a blemish in himself was to approach to offer burnt offerings or sacrifices. Leviticus 21:17-20.

And there are many other prescriptions besides these, such as those in Leviticus 21:9-13, and elsewhere.

[8] In the highest sense all these prescriptions relating to the priests represented the Lord's Divine Good and therefore in the relative sense the good of love and charity. Aaron's vestments however, called 'vestments of holiness', represented Divine Truth from Divine Good. These matters will in the Lord's Divine mercy be dealt with in the explanations of what appears in Exodus.

[9] Since truth is meant by 'kings' and good by 'priests', 'kings and priests' are mentioned together many times in the Word, as in John, Jesus Christ has made us kings and priests to His God and Father. Revelation 1:6; 5:10.

By virtue of the truth of faith we are said to have been made 'kings', and by virtue of the good of charity to have been made 'priests', so that the truth and good residing with those who abide in the Lord have been joined together, in the way they are in heaven, as stated above. This is what is meant by 'being made kings and priests'.

[10] In Jeremiah,

It will happen on that day, that the heart of the king and of the princes will perish, and the priests will be dumbfounded and the prophets left wondering. Jeremiah 4:9.

In the same prophet,

The house of Israel is ashamed, they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets. Jeremiah 2:26.

In the same prophet,

The kings of Judah, the princes, the priests, and the prophets, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 8:1.

In these places 'kings stands for truths, 'princes' for first and foremost truths, 1482, 1089, 5044, 'priests' for forms of good, and 'prophets' for those who teach, 2534.

[11] Quite apart from this it should be recognized that Joseph did not buy the ground of the priests. The fact that this was representative of the consideration that the whole of a person's capacity to receive truth and good comes from the Lord is evident from a similar law in Moses regarding the fields belonging to the Levites,

The field of the country surrounding the cities of the Levites shall not be sold, for it is their eternal possession. Leviticus 25:34.

The meaning here in the internal sense is that no one ought to lay any claim to the good of the Church, which is the good of love and charity, because that good is from the Lord alone.

Poznámky pod čarou:

5828. 'And I said, He has surely been torn to pieces' means a perception that it was destroyed by evils and falsities. This is clear from the meaning of 'saying' as perception, dealt with often; and from the meaning of 'being torn to pieces as being destroyed by evils and internal good represented by 'Joseph' was destroyed, 5805. 'Being torn to pieces' has this meaning because no other kind of tearing to pieces takes place in the spiritual world than that of good by evils and falsities. It is the same with death and anything having to do with death, by which is meant in the spiritual sense not natural death but spiritual death, which is damnation. No other kind of death occurs in the spiritual world. So too with 'a tearing to pieces'. This does not mean in the spiritual sense the kind of tearing to pieces that wild animals engage in, but the tearing to pieces of good by evils and falsities. Also, in the spiritual sense, 'wild animals that tear to pieces' means evil desires and derivative false ideas; and such ideas are also represented in the next life by wild animals.

[2] The good which constantly comes from the Lord to a person is destroyed by nothing other than evils and derivative falsities, and by falsities and consequent evils. For as soon as that constantly inflowing good, coming by way of the internal man, reaches the external or natural man it encounters evil and falsity, which - acting like wild animals - employ various methods to tear apart and annihilate that good. For that reason the inflow of good by way of the internal man is blocked and halted, and the interior mind through which the inflow comes is consequently closed. Only as much of what is spiritual is allowed through as will enable the natural man to reason and speak, though he does so in terms that are solely earthly, bodily, and worldly, either in opposition to what is good and true, or else in keeping with such but in a false or deceitful way.

[3] It is a universal law that an inflow adjusts itself to the outflow, and if the outflow is blocked, so is the inflow. Through the internal man there is an inflow of good and truth from the Lord, and through the external there should be an outflow, an outflow into life, that is, in the exercise of charity. As long as that outflow is taking place the inflow from heaven, that is, from the Lord by way of heaven, is continuous. If however no outflow takes place but something stands in the way in the external or natural man, namely evil and falsity which tear the inflowing good to pieces and annihilate it, it follows from the universal law mentioned above that the inflow adjusts itself to the outflow. All this being so, the inflow of good holds itself back and accordingly closes the internal through which the inflow comes; and that closing of it leads to stupidity in spiritual matters, which is so great that the person who is like this neither knows nor wishes to know anything at all about eternal life. At length he becomes so senseless that he raises falsity as an obstacle to truth, calling falsities truths and truths falsities, and raises evil as an obstacle to good, regarding evils as forms of good and forms of good as evils. In this way he tears good completely to pieces.

[4] The word 'torn' occurs in various places in the Word, the proper meaning of which is falsities that arise from evils, while that which is destroyed by evils is called 'a carcass'. When however the expression 'torn' is used by itself, both ideas are meant since the one includes the meaning carried by the other. It is different when the one is referred to together with the other, because in that case a distinction is being made. Since what had been torn meant in the spiritual sense what had been destroyed by falsities arising from evils, people were forbidden in the representative Church to eat anything torn. They would never have been forbidden to eat it if that spiritual evil had not been meant in heaven. Apart from this, what evil could have lain in eating flesh torn by a wild animal?

[5] Regarding their not eating anything torn the following is stated in Moses,

The fat of a carcass and the fat of that which has been torn may be put to any use, provided that you do not eat it at all. Leviticus 7:24.

In the same author,

He shall not eat a carcass or that which has been torn, to be defiled by it. I am Jehovah. Leviticus 12:8.

In the same author,

You shall be men who are sanctified to Me; therefore you shall not eat flesh torn in the field, you shall throw it to the dogs. Exodus 21:31.

In Ezekiel,

Ah Lord Jehovih! The prophet says, Behold, my soul has not been polluted, and from my youth even till now I have not eaten any carcass or that which has been torn, so that abominable flesh has not come into my mouth. Ezekiel 4:14.

From these quotations it is evident that it was an abomination to eat what had been torn, not because it had been torn but because a tearing to pieces of good by falsities arising from evils was meant, 'a carcass' on the other hand being the death of good caused by evils.

[6] A tearing to pieces of good by falsities and evils is also meant in the internal sense of the following places in David,

The wicked is like a lion, he desires to tear, and like a young lion who sits in hiding-places. Psalms 17:12.

Elsewhere,

They opened their mouth against me - a lion tearing and roaring. Psalms 22:13.

And in yet another place,

Lest like a lion they seize my soul, tearing it to pieces and there is none to deliver. Psalms 7:1.

'A lion' stands for those who lay waste the Church. Above, where Joseph was the subject - at the point where he was sold by his brothers, and his tunic, which had been dipped in blood, was sent to his father - his father too said at that time,

My son's tunic! An evil wild animal has devoured him; Joseph has been torn to pieces. Genesis 37:33.

'His having been torn to pieces' means being scattered by falsities arising from evils, see 4777.