3103. And the man took a jewel of gold. That this signifies Divine good, is evident from the signification of a “jewel of gold,” as being good; and here, because in the internal sense the Lord is treated of, it signifies the Divine good; and because this is from the rational, the term “man” [vir] is used (that a “man” denotes the rational, may be seen above, n. 265, 749, 1007). In ancient times, when the forms of worship in churches were representative, and it was known what they signified, when marriages were being entered upon it was customary to give the bride a jewel of gold and bracelets, because the church was represented by the bride, its good by the jewel, and its truth by the bracelets; and because it was known that the conjugial love with the bride and the wife descends from the marriage of the Lord’s Divine good and Divine truth (n. 2508, 2618, 2727-2729). The jewel of gold was put upon the nose, as is evident also from what is said afterwards, that he “put the jewel upon her nose” (verse 47), for the reason that the nose signified the life of good, from the respiration there, which in the internal sense is life, and also from the fragrance, which is what is grateful to the love, the good of which it is (n. 96, 97).

[2] That the “jewel” was the badge of marriage as to good, is evident also from other passages of the Word as in Ezekiel:

I decked thee with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain upon thy throat; and I put a jewel upon thy nose (Ezekiel 16:11-12); concerning the Ancient Church, here called “Jerusalem,” which is described as a bride, to whom were given bracelets, a chain, and a jewel. “Bracelets upon the hands” were a badge representative of truth; and a “jewel upon the nose” was a badge representative of good.

[3] In Isaiah:

Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, the Lord will make bald the crown of their head, and will take away the rings, and the nose jewels, the changes of garments, and the mantles (Isaiah 3:16-18, 21-22).

The “daughters of Zion who are haughty,” denote the affections of evil within the church (n. 2362, 3024); the “rings and the nose jewels which will be removed,” denote good and its badges; the “changes of garments and the mantles,” truth and its badges.

[4] In Hosea:

I will visit upon her the days of the Baalim to which she burned incense; and she put on her nose jewel and her ornaments, and went after her lovers (Hos. 2:13);

treating of the perverted church, and the new church after it. The “nose jewel” here also denotes a badge of the good of the church. When these jewels were fitted to the ears, they also signified good, but good in act; and in the opposite sense evil in act (as in Genesis 35:4; Exodus 32:2-3).

2209. And I am become old. That this signifies after it should no longer be of such a nature, namely, not Divine but human, and that this latter should be put off, is evident from the signification of “becoming old,” as being to put off the human (spoken of above, n. 2198, 2203). As regards the rational in general, when it thinks about Divine things, especially from its own truth, it cannot possibly believe that there are such things; both because it does not apprehend them, and because there adhere to it the appearances born from the fallacies of the senses by which and from which it thinks; as is evident from the examples adduced above (n. 2196); to which the following may be added for the sake of illustration.

[2] If the rational be consulted, can it believe that the Word has an internal sense, and this so remote from the literal sense as has been shown? And thus that the Word is that which conjoins heaven with earth, that is, the Lord’s kingdom in the heavens with the Lord’s kingdom on earth? Can the rational believe that souls after death speak with each other most distinctly, without the speech of words, and yet so fully as to express more in a minute than a man does by his speech in an hour? And that the angels do the same, but in a speech still more perfect, and one that is not perceivable by spirits? Also, that on coming into the other life all souls know how to speak in this way, although they receive no instruction in so speaking? Can the rational believe that in one affection of man, nay, in one sigh, there are such numberless things as can never be described, and yet are perceived by angels? And that every affection of man, nay, every idea of his thought, is an image of him, being such as to contain within it in a wonderful manner all the things of his life? Not to mention thousands upon thousands of such things.

[3] The rational, which is wise from sensuous things, and is imbued with their fallacies, when thinking of such things, does not believe that they can be so, because it is unable to form to itself any idea except from such things as it perceives by some sense either external or internal; and what then must be the case when it thinks about Divine celestial and spiritual things, which are still higher? For there must always be some appearances from sensuous things, upon which the thought must lean, and when these appearances are withdrawn, the idea perishes, as has also been evident to me from novitiate spirits, who take the greatest delight in the appearances which they have brought with them from the world, saying that if these should be taken away from them, they did not know whether they could think. Such is the rational as regarded in itself.