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:

2180. 'And took a young bull, tender and good' means a celestial-natural which the rational took to itself in order that it might join itself to perception from the Divine. This is clear from the meaning of 'a young bull' or 'a son of an ox' in the Word as natural good. And because the subject is the Lord's Rational, it is called 'tender' from the celestial-spiritual, which is truth grounded in good, and 'good' from the celestial itself, which is good itself. Within the genuine rational there is both the affection for truth and the affection for good, but that which is first and foremost there is the affection for truth, as shown already in 2072. This explains why 'tender' is mentioned before 'good'; but even so, as is quite usual in the Word, both are mentioned on account of the marriage of truth and good which is referred to above in 2173.

[2] That 'a young bull' or 'a son of an ox' means the celestial-natural, or what amounts to the same, natural good, becomes especially clear from the sacrifices, which were the principal representatives in the worship of the Hebrew Church and after this of the Jewish Church. Their sacrifices were made either from the herd or from the flock, thus from animals of various kinds that were clean, such as oxen, young bulls, he-goats, sheep, rams, she-goats, kids, and lambs, besides doves and fledgling pigeons. All of these creatures meant the internal features of worship, that is, celestial and spiritual things, 2165, 2177, those from the herd meaning celestial-natural, those from the flock celestial-rational. Because both of these - natural things and rational things - are more and more interior and are various, so many genera and so many species of these creatures were therefore employed in sacrifices. This fact becomes clear also from its being laid down as to which creatures were to be offered in burnt offerings and also which in every kind of sacrifice - the daily sacrifices; those offered on sabbaths and at festivals; those made as free-will, eucharistic, or votive offerings; and those offered in purifications, cleansings, and also in inaugurations. Which creatures were to be used, and how many, in each kind of sacrifice is mentioned explicitly. This would never have been done unless each one had had some specific meaning, as is quite evident from those places where the sacrifices are the subject, as in Chapter 29 of Exodus; Chapters 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, and 23 of Leviticus; and Chapters 7, 8, 15, and 29 of Numbers. But this is not the place to explain what each one meant. The situation is similar in the Prophets where those animals are mentioned, from which it may become clear that young bulls meant celestial-natural things.

[3] That none but heavenly things were meant becomes clear also from the cherubim seen by Ezekiel and from the living creatures before the throne which were seen by John. Regarding the cherubim the prophet says,

The likeness of their faces was the face of a man (homo); and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; and they four had the face of an eagle. Ezekiel 1:10.

Regarding the four living creatures before the throne John says,

Around the throne were four living creatures - the first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a young bull, the third living creature had a face like a man (homo), the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle - saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come. Revelation 4:7-8.

Anyone may see that holy things were represented by the cherubim and these living creatures, thus also by the oxen and young bulls in the sacrifices. The same applies in the prophecy of Moses concerning Joseph,

Let it come upon the head of Joseph and upon the crown of the head of the Nazirite among his brothers. The firstborn of his ox has honour, and his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with these he will thrust the peoples together, to the ends of the earth. Deuteronomy 33:16-17.

These words are not intelligible to anyone unless he knows what ox, unicorn, horns, and many other things mean in the internal sense.

[4] As for sacrifices in general they were indeed commanded to the Israelites through Moses. But the Most Ancient Church which existed before the Flood never knew anything at all about sacrifices, nor did it ever enter their minds to worship the Lord by the slaughtering of animals. The Ancient Church which existed after the Flood knew nothing about it either. Representatives did indeed exist there, but not sacrifices. These were first introduced in the subsequent Church called the Hebrew Church, and from there they spread to the gentile nations, and even to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so to Jacob's descendants. The fact that the gentile nations had sacrificial worship has been shown in 1343, and the fact that Jacob's descendants also had such worship before they left Egypt, thus before sacrifices were commanded through Moses on Mount Sinai, becomes clear from Exodus 5:3; 10:25, 27; 18:12; 24:4-5.

[5] This is especially clear from their idolatrous worship in front of the golden calf, regarding which the following is said in Moses,

Aaron built an altar in front of the calf, and Aaron made a proclamation and said, Tomorrow there will be a feast to Jehovah. And they rose up early the next morning and presented burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Exodus 32:5-6.

This happened while Moses was on Mount Sinai, and so before the command came to them regarding the altar and the sacrifices. That command came to them for the reason that sacrificial worship among them had been turned, as it had among the gentiles, into idolatrous worship, from which they could not be drawn away because they looked upon it as-the chief holy thing. Once something has been implanted in people from their earliest years as being holy, the more so if received from their fathers, and thus is inrooted, the Lord in no way breaks it - provided it is not contrary to order itself - but bends it. This was the reason for its being laid down that the sacrificial system should be established, such as one reads in the books of Moses.

[6] The fact that sacrifices were by no means acceptable to Jehovah, and so were merely permitted and tolerated for the reason just stated, is quite evident in the Prophets. Concerning them the following is said in Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah Zebaoth, the God of Israel, Add your burnt offerings on to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. I did not speak with your fathers and I did not command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt on the matters of burnt offering and sacrifice. But this matter I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God. Jeremiah 7:21-23.

In David,

O Jehovah, sacrifice and offering You have not desired; burnt offering and sin-sacrifices You have not sought. I have delighted to do Your will, O my God. Psalms 40:6, 8.

In the same author,

You do not delight in sacrifice that I should give it; burnt offering You do not accept. The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit. Psalms 51:16-17.

In the same author,

I will not take any young bull from your house, nor he-goats from your folds. Sacrifice to God confession. Psalms 50:9, 14; 107:21-22; 116:17; Deuteronomy 23:18.

In Hosea,

I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6.

Samuel said to Saul,

Has Jehovah great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices? Behold, to be submissive is better than sacrifice, to be obedient than the fat of rams. - 1 Samuel 15:22.

In Micah,

With what shall I come before Jehovah and bow myself to God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, with tens of thousands of rivers of oil? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does Jehovah require of you but to carry out judgement, and to love mercy, and to humble yourself by walking with your God? Micah 6:6-8.

[7] From these quotations it is now evident that sacrifices were not commanded but permitted, and also that in sacrifices nothing else was regarded except that which was internal, and that it was that which was internal that was pleasing, not that which was external. For this reason also the Lord abolished them, as was also foretold through Daniel in the following words when he was speaking about the Lord's Coming,

In the middle of the week He will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. Daniel 9:27.

See what has been stated about sacrifices in Volume One, in 922, 923, 1128, 1823. As for 'the young bull' which Abraham made ready or prepared for the three men, the meaning is similar to that of the same animals when used in sacrifices. That it had a similar meaning becomes clear also from the fact that he told Sarah to take three measures of fine flour. Regarding the fine flour that went with the offering of a young bull the following is said in Moses - referring to when they were to come into the land,

When you make ready a young bull for a burnt offering or a sacrifice in the declaring of a vow, or for peace offerings to Jehovah, you shall bring with the young bull a minchah of three tenths of fine flour mixed with oil. Numbers 15:8-9.

Here similarly the number 'three' appears, though three 'tenths' here but three 'measures' in Abraham's instruction to Sarah. But only two tenths went with the offering of a ram, one tenth with that of a lamb, Numbers 15:4-6.