1832. 'But the birds he did not cut apart' means that no such parallelism and correspondence existed in the case of spiritual things. This is clear from the meaning of 'birds' as that which is spiritual, dealt with just above in verse 9, and from the fact that he did not part the birds down the middle, which consequently means that no such parallelism and correspondence existed in their case. By spiritual things, as has often been stated already, are meant all those things that constitute faith, consequently all those things which are matters of doctrine, as these are called matters of faith even though in fact they are not so until they have been joined to charity. Between these and the Lord no parallelism and correspondence exists, for they are not such as flow in through an internal dictate and through conscience - as matters of love and charity do - but such as flow in through the reception of teaching and so through hearing, thus not from what is more internal, but from that which is more external; and in this way they form in man their vessels or recipients.

[2] The majority of these have the appearance of being truths but in fact they are not so - like those things which belong to the literal sense of the Word, being also representatives of truth, and meaningful signs of truth, and so not in themselves truths. Some are even falsities, which nevertheless are able to serve as vessels and recipients. With the Lord however only those exist which are wholly and essentially truths, and therefore no parallelism or correspondence exists involving those apparent truths. Yet they may be rendered suitable to serve celestial things - which are matters of love and charity - as vessels. These apparent truths are what constitute the cloud in the understanding part of the mind, dealt with already, into which the Lord infuses charity and so forms conscience.

[3] Take, for example, people who keep to the sense of the letter of the Word and imagine that it is the Lord who brings on temptation, that it is He who at such times tortures a person's conscience, and who imagine that because He permits evil He is the author of evil, that He thrusts the wicked down into hell, and similar ideas. These are not truths, but apparent truths. And because they are not in themselves truths there is no parallelism and correspondence. Nevertheless the Lord leaves these things in man as they are and in a remarkable fashion adapts them by means of charity so that they may serve as vessels for celestial things. The same applies as well to the worship, the teachings, the practices, even the idols, of honest gentiles. In the same way the Lord leaves these things as they are, yet adapts them by means of charity so that they too may serve as vessels. The same was true of so many of the forms of ritual in the Ancient Church, and subsequently in the Jewish Church. In themselves they were nothing more than religious observances that contained no truth in them and which were tolerated and permitted, even prescribed, because they had been held sacred by parents, and so had been implanted in and impressed upon their minds as truths since they were children.

[4] These and other such things are what are meant by the statement that the birds were not divided. For the things that are once implanted in a person's beliefs and are held sacred, provided they are not contrary to Divine order, are left by the Lord as they are; and although no parallelism or correspondence exists He nevertheless adapts them. The same things were also meant in the sacrifices of the Jewish Church by the birds not being divided, for to divide is to set one part opposite the other so that they exactly correspond. But because those things to which reference has been made are not exactly correspondent, they are in the next life blotted out in the case of those who allow themselves to be taught, and truths themselves are implanted in their affections for good. For the sake of this representation and meaning, birds in the Jewish Church were not divided, as is clear in Moses,

If his gift to Jehovah is a burnt offering of a bird, he is to bring a gift of turtle doves or of young pigeons; he will tear it with its wings, he is not to divide it. Leviticus 1:14, 17.

Likewise in sacrifices for sin, Leviticus 5:7-8.

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: