6148. Only the ground of the priests bought he not. That this signifies that the internal procured for itself from the natural, capacities to receive good, because these are from itself, is evident from the representation of Joseph, of whom these things are said, as being the internal (of which above); from the signification of the “ground,” as being the receptacle of truth (of which also above, n. 6135-6137), here the capacity to receive good, for capacity is receptibility, and this must be within it, in order that a receptacle may be a receptacle. This capacity comes from good, that is, through good from the Lord; for unless the good of love flowed in from the Lord, no man would have the capacity to receive either truth or good. It is the influx of good of love from the Lord which causes all things within man to be disposed for reception. That the capacity to receive good is from the natural, is signified by the ground being in Egypt, for by “Egypt” is signified the natural in respect to memory-knowledges (n. 6142). The internal sense as given above is further evident from the signification of “priests,” as being good (of which in what follows); and from the signification of “not buying,” as being not to appropriate to himself these capacities as he had appropriated to himself truths and the goods of truth with their receptacles (which was done by means of desolations and sustainings), for the reason that these capacities were from himself, that is, from the internal. Thus it is that by these words, “Only the ground of the priests bought he not” is signified that the internal procured for itself from the natural, capacities to receive good, because these are from itself.

[2] The case herein is this. The capacities in man to receive truth and good are immediately from the Lord, nor does man render any aid in the procuring of them. For man is always kept in the capacity to receive good and truth, and from this capacity he has understanding and will; but a man’s not receiving them is the result of his turning to evil: the capacity does indeed then remain, but the approach to the thought and feeling of them is closed against him; and therefore the capacity to see truth and feel good perishes in proportion as a man turns himself to evil and confirms himself therein in life and faith. That man contributes nothing whatever to the capacity to receive truth and good, is known from the doctrine of the church, that nothing of the truth of faith and nothing of the good of charity comes from man, but that all comes from the Lord. Nevertheless a man can destroy this capacity in himself. From this it may now be seen how it is to be understood that the internal procured for itself from the natural, capacities to receive good, because these are from itself. It is said “from the natural,” because the influx of good from the Lord is effected by the Lord through the internal into the natural. When a capacity to receive has been acquired in the natural, then there is influx, for then there is reception (as may be seen above, n. 5828).

[3] In regard to goods being signified by “priests,” be it known that there are two things which proceed from the Lord, namely, good and truth. The Divine good was represented by priests, and the Divine truth by kings. Hence it is that by “priests” are signified goods, and by “kings” truths. (Concerning the priesthood and royalty which are predicated of the Lord, see n. 1728, 2015, 3670.) In the Ancient Representative Church the priesthood and the royalty were joined together in one person, because the good and truth which proceed from the Lord are united, and in heaven with the angels are also joined together.

[4] The person in whom these two things in the Ancient Church were joined together was called “Melchizedek,” or “King of Righteousness,” as may be seen from the Melchizedek who came to Abraham, of whom it is thus written:

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

That he represented the Lord as to both is manifest from the fact that he was king and at the same time priest, and that he was allowed to bless Abraham and to offer him bread and wine, which at that time also were symbols of the good of love and the truth of faith. That Melchizedek represented the Lord as to both is further manifest from David:

Jehovah hath sworn and He will not repent, Thou art a priest eternally after the manner of Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4);

which was said of the Lord; “after the manner of Melchizedek” means that he was both king and priest, that is, in the supreme sense, that from Him proceed the Divine good and the Divine truth together.

[5] Moreover as a representative church was instituted with the posterity of Jacob, therefore in one person conjointly was represented the Divine good and the Divine truth which proceed united from the Lord. But on account of the wars and of the idolatry of that people, these two offices were at first divided, and they who ruled over the people were called “leaders,” and afterward “judges;” while they who officiated in holy things were called “priests,” and were of the seed of Aaron, and Levites. Yet afterward these two offices were joined together in one person, as in Eli and in Samuel. But because the people were of such a character that a representative church could not be instituted among them, but only the representative of a church, by reason of the idolatrous disposition which prevailed among them, therefore it was permitted that the two offices should be separated, and that the Lord as to Divine truth should be represented by kings, and as to Divine good by priests. That this was done at the will of the people, and not of the Lord’s good pleasure, is manifest from the word of Jehovah unto Samuel:

Obey the voice of the people in all that they shall say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them; and thou shalt show them the king’s right (1 Samuel 8:7 to the end, and 12:19-20).

[6] The reason why these two offices were not to be separated, was that the Divine truth separated from the Divine good condemns everyone; whereas the Divine truth united to the Divine good saves. For from the Divine truth man is condemned to hell, but by the Divine good he is taken out therefrom, and is elevated into heaven. Salvation is of mercy, thus from the Divine good; but damnation is when man refuses mercy, and thus rejects from himself the Divine good; wherefore he is left to judgment from truth. (That kings represented the Divine truth may be seen, n. 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 5068.)

[7] That priests represented the Lord as to Divine good, and that from this they signify good, may be seen from all those things in the internal sense which were instituted with respect to the priesthood when Aaron was chosen, and afterward the Levites; as that the high priest alone should enter into the Holy of holies and there minister; that the holy things of Jehovah should be for the priest (Leviticus 23:20; 27:21); that they should not have a portion and inheritance in the land, but that Jehovah should be their portion and inheritance (Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:1); that the Levites were given to Jehovah instead of the firstborn, and that by Jehovah they were given to Aaron (Numbers 3:9, 12-13, 40 to the end; 8:16-19); that the high priest with the Levites should be in the midst of the camp when they pitched and when they set forward (Numbers 1:50-54; 2:17; 3:23-38; 4:1 to the end); that no one of the seed of Aaron in whom was any blemish should come near to offer burnt-offerings and sacrifices (Leviticus 21:17-21); besides many other things (see Leviticus 21:9-13, and elsewhere).

[8] All these things represented in the supreme sense the Divine good of the Lord, and thus in the relative sense the good which is of love and of charity. But the garments of Aaron, which were called the “garments of holiness,” represented the Divine truth from the Divine good; concerning which garments of the Lord’s Divine mercy more shall be said in the explications of what is written in Exodus.

[9] As truth is signified by “kings,” and good by “priests,” therefore in the Word “kings and priests” are frequently mentioned together; as in Revelation:

Jesus Christ hath made us kings and priests to God and His Father (Revelation 1:5-6; 5:10);

“kings” are said to be “made” from the truth which is of faith, and “priests” from the good which is of charity. Thus with those who are in the Lord truth and good are joined together, as they are in heaven (as was said above), and this is meant by “being made kings and priests.”

[10] In Jeremiah:

It shall come to pass in that day that the heart of the king and of the princes shall perish; and the priests shall be amazed; and the prophets shall wonder (Jeremiah 4:9).

Again:

The house of Israel are ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets (Jeremiah 2:26).

Again:

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

In these passages “kings” denote truths; “princes,” primary truths (n. 1482, 2089, 5044); “priests,” goods; and “prophets,” those who teach (n. 2534).

[11] Be it known further that the fact of Joseph’s not buying the ground of the priests was a representative that all capacity to receive truth and good is from the Lord, is evident from a similar law concerning the fields of the Levites in Moses:

The field of the suburbs of the cities of the Levites may not be sold; for it is their eternal possession (Leviticus 25:34);

by this is meant in the internal sense that no man ought to claim for himself anything of the good of the church, which is the good of love and of charity, because this is from the Lord alone.

1585. And saw all the plain of Jordan. That this signifies those goods and truths that were in the external man, is evident from the signification of a “plain,” and of “Jordan.” In the internal sense “the plain of Jordan” signifies the external man as to all its goods and truths. That “the plain of Jordan” signifies this, is because the Jordan was a boundary of the land of Canaan. The land of Canaan, as before said and shown, signifies the Lord’s kingdom and church, and in fact the celestial and the spiritual things thereof; on which account it has also been called the Holy Land, and the Heavenly Canaan; and because it signifies the Lord’s kingdom and church, it signifies in the supreme sense the Lord Himself, who is the all in all of His kingdom and of His church.

[2] Hence all things that were in the land of Canaan were representative. Those which were in the midst of the land, or which were the inmost, represented the Lord’s internal man-as Mount Zion and Jerusalem, the former the celestial things, the latter the spiritual things. Those which were further distant from the center, represented the things more remote from the internals. Those which were the furthest off, or which were the boundaries, represented the external man. The boundaries of Canaan were several; in general, the two rivers Euphrates and Jordan, and also the sea. Hence the Euphrates and the Jordan represented the externals. Here, therefore, “the plain of Jordan,” signifies, as it represents, all things that are in the external man. The case is similar when the expression “land of Canaan” is applied to the Lord’s kingdom in the heavens, or to the Lord’s church on earth, or again to the man of His kingdom or church, or, abstractly, to the celestial things of love, and so on.

[3] Hence it is that almost all the cities, and even all the mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, and other things, in the land of Canaan, were representative. It has already been shown (n. 120) that the river Euphrates, being a boundary, represented the things of sense and knowledge that belong to the external man. That the case is similar with the Jordan, and the plain of Jordan, may be seen from passages that now follow.

In David:

O my God, my soul is bowed down within me; therefore will I remember Thee from the land of Jordan, and the Hermons, from the mountain of littleness (Psalms 42:6); where “the land of Jordan” denotes that which is low, thus that which is distant from the celestial, as man’s externals are from his internals.

[4] That the sons of Israel crossed the Jordan when they entered the land of Canaan, and that it was then divided, likewise represented the access to the internal man through the external, and also man’s entrance into the Lord’s kingdom, besides other things. (See Josh. 3:14; 4:1 to 24 e end.) And because the external man continually fights against the internal, and desires dominion, the “pride” or “swelling” of Jordan became a prophetic expression. As in Jeremiah:

How shalt thou offer thyself a match for horses? And in a land of peace thou art confident; but how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan? (Jeremiah 12:5).

“The swelling of Jordan” denotes the things that belong to the external man, which rise up and desire to dominate over the internal man, as reasonings do—which here are the “horses”— and the confidence that is from them.

[5] In the same:

Edom shall be for a desolation; behold he shall come up like a lion from the pride of Jordan to the habitation of Ethan (Jeremiah 49:17, 19);

“the pride of Jordan” denotes the rising of the external man against the goods and truths of the internal.

In Zechariah:

Howl, O fir tree, for the cedar is fallen, because the magnificent ones are laid waste. Howl, O ye oaks of Bashan, for the defensed forest is come down. A voice of the howling of the shepherds, for their magnificence is laid waste; a voice of the roaring of young lions, for the swelling of Jordan is laid waste (Zech. 11:2-3).

That the Jordan was a boundary of the land of Canaan, is evident from Numbers 34:12; and of the land of Judah toward the east, from Joshua 15:5.