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.

5828. And I said, Surely, tearing he is torn in pieces. That this signifies perception that it has perished by evils and falsities, is evident from the signification of “saying,” as being perception (of which frequently above); and from the signification of “being torn in pieces,” as being to perish by evils and falsities (that is, the internal good which is represented by Joseph, n. 5805). That “to be torn in pieces” has this signification, is because in the spiritual world there is no other tearing in pieces than that of good by evils and falsities. The case herein is like death and what relates to death. In the spiritual sense these do not signify natural death, but spiritual death, which is damnation, for there is no other death in the spiritual world. So likewise “tearing” does not signify in the spiritual sense such tearing as is done by wild beasts, but the tearing to pieces of good by evils and falsities. Moreover the wild beasts which tear, signify in the spiritual sense the evils of cupidities and the derivative falsities, which also are represented by wild beasts in the other life.

[2] The good which continually flows in from the Lord with man, does not perish except by evils and the derivative falsities, and by falsities and the derivative evils. For as soon as this good, continuous through the internal man, comes to the external or natural man, it is met by evil and falsity, by which the good is torn in pieces and extinguished in various ways as by wild beasts. By this the influx of good through the internal man is checked and stayed, and consequently the inner mind, through which is the influx, is closed, and only so much of the spiritual is admitted through it as to enable the natural man to reason and speak, but this only from earthly, bodily, and worldly things, and indeed contrary to good and truth, or in accordance with them from pretense or deceit.

[3] It is a universal law that influx adjusts itself according to efflux, and if efflux is checked influx is checked. Through the internal man there is an influx of good and truth from the Lord, and through the external there must be an efflux, namely into the life, that is, in the exercise of charity. When there is this efflux then there is continual influx from heaven, that is, through heaven from the Lord; whereas if there is no efflux, but resistance in the external or natural man (that is, evil and falsity which tear to pieces and extinguish the inflowing good), it follows from the universal law just mentioned that the influx adjusts itself to the efflux, consequently that the influx of good draws back, and thereby the internal through which is the influx is closed; and through this closing there comes stupidity in spiritual things, even until the man who is such neither knows nor is willing to know anything about eternal life, and at last becomes insane, so that he opposes falsities against truths, calling them truths and the truths falsities, and evils against goods, making them goods and the goods evil. Thus he tears good completely to pieces.

[4] That which is “torn” is occasionally mentioned in the Word, whereby in the proper sense is signified that which perishes through falsities from evils; but that which perishes through evils is called a “carcass.” When only what is “torn” is mentioned, both are signified, for the one involves the signification of the other; but it is otherwise when both are mentioned, for then a distinction is made. Because that which is “torn” signified in the spiritual sense that which had perished by falsities from evils, therefore it was forbidden in the representative church to eat anything torn, which by no means would have been thus forbidden unless that spiritual evil had been understood in heaven. Otherwise what harm would there have been in eating flesh torn by a wild beast?

[5] Of “torn” things, that they were not to be eaten, it is thus written in Moses:

The fat of a carcass and the fat of that which is torn may be for every use, provided in eating ye shall not eat it (Leviticus 7:24).

Again:

A carcass and that which is torn he shall not eat, to be defiled therewith: I am Jehovah (Leviticus 22:8).

And again:

Men of holiness ye shall be to Me; therefore ye shall not eat the flesh that is torn in the field; ye shall cast it forth to dogs (Exodus 22:31).

In Ezekiel:

The prophet saith, Ah Lord Jehovih! behold my soul hath not been defiled, and a carcass and that which is torn I have not eaten from my youth until now, so that the flesh of abomination hath not come into my mouth (Ezekiel 4:14).

From these passages it is plain that it was an abomination to eat that which was torn, not because it was torn, but because it signified the tearing of good to pieces by falsities which are from evils, whereas a “carcass” signified the death of good by evils.

[6] The tearing of good to pieces by falsities from evils is meant also in the following passages from David in the internal sense:

The likeness of the wicked is as a lion, he desireth to tear, and as a young lion that sitteth in hiding places (Psalms 17:12).

Again:

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

And yet again:

Lest they tear my soul as a lion, tearing but none rescuing (Psalms 7:2).

A “lion” denotes those who vastate the church. Where it is said above of Joseph, that he was sold by his brethren, and that his tunic stained with blood was sent to his father, then his father also said, “It is my son’s tunic, an evil wild beast hath devoured him, tearing, Joseph is torn in pieces” (Genesis 37:33). (That “to be torn in pieces” is to be dissipated by falsities from evil may be seen where this is explained, n. 4777)