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.

2722. He planted a grove in Beersheba. That this signifies doctrine thence with its knowledges and its quality, is evident from the signification of a “grove,” and from the signification of “Beersheba.” As regards groves: in the Ancient Church holy worship was performed on mountains and in groves; on mountains, because mountains signified the celestial things of worship; and in groves, because groves signified its spiritual things. So long as that church, namely, the Ancient, was in its simplicity, their worship at that time on mountains and in groves was holy, for the reason that celestial things, which are those of love and charity, were represented by things high and lofty, such as mountains and hills; and spiritual things, which are therefrom, by things fruitful and leafy, such as gardens and groves; but after representatives and significatives began to be made idolatrous, by the worship of external things without internal, that holy worship became profane; and they were therefore forbidden to worship on mountains and in groves.

[2] That the ancients held holy worship on mountains is evident from the twelfth chapter of Genesis, where we read of Abraham:

He removed thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the sea, and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar, and called on the name of Jehovah (Genesis 12:8, n. 1449-1455);

and also from the signification of a “mountain,” as being the celestial of love (n. 795, 796, 1430). That they also held holy worship in groves is evident from what is stated in this verse: “Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the God of eternity;” and also from the signification of a “garden,” as being intelligence (n. 100, 108, 1588); and of “trees,” as being perceptions (n. 103, 2163). That this was forbidden is evident from the following passages.

In Moses:

Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any tree beside the altar of Jehovah thy God which thou shalt make thee, and thou shalt not set thee up a pillar; which Jehovah thy God hateth (Deuteronomy 16:21-22).

In the same:

The altars of the nations shall ye break down, and dash in pieces their pillars, and cut down their groves (Exodus 34:13);

and they were commanded to burn the groves of the nations with fire (Deuteronomy 12:3).

[3] And as the Jews and Israelites, among whom the representative ritual of the Ancient Church was introduced, were solely in externals, and at heart were nothing but idolaters, neither knowing nor wishing to know what anything internal was, nor the life after death, nor even that the Messiah’s kingdom was a heavenly one, therefore whenever they were in freedom they held profane worship on mountains and hills, and also in groves and forests; and likewise in place of mountains and hills they made for themselves high places, and in place of groves carved representations of a grove, as is evident from many passages in the Word. As in the book of Judges:

The sons of Israel served Baalim and the groves (Judg. 3:7).

In the book of Kings:

Israel made groves provoking Jehovah (1 Kings 14:15).

And in another place:

Judah built them high places, and pillars, and groves, upon every high hill, and under every green tree (1 Kings 14:23).

And again:

Israel built them high places in all their cities, and set up pillars and groves upon every high hill, and under every green tree (2 Kings 17:9-10).

And again:

Manasseh king of Judah reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel, and set the carved image of the grove which he had made in the house of God (2 Kings 21:3, 7);

from which it is manifest that they also made for themselves carved images of a grove. That these were destroyed by king Josiah may be seen in the same book:

Josiah caused all the vessels that were made for Baal and for the grove, and for the sun and the moon, and for all the army of the heavens, to be brought out of the temple of Jehovah, and he burnt them without Jerusalem, and the houses which the women had woven there for the grove (2 Kings 23:4-5, 7, 14-15).

He also cut down the groves which Solomon had made, and likewise the grove in Bethel which Jeroboam had made (2 Kings 23:4, 6-7, (23:6-7) 13-15). That king Hezekiah also demolished such things may be seen in the same book:

Hezekiah king of Judah removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the grove, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made (2 Kings 18:4).

[4] That the brazen serpent was holy in the time of Moses is evident; but when the external was worshiped it became profane, and was broken in pieces, for the same reason that worship on mountains and in groves was forbidden. These things are still more evident in the Prophets.

In Isaiah:

Inflaming yourselves with gods under every green tree; sacrificing the children in the rivers under the crags of the rocks; thou hast also poured out a drink-offering to the rivers, thou hast offered a gift; upon a high and lofty mountain hast thou set thy habitation, and thither wentest thou up ¹ to offer sacrifice (Isaiah 57:5-7).

In the same:

In that day shall a man look unto his Maker, and his eyes shall see the Holy One of Israel; and he shall not look to the altars the work of his hands, neither shall he see that which his fingers have made, and the groves and the sun images (Isaiah 17:7-8).

In Micah:

I will cut off thy graven images and thy pillars out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more bow thyself down to the work of thy hands; and I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy cities (Micah 5:13-14).

In Ezekiel:

That their slain may be among their idols, round about their altars, upon every high hill, on all the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every tangled oak, the place where they did offer an odor of rest to all their idols (Ezekiel 6:13).

[5] From all this it is now manifest from what origin idolatrous worship came, namely, the worship of objects that were representative and significative. The most ancient people who were before the flood saw in each and everything-in mountains, hills, plains, and valleys, gardens, groves, and forests, rivers and waters, fields and plantations, trees and animals of every kind, and the luminaries of heaven-something representative and significative of the Lord’s kingdom; but they never dwelt with their eyes, still less with their minds, on these objects; but these things served them as means for thinking about the celestial and spiritual things in the Lord’s kingdom; and this to such a degree that there was nothing at all in universal nature that did not serve them as such means. The real fact is that everything in nature is representative, which is an arcanum at this day and scarcely believed by anyone. But after the celestial which is of love to the Lord had perished, the human race was then no longer in that state-namely, that from objects as means they could see the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom.

[6] Yet the ancients after the flood knew, from traditions, and from collections made by certain persons, that these things had such a signification; and as they were significative they esteemed them holy. Hence came the representative worship of the Ancient Church; which church, being spiritual, was not in the perception that a thing was so, but was in the knowledge of the fact; for it was relatively in obscurity (n. 2715). Nevertheless they did not worship outward things, but by means of outward things they called to mind inward things; and hence when they were in those representatives and significatives, they were in holiness of worship. They were able to be so because they were in spiritual love, that is, in charity, which they made an essential of worship; and therefore holiness from the Lord could flow into their worship. But when the state of the human race had become so changed and perverted that they removed themselves from the good of charity, and thus no longer believed that there was any heavenly kingdom, or any life after death, but that men were in a similar condition with animals, save only that they could think (as is also believed at this day), then the holy representative worship was turned into idolatry, and the outward things were worshiped. Hence with many Gentiles at that time, and also with the Jews and Israelites, the worship was not representative, but was a worship of the representatives and significatives; that is, of the outward things without the inward.

[7] As regards groves in particular, among the ancients they were of various signification, and indeed according to the kinds of trees in them. Groves of olive-trees signified the celestial things of worship; groves of vines signified the spiritual things of worship; but groves of fig-trees, cedars, fir-trees, poplars, and oaks, signified various things relating to what is celestial and spiritual. In the passage before us mention is made simply of a grove or plantation of trees; and this signifies the things of reason that were adjoined to doctrine and its knowledges; for trees in general signify perceptions (n. 103, 2163), but when they are predicated of the spiritual church they signify knowledges, for the reason that the man of the spiritual church has no other perceptions than those which come through knowledges from doctrine or the Word; for these become of his faith, and thus of conscience, from which he has perception.

Poznámky pod čarou: