10109. And they shall eat those things wherein expiation was made. That this signifies the appropriation of good with those who are purified from evils and the falsities thence derived, is evident from the signification of “eating,” as being appropriation (see above, n. 10106); and from the signification of “expiated,” as being that which has been purified from evils and the falsities thence derived (n. 9506). It is said “purified from evils and the falsities thence derived,” because there are falsities, and also truths, with those who are in evil; and likewise falsities and truths with those who are in good; the falsities with those who are in evil are falsities of evil, and the truths with them are truths falsified, which are dead; but the falsities with those who are in good are accepted as truths, for they are rendered mild by good, and are applied to good uses; and the truths with such persons are truths of good, which are living. (Concerning both kinds of falsity and truth, see what was shown in n. 2243, 2408, 2863, 4736, 4822, 6359, 7272, 7437, 7574, 7577, 8051, 8137, 8138, 8149, 8298, 8311, 8318, 9258, 9298)

[2] As by “eating holy things wherein expiation was made” is signified the appropriation of good with those who have been purified from evils and the falsities thence derived, it was therefore strictly forbidden that any unclean person should eat of them, for by “uncleanness” is signified defilement from evils and the falsities thence derived. For the case herein is that so long as a man is in evils and in the falsities thence derived, it is impossible for any good to be appropriated to him, for evil ascends from hell, and good descends from heaven; and where hell is, there heaven cannot be, because they are diametrically opposite. In order therefore that heaven, that is, good from heaven, may have room, hell must be removed, that is, evil from hell; from which it can be seen that good cannot possibly be appropriated to man so long as he is in evil. By the appropriation of good is meant the implantation of good in the will, for good cannot be said to be appropriated to man until it becomes of his will, because the will of man is the man himself, and his understanding is only so far the man as it partakes of the will. For that which is of the will belongs to the man’s love, and from this to his life, because that which a man wills he loves and also calls good, and moreover when it is done, he feels it as good. The case is otherwise with those things which are of the understanding, and not at the same time of the will. Be it also known that by the appropriation of good with man is meant only the capability to receive good from the Lord, with which capability he is endowed by regeneration; hence the good with a man is not the man’s, but is the Lord’s with him, and the man is held in it so far as he suffers himself to be withheld from evils. As good cannot be appropriated, that is, communicated to man, so long as he is in evil, it was therefore forbidden that any unclean person should eat the flesh and bread of the sacrifice, for by such an eating was represented the appropriation of good, as has been said above.

[3] That the unclean were forbidden under penalty of death to eat of the sanctified things, is evident in Moses:

Everyone that is clean shall eat of the flesh; but the soul that should eat of the flesh of the sacrifices, having his uncleanness upon him, shall be cut off from his peoples. The soul that hath touched any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean creeping thing, and shall eat of the flesh of the eucharistic sacrifice, shall be cut off from the peoples (Leviticus 7:19-21).

All these external uncleannesses represented internal uncleannesses, which are evils pertaining to man, and such evils as are of his will, appropriated by actual life.

[4] This is further described in another passage in Moses:

Whatsoever man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper, or suffereth from an issue, shall not eat of the holy things even until he has been cleansed. Whoso hath touched anything unclean on account of soul, the man from whom hath gone forth seed of copulation, or the man who hath touched any creeping thing, with which he is defiled, or a man with whom he may himself be defiled in respect to all his uncleanness, the soul which hath touched it shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things; but when he hath washed his flesh with water, and the sun hath set, he shall be clean; and afterward he shall eat of the holy things, because this is his bread. No stranger shall eat of the holy thing; a lodger of the priest, or a hireling, shall not eat of the holy thing. If a priest shall buy a soul with the purchase of his silver, he can eat of it; and he that is born of his house, they shall eat of his bread. When a priest’s daughter shall have married a strange man, she shall not eat of the uplifting of holy things. But if a priest’s daughter shall have become a widow, or divorced, and she hath no seed, and so shall have returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread (Leviticus 22:4-13).

That all these things are significative of interior things is very manifest, thus that they involve the communication and appropriation of holy things with those who are in a state for receiving. That “no stranger should eat” signifies those within the church who do not acknowledge the Lord, thus who are not in the truths and goods of the church; that “a lodger and a hireling should not be allowed to eat,” signified those who are in natural good without the good of faith, and also those who do what is good for the sake of recompense; that those who were “bought with silver” and “born in the house” should eat, signified those who are converted, and who are in the truth and good of the church from faith and love; that “a priest’s daughter married to a strange man should not eat” signified that the holy things of the church cannot be appropriated to the good which has not been conjoined with the truths of the church; but that “a widow and one that is divorced, if she had no seed, should eat,” signified the appropriation of good after those things have been removed which are not of the church, if from their conjunction nothing has been hatched or born which has been made a matter of faith. That these things are signified is plain from the internal sense of the particulars.

[5] That hereditary evils do not hinder the appropriation of good is also described in Moses:

Every man of the seed of Aaron in whom is a blemish, let him not come near to offer the bread of God; a man blind, lame, mutilated, or very tall, he who hath a fracture of foot or of hand, is hump-backed, bruised, confused of eye, scurfy, warty, or bruised in the testicle, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. But he shall eat the bread of the holies of holies and of the holy things (Leviticus 21:17-23);

by these words, as before said, are signified hereditary evils, and some specific evil by each of them. That such men should not offer bread nor come near the altar as priests, was because these blemishes-that is, these evils-thus stood forth before the people, and those things which stood forth fell into a kind of representation, as did not those which lay hidden. For although the priest, the Levite, or the people, were unclean as to their interiors, they were nevertheless called clean, and were also believed to be holy, provided they outwardly appeared washed and clean.

8318. Fright and dread have fallen upon them. That this signifies that they are without any hope of domination, is evident from the signification of “fright and dread,” when said of those who are in the love of self and in the consequent falsities and evils, who are signified by “the chiefs of Edom and the mighty ones of Moab,” as being that they are without hope of domination; for they who are in the evil of the love of self continually desire to domineer, but when terror falls upon them on account of a victorious enemy, then the hope of domineering falls.

[2] Be it known that evils are from a double origin; namely, from the love of self, and from the love of the world. They who are in evils from the love of self, love themselves only, and despise all others except those who make one with themselves, in loving whom they do not love them, but themselves, because they see themselves in them. The evils from this origin are the worst of all; for they who are in them not only despise all others in comparison with themselves, but also pursue them with invectives, and bear hatred toward them for slight cause, and then breathe their destruction. In this way revenge and cruelty become the delight of their life. They who are in the evil of this love are at a depth in hell according to the quality and amount of this love.

[3] But they who are in evil from the love of the world also hold their neighbor in slight estimation, and esteem him solely by reason of his wealth; thus they esteem his riches, not him. These desire to possess all that belongs to their neighbor, and when they are in this cupidity, they are then devoid of all charity and mercy; for to deprive their neighbor of his goods is the delight of their life, especially of those who are sordidly avaricious, that is, who love gold and silver for the sake of gold and silver, but not for the sake of any use from them. Those with whom the evil of this love has dominion are also in the hells, but not in hells so deep as are they who are in the evil of the love of self. Besides these two origins of evil there is also a third, which is to do evil from the principles of a false religion; but this evil has a bad character with those who are in the love of self and of the world; but not with those who are in love toward the neighbor and to their God; for the end is good, and the end qualifies all the rest (see n. 8311).