8588. And Meribah. That this signifies the quality of the complaining, is evident from the fact that in the original tongue “Meribah” means “contention,” or “quarreling,” and “quarreling” signifies complaining (see n. 8563, 8566); and because names signify the quality of the thing (n. 8587), therefore “Meribah” here signifies the quality of the complaining. As regards this temptation itself and its quality, be it known that in this passage are described those who in temptations almost yield, namely, those who complain against heaven and also against the Divine Itself, and at last almost disbelieve in the Divine Providence. These things are signified in the internal sense by what precedes, and also by what follows in this verse, namely, the quality of the state of the temptation, which is signified by “Massah,” and the quality of the complaining in the temptation, which is signified by “Meribah.” That this quality is here signified by “Meribah,” is plain in David:

Thou calledst upon Me in distress, and I rescued thee; I answered thee in the secret place, I proved thee at the waters of Meribah (Psalms 81:7).

[2] But in the internal historical sense, in which the subject treated of is the state of religion with the Israelitish nation, that nation is described in respect to its quality toward Jehovah, namely, that they were not willing by supplication to entreat Him for aid, but that they expostulated. The reason was, that at heart they did not acknowledge Jehovah as the supreme God, but only in the mouth, when they saw the miracles. That at heart they did not acknowledge Him is very evident from the Egyptian calf which they made for themselves and worshiped, saying that these were their gods; also from their frequent apostasy (of which see n. 8301). This is what is here described in the internal historical sense; but in the internal spiritual sense is described the quality of the temptation with those who before they are liberated are brought to the last of temptation.

[3] That the quality of the Israelitish nation and of its religiosity is described by contention with Moses at Massah and Meribah, is also evident in the following passages:

Harden not your heart, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, where your fathers tempted Me; they tempted Me, and saw My work; for forty years did I feel loathing at the generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and the same have not known My ways, to whom I sware in Mine anger that they should not come unto My rest (Psalms 95:8-11).

Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16; 9:22, 24).

Of Leviticus he said, Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with the Holy Man, whom thou didst tempt at Massah, with whom thou didst contend at the waters of Meribah (Deuteronomy 33:8).

“The Holy Man” here denotes the Lord, whom they tempted, and whom Moses and Aaron did not sanctify.

[4] In the internal historical sense, in which the subject treated of is the religiosity of the Israelitish nation, by Moses and Aaron is not represented truth Divine, but the religiosity of that nation whose leaders and heads they were (n. 7041). Because this religiosity was such as said above, it was intimated to them that they should not bring the people into the land of Canaan, as is written in the book of Numbers:

Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye have not believed in Me, and sanctified Me in the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them; these are the waters of Meribah, because the sons of Israel contended with Jehovah (Numbers 20:12-13; 27:14).

Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall not come into the land which I have given to the sons of Israel, because ye rebelled against My mouth at the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:24).

The same is said of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:50-51).

[5] That still representative Divine worship was instituted with that nation, was because representative worship could be instituted with any nation that had holy externals of worship, and worshiped almost idolatrously; for what is representative does not regard the person, but the thing (n. 1361), and it was the genius of that nation, beyond any other nation, to worship merely external things as holy and Divine, without any internal; as for instance to worship as deities their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and afterward Moses and David, and moreover to account holy and as Divine, and to worship, every stone and every piece of wood that had been inaugurated in their Divine worship; as the arks, the tables therein, the lamp, the altar, the garments of Aaron, the Urim and Thummim, and afterward the temple. Of the Lord’s Providence there was then given a communication of the angels of heaven with man by means of such things. For there must needs be somewhere a church, or the representative of a church, in order that there may be communication of heaven with the human race; and as that nation, beyond any other nation, could make Divine worship consist in external things, and thus act the representative of a church, therefore that nation was taken.

[6] At that time communication with the angels in heaven was effected by means of representatives in the following way. Their external worship was communicated to angelic spirits who are simple, and who do not reflect upon internal things, but still are interiorly good. Such are they who in the Grand Man correspond to the outer skin. These pay no attention whatever to the internal of man, but only to his external. If this appears holy, they think holily of the internal also. The more interior angels of heaven saw in those spirits the things that were represented, consequently the heavenly and Divine things that corresponded; for they could be present with these spirits, and see those things; but not with the men except by means of the spirits. For angels dwell with men in things interior; but where there are no such things, they dwell in the interior things of simple spirits; for the angels have no interest in other than spiritual and heavenly things, which are the interior things contained in representatives. From these few words it can be seen how there could be communication with heaven by means of such a people. But see what has been previously shown on this subject, namely: That with the Jews the holy of worship was miraculously elevated into heaven quite apart from them (n. 4307); that whatever their quality might be, the descendants of Jacob could represent what is holy, provided they closely observed the rituals commanded (n. 3147, 3479, 3480, 3881, 4208, 4281, 4288, 4289, 4293, 4307, 4444, 4500, 4680, 4825, 4844, 4847, 4899, 4912, 6304, 6306, 7048, 7051, 8301).

4444. As they heard it, and the men were grieved, and they were very angry. That this signifies that they were in evil against the truth of the Church among the Ancients, is evident from the signification of being “grieved and very angry,” as being to be in evil. That this was against the truth of the Church among the Ancients, follows, because it was against Shechem the son of Hamor, by whom is signified the truth among the ancients, as before said (n. 4430, 4431). That they were in evil is evident from what follows, in that they spoke with fraud (verse 13), and then, after Shechem and Hamor had complied with their demands, they slew them (verses 26-29). Thus by being “grieved and very angry” is here signified that they were in evil. It appears as if these words signify zeal because he lay with their sister, according to the words which presently follow: “Because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter, and so it ought not to be done;” and at the end of the chapter: “They said, Shall he make our sister as a harlot?” (verse 31); but it was not zeal, for zeal is impossible with anyone who is in evil, being possible only with him who is in good, because zeal has good within it (n. 4164).

[2] It is true that the religiosity which existed with their posterity had good within it, for each and all things of it represented the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom; but as regards those who were in that religiosity it had no good within it, for they were in mere externals without internals, as shown above. The case herein is the same as it is with the religiosity of that nation as now prevalent among them: they acknowledge Moses and the prophets, thus the Word, which in itself is holy, but as regards them it is not holy, for in everything therein they regard themselves, and thus make the Word worldly, nay, earthly, for that there is anything heavenly in it they do not know and neither do they care. They who are in such a state cannot be in good when in their religiosity, but in evil, for nothing heavenly flows in, because they extinguish it in themselves.

[3] Moreover, it was according to a law known in the Ancient Church that he who forced a virgin should give a dowry and take her for his wife, as thus stated in Moses:

If a man persuade a virgin who is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall endow her with a dowry to be his wife. If refusing her father refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay silver, as much as is the dowry of virgins (Exodus 27:15-16).

And elsewhere:

If a man find a damsel who is a virgin, who has not been betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be caught, the man who lay with her shall give the damsel’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he forced her, and he may not put her away all his days (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

That this same law was known to the ancients is very evident from the words of Shechem to the damsel’s father and brothers: “Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye say unto me I will give. Multiply upon me exceedingly dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me, and give me the damsel for a woman” (verses 11-12). And as Shechem desired to fulfill this law, and Dinah’s brothers gave their consent provided that he would become as they were by circumcising every male, according to the words which follow: “Nevertheless in this will we consent unto you, if ye will be as we are, that every male with you be circumcised, we will both give our daughters to you, and will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will be one people” (verses 15-16), it is evident that Dinah’s brothers did not act from the law (thus not from good), but contrary to the law, and consequently from evil.

[4] It was indeed according to their law that they should not enter into marriages with the nations, as stated in Moses: “Lest thou take of their daughters for thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods” (Exodus 34:16); and again: “Thou shalt not contract kinship with the nations, thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, and his daughter thou shalt not take unto thy son, because he will turn aside thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4); but this law was given in regard to idolatrous nations, lest by marriages with them the sons of Israel should turn aside from truly representative worship to idolatrous worship; for when they became idolaters they could no longer represent the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom, but the opposites, which are infernal, for they then called forth from hell a certain devil whom they worshiped, and to whom they applied the Divine representatives, and therefore it is said, “Lest they go a whoring after their gods.” This law was given for the additional reason that by the “nations” were signified the evils and falsities with which the goods and truths represented by the sons of Israel were not to be commingled, consequently not diabolical and infernal things with heavenly and spiritual things (see n. 3024 at the end).

[5] But they were never forbidden to intermarry with the nations who accepted their worship, and who after being circumcised acknowledged Jehovah. These they called “sojourners sojourning with them,” who are thus spoken of in Moses:

If a sojourner shall sojourn with thee, and be willing to keep the passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as an inhabitant of the land; there shall be one law for the inhabitant and for the sojourner that sojourneth in the midst of you (Exodus 12:48-49).

And again:

When a sojourner shall sojourn with you, he shall keep the passover unto Jehovah; according to the statute of the passover, and according to the statutes thereof, so shall he do; one statute shall there be for you, both for the sojourner and for the native of the land (Numbers 9:14).

The reason why they were called “sojourners sojourning in the midst of them” and “with them” was that “to sojourn” signified to be instructed; and therefore a “sojourner” signified those who suffered themselves to be instructed in the statutes and doctrinal things. (That “to sojourn” and a “sojourner” have this signification may be seen above, n. 1463, 2025, 3672) In the same:

If a sojourner shall sojourn with you who shall have made a fire-offering of an odor of rest unto Jehovah, as ye do, so he shall do: as to the assembly, there is one statute for you and for the sojourner that sojourneth, a statute of eternity for your generations; as ye are, so is the sojourner before Jehovah; one law and one judgment shall be for you and for the sojourner that sojourneth with you (Numbers 15:14-16).

As the native of you shall be the sojourner that sojourneth with you (Leviticus 19:34).

One judgment shall there be for you, such as is for the sojourner, such shall be for the native (Leviticus 24:22).

[6] That this statute was known not only to Jacob and his sons, but also to Shechem and Hamor, is evident from their words; for the statutes, judgments, and laws that were given to the Israelitish and Jewish nation were not new, but such as had previously existed in the Ancient Church and in the second Ancient Church which was called Hebrew from Eber, as has been shown. That consequently this law was known is evident from the words, “The sons of Jacob said to Hamor and Shechem, We cannot do this word, to give our sister to a man who has a foreskin, for this is a reproach to us; nevertheless in this will we consent to you, if ye will be as we, to circumcise for you every male, we will both give our daughters to you, and will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you and will be for one people” (verses); and the same is evident from the words of Hamor and Shechem, in that they not only consented, but also caused themselves and every male of their city to be circumcised (verses 18-24).

[7] Hence it is evident that Shechem became a sojourner such as is spoken of in the law, and thus could take the daughter of Jacob for a woman; so that to kill them was a wicked deed, as Jacob also testified before his death (Genesis 49:5-7). That not only Judah, but also Moses, and also the kings of the Jews and of the Israelites, and also many of the people, took wives from the nations, is evident from the historicals of the Word; and that these wives received their statutes, judgments, and laws, and were acknowledged as sojourners, is not to be doubted.