6306. 'Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite' means because of the victory over evil. This is clear from the representation of 'the Amorite' as evil, dealt with in 1857; and from the meaning of 'taking out of the hand' as acquiring through victory. As regards 'the Amorites', it should be recognized that they mean evil, just as 'the Canaanites' and all the other nations in the land that are mentioned in the Word mean various kinds of evil and also of falsity. Such things were represented by the nations when the children of Israel were taking possession of the land of Canaan. The reason for this was that whenever the children of Israel represented the things of heaven those nations represented the things of hell; thus the land of Canaan represented every state that exists in the next life. Also, because the nations represented the things of hell they were utterly destroyed; and entrance into any treaty with those who might remain was forbidden.

[2] The action of the children of Israel, of their taking possession of and dwelling in the land of those who represented the hells, was representative. It represented what happened around the time of the Lord's Coming, when spirits from hell had possession of a large part of heaven but He, by coming into the world and making the human within Himself Divine, cast them out of there and down into hell, and thereby delivered heaven from them, which He then gave as an inheritance to those who belonged to His spiritual kingdom.

[3] The representation of the Amorite nation as evil in general is evident from the places where it is referred to, as in Ezekiel, Thus said the Lord Jehovih to Jerusalem, ¹ Your tradings and your births are of the land of the Canaanite. Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. Ezekiel 16:3, 45.

'Father' in the internal sense means the Church's good, or in the contrary sense evil, and 'mother' means the Church's truth, or in the contrary sense falsity; and this is why it is said, 'Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite'.

[4] In Amos,

I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and whose strength was like the oaks. I led you in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite. Amos 2:9-10.

Here also 'the Amorite' stands for evil, for the evil of self-love is described by 'the height of the cedars' and 'the strength of an oak'. The reason why 'the Amorite' means evil in general is that the entire land of Canaan was called 'the land of the Amorite'; for it says, 'I led you in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite'. In addition the second Book of Kings says,

Manasseh king of Judah did what was evil, greater than all the evil which the Amorites did, who were before him. 2 Kings 21:11.

[5] 'With my sword' means through truth engaged in conflict. This is clear from the meaning of 'sword' as truth engaged in conflict, dealt with in 2799, 4499.

'And my bow' means received from doctrine. This is clear from the meaning of 'bow' as doctrine, dealt with in 2686, 2709.

[6] The words used here, 'the portion which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow' were, it is quite evident, uttered by Israel on account of the internal sense; for Jacob did not take that portion from the Amorite with sword or bow. He bought it from the sons of Hamor, as is evident from Genesis 33, where these words occur, Jacob came to Salem, the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, as he was coming from Paddan Aram; and he encamped towards the face of the city. And he bought the portion of the field where he had stretched his tent, from the hand of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred kesitahs. Genesis 33:18-19.

The fact that this field was the portion he gave to Joseph is clear in Joshua,

The bones of Joseph which the children of Israel caused to be brought up out of Egypt they buried in Shechem, in the part of the field which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred kesitahs; and they had become an inheritance for the children of Joseph. Joshua 24:32.

From this it is evident that the portion had been bought, and that this is what was given to Joseph. Nor was the city of Shechem nearby meant, the city in which Simeon and Levi killed every male and which they took with the sword, Genesis 34. This is made clear by the fact that Jacob detested what they did and for that reason cursed Simeon and Levi, completely dissociating himself from the crime. He said,

Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of violence are their swords. Into their secret place let my soul not come; in their congregation let not my glory be united; for in their anger they killed a man, and in their pleasure they hamstrung an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was hard. ² I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. Genesis 49:5-7.

From all this it may now be seen that the words 'the portion which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow' were uttered by him, when the spirit of prophecy rested on him, for the sake of the internal sense.

Poznámky pod čarou:

4911. 'And Judah acknowledged them' means that because these were theirs they affirmed that they were. This is clear from the meaning of 'acknowledging' as affirming, in this case because he acknowledged from the pledges that the child she was carrying was his own. Described here is that nation's predisposition, which is such that although it rejects any internal truth of the Church as a falsity, that nation nevertheless accepts and affirms such truth on receiving an intimation that this does belong to it. People who are governed, as this nation is, by loves that are filthy - that is, by avarice and by self-love accompanying this - are unable to raise their minds to a level where truth is seen from a viewpoint other than themselves. Therefore when a truth is attributed to them they affirm it. For example, if they are told that the Word is inwardly Divine and contains the arcana of heaven and also the kind of arcana that only angels comprehend, they affirm this truth because they regard the Word to be their own since it came to them, exists with them, and in the letter has to do with them. But if the actual arcana - spiritual truths - are disclosed to them they reject them.

[2] If they are told that every one of the ritual observances of their Church are inwardly holy, they affirm this truth because they regard those observances to be their own. But if they are told that such holiness dwells within, yet is separate from those observances, they refuse to accept this. If they are told that the Jewish Church was celestial and the Israelitish Church spiritual, and if they are given an explanation of what the celestial is, and what the spiritual is, they affirm that also. But if they were told that these two Churches are called celestial and spiritual from the fact that all the particular aspects of them were representative of celestial and spiritual things, and that representatives have regard to the reality represented, not to the one who represents it, they refuse to accept it. If they are told that Moses' rod had power from Jehovah, and so had Divine power within it, they affirm this and call it the truth. But if they are told that this power did not lie in the rod, only in the Divine command, they refuse to accept it and call it a falsity.

[3] If they are told that the bronze serpent lifted up by Moses healed those who were bitten by the serpents and that this object was for that reason miraculous, they affirm it. But if they are told that no healing or miraculous power lay within it but these came from the Lord whom that object represented, they refuse to accept this and call it a falsity. (Compare what has been narrated and stated about that serpent in Numbers 21:7-9; 2 Kings 18:4; John 3:14-15.) They react in the same way to everything else they are told. These are the kinds of things that are meant by 'Judah acknowledged them' and which on the part of the nation meant by him were joined to that internal aspect of the Church represented by 'Tamar'. Also, such being the nature of those things, Judah did not go in to her as a near kinsman going in to a dead husband's wife but as a fornicator going in to a prostitute.