5079. Against their lord the king of Egypt. That this signifies that they—namely, the external sensuous things, or those of the body, signified by “the butler and the baker”—were contrary to the new state of the natural man, is evident from the signification of the “king of Egypt” as being memory-knowledge in general (see n. 1164, 1165, 1186, 1462, 4749, 4964, 4966). For the same is signified by the “king of Egypt” as by “Egypt,” the king being the head of the nation; and it is the same in other passages also where mention is made of the “king” of any nation (n. 4789). As memory-knowledge in general is signified by the “king of Egypt,” the natural man is also signified thereby, because all memory-knowledge is the truth of the natural man (4967): the good itself of the natural man is signified by “lord” (n. 4973).

That a new state of the natural man is here signified, is because in the preceding chapter there was described the making new of the interiors of the natural, and in the supreme sense, which relates to the Lord, that they were glorified; but the subject here treated of is the exteriors of the natural, which were to be reduced to harmony or correspondence with the interiors. Those interiors of the natural which were new, or what is the same thing, the new state of the natural man, is what is signified by “their lord the king of Egypt;” and the exteriors which were not reduced into order, and hence were contrary to order, are what are signified by “the butler and the baker.”

[2] There are interiors and there are exteriors of the natural, the interiors of the natural being memory-knowledges and the affections of them, while its exteriors are the sensuous things of both kinds, spoken of above (n. 5077). When a man dies he leaves behind him these exteriors of the natural, but carries with him into the other life the interiors of the natural, where they serve as a plane for things spiritual and celestial. For when a man dies he loses nothing except his bones and flesh; he has with him the memory of all that he had done, spoken, or thought, and he has with him all his natural affections and desires, thus all the interiors of the natural. Of its exteriors he has no need; for he does not see, nor hear, nor smell, nor taste, nor touch, what is in this world, but only such things as are in the other life, which indeed look for the most part like those which are in this world; but still are not like them, for they have in them what is living, which those things which properly belong to the natural world have not. For all and each of the things in the other life come forth and subsist from the sun there, which is the Lord, whence they have in them what is living; whereas all and each of the things in the natural world come forth and subsist from its sun, which is elementary fire, and hence have not in them what is living. What appears living in them is from no other source than the spiritual world, that is, through the spiritual world from the Lord.

4973. And he was in the house of his lord the Egyptian. That this signifies that it might be initiated into natural good, is evident from the signification of a “lord,” as being good, of which presently; and from the signification of an “Egyptian,” as being memory-knowledge in general, and hence the natural (see n. 4967). That to be “in a house” is to be initiated, is because a “house” is the mind in which good is (see n. 3538), here the natural mind; and moreover “house” is predicated of good (n. 3652, 3720). There is in man a natural mind and a rational mind; the natural mind is in his external man, the rational mind in his internal. Memory-knowledges are the truths of the natural mind, which are said to be “in their house” when they are conjoined there with good; for good and truth constitute together one house, as husband and wife. But the goods and truths here treated of are interior; for they correspond to the celestial of the spiritual from the rational, which is represented by Joseph. The interior corresponding truths in the natural mind are applications to uses, and the interior goods therein are uses.

[2] The name “Lord” is often used in the Word; and one who has no knowledge of the internal sense supposes that nothing more is meant by it than what is meant by the use of this term in common speech; but “Lord” is never used in the Word except where good is treated of, and the same is true of “Jehovah;” but when truth is treated of, “God” and “King” are used. For this reason by a “lord” is signified good, as is evident from the following passages.

In Moses:

Jehovah your God, He is God of gods, and Lord of lords (Deuteronomy 10:17).

In David:

Confess ye to Jehovah. Confess ye to the God of gods. Confess ye to the Lord of lords (Psalms 136:1-3); where Jehovah or the Lord is called “God of gods” from the Divine truth which proceeds from Him, and “Lord of lords” from the Divine good which is in Him.

[3] So in the Revelation:

The Lamb shall overcome them; for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings (Revelation 17:14).

And again:

He that sat upon the white horse hath upon His vesture and upon His thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).

That the Lord is here called “King of kings” from Divine truth, and “Lord of lords” from Divine good, is plain from the particulars; the “name written” is His quality (n. 144, 145, 1754, 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006); the “vesture” on which it was written is the truth of faith (n. 1073, 2576, 4545, 4763); the “thigh” on which also that quality was written, is the good of love (n. 3021, 4277, 4280, 4575). From this also it is plain that the Lord from Divine truth is called “King of kings” and from Divine good “Lord of lords.” (That the Lord is called “King” from Divine truth may be seen above, n. 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4581)

[4] From this it is also clear what is meant by the “Lord’s Christ,” in Luke:

Answer was made to Simeon by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death, until he had seen the Lord’s Christ (Luke 2:26).

The “Lord’s Christ” is the Divine truth of the Divine good; for “Christ” is the same as “Messiah,” and “Messiah” is the “Anointed” or “King” (n. 3008, 3009). “The Lord” here is Jehovah. In the Word of the New Testament the name “Jehovah” is nowhere used; but instead of it “Lord” and “God” (n. 2921); as also in Luke:

Jesus said, How say they that the Christ is David’s Son? for David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand (Luke 20:41-42).

The same passage reads thus in David:

The saying of Jehovah unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand (Psalms 110:1).

It is plain that “Jehovah” in David is called “Lord” in the Evangelist. “Lord” there denotes the Divine good of the Divine Human; omnipotence is signified by “sitting at the right hand” (n. 3387, 4592, 4933 at the end).

[5] When the Lord was in the world He was Divine truth; but when He was glorified, that is, when He had made the Human in Himself Divine, He became Divine good, from which thereafter Divine truth proceeds. For this reason the disciples after the resurrection did not call Him “Master,” as before, but “Lord,” as is evident in John (21:7, 12, 15-17, 20), and also in the rest of the Evangelists. The Divine truth, which the Lord was when in the world, and which thereafter proceeds from Him, that is, from the Divine good, is called also “the angel of the covenant,” in Malachi:

The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple, and the Angel of the covenant whom ye desire (Malachi 3:1).

[6] As Divine good is meant by “Lord,” and Divine truth by “King,” therefore where the Lord is spoken of as having dominion and a kingdom, “dominion” is predicated of Divine good, and a “kingdom” of Divine truth, and therefore also the Lord is called “Lord of nations,” and “King of peoples;” for by “nations” are signified those who are in good, and by “peoples” those who are in truth (n. 1259, 1260, 1849, 3581).

[7] Good is called a “lord” relatively to a servant, and it is called a “father” relatively to a son-as in Malachi:

A son honoreth his father, and a servant his lord; if then I be a father, where is My honor; and if I be a lord, where is My fear? (Malachi 1:6).

And in David:

Joseph was sold for a servant. The discourse of Jehovah proved him. The king sent and loosed him, the ruler of nations opened for him, he set him lord of his house, and ruler in all his possession (Psalms 105:17, 19-21).

That by “Joseph” here is meant the Lord, is evident from the several particulars; the “lord” here is the Divine good of the Divine Human.