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.

3670. And He will give thee the blessing of Abraham. That this signifies the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural, is evident from the signification of a “blessing,” as being conjunction (n. 3660, 3667); and from the representation of Abraham, as being the Lord’s Divine Itself which is called the “Father” (concerning which see n. 2011, 3251, 3439). And inasmuch as these words are spoken to Jacob, by whom there would be represented the Lord’s Divine natural as to the Divine good and truth therein, therefore the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural is what is signified, in the internal sense, by “He will give thee the blessing of Abraham.” In the sense of the letter, it is the possession of the land of Canaan that is meant by the “blessing of Abraham,” and also by the words which follow: “to cause thee to inherit the land of thy sojournings, which God gave unto Abraham;” and according to this sense do all apprehend the words who believe that the historicals of the Word do not contain within them things more heavenly and secret: and especially so do the Jewish nation, who on the strength of these words claim for themselves privileges above every other nation and people. Their fathers understood the words in the same manner, and especially were they so understood by Jacob, whose quality is evident from what was said just above (n. 3667), in that he would not have known Jehovah, nor have been willing to acknowledge Him, unless He had given him corporeal and worldly blessings. But that neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob was meant, and that by Jacob is represented the Lord as to the natural which He would make Divine, is abundantly manifest from the explications given above. That it is immaterial what is the quality of the man who represents, as to whether he is evil or good, and that evil men equally with good men can represent and have represented the Lord’s Divine, may be seen above (n. 665, 1097, 1361).

[2] The same may be seen from the representatives which exist even to this day; for all kings, whoever they may be, and of whatever quality, by the royalty itself that appertains to them represent the Lord; in like manner all priests, whoever and of whatever quality they may be, by the priestly office itself. The royal and the priestly office itself is holy, whatever be the quality of him who ministers therein; and this is the reason why the Word taught by an evil man is equally holy, and also the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper, and other such things. And from this it is also evident that no king can possibly claim for himself anything of the sanctity that belongs to his royalty; nor any priest anything of the sanctity that belongs to his priesthood. Insofar as either claims anything thereof to himself, or attributes it to himself, so far he brands himself with the character of a spiritual thief, or with the mark of spiritual theft; and also insofar as he does evil, that is, acts contrary to what is just and equitable, and contrary to what is good and true, so far a king puts off the representative of holy royalty, and a priest the representative of holy priesthood, and represents the opposite. For this reason in the representative Jewish Church there were so many laws enjoined concerning the holiness in which priests especially should be during their ministration-on which subject, of the Lord’s Divine mercy, more will be said in what follows.