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.

4581. And he poured out a drink-offering thereon. That this signifies the Divine good of truth, is evident from the signification of a “drink-offering,” as being the Divine good of truth, of which below; but first I will state what the good of truth is. The good of truth is that which has elsewhere been called the good of faith, and is love toward the neighbor, or charity. There are two universal kinds of good, one of which is called the good of faith, and the other the good of love. The good of faith is what is signified by a “drink-offering,” and the good of love by “oil.” They who are brought by the Lord to good by an internal way are in the good of love, but they who are brought by an external way are in the good of faith. The men of the celestial church, and likewise the angels of the inmost or third heaven, are in the good of love; but the men of the spiritual church, and likewise the angels of the middle or second heaven, are in the good of faith. For this reason the former good is called celestial good, but the latter spiritual good. The difference is the same as that between willing well from good will, and willing well from good understanding. The latter therefore, namely, spiritual good, or the good of faith, or the good of truth, is what is signified by a “drink-offering;” but the former, namely, celestial good, or the good of love, is what is understood in the internal sense by “oil.”

[2] That such things were signified by the “oil” and the “drink-offering” cannot indeed be seen except from the internal sense, and yet it must be apparent to everyone that holy things were represented, for otherwise what else would be the pouring out of a drink-offering and of oil upon a pillar of stone than a ridiculous and idolatrous performance? And so in the making of a king, unless holy things were signified and involved in the putting of a crown on his head, anointing him with oil from a horn upon his forehead and upon his wrists, putting a scepter into his hand besides a sword and keys, investing him with a crimson robe and then seating him upon a throne of silver; and afterwards in his riding on a horse in royal trappings and being served at table by those of highest rank, not to mention other formalities, unless all these ceremonies represented holy things, and were venerable through their correspondence with the things of heaven and thence of the church, they would be like babies’ plays on a larger scale, or like plays on the stage.

[3] Nevertheless all these rituals derived their origin from the most ancient times, when rituals were holy from their representing holy things, and from correspondence with the holy things in heaven and thence in the church. Moreover, at the present day they are regarded as venerable, not because it is known what they represent, or to what they correspond, but by an interpretation as of emblems that are in use. But if it were known what each of these things represents, and to what holy thing it corresponds—the crown, the oil, the horn, the scepter, the sword, the keys, riding upon a white horse, and eating while nobles are serving-men would think of them with much more reverence. But this they do not know, and wonderful to say, do not desire to know, to such a degree have the representatives and significatives which are in such things and everywhere in the Word been at the present day destroyed in the minds of men.

[4] That a “drink-offering” signifies the good of truth, or spiritual good, may be seen from the sacrifices in which it was employed. Sacrifices were made from the herd or from the flock, and were representative of the internal worship of the the Lord, (n. 922, 923, 1823, 2180, 2805, 2807, 2830, 3519). To these were added the meat-offering and the drink-offering. The meat-offering, which consisted of fine flour mingled with oil, signified celestial good, or what is the same, the good of love, “oil” signifying love to the Lord, and “fine flour” charity toward the neighbor. But the drink-offering, which consisted of wine, signified spiritual good, or what is the same, the good of faith. Both together therefore (namely, the meat-offering and the drink-offering) signified the same things as the bread and wine in the Holy Supper.

[5] That these were added to the burnt-offerings and sacrifices is evident in Moses:

Thou shalt offer two lambs of the first year day by day continually; the one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer between the evenings; and a tenth of fine flour mingled with beaten oil, a fourth of a hin, and drink offering of the fourth of a hin of wine for the first lamb; and so also for the second lamb (Exodus 29:38-41).

In the day when ye wave the sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest, ye shall offer a lamb without blemish of the first year, for a burnt-offering unto Jehovah, the meat-offering whereof shall be two tenths of fine flour mingled with oil, and the drink offering whereof shall be of wine, the fourth of a hin (Leviticus 23:12-13, 18).

On the day when the days of his Naziriteship are fulfilled, he shall offer his gift unto Jehovah (sacrifices), and a basket of unleavened things of fine flour, cakes mingled with oil, with unleavened wafers anointed with oil, with their meat-offering and their drink-offerings (Numbers 6:13-15, 17).

Upon the burnt-offering they shall offer a meat-offering of a tenth of fine flour mingled with the fourth of a hin of oil; and wine for the drink offering, the fourth of a hin, in one manner for the burnt-offering of a ram, and in another manner for that of an ox (Numbers 15:3-5, 11).

With the burnt-offering of the daily sacrifice thou shalt offer a drink-offering, the fourth of a hin for a lamb; in the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of wine unto Jehovah (Numbers 28:6-7).

Moreover concerning the meat-offerings and drink-offerings in the sacrifices of various kinds, see Numbers 28:7-31 29:1-40.

[6] That the meat-offering and the drink-offering had this signification may be seen from the fact that love and faith effect everything of worship; and it may be seen above that the bread (which here is of fine flour mingled with oil) and the wine in the Holy Supper signify love and faith, thus everything of worship (n. 1798, 2165, 2177, 2187, 2343, 2359, 3464, 3735, 3813, 4211, 4217).

[7] But when the people fell away from the genuine representative of the worship of the Lord, and turned away to other gods and poured out drink-offerings to them, then by the drink-offerings were signified things which are opposite to charity and faith, namely, the evils and falsities of the love of the world, as in Isaiah:

Ye did become heated with gods under every green tree, thou hast also poured out to them a drink-offering, thou hast offered a meat-offering (Isaiah 57:5-6);

“to become heated with gods” denotes the concupiscences of falsity (that “gods” denote falsities, n. 4402, 4544); “under every green tree” denotes from the belief of all falsities (n. 2722, 4552); “to pour out to them a drink-offering and offer a meat-offering” denotes the worship of them. Again:

Ye that forsake Jehovah, that forget the mountain of My holiness, that prepare a table for Gad, and fill a drink-offering to Meni (Isaiah 65:11).

In Jeremiah:

The sons gather wood, and the fathers kindle a fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes to the queen of the heavens, and to pour out a drink-offering to other gods (Jeremiah 7:18).

[8] Again:

Doing we will do every word that is gone forth out of our mouth, to burn incense to the queen of the heavens, and to pour out drink-offerings to her as we and our fathers have done, and our princes in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 44:17-19);

“the queen of the heavens” denotes all falsities, for in the genuine sense the “armies of the heavens” are truths, but in the opposite sense falsities, and in like manner the “king and queen;” thus the “queen” denotes all of them, and “to pour drink-offerings to her” is to worship.

[9] Again:

The Chaldeans shall burn the city, and the houses upon whose roofs they have offered incense to Baal, and have poured out drink-offerings to other gods (Jeremiah 32:29);

“the Chaldeans” denote those who are in worship in which there is falsity; “to burn the city” denotes to destroy and vastate those who are in doctrinal things of what is false; “to offer incense to Baal upon the roofs of the houses” denotes the worship of what is evil; “to pour out drink-offerings to other gods” denotes the worship of what is false.

[10] In Hosea:

They shall not dwell in Jehovah’s land, and Ephraim shall return into Egypt, and they shall eat what is unclean in Assyria; they shall not pour out wine to Jehovah (Hos. 9:3-4);

“not to dwell in Jehovah’s land” denotes not to be in the good of love; “Ephraim shall return into Egypt” denotes that the intellectual of the church will become mere knowledge and sensuous; “they shall eat what is unclean in Assyria” denotes impure and profane things from reasoning; “they shall not pour out wine to Jehovah” denotes no worship from truth.

[11] In Moses:

It shall be said, Where are their gods, the rock in which they trusted, that did eat the fat of the sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering? Let them arise and help them (Deuteronomy 33:37-38 [NCBSW: 32:37-38]);

“gods,” as above, denote falsities; “that did eat the fat of the sacrifices” denotes that they destroyed the good of worship; “that drank the wine of their drink-offering” denotes that they destroyed the truth of worship. Drink-offerings are also predicated of blood, in David:

They shall multiply their griefs, they have hastened to another, lest I pour out their drink-offerings of blood, and lest I take up their names upon my lips (Psalms 16:4);

and by these words are signified the profanations of truth; for in this sense “blood” denotes violence offered to charity (n. 374, 1005), and profanation (n. 1003).