10490. 'And kill [every] man his brother, and [every] man his companion, and [every] man his neighbour' means a shutting off to prevent any reception and transmission of inflowing goodness and truth, and of the things touching on them. This is clear from the meaning of 'killing' as taking spiritual life away, thus taking the good of love and the truth of faith away, and therefore at this point as a shutting off to prevent any reception and transmission of them, for when they have been removed, so too has spiritual life been taken away and only natural life remains (for the meaning of 'killing' as taking spiritual life away, see 3387, 3395, 3607, 6767, 7043, 8902); from the meaning of 'brother' as the good of love and charity, dealt with in 3815, 4121, 4191, 5409, 5686, 5692, 6756; from the meaning of 'companion' as the truth of that good; and from the meaning of 'neighbour' as that which is linked to them, dealt with in 5911, 9378, thus that which touches on them. For people whose borders touch are neighbours. From all this it is evident that 'kill [every] man his brother, and [every] man his companion, and [every] man his neighbour' means a shutting off of what is internal with that nation to prevent any reception by them or transmission to them of inflowing goodness, truth, or anything that touches on them.

[2] The implications of all this are that because that nation was idolatrous at heart, ruled completely by the kinds of love in which hell consists, and yet worship representative of heavenly realities was to be established among them, their internals were altogether shut off. They were shut off for two reasons, the first being in order that external things alone with them, devoid of anything internal, might be the means by which the joining to heaven could be effected, and the second in order that the holy things of the Church and of heaven might not be rendered profane. For if that nation had acknowledged the internal things of worship, that is, the holy things of the Church and of heaven which were being represented, they would have defiled them and rendered them profane. This explains why little if any was clearly revealed to that nation about heaven and life after death, and why they were totally ignorant of the truth that the Messiah's kingdom existed in heaven. That nation is still like this at the present day, as is well known.

[3] But see what has been shown regarding that nation in the places referred to above in 10396, for instance the following,

Their whole interest lay in external things and not in anything internal, 4293, 4311, 4459(end), 4834, 4844, 4847, 4865, 4868, 4874, 4903, 4913, 9320, 9373, 9380, 9381.

Consequently their worship was merely external, 3147, 3479, 8871.

Nor did they wish to know about the inner things of worship and of the Word, 3479, 4429, 4433, 4680.

If they had known the holy inner things they would have rendered them profane, 3398, 3489, 4289.

Therefore they were not allowed to know those things, 301, 302, 304, 2520, 3769.

Nevertheless through the outward things of worship among them, which were representative of heavenly realities, there was contact with heaven, 4311, 4444, 6304, 8588, 8788, 8806.

These then are the things that should be understood and are meant by the words commanding them to kill [every] man his brother, [every] man his companion, and [every] man his neighbour.

[4] Anyone who does not know that brothers, companions, neighbours, and further names describing human relationships serve to mean the Church and heaven's forms of good and truths, or their opposites, which are evils and falsities, cannot know what is implied by very many places in the Word where those names occur, such as in the following places: In Matthew,

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man (homo) against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother above Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves son or daughter above Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. Matthew 10:34-38.

These verses refer to spiritual conflicts, which are the temptations that those who are to be regenerated must undergo. Thus they refer to the strife a person experiences at that time between the evils and falsities which come to him from hell and the forms of good and the truths which come to him from the Lord. Since those conflicts are what is described here the declaration 'whoever does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me' is made, 'cross' being used to mean a person's state during temptations. Anyone who does not know that these kinds of things are meant by 'man and father', 'daughter and mother', 'daughter-in-law and mother-in-law' will suppose that the Lord came into the world to remove the peace in households and families and to introduce strife, when in fact He came to bring peace and remove strife, as accords with His words in John 14:27, and elsewhere.

[5] The fact that strife between the internal man and the external is described in those verses is clear from the meaning in the internal sense of 'man and father', 'daughter and mother', and 'daughter-in-law and mother-in-law'. In that sense 'man' (homo) means good which comes from the Lord, and 'father' evil which springs from a person's self; 'daughter' means an affection for goodness and truth, and 'mother' an affection for evil and falsity; and 'daughter-in-law' means the Church's truth linked to its good, and 'mother-in-law' falsity linked to its evil. And since the conflict that takes place between the forms of good and the evils residing with a person, and between the falsities and truths, is described in that manner those verses also contain the declaration 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household'. By 'those of his own household' the things that reside with a person are meant, thus those which belong properly to himself, while 'enemies' in the spiritual sense are the evils and falsities that attack forms of good and truths. The fact that such things are meant by 'man', 'father', 'daughter', 'mother', 'daughter-in-law', and 'mother-in-law' has been shown in various places in the explanations.

[6] The like is meant by the following words in Matthew,

Brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his son; and children will rise up against parents and put them to death. Matthew 10:21.

Also by the following in Luke,

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and even his own soul, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. So therefore any of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:26-27, 33.

Is there anyone who does not see that these words should not be taken literally, at the very least from the fact that they say without any qualification that father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters must be hated before anyone can be the Lord's disciple, when yet it is one of the Lord's commands, in Matthew 5:43-44, that no one should be hated, not even an enemy?

[7] It is self-evident that the things which are a person's own, that is, evils and falsities in their own order, should be understood by the names of those family members, since it also says that he must hate his own soul and renounce all his possessions, that is, the things which are properly his. The state of temptation or spiritual conflict is also described here, for it says, 'whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple'. 'Being the Lord's disciple' means being led by Him and not by self, thus by the forms of good and the truths which come from the Lord and not by the evils and falsities which come from the person.

[8] The Word should be understood in a like manner in other places where those names are used, such as in Jeremiah,

They do not pay attention to My words; and My law, they reject it. Therefore thus said Jehovah, Behold, I am laying before this people stumbling-blocks, that fathers and sons together may stumble against them, a neighbour and his companion, and may perish. Jeremiah 6:19, 21.

In the same prophet,

I will scatter them, [every] man with his brother, [and fathers] and sons together. I will not spare, nor forgive, nor pity, that I should not destroy them. Jeremiah 13:14.

In the same prophet,

Jehovah caused many to stumble ¹ ; also [every] man fell upon his companion. Jeremiah 46:16.

And in Isaiah,

I will embroil Egypt with Egypt, in order that a man may fight against his brother, and a man against his companion. Isaiah 19:2.

In these places also the like should be understood by 'fathers', 'sons', 'brothers', and 'companions'.

Poznámky pod čarou:

4763. 'And he rent his clothes' means mourning. This is clear from the meaning of 'rending clothes' as mourning, that is to say, mourning on account of the loss of truth, or the fact that no faith exists. In the Word, especially the historical part, one often reads about people rending their clothes, but the origin of that practice is not known at the present day. Nor is it known that it was representative of grief on account of the loss of truth. This practice became representative from the fact that 'clothes' meant truths, as has been shown and may be seen in 4545. Further on in this chapter it is also said that when Jacob recognized his son's tunic he rent his clothes, verse 34, by which mourning for lost truth is meant. Similar instances of this practice occur elsewhere in the Word, where it is stated that when the Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib king of Asshur and uttered insults against Jerusalem, Eliakim who was over the king's house, and Shebna the secretary, and Joash the recorder ¹ rent their clothes and reported these things to king Hezekiah; and when he heard them the king too rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth, Isaiah 36:22; 37:1; 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1. The insults he uttered were directed against God, the king, and Jerusalem, and so against Divine Truth, as is even more evident from the internal sense of this narrative. It was to express mourning therefore that their clothes were rent.

[2] When Jehudi had read before the king the scroll which Jeremiah wrote, it is said that he threw it into the fire, but the king and his servants who were listening to all those words did not tear their clothes apart, Jeremiah 36:23-24. 'They did not tear their clothes apart' meant that they did not mourn on account of the non-acceptance of Divine Truth. Something similar is implied by Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh rending their clothes, when the spies spoke in opposition to them, by speaking unfavourably about the land of Canaan, Numbers 14:6; for 'the land of Canaan' means the Lord's kingdom, and 'to speak in opposition to this' describes falsity in opposition to Divine Truth. Mourning over the loss of Divine Truth and Divine Good is meant where it is said, in 1 Samuel 4:11-12, that when the ark of God was captured by the Philistines and both of Eli's sons died, a man ran from the line of battle to Shiloh, with rent clothes and dust on his head. Because 'the ark' represented the Lord's kingdom, and in the highest sense the Lord Himself, and consequently represented everything holy in the Church, 'rent clothes' meant grief over the loss of Divine Truth, while 'dust on his head' meant grief over the loss of Divine Good.

[3] In the narrative about Samuel and Saul one reads,

When Samuel turned to go away Saul took hold of the skirt of his tunic, and it was torn away. Therefore Samuel said to him, Jehovah has torn the kingdom of Israel from upon you this day and has given it to your companion. I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of Jehovah, and Jehovah has rejected you from being king over Israel. 1 Samuel 15:26-28.

The tearing away by Saul of the skirt of Samuel's tunic represented that which Samuel then stated - that the kingdom would be torn from him and that he would not be the king of Israel any longer. For 'the kingdom' in the internal sense means Divine Truth, 1672, 2547, 4691, as also does 'king' and 'kingship', 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, especially the king and the kingdom of Israel, since 'Israel' represented the Lord's kingship. The meaning is similar in what is recorded concerning Jeroboam and Ahijah the prophet,

When Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet found him on the road, when he was covered with a new garment and both were alone in the field, Ahijah took hold of the new garment that was on him and rent it into twelve pieces; and he said to Jeroboam, Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus said Jehovah, the God of Israel, behold, I am rending [the kingdom] from the hand of Solomon and I will give you ten tribes. 1 Kings 11:29-31.

[4] The second Book of Samuel likewise records that when Saul was killed in battle they tore their clothes apart,

When Saul was killed in battle, on the third day a man came from the camp, whose clothes had been rent. And when David heard about the death of Saul, David took hold of his garments and tore them apart; and so did all his servants who were with him. 2 Samuel 1:2, 10-12.

This too represented mourning because of Divine Truth, lost and cast away by those who adhered to faith separated from charity. For as stated above, 'kingship' meant Divine Truth, while 'the Philistines' by whom Saul was slain represented adherents to faith separated from charity, 1197, 1198, 3412, 3413. The same is also evident from David's lament over him, in verses 18-27 of the same chapter.

[5] When Absalom had slain Amnon his brother and the news reached David that Absalom had slain all the king's sons, David tore his clothes apart and lay on the ground; and all his servants standing by tore their clothes apart, 2 Samuel 13:28, 30-31. This too was done for the sake of the representation that truths from the Divine were lost, those truths being meant in the internal sense by 'the king's sons'. A similar meaning exists in the reference to Hushai the Archite who with his tunic torn apart came to meet David when he fled from Absalom, 2 Samuel 15:32; for in the Word 'a king', and in particular David, represents Divine Truth. The meaning is also very similar in the reference to Ahab, who tore his clothes apart and put sackcloth over his flesh when Elijah told Ahab the king of Israel the words of Jehovah, to the effect that he would be completely wiped out for the evil he had done, 1 Kings 21:27-29.

[6] The fact that tearing apart or rending clothes represented mourning the loss of Truth is additionally clear from the following: Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the law in the house of Jehovah. When Shaphan read it before king Josiah and the king heard the words of the Book of the law, he tore his clothes apart, 2 Kings 22:11. Plainly the king did so because the Word, that is, Divine truth, had been lost for so long and in their hearts and life had been blotted out.

[7] The tearing apart of his own clothes by the high priest, when the Lord confessed He was the Christ the Son of God, and his declaration that He had spoken utter blasphemy, Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:63-64, meant that the high priest was absolutely convinced that the Lord had spoken against the Word and so against Divine truth. When Elijah went up in the whirlwind, and Elisha saw it, it is said,

He took hold of his own clothes and tore them into two pieces. And he took up Elijah's tunic that had fallen from upon him, and he struck the waters and they were divided this way and that, and Elisha went over. 2 Kings 2:11-14.

Elisha tore his own clothes apart at that time to express mourning the loss of the Word, that is, of Divine Truth; for 'Elijah' represents the Lord as regards the Word, that is, Divine Truth, 2762. When the tunic fell from Elijah and was picked up by Elisha, the continuation of Elijah's representation by Elisha was represented, 'the tunic' meaning Divine Truth, see 4677. This also explains why the garment torn apart when such mourning took place was the tunic, as is evident from some of the places that have been quoted. Because 'a garment' meant the truth possessed by the Church, and in the highest sense Divine Truth, it was therefore shameful, except when one was mourning, to go about with clothes that were torn. This is evident from what was done to David's servants by Hanun king of the children of Ammon, when he cut off half the beard of each one, and their garments at the middle even to their buttocks, for which reason they were not allowed to come to David, 2 Samuel 10:4-5.

Poznámky pod čarou: