2180. 'And took a young bull, tender and good' means a celestial-natural which the rational took to itself in order that it might join itself to perception from the Divine. This is clear from the meaning of 'a young bull' or 'a son of an ox' in the Word as natural good. And because the subject is the Lord's Rational, it is called 'tender' from the celestial-spiritual, which is truth grounded in good, and 'good' from the celestial itself, which is good itself. Within the genuine rational there is both the affection for truth and the affection for good, but that which is first and foremost there is the affection for truth, as shown already in 2072. This explains why 'tender' is mentioned before 'good'; but even so, as is quite usual in the Word, both are mentioned on account of the marriage of truth and good which is referred to above in 2173.

[2] That 'a young bull' or 'a son of an ox' means the celestial-natural, or what amounts to the same, natural good, becomes especially clear from the sacrifices, which were the principal representatives in the worship of the Hebrew Church and after this of the Jewish Church. Their sacrifices were made either from the herd or from the flock, thus from animals of various kinds that were clean, such as oxen, young bulls, he-goats, sheep, rams, she-goats, kids, and lambs, besides doves and fledgling pigeons. All of these creatures meant the internal features of worship, that is, celestial and spiritual things, 2165, 2177, those from the herd meaning celestial-natural, those from the flock celestial-rational. Because both of these - natural things and rational things - are more and more interior and are various, so many genera and so many species of these creatures were therefore employed in sacrifices. This fact becomes clear also from its being laid down as to which creatures were to be offered in burnt offerings and also which in every kind of sacrifice - the daily sacrifices; those offered on sabbaths and at festivals; those made as free-will, eucharistic, or votive offerings; and those offered in purifications, cleansings, and also in inaugurations. Which creatures were to be used, and how many, in each kind of sacrifice is mentioned explicitly. This would never have been done unless each one had had some specific meaning, as is quite evident from those places where the sacrifices are the subject, as in Chapter 29 of Exodus; Chapters 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, and 23 of Leviticus; and Chapters 7, 8, 15, and 29 of Numbers. But this is not the place to explain what each one meant. The situation is similar in the Prophets where those animals are mentioned, from which it may become clear that young bulls meant celestial-natural things.

[3] That none but heavenly things were meant becomes clear also from the cherubim seen by Ezekiel and from the living creatures before the throne which were seen by John. Regarding the cherubim the prophet says,

The likeness of their faces was the face of a man (homo); and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; and they four had the face of an eagle. Ezekiel 1:10.

Regarding the four living creatures before the throne John says,

Around the throne were four living creatures - the first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a young bull, the third living creature had a face like a man (homo), the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle - saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come. Revelation 4:7-8.

Anyone may see that holy things were represented by the cherubim and these living creatures, thus also by the oxen and young bulls in the sacrifices. The same applies in the prophecy of Moses concerning Joseph,

Let it come upon the head of Joseph and upon the crown of the head of the Nazirite among his brothers. The firstborn of his ox has honour, and his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with these he will thrust the peoples together, to the ends of the earth. Deuteronomy 33:16-17.

These words are not intelligible to anyone unless he knows what ox, unicorn, horns, and many other things mean in the internal sense.

[4] As for sacrifices in general they were indeed commanded to the Israelites through Moses. But the Most Ancient Church which existed before the Flood never knew anything at all about sacrifices, nor did it ever enter their minds to worship the Lord by the slaughtering of animals. The Ancient Church which existed after the Flood knew nothing about it either. Representatives did indeed exist there, but not sacrifices. These were first introduced in the subsequent Church called the Hebrew Church, and from there they spread to the gentile nations, and even to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so to Jacob's descendants. The fact that the gentile nations had sacrificial worship has been shown in 1343, and the fact that Jacob's descendants also had such worship before they left Egypt, thus before sacrifices were commanded through Moses on Mount Sinai, becomes clear from Exodus 5:3; 10:25, 27; 18:12; 24:4-5.

[5] This is especially clear from their idolatrous worship in front of the golden calf, regarding which the following is said in Moses,

Aaron built an altar in front of the calf, and Aaron made a proclamation and said, Tomorrow there will be a feast to Jehovah. And they rose up early the next morning and presented burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Exodus 32:5-6.

This happened while Moses was on Mount Sinai, and so before the command came to them regarding the altar and the sacrifices. That command came to them for the reason that sacrificial worship among them had been turned, as it had among the gentiles, into idolatrous worship, from which they could not be drawn away because they looked upon it as-the chief holy thing. Once something has been implanted in people from their earliest years as being holy, the more so if received from their fathers, and thus is inrooted, the Lord in no way breaks it - provided it is not contrary to order itself - but bends it. This was the reason for its being laid down that the sacrificial system should be established, such as one reads in the books of Moses.

[6] The fact that sacrifices were by no means acceptable to Jehovah, and so were merely permitted and tolerated for the reason just stated, is quite evident in the Prophets. Concerning them the following is said in Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah Zebaoth, the God of Israel, Add your burnt offerings on to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. I did not speak with your fathers and I did not command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt on the matters of burnt offering and sacrifice. But this matter I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God. Jeremiah 7:21-23.

In David,

O Jehovah, sacrifice and offering You have not desired; burnt offering and sin-sacrifices You have not sought. I have delighted to do Your will, O my God. Psalms 40:6, 8.

In the same author,

You do not delight in sacrifice that I should give it; burnt offering You do not accept. The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit. Psalms 51:16-17.

In the same author,

I will not take any young bull from your house, nor he-goats from your folds. Sacrifice to God confession. Psalms 50:9, 14; 107:21-22; 116:17; Deuteronomy 23:18.

In Hosea,

I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6.

Samuel said to Saul,

Has Jehovah great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices? Behold, to be submissive is better than sacrifice, to be obedient than the fat of rams. - 1 Samuel 15:22.

In Micah,

With what shall I come before Jehovah and bow myself to God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, with tens of thousands of rivers of oil? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does Jehovah require of you but to carry out judgement, and to love mercy, and to humble yourself by walking with your God? Micah 6:6-8.

[7] From these quotations it is now evident that sacrifices were not commanded but permitted, and also that in sacrifices nothing else was regarded except that which was internal, and that it was that which was internal that was pleasing, not that which was external. For this reason also the Lord abolished them, as was also foretold through Daniel in the following words when he was speaking about the Lord's Coming,

In the middle of the week He will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. Daniel 9:27.

See what has been stated about sacrifices in Volume One, in 922, 923, 1128, 1823. As for 'the young bull' which Abraham made ready or prepared for the three men, the meaning is similar to that of the same animals when used in sacrifices. That it had a similar meaning becomes clear also from the fact that he told Sarah to take three measures of fine flour. Regarding the fine flour that went with the offering of a young bull the following is said in Moses - referring to when they were to come into the land,

When you make ready a young bull for a burnt offering or a sacrifice in the declaring of a vow, or for peace offerings to Jehovah, you shall bring with the young bull a minchah of three tenths of fine flour mixed with oil. Numbers 15:8-9.

Here similarly the number 'three' appears, though three 'tenths' here but three 'measures' in Abraham's instruction to Sarah. But only two tenths went with the offering of a ram, one tenth with that of a lamb, Numbers 15:4-6.

2718. 'A wife from the land of Egypt' means the affection for knowledge, which the member of the spiritual Church possesses. This is clear from the meaning of 'a wife' as affection or good, dealt with in 915, 2517, and from the meaning of 'Egypt' as knowledge, dealt with in 1164, 1165, 1186, 1462. In this verse the member of the spiritual Church is described so far as the nature of his good, that is, the essence of his life, is concerned - that the good residing with him is obscure, but that it is brightened with light from the Lord's Divine Human. From that brightening of it the affection for truth arises in the rational part of his mind, and the affection for knowledge in the natural part. The reason the affection for good such as resides within the celestial man cannot arise in the spiritual man, but instead the affection for truth, is that the good residing with him is implanted in the understanding part of his mind, and is obscure compared with the celestial man's good, as shown in 2715. From this good no other type of affection can be generated and derived within his rational than the affection for truth, and through this affection for truth the affection for knowledge within the natural. No other truth is meant in this case than that which the person believes to be the truth, even though it may not in itself be the truth. Nor is knowledge used to mean such knowledge as the learned possess but all factual knowledge with which a person can be taught from what he experiences or hears in everyday life, from doctrine, and from the Word. It is the affection for such truth and knowledge that exists within the member of the spiritual Church.

[2] So that it may be known what is meant by the affection for truth existing with someone and what by the affection for good, let a brief statement be made regarding them. Those with the affection for truth think about, question, and discuss whether a thing is true, whether it is so. And when they are convinced it is true, or is so, they think about, question, and discuss what it is. Thus they remain rooted on the doorstep and cannot be admitted into wisdom until they no longer have any doubts. Those however with whom the affection for good exists know and perceive that the thing is so from the good itself governing them. Thus they do not remain on the doorstep but are in a room inside, having been admitted into wisdom.

[3] Take as an example the consideration that it is a celestial gift to think and to act from an affection for good, or from good. Those with whom the affection for truth exists discuss whether this is so, whether such a gift can exist, and what it may be. And so long as they are turning over doubts about it they are unable to be admitted. But those with the affection for good do not discuss or turn doubts over but assert that the thing is true and are for that reason admitted. For those with whom the affection for good exists, that is, those who are celestial, start off where those with the affection for truth, that is, those who are spiritual, come to a halt, so that the furthest point reached by the latter is the starting point for the former. That being so, those who are celestial are given to know, recognize, and perceive that affections for good are countless - as numerous as the communities in heaven - and that they are all joined together by the Lord into a heavenly form so as to constitute one human being so to speak. They are also given to define by perception the genus and species to which each affection belongs.

[4] Or take this example: All delight, blessedness, and happiness belong wholly to love, but the nature of the love determines that of the delight, blessedness, and happiness. The spiritual man fixes his mind on the question whether this is true and whether delight, blessedness, and happiness may not spring from some other source, such as from mixing with others, talking to others, meditation, or learning, and also whether they reside in possessions, position, reputation, and the glory resulting from these. As long as he is asking such questions he does not confirm himself in the truth that none of these accomplishes anything, only the affection born of love which is present within them and making them what they are. The celestial man however does not remain rooted in such preliminary questionings but immediately asserts that the thing is true. Consequently he is interested in the end in view and the realization of this, that is, he is governed by the very affections born of love which are countless, and in each one of which there are things beyond description, involving variations of delight, blessedness, and happiness that have no end.

[5] Take as a further example the consideration that the neighbour is to be loved for the good that resides with him. Those with whom the affection for truth exists think, question, and discuss whether this is true, that is, whether it is so. They ask what the neighbour is, what good is; but they go no further than this, and therefore they shut the door to wisdom against themselves. Those however with the affection for good assert that the thing is so and do not consequently shut the door against themselves but enter in and so come to know, recognize, and perceive from good who is pre-eminently the neighbour, also in what degree he is the neighbour, and that everyone in differing ways is the neighbour. Thus they perceive things beyond description, over and above what is known to those with the affection solely for truth.

[6] Take as yet another example the truth that a person who loves the neighbour for the good within him loves the Lord. Those with the affection for truth question whether this is so. And if they are told that anyone who loves the neighbour for the good within him loves the good, and that - since all good comes from the Lord and the Lord is present in good - when anyone loves good he also loves the Lord from whom that good comes and in which He is present, they then question whether that too is so. They also ask what loving good is, as well as what good is, and whether the Lord is present more so in good than in truth. As long as they remain rooted in such questionings they cannot get even a distant view of wisdom. But those with the affection for good know from perception that the thing is so and immediately behold the whole field of wisdom leading right on to the Lord.

[7] From these examples it may become clear why in comparison with those who have the affection for good, that is, with those who are celestial, obscurity exists with those who have the affection for truth, that is, with those who are spiritual Nevertheless the latter are able to pass from obscurity into light, provided that they are willing to adopt the affirmative attitude that all good belongs to love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbour; also that love and charity constitute spiritual conjunction, and that these are the source of all blessedness and happiness, thus that heavenly life consists in the good belonging to love received from the Lord, but not in the truth of faith separated from it.