3425. 'The herdsmen of Gerar disputed with Isaac's herdsmen' means that those who taught did not see anything of the sort there, because things in the internal sense appear contrary to those in the literal. This is clear from the meaning, when the internal sense of the Word is the subject, of 'disputing' as refusing to recognize any such thing - by saying that they do not see it; from the meaning of 'herdsman' as people who teach, dealt with in 343; ¹ and from the meaning of 'Gerar' as faith, dealt with in 1209, 2504, 3365, 3384. Thus 'the herdsmen of the Valley of Gerar' means those who do not acknowledge any sense in the Word other than its literal sense. The reason they do not see anything else - namely any interior sense - is that things appear to be contraries; that is to say, things in the internal sense appear to be contrary to those in the literal sense. Yet though they appear to be contrary they are not in fact so but exist in perfect correspondence with one another. The reason why they appear to be contrary however is that people who see only the literal sense of the Word are themselves dwelling in a state of contrariety. Anyone whose state is this - that is, in whom the external or natural man is totally at variance with the internal or spiritual man - sees the things that belong to the internal or spiritual man as though they stood contrary to himself, when in fact he himself as to his external or natural man is in a state of contrariety. And if he were not in that state, but his external or natural man were subservient to the internal or spiritual man, they would exist in perfect correspondence with one another.

[2] For example, a person in a state of contrariety believes that to obtain eternal life he must renounce riches, and all physical and worldly pleasures, and so the delights of life; for he believes that all these things are contrary to spiritual life. But in themselves they are not contrary to that life but correspond to it; for they are means to an end, that is to say, they exist so that the internal or spiritual man may be enabled to find joy in performing the good deeds of charity, and in addition to live contentedly in a healthy body. It is ends in view which alone cause the internal man and the external man either to be contrary or to correspond to each other. They are contrary when the riches, pleasures, and delights spoken of become ends in view, for in that case spiritual and celestial things that belong to the internal man are despised and ridiculed, or even simply rejected, by a person. But they correspond when they do not become ends but means to higher ends, that is to say, to things that belong to life after death, and so to the heavenly kingdom and to the Lord Himself. In this case bodily and worldly things appear to him to be hardly anything compared with those just mentioned and when he does think about them he considers them to be merely means to ends in view.

[3] From these considerations it is evident that things that appear to be contraries are not in themselves so, but that the reason why they appear to be such is that contrariety exists within the persons themselves. Those in whom it does not exist act in similar ways, utter similar things, seek wealth in similar ways, and pursue similar pleasures to those in whom contrariety does exist, so much so that to outward appearance scarcely any distinction can be made between them. The reason for this is that solely their ends in view distinguish the former from the latter, or what amounts to the same, that which they really love distinguishes one person from another, for what people love they have as their end in view. But although to outward appearance, that is, as to their bodies, people are similar, they are nevertheless completely different inwardly, that is, as to their spirits. The spirit of one in whom correspondence exists, that is, with whom the external man corresponds to the internal man, is shining and beautiful, like heavenly love when presented in visible form. But the spirit of one in whom contrariety exists, that is, with whom the external man is contrary to the internal man - even though he looks like the other in external appearance - is dark and ugly, like self-love and love of the world, that is, like contempt for others and like hatred, when presented in a visible form.

[4] It is similar with very many things in the Word, that is to say, those in the literal sense appear as contraries to those in the internal sense. Yet they are in no way contraries but have a perfect correspondence with one another. For example, in the Word reference is made many times to Jehovah or the Lord being angry, being wroth, destroying, and casting into hell, when in fact He is never angry, let alone casts anyone into hell. The former ideas belong to the sense of the letter, but the latter to the internal sense. The latter appear to be contraries, but this is because man dwells in a state of contrariety. It is like the Lord's appearing as the Sun to angels in heaven, and therefore as spring-like warmth and as light like that of the dawn, but to those in hell like something altogether darkened and therefore as cold like that of winter and as thick darkness like that of night - as a consequence of which angels are governed by love and charity, but those in hell by hatred and enmity. Thus to those in hell He is, as the sense of the letter refers to Him, one who is angry and wrathful, who destroys and casts into hell, but to the angels He is, as the internal sense portrays Him, one who is never angry and wroth, still less one who destroys and casts into hell.

[5] When the subject in the Word therefore is things that are contrary to the Divine such appearances inevitably present themselves. Even so, it is the Divine - which the wicked turn into that which is of the devil - that is then at work. Furthermore to the extent they draw near the Divine those in hell subject themselves to torments. Something similar is true of the words of the Lord's Prayer, Do not lead us into temptation. According to the letter the meaning is that He leads into temptation, but the internal sense is that He does not lead anyone into it, as is well known, see 1875. Similarly with everything else which occurs in the literal sense of the Word.

Poznámky pod čarou:

1482. That 'Pharaoh's princes saw' means the first and foremost commandments, which are 'pharaoh's princes', is clear from the meaning of 'princes' and of 'Pharaoh'. In the Word, in both its historical and its prophetical parts, princes mean the things that are first and foremost. 'pharaoh' has the same meaning as Egypt, Egypt or Pharaoh being used in the best sense here, since they refer to knowledge comprised of cognitions which the Lord took in first in childhood. That first and foremost commandments from the Word are meant is clear from the meaning of these princes in the internal sense. That in general 'Pharaoh' in the Word has the same meaning as Egypt may be confirmed from many references, even as the kings of other kingdoms who are mentioned by name have the same meaning as the actual names given to their kingdoms. But by 'the princes' are meant their first and foremost features, as in Isaiah,

The princes of Zoan are foolish, the wise counselors of Pharaoh. . . . How do you say to Pharaoh, I am a son of the wise, a son of the kings of old? The princes of Zoan have become fools, the princes of Noph deluded. Isaiah 19:11, 13.

Here 'the princes of Zoan and the wise counselors of Pharaoh' stands for facts that are first and foremost. And since wisdom flourished initially in Egypt, as stated already, it is called 'a son of the wise, and a son of the kings of old'. And there are many other places in the Word where in the same way 'princes' stands for features that are first and foremost.