8093. 'That God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines' means that the Divine saw to it that they should not pass on to the truth of faith that does not spring from good. This is clear from the meaning of 'God did not lead them by the way' as the Divine saw to it that they should not pass on to, for 'leading', when done by God, means providence, and 'the way' means truth, 627, 2333, in this instance passing on to it; and from the representation of 'the Philistines' as those who have a knowledge of the cognitions of faith but do not lead a life of charity, dealt with in 1197, 1198, 3412, 3413, thus those who possess the truth of faith that does not spring from good. The fact that 'the Philistines' and 'the land of the Philistines' have this meaning may be recognized from places in the Word where they are mentioned, in particular in Jeremiah 47:1-end, where they are described, also in Joel 3:5-6, as well as from the historical accounts in the Word referring to wars between the children of Israel and the Philistines, to the subjection of the children of Israel by the Philistines and then of the Philistines by the children of Israel. By 'the Philistines' in these places those who champion separated faith are represented, that is, people for whom the knowledge of cognitions of faith is all-important but not a life led in accordance with that knowledge, consequently people who teach and believe that a person is saved by faith alone.

[2] This particular belief about faith alone or separated faith is not new or something that belongs solely to the present time. It had come to exist in the ancient Churches, growing ever stronger along with evil in life. It is also described in various places in the Word, but by means of names, by Cain' first, in that he killed his brother Abel, 337, 340, 1179. In the internal representative sense of that story 'Cain' is that kind of faith, while 'Abel' is charity. Such faith is also described by 'Ham', when cursed by his father, 1062, 1063; after that by 'Reuben', in that he went up to his father's bed, 3870, 4601, and by 'Simeon and Levi', in that they killed Hamor and the men of Shechem and were for that reason cursed by their father, 3870, 6352. That faith is also described by 'the Egyptians' and by 'their firstborn', in that the latter were killed, 7766, 7778, and the former drowned in the Sea Suph. It is described too by 'the Philistines', 3412, 3413, and also by 'Tyre and Sidon', in various places in the Prophets; there a knowledge of the cognitions of faith is meant by 'the Philistines', and the cognitions themselves, interior and exterior, by 'Tyre and Sidon'. Lastly such faith is represented by 'Peter' when he denied the Lord three times, 6000, 6073(end). But see what has been shown already regarding this faith, in 36, 379, 389, 916, 1017, 1076, 1077, 1162, 1176, 1798, 1799, 1834, 1844, 2049, 2116, 2228, 2231, 2261, 2343, 2349, 2364, 2383, 2385, 2401, 2435, 2982, 3146, 3242, 3325, 3412, 3413, 3416, 3427, 3773, 4663, 4672, 4673, 4683, 4721, 4730, 4766, 4783, 4925, 5351, 5820, 5826, 6269, 6272, 6273, 6348, 6353, 7039, 7097, 7127, 7317, 7502, 7545, 7623-7627, 7724, 7779, 7790, 7950.

3427. 'And he called the name of the well Esek, because they contended with him' means an attitude of denial on account of those things, and also others, as being contrary to those persons, and on account of more things besides. This is clear from the fact that names given in early times were meaningful signs of a thing or of a state, 3422. In this way they were enabled to recollect many details about that thing or state, especially its essential nature. Here the well took its name from the incident of the herdsmen of Gerar disputing with Isaac's herdsmen. The fact that 'disputing' or 'contending' also means an attitude of denial, see 3425. This is the origin of the name Esek which in the original language means contention or dispute, and is derived from a related word which means oppression and violence. And since 'a well' here means the Word as regards the literal sense which holds the internal sense, 'Esek' or contention means a denial of the existence of the internal sense of the Word. The same word also includes the reasons for such denial, which, it is evident, lie with those things described just above in 3425, that is to say, things that appear to be contraries and with other things also.

[2] Thus the position with the internal sense of the Word is that those in whom no more than a knowledge of cognitions exists, who are referred to as 'the Philistines', and those in whom no more than matters of doctrine concerning faith are present, who are called 'the herdsmen of the Valley of Gerar', and with whom no charity towards the neighbour exists, inevitably refuse to recognize the existence of the internal sense of the Word. There are several reasons why they do so, the chief of which is that they do not acknowledge the Lord in their hearts, however much they confess Him with their lips. Nor in their hearts do they love the neighbour, however much they outwardly declare their love towards him. And anyone who in his heart does not acknowledge the Lord and does not in his heart love the neighbour inevitably refuses to recognize the internal sense of the Word, for the Word does not in the internal sense have anything else as its subject than love to the Lord and love towards the neighbour, on account of which the Lord says that on those two commandments depend the Law and the Prophets, that is, the whole Word, Matthew 22:37-40. I have also been allowed to see the extent to which those people do not recognize the internal sense of the Word from those who are like them in the next life. At the mere mention of the existence of the internal sense of the Word, which is not apparent in its literal sense, and of the fact that its subject is love to the Lord and towards the neighbour, not only is denial of its existence noticeable in those people but also repugnance and even loathing.

[3] This is the chief reason. A second reason is that they turn the Word completely upside down by placing the bottom on top, or what amounts to the same, making what is secondary primary. Indeed they set up faith as the essential thing of the Church, and the things that constitute love to the Lord and love towards the neighbour as the fruits of faith. But the truth is that if love to the Lord is compared to the tree of life in the paradise of Eden, charity and its works are the fruits from it, while faith and everything that is part of faith are merely the leaves. When therefore people so turn the Word upside down that they derive the fruit not from the tree but from the leaves, it is not surprising that they fail to recognize the internal sense of the Word and acknowledge merely its literal sense. For as is well known. the literal sense can be used to confirm any dogma, including the most heretical.

[4] A further reason why they do not recognize the internal sense is that the faith of people who are concerned solely with matters of doctrine concerning faith and not with goodness of life is inevitably persuasion of what is false, that is, it is a faith based on false assumptions as well as true ones. As a consequence they are more stupid than all others, for insofar as anyone is persuaded by what is false he is stupid, but insofar as anyone is concerned with goodness of life, that is, with love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbour, he has intelligence, that is, faith from the Lord. Consequently the former cannot do other than have a negative attitude regarding the internal sense of the Word, whereas the latter cannot do other than have a positive attitude. For the interiors of people who have merely a knowledge of matters of doctrine and are devoid of the good of life are closed, so much so that the light of truth from the Lord cannot flow in and enable them to discern that it is so, whereas the interiors of those in whom love to the Lord exists are open, so much so that the light of truth from the Lord can flow in, inspire their minds with affection, and enable them to discern that it is so.

[5] There is yet another reason why they do not take any delight in reading the Word, except to gain position and wealth, and a reputation on account of these things - which delight is the delight that goes with self-love and love of the world. So true is this that if such gains are not to be had they reject the Word altogether. Such people in their hearts refuse to recognize not only the internal sense of the Word when they hear about it but also the literal sense itself, no matter how much they imagine they do believe in it. For anyone whose end in view is the delight that goes with self-love and love of the world casts out of his heart altogether everything that has to do with eternal life, and speaks from his natural and bodily-minded man when he speaks about the kind of things that he calls truths not for the sake of the Lord and of His kingdom but for the sake of himself and those who are his own. These and many other considerations are what cause people called 'the herdsmen of the Valley of Gerar' and 'the Philistines' to refuse to recognize the internal sense of the Word.