10559. And Moses said unto Jehovah. That this signifies indignation that the Divine was not with them, thus not the church itself, is evident from the signification of “saying,” as here being indignation, for “saying” involves the things which follow, because these are what he said, and the things which follow are things of indignation on this account, that the Divine would not be with them, thus that the church would not be with them, whereby they might be rendered pre-eminent to all that were upon the face of the earth, as is plain from verse sixteen which follows. The reason why the words of Moses to Jehovah were words of indignation on that account, was that Moses here bears relation to the head of the Israelitish nation (see above, n. 10556); wherefore he speaks for himself and for that nation, for he says, “I and the people” (verse 16). And because he here bears relation to that nation as its head, therefore by “Moses said unto Jehovah” is signified indignation; for a man who is such as was that nation, is indignant against God if he does not obtain his desires.

[2] This is done by all those who are in external things without what is internal, for if they reverence and adore God, and as it were love Him, it is not for His own sake, but for the sake of themselves, because they desire nothing else than eminence above others and wealth beyond others, this being the fire which excites their reverence and adoration, and as it were their love. But if they do not obtain what they desire, they forsake God. That that nation was of such a character is very evident from the historicals of the Word. The like is signified by the words of Jacob:

Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way wherein I walk, and will give me bread to eat, and a garment to put on, and I return in peace to my father’s house, then Jehovah shall be to me for God (Genesis 28:20-21).

These words mean that if he should receive these things, he would acknowledge Jehovah for his God; but if he should not receive them, he would not acknowledge Him. Such also was the nation descended from him. From this it is that that nation so often fell away, and worshiped other gods, until at last they were for this reason cast out from the land of Canaan, first the Israelitish nation, and afterward the Jewish. It is evident that the cause of the indignation above spoken of was that if Jehovah did not go with them they would not become preeminent to all in the whole world.

[3] That it was also a cause of indignation that the church itself was not with them, follows from the fact that to be brought by Jehovah into the land of Canaan denotes to become the church. The reason of this is that the church had been in the land of Canaan from the most ancient times, and that the Word could not have been written elsewhere, thus except with the nation which possessed that land; and where the Word is, there is the church. That the Word could not have been written anywhere else was because all the places that were in the whole of that land, and that were round about it, such as the mountains, the valleys, the rivers, the forests, and all the rest, had become representative of celestial and spiritual things; and it was necessary that the sense of the letter of the Word, in both the historical and the prophetical parts, should consist of such things, because the interior things of the Word, which are celestial and spiritual, must close in such things, and as it were stand on them like a house upon its foundation; for unless the Word in respect to the sense of the letter, which is its ultimate, stood upon such things, it would be like a house without a foundation. That this is so is evident from the Word, in that mention is so often made of the places of that land, all of which, having become representative, signify the things of heaven and of the church.

[4] From this it is that to be brought into the land of Canaan signifies the setting up of the church, and that the indignation of Moses involves this also, although he did not think of it. (That the church was in the land of Canaan from the most ancient times, and that consequently all the places therein became representative, see n. 3686, 4447, 454, 4516, 4517, 5136, 6306, 6516, 8317, 9320, 9325; and that from this “the land of Canaan” in the Word signifies the church, see the places cited in n. 9325)

4823. And she conceived again, and bare a son. That this signifies evil, is evident from the signification of a “son,” as being truth, and also good (n. 264); thus in the opposite sense falsity and also evil, but the evil which is from falsity. This evil in its essence is falsity, because it is from it; for one who from a false doctrine does what is evil, does also what is false; but because it is done in act, it is called evil. That by the firstborn son is signified falsity, and by this one evil, is evident from its being related of this son that he did evil in act, namely, that “he destroyed the seed to the earth, that he might not give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the eyes of Jehovah; and He caused him also to die” (verses 9 and 10). Here also it is evident that this evil was from falsity. Moreover, in the ancient churches by the second son was signified the truth of faith in act; and therefore by this son falsity in act, that is, evil. That evil is what is signified by him, may be seen also from the fact that Er the firstborn was named by his father, or Judah; while this son, or Onan, was named by his mother, the daughter of Shua, as may be seen in the original tongue. For in the Word by a “man” is signified falsity, and by a “woman” the evil thereof (see n. 915, 2517, 4510). That by the daughter of Shua is signified evil, may be seen above (n. 4818, 4819). Wherefore Er, because he was named by his father, signifies falsity, and Onan, because he was named by his mother, signifies evil; for the former was thus as it were the father’s son, but the latter as it were the mother’s.

[2] In the Word “man and wife,” and also “husband and wife,” are often mentioned; and when “man and wife” are mentioned, by “man” is signified truth, and by “wife” good, and in the opposite sense by “man” is signified falsity, and by “wife” evil; but when “husband and wife” are mentioned, good is signified by “husband,” and truth by “wife,” and in the opposite sense evil is signified by “husband,” and falsity by “wife.” The reason of this mystery is this: in the celestial church the husband was in good, and the wife in the truth of this good; but in the spiritual church the man is in truth, and the wife in the good of this truth; such were they in fact then, and such are they now, for the interiors of man have undergone this change. Hence where celestial good and celestial truth from it are treated of in the Word, it is said “husband and wife;” but where spiritual good and spiritual truth from it are treated of, it is said “man and wife,” or rather “man and woman.” From this, as also from the expressions themselves, it is known what good and what truth are treated of in the Word, in its internal sense.

[3] This too is the reason of its having been occasionally stated that marriages represent the conjunction of good and truth, and of truth and good. Moreover, conjugial love has its origin from this conjunction of good with truth; and conjugial love with the spiritual from the conjunction of truth with good. Marriages also actually correspond to these conjunctions. From all this it is evident what is involved in the father’s naming the first son, and the mother’s naming the second, and also the third-as appears from the original tongue-namely, that the father named the first son, because by him was signified falsity, and that the mother named the second, because by him was signified evil.