2798. Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son. That this signifies the merit of righteousness, is evident from what was said and shown above (n. 2784), thus without further explication. That he “laid it upon Isaac” signifies that the merit of righteousness was adjoined to the Divine rational, is evident from the representation of Isaac, as being the Lord’s Divine rational (often shown before) and from the signification of “laying upon him,” as being to adjoin. He is called his “son,” because the Lord’s Divine Human was not only conceived, but was also born of Jehovah. That the Lord was conceived of Jehovah is most fully known from the Word of the Lord; hence He is called the “Son of the Highest,” the “Son of God,” and the “Only-begotten of the Father,” in many places (Matthew 2:15; 3:16-17; 16:13-17; 17:5; 27:43, 54; Mark 1:11; 9:7, 9; 14:61-62; Luke 1:31-32, 35; 3:21-22; 9:35; 10:22; John 1:14, 18, 50; 3:13, 16-18; 5:20-27; 6:69; 9:34-35, 38; 10:35-36; 20:30-31), and in many other places He calls Jehovah His “Father.”

[2] That He was born of the virgin Mary is known, yet as another man; but when He was born again, or became Divine, it was from Jehovah who was in Him, and who was Himself as to the very being of life. The unition of the Divine and the Human Essence was effected mutually and reciprocally, so that He united the Divine Essence to the Human and the Human to the Divine (see n. 1921, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2018, 2025, 2083, 2508, 2523, 2618, 2628, 2632, 2728, 2729). Hence it is evident that the Lord made the Human in Himself Divine by His own power, and thus became righteousness. The merit of righteousness was what was adjoined to the Divine rational when He underwent inmost temptations, and from it He then fought, and against this the evil genii fought, until He glorified this also. These are the things meant in the internal sense by Abraham laying the wood of the burnt-offering upon Isaac his son, and these are what are perceived by the angels when the words are read.

1999. Abram fell upon his faces. ¹ That this signifies adoration, is evident without explication. To fall upon the face was a rite of adoration in the Most Ancient Church, and thence in that of the Ancients, for the reason that the face signified the interiors, and the state of their humiliation was represented by falling upon the face; hence in the Jewish representative church it became a customary ceremonial. True adoration, or humiliation of heart, carries with it prostration to the earth upon the face before the Lord, as a gesture naturally flowing from it. For in humiliation of heart there is the acknowledgment of self as being nothing but filthiness, and at the same time the acknowledgment of the Lord’s infinite mercy toward that which is such; and when the mind is kept in these two acknowledgments, the very mind droops in lowliness toward hell, and prostrates the body; nor does it uplift itself until it is uplifted by the Lord. This takes place in all true humiliation, with a perception of being uplifted by the Lord’s mercy. Such was the humiliation of the men of the Most Ancient Church; but very different is the case with that adoration which comes not from humiliation of the heart. (See n. 1153.)

[2] That the Lord adored and prayed to Jehovah His Father, is known from the Word of the Gospels; and also that He did so as if to one different from Himself, although Jehovah was in Him. But the state in which the Lord was at these times was His state of humiliation, the nature of which has been stated in Part First, namely, that He was then in the infirm human that was from the mother; but insofar as He put this off, and put on the Divine, He was in another state, which is called His state of glorification. In the former state He adored Jehovah as one different from Himself, although in Himself; for, as has been said, His internal was Jehovah; but in the latter, that is, in His state of glorification, He spoke with Jehovah as with Himself, for He was Jehovah Himself.

[3] But how the case is with these matters cannot be apprehended unless it is known what the internal is, and how the internal acts into the external; and further, in what manner the internal and the external are distinct from each other, and yet are conjoined. This, however, may be illustrated by something that is similar, namely, by the internal in man, and by its influx and operation into the external. That man has an internal, an interior or rational, and an external, may be seen above (n. 1889, 1940). Man’s internal is that from which he is man, and by which he is distinguished from brute animals. By means of this internal he lives after death, and to eternity a man, and by means of it he can be uplifted by the Lord among the angels. This internal is the very first form from which a man becomes and is man, and by means of it the Lord is united to man. The very heaven that is nearest the Lord is composed of these human internals; but this is above even the inmost angelic heaven, and therefore these internals belong to the Lord Himself. By this means the whole human race is most present under the Lord’s eyes, for there is no distance in heaven, such as appears in the sublunary world, and still less is there any distance above heaven. (See what is said from experience, n. 1275, 1277.)

[4] These internals of men have no life in themselves, but are forms recipient of the Lord’s life. Insofar therefore as a man is in evil, whether actual or hereditary, so far has he been as it were separated from this internal which is the Lord’s and with the Lord, and thereby so far has he been separated from the Lord; for although this internal has been adjoined to man, and is inseparable from him, nevertheless insofar as he recedes from the Lord, so far he as it were separates himself from it. (See n. 1594.) But the separation is not an absolute sundering from it, for then the man could no longer live after death; but it is a dissent and disagreement on the part of those faculties of his which are below, that is, of his rational and of his external man. Insofar as there is dissent and disagreement, there is disjunction from the Lord; but insofar as there is not dissent and disagreement, the man is conjoined with the Lord through the internal, which takes place insofar as the man is in love and charity, for love and charity conjoin. Such is the case with man.

[5] But the Lord’s internal was Jehovah Himself, because He was conceived from Jehovah, who cannot be divided and become another’s, as is the case with a son who is conceived from a human father; for the Divine is not divisible, like the human, but is and remains one and the same. To this internal the Lord united the Human Essence; and because the Lord’s internal was Jehovah, it was not a form recipient of life, like the internal of man, but was life itself. His Human Essence also in like manner was made life by the unition, on which account the Lord so often said that He is Life, as in John:

As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26); besides other passages in the same gospel (John 1:4; 5:21; 6:33, 35, 48; 11:25).

Insofar therefore as the Lord was in the human which He received by inheritance from the mother, so far did He appear distinct from Jehovah and adore Jehovah as one different from Himself. But insofar as the Lord put off this human, He was not distinct from Jehovah, but was one with Him. The former state, as before said, was the Lord’s state of humiliation; but the latter was His state of glorification.

Fußnoten: