3623. 'What would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. This is clear from the meaning of 'life' as conjunction by means of truths and goods. For when it was not possible for any truth from a common stem or genuine source to be joined to natural truth, there could not be any alliance of the natural to the truth of the rational, in which case it seemed to the rational as though its own life were no life, 3493, 3620. This is why here 'what would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. Here and in other places the word 'life' in the original language is plural, and the reason for this is that in man there are two powers of life. The first is called the understanding and is the receptacle of truth, the second is called the will and is the receptacle of good. These two forms or powers of life make one when the understanding is rooted in the will, or what amounts to the same, when truth is grounded in good. This explains why in Hebrew the noun 'life' is sometimes singular, sometimes plural. The plural form of that noun is used in all the following places, Jehovah God formed the man, dust from the ground; and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7. Jehovah God caused to spring up out of the ground every tree desirable to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden. Genesis 2:9. Behold, I am bringing a flood of waters over the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 6:17.

They went in to Noah into the ark, two by two from all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 7:15 (in 780).

Everything which had the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils breathed its last. Genesis 7:12.

In David,

I believe [I am going] to see the goodness of Jehovah in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

In the same author,

Who is the man who desires life, who loves [many] days, that he may see good? Psalms 34:12

In the same author,

With You, O Jehovah, is the fountain of life; in Your light do we see light. Psalms 36:9.

In Malachi,

My covenant with Levi was [a covenant] of life and peace. Malachi 2:5.

In Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah, Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. Jeremiah 21:8.

In Moses,

To love Jehovah your God, to obey His voice, and to cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days, so that you may dwell in the land. Deuteronomy 30:20.

In the same author,

It is not an empty word from you; for it is your life, and through this word you will prolong your days in the land. Deuteronomy 32:47.

And in other places too the plural form of the noun 'life' is used in the original language because, as has been stated, there are two kinds of life which yet make one. It is similar with the word 'heavens' in the Hebrew language, in that the heavens are many and yet make one, or like the expression 'waters' above and below, in Genesis 1:7-9 , by which spiritual things in the rational and in the natural are meant which ought to be one through being joined together. As for the plural form of 'life', when this is used both the life of the will and that of the understanding are meant, and therefore both the life of good and that of truth are meant. For man's life consists in nothing else than good and truth which hold life from the Lord within them. Devoid of good and truth, and of the life which these hold within them, no one is human. For devoid of these no one would ever have been able to will or to think anything. Everything that a person wills originates in good or in that which is not good, and everything he thinks originates in truth or in that which is not truth. Consequently man possesses two kinds of life and these make one when his thinking flows from his willing, that is, when truth which is the truth of faith flows from good which is the good of love.

6148. 'Only the ground of the priests he did not buy' means that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself. This is clear from the representation of 'Joseph', about whom these things are said, as the internal, dealt with already; from the meaning of 'the ground' as the receptacle of truth, dealt with above in 6135-6137, at this point the capacity to receive good, for the capacity of something is its inherent ability to receive, which causes a receptacle to be a receptacle (that capacity comes from good, that is, from the Lord through good, for if the good of love did not flow in from the Lord no one would ever have the capacity to receive truth or good. That inflow of the good of love from the Lord causes everything present inwardly in a person to be of a receptive nature. The truth that the capacity to receive good comes from the natural is meant by the fact that the ground lay in Egypt, since 'Egypt' means the natural in respect of factual knowledge, 6142); from the meaning of 'the priests' as good, dealt with below; and from the meaning of 'not buying' as not taking those capacities to itself - not in the way that it made truths and forms of the good of truth, together with their receptacles, its own, which came about through periods of desolation and sustainment - for the reason that those capacities came from itself, from the internal. All these meanings serve to show that 'only the ground of the priests he did not buy' means that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself.

[2] The implications of all this are that a person's capacities to receive truth and good come directly from the Lord; he obtains them without any help at all from himself. A person's capacity to receive goodness and truth is maintained in him unceasingly; and from that capacity he possesses understanding and will. But a person does not receive them if he turns to evil. The capacity to receive does, it is true, remain, but its access to thought and sensitivity is blocked, on account of which his capacity to see what is true and have a sensitive awareness of what is good perishes. And it perishes to the extent that he turns to evil and in faith and life becomes firmly settled in it. The fact that a person contributes nothing whatever to his capacity to receive truth and good is well known from the Church's teaching that nothing at all of the truth of faith and nothing at all of the good of charity comes from man but from the Lord. Yet a person can destroy that capacity residing with him. From all this one may now see how one should understand the idea that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself. The expression 'from the natural' is used because the inflow of good from the Lord is effected by the Lord through the internal into the natural; and once the capacity to receive has been obtained from there, the inflow takes place, for now there is reception, see 5828.

[3] So far as the meaning of 'the priests' as forms of good is concerned, it should be recognized that there are two realities which go forth from the Lord - goodness and truth. Divine Good was represented by priests, and Divine Truth by kings; and this is why 'the priests' means forms of good and 'the kings' truths. Regarding the attribution of Priesthood and Kingship to the Lord, see 1728, 2015 (end), 3670. In the representative Ancient Church those two offices of priest and king existed jointly in one personage, the reason for this being that goodness and truth which go forth from the Lord are united; and they are also joined together in heaven among the angels.

[4] A personage in the Ancient Church in whom the two offices existed joined together was called Melchizedek, a name meaning king of righteousness. This may be seen from the following statement about Melchizedek who came to Abraham, ¹

Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; and he was a priest to God Most High. And he blessed Abraham. Genesis 14:18-19.

His representation of the Lord in both offices is evident from the fact that he was a king and at the same time a priest, and from the fact that he was allowed to bless Abraham and offer him bread and wine, which even at that time were the symbols of the good of love and the truth of faith. His representation of the Lord in both offices is further evident in David,

Jehovah has sworn and will not repent, You are a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek. Psalms 110:4.

These words were spoken in reference to the Lord. 'After the manner of Melchizedek' means that He is both King and Priest, that is, in the highest sense that Divine Good and Divine Truth go forth together from Him.

[5] Because a representative Church was going to be established also among the descendants of Jacob, they too were to have a single personage to represent jointly Divine Good and Divine Truth, which go forth from the Lord united. But on account of the wars and the idolatry of that people the two were in fact divided right from the start; those who ruled over the attended to sacred duties were referred to as the priests, who belonged to the seed of Aaron and were the Levites. At a later time the two functions were joined together in a single person, as they were in Eli and Samuel. Yet because the nature of the people was such that the representative Church could not be established among them, only a representative of the Church, on account of the practice of idolatry prevalent among them, the two functions were allowed to be separated. The Lord was then represented in respect of Divine Truth by kings and in respect of Divine Good by priests. The separation took place because the people desired it, not because the Lord took any pleasure in it, as is clear from the Word of Jehovah to Samuel,

Obey the voice of the people in all that they have said to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them; and show them the right of the king. 1 Samuel 8:7-end; 12:19-20.

[6] The reason why the two functions were not meant to be separated was that Divine Truth separated from Divine Good condemns all people, whereas Divine Truth united to Divine Good saves them. Judged by Divine Truth a person is condemned to hell, but Divine Good brings him out of there and raises him into heaven. Salvation comes of mercy and so sprigs from Divine Good; but damnation exists when a person rejects mercy and so casts Divine Good away from himself, as a consequence of which he is left to be judged by Truth. As regards 'kings' representing Divine Truth, see 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 5068.

[7] 'The priests' represented the Lord in respect of Divine Good, and for that reason good is meant by them. This becomes clear from the internal sense of all that was prescribed regarding the priesthood when Aaron was chosen, and after him the Levites, such as these prescriptions:

The High Priest alone should enter the Holy of holies and minister there. [Leviticus 16.]

Things holy to Jehovah were to be for the priest. Leviticus 23:20; 27:21.

They were not to have any portion or inheritance in the land, but Jehovah would be their portion and inheritance. Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:1.

The Levites were given to Jehovah instead of the firstborn, and they were given by Jehovah to Aaron. Numbers 3:9, 12-13, Numbers 3:40-end; 8:16-19.

The high priest and the Levites were to be in the middle of the camp when they pitched it and when they were journeying. Numbers 1:50-54; 2:17; 3:23-38; 4:1-end.

No one from the seed of Aaron who had a blemish in himself was to approach to offer burnt offerings or sacrifices. Leviticus 21:17-20.

And there are many other prescriptions besides these, such as those in Leviticus 21:9-13, and elsewhere.

[8] In the highest sense all these prescriptions relating to the priests represented the Lord's Divine Good and therefore in the relative sense the good of love and charity. Aaron's vestments however, called 'vestments of holiness', represented Divine Truth from Divine Good. These matters will in the Lord's Divine mercy be dealt with in the explanations of what appears in Exodus.

[9] Since truth is meant by 'kings' and good by 'priests', 'kings and priests' are mentioned together many times in the Word, as in John, Jesus Christ has made us kings and priests to His God and Father. Revelation 1:6; 5:10.

By virtue of the truth of faith we are said to have been made 'kings', and by virtue of the good of charity to have been made 'priests', so that the truth and good residing with those who abide in the Lord have been joined together, in the way they are in heaven, as stated above. This is what is meant by 'being made kings and priests'.

[10] In Jeremiah,

It will happen on that day, that the heart of the king and of the princes will perish, and the priests will be dumbfounded and the prophets left wondering. Jeremiah 4:9.

In the same prophet,

The house of Israel is ashamed, they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets. Jeremiah 2:26.

In the same prophet,

The kings of Judah, the princes, the priests, and the prophets, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 8:1.

In these places 'kings stands for truths, 'princes' for first and foremost truths, 1482, 1089, 5044, 'priests' for forms of good, and 'prophets' for those who teach, 2534.

[11] Quite apart from this it should be recognized that Joseph did not buy the ground of the priests. The fact that this was representative of the consideration that the whole of a person's capacity to receive truth and good comes from the Lord is evident from a similar law in Moses regarding the fields belonging to the Levites,

The field of the country surrounding the cities of the Levites shall not be sold, for it is their eternal possession. Leviticus 25:34.

The meaning here in the internal sense is that no one ought to lay any claim to the good of the Church, which is the good of love and charity, because that good is from the Lord alone.

Notas a pie de página: