De obras de Swedenborg

 

The White Horse #2

Estudiar este pasaje

  
/ 17  
  

2. In the prophetical parts of the Word a horse is mentioned very often, 1 but until now no one has known 'horse' means understanding, and 'horseman' one who understands, perhaps because it seems extraordinary and astonishing that that is what is meant by 'horse' in a spiritual sense, and consequently in the Word. But that it constantly means this can be agreed from very many instances in the Word, from which I should like to refer to only a few at this point.

In Israel's prophetic utterance 2 about Dan we find:

Dan will be a serpent on the road, a darting snake 3 on the path, that will bite the horse's heels, and the horseman will fall backwards. Genesis 49:17-18.

What this prophetic statement about one of the tribes of Israel means no one is going to understand unless he knows what 'serpent' signifies, and also 'horse' and 'horseman." Yet is there anyone who does not see that it holds something spiritual within it? This being so, what the individual details signify may be seen in Arcana Caelestia 6398-6401, where this prophetical utterance is explained.

In Habakkuk we find:

O Lord [...] You ride on Your horses and Your chariots are salvation [...] You caused Your horses to tread in the sea. Habakkuk 3:8, 15.

It is obvious that 'horses' here signify something spiritual, because these things are being said about God. What else would it be, 'God rode on [his] horses, and caused [his] horses to tread in the sea?'

In Zechariah we find, with a similar significance:

'On that day, HOLY TO THE LORD will be on the horse-bells', Zechariah 14:20. 4

In the same authority:

On that day I will strike every horse with bewilderment and the horseman with madness, declares the Lord, I will open my gaze on the house of Judah, and I will strike with blindness every horse of the peoples. Zechariah 12:4-5.

What is being talked about here is the Church when it has been laid waste, which happens when there is no longer an understanding of anything true. This is what is being indicated by 'horse' and 'horseman;' what else would it be, [...] every horse about to be struck with bewilderment [...] and the horse of the peoples with blindness?' What, otherwise, would this have to do with the Church?

In Job we find:

'Because God has made her 5 forget wisdom, neither has He imparted to her understanding; having raised herself on high, she mocks the horse and its rider' Job 39:17-19.

That understanding is signified here by 'horse' is manifestly obvious; similarly in David, where the expression 'to ride upon the word of truth' is used, Psalms 45:5; and besides in very many other places.

Moreover, who is likely to know why it is that Elijah and Elisha were called 'the chariots of Israel and its horsemen;' and why there appeared to Elisha's servant a mountain full of horses and fiery chariots, unless it is known what 'chariots' and horsemen' signify, and what Elijah and Elisha represented? For Elisha said to Elijah, My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen,' 2 Kings 2:11-12; and King Joash said to Elisha, 'My father, my father [...] the chariots of Israel and its horsemen,' 2 Kings 13:14.

Concerning the servant of Elisha we read:

'The Lord opened the eyes of Elisha's servant, and he looked and saw the mountain full of horses and fiery chariots all around Elisha' 2 Kings 6:17.

Elijah and Elisha were called the chariots of Israel and its horsemen because each represented the Lord in his capacity as the Word. 'Chariots' represent doctrine derived from the Word, and 'horsemen' represent understanding. That Elijah and Elisha represented the Lord in this capacity may be seen in Arcana Caelestia: 5247, 7643, 8029, 9327, and that 'chariots' signify doctrine derived from the Word: 5321, 8215.

Notas a pie de página:

1. The text has simply equus (horse) at this point, but there is a 'parallel passage' in Arcana Caelestia 2761, stating equus et eques (horse and horseman): the sense of what follows in the current passage suggests that Swedenborg intends equus et eques here.

2. The Revd John Elliott points out that 'Israel here of course means the patriarch Jacob."

3. Biblical translations are based on the Schmidt Latin translation (1696) as apparently used by Swedenborg, though here, as sometimes elsewhere, Swedenborg does misquote (in this case inserting jaculus after the second serpens). Lewis and Shorts Latin Dictionary, always an interesting source, glosses jaculus as follows: 'sc. serpens, a serpent that darts from a tree on its prey."

4. The Revd John Elliott: As I understand it, this is not a statement on the horse-bells to the effect that the bells are holy but that they ring out the holiness of things attributable to the Lord. (A bit like the bells rung in a catholic mass which draw the worshippers' attention to the just-consecrated host or wine that is being elevated.)'

5. Her: The Hebrew pronoun in Job 39:17-18, which refers to a bird, is feminine. Although Swedenborg rendered it eum (him) in 2762 and here in De Equo Albo, eam (her) occurs in other places of his works where this verse is quoted.

  
/ 17  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.

De obras de Swedenborg

 

Arcana Coelestia #4692

Estudiar este pasaje

  
/ 10837  
  

4692. And they added yet to hate him for his dreams, and for his words. That this signifies still greater contempt and aversion because of the preaching of truth—here concerning the Lord’s Divine Human—is evident from the signification of “adding,” as being more; from the signification of “hating,” as being to despise and be averse to (n. 4681); from the signification of a “dream,” as being preaching (n. 4682, 4685); and from the signification of “words,” as being truths. That “words” denote truths is because every word in heaven is from the Lord; therefore “words” in the internal sense signify truths, and the “Word” in general signifies all Divine truth.

[2] As regards the subject itself, this is the supreme truth of all which the church that has separated faith from charity especially despises, and to which it is averse, namely, that the Human of the Lord is Divine. All who were of the Ancient Church and did not separate charity from faith, believed that the God of the universe was a Divine Man, and that He was the Divine being; and hence they named Him “Jehovah.” They knew this from the most ancient people, and also because He had appeared as a Man to some of their brethren. They also knew that all the rituals and externals of their church represented Him. But those who were of faith separate could not so believe, because they could not comprehend how the Human could be Divine, nor could they comprehend that the Divine love effected this; for whatever they did not comprehend from some idea received through the external senses of the body, they regarded as nothing. Faith separate from charity is attended with this, for with those who hold it the internal of perception is closed, as there is no intermediate through which there can be influx.

[3] The Jewish Church which succeeded did indeed believe that Jehovah was Man and also God, because He had appeared as a man to Moses and the prophets, for which reason the Jews called every angel who appeared to them “Jehovah;” nevertheless they had no other idea of Him than the Gentiles had of their gods, to whom the Jews preferred Jehovah God because He could perform miracles (n. 4299), not knowing that Jehovah was “the Lord” in the Word (n. 2921, 3035), and that it was His Divine Human which all their rituals represented. Their only thought of the Messiah or Christ was that He would be the greatest prophet, greater than Moses; and the greatest king, greater than David, who would bring them with stupendous miracles into the land of Canaan. They did not wish to hear anything about His heavenly kingdom, because they apprehended nothing but worldly things, for they were separated from charity.

[4] The Christian Church, however, in external worship does indeed adore the Lord’s Human as Divine, especially in the Holy Supper, because He said that the bread therein was His body, and the wine His blood; but in their doctrine they make His Human not Divine, for they make a distinction between the Divine nature and the human nature. The reason of this also is that the church has turned away from charity to faith, and at last to faith separate. And because they do not acknowledge the Lord’s Human to be Divine, many stumble and at heart deny Him (n. 4689). Nevertheless the truth is that the Lord’s Divine Human is the Divine coming-forth from the Divine being, spoken of above (n. 4687), and that He is the Divine being, for the Divine being and the Divine coming-forth are one, as also the Lord plainly teaches in John:

Jesus said to Philip, Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (John 14:9-11);

and also in other places. For the Divine coming-forth is the Divine Itself proceeding from the Divine being, and in image is a Man; because heaven, of which it is the all, represents a Grand Man, as was said above (n. 4687), and has been shown at the end of the chapters, in the correspondence of all things in man therewith.

[5] The Lord was indeed born as is another man, and had an infirm human from the mother; but this human the Lord entirely cast out, so that He was no longer the son of Mary, and made the Human in Himself Divine, which is meant by His being glorified; and He also showed to Peter, James, and John, when He was transfigured, that He was a Divine Man.

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.