10040. As the flesh of the bullock with its skin and dung was to be burnt with fire without the camp, it can be seen that by its “flesh” was not signified the good of love, but the evil of love, according to what was said of its flesh above (n. 10035), and of the camp just above (n. 10038). But that the eating of the flesh of the sacrifice was allowed, as can be seen from the passages which follow, was because that nation, while in worship, was in the external without the internal (see the places cited in n. 9320, 9380); and the external without the internal is not at all holy, because then there is only gesture of the body and speech of the mouth, and the heart and soul are absent. Nevertheless the external without the internal was called holy, because it represented holy internal things. Holy internal things are all things that belong to love and faith from the Lord to the Lord. As that nation was of this character, they were not allowed to eat blood and fat, because by “blood” was signified the Divine truth which is of faith, and by “fat” the Divine good which is of love, both from the Lord (see above, n. 10033); but they were allowed to eat the flesh of the sacrifice, because it signified what is man’s own (n. 10035), and the own of that nation was to worship external things as holy, and to make no account whatever of internal things; which worship, except as a representative that was holy, was idolatrous (n. 4281, 4311). Moreover, representatively “flesh” is nothing else, seeing that its blood represented Divine truth and its fat Divine good (n. 10033), for in this case the flesh represented something without life and soul, which is called dead, as is the external without the internal, according to these words in Moses:

Thou shalt not eat the blood, for the blood is the soul; thou shalt not eat the soul with the flesh (Deuteronomy 12:23).

[2] Worship is nearly similar with the Gentile people of the Catholic religion, as it is called, namely, external without internal; for it is not granted to the common people to know the internal things of the Word, seeing that they are not allowed to read the Word. For this reason also it has of the Lord’s Divine Providence come to pass that in the Holy Supper the bread is given, which is “the flesh;” and not the wine, which is “the blood;” and yet the blood is what gives life to the flesh, as the wine does to the bread. For as bread without wine does not give nourishment to the body, so neither does the good of love, which is signified by “bread” and by “flesh,” without the truth of faith, which is signified by “wine” and by “blood,” give nourishment to the soul. By the Divine Providence of the Lord it has also come to pass that the priest should drink up the wine, because by this is signified the nourishment of the soul by Divine truth without the good of love, which is a holy external without a holy internal. That this has come to pass by the Divine Providence of the Lord they do not know, because they idolatrously adore external things, and thus do not apprehend internal ones; and therefore if they had acted differently they would have profaned holy things just like the Jews. By drinking wine alone, is also signified alone to know Divine truth, and not the common people, except insofar and in such a way as the priests wish, as also is the case there. (That in the Holy Supper the flesh and the bread denote the Divine good of the Lord’s Divine love toward the human race, and the reciprocal love of man to the Lord; and that the blood and the wine denote the Divine truth that proceeds from the Lord’s Divine good, thus the truth of faith from the Lord to the Lord, see n. 3464, 3813, 4211, 4217, 4735, 4976, 6135, 6377, 6789, 7850, 9127) As regards the flesh of the sacrifices, when it was to be brought forth out of the camp, and burned with fire, see Leviticus 4:11-12, 21; and when and by whom it was to be eaten, Leviticus 6:19 end; 7:6, 15-19 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 12:7, 17-18, 27; 26:6-7.

4211. And called his brethren to eat bread. That this signifies the appropriation of good from the Lord’s Divine natural, is evident from the signification of “brethren,” as being those who were now conjoined by a covenant, that is, by friendship; and in the internal sense those who are in good and truth (that these are called “brethren” may be seen above, n. 367, 2360, 3303, 3459, 3803, 3815, 4121, 4191); from the signification of “eating,” as being appropriation (see n. 3168, 3513, 3832; and that banquets and feasts with the ancients signified appropriation and conjunction by love and charity, see above, n. 3596); and from the signification of “bread,” as being the good of love (n. 276, 680, 1798, 3478, 3735), and in the supreme sense the the Lord, (n. 2165, 2177, 3478, 3813). As in the supreme sense “bread” signifies the Lord, it therefore signifies everything holy which is from Him, that is, everything good and true; and because there is nothing else good, which is good, except that which is of love and charity, “bread” signifies love and charity. Nor did the sacrifices of old signify anything else, for which reason they were called by the one word “bread” (n. 2165). They also ate together of the flesh of the sacrifices, in order that the heavenly feast might be represented, that is, conjunction by the good of love and charity. This is what is now signified by the Holy Supper; for this succeeded in the place of sacrifices, and of the feasts from the sanctified things; and the Holy Supper is an external of the church that contains within itself an internal, and by means of this internal it conjoins the man who is in love and charity with heaven, and through heaven with the Lord. For in the Holy Supper also, “eating” signifies appropriation, the “bread” celestial love, and the “wine” spiritual love; and this so entirely that when a man is in a holy state while eating it, nothing else is perceived in heaven.

[2] The reason why the expression “the appropriation of good from the Lord’s Divine natural” is made use of, is that the subject treated of is the good of the Gentiles, and it is this good which is now represented by Laban (n. 4189). Man’s conjunction with the Lord is not a conjunction with His Supreme Divine Itself, but with His Divine Human; for man can have no idea whatever of the Lord’s Supreme Divine, which so transcends his idea as altogether to perish and become nothing; but he can have an idea of His Divine Human. For everyone is conjoined by thought and affection with one concerning whom he has some idea, but not with one concerning whom he has no idea. If when anyone is thinking about the Lord’s Human, he has holiness in his idea, he is thinking also of that holy which coming from the Lord fills heaven, so that he is also thinking of heaven; for in its complex heaven bears relation to a man, and it does this from the the Lord, (n. 684, 1276, 2996, 2998, 3624-3649); and this accounts for the fact that no conjunction is possible with the Lord’s Supreme Divine, but only with His Divine Human, and through His Divine Human with His Supreme Divine. Hence it is said in John that no one hath seen God at any time, except the Only begotten Son (1:18); and that no one can come to the Father except through Him; and hence also He is called the Mediator. That such is the case may be very well known from the fact that all within the church who say they believe in a Supreme Being, and make no account of the Lord, are precisely those who believe nothing at all, not even that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell, and who worship nature. Moreover, if such persons are willing to be instructed by experience, they will see that the evil, even the worst of them, say the same thing.

[3] But as regards the Lord’s Human, men think in various ways, one in one way and another in another, and one in a more holy way than another. They who are within the church are able to think that His Human is Divine, and also that as He says He is one with the Father, and that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. But they who are without the church cannot do this, both because they know nothing about the Lord and because they have no idea of the Divine except from the images which they see with their eyes, and the idols which they can touch with their hands. And yet the Lord conjoins Himself with these by means of the good of their charity and obedience that is within their gross idea of Him. For this reason it is here said that such have an “appropriation of good from the Lord’s Divine natural;” for the conjunction of the Lord with man is according to the state of his thought and the derivative affection. They who are in the most holy idea concerning the Lord, and at the same time in the knowledges and affections of good and truth-as those can be who are within the church-are conjoined with the Lord in respect to His Divine rational; whereas they who are not in such holiness, nor in such interior idea and affection, and yet are in the good of charity, are conjoined with the Lord in respect to His Divine natural. They who have a holiness of a still grosser kind are conjoined with the Lord in respect to His Divine sensuous; and this conjunction is what is represented by the brazen serpent, in that those who looked at it recovered from the bite of the serpents (Numbers 21:9). In this conjunction are those among the Gentiles who worship idols, and yet live in charity in accordance with their religion. From all this it is now evident what is meant by the appropriation of good from the Lord’s Divine natural, which is signified by Jacob’s calling his brethren to eat bread.