5955. 'And to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver' means that to the intermediary a complete amount of truth from good was imparted. This is clear from the representation of 'Benjamin' as the intermediary, dealt with in 5600, 5631, 5639, 5688, 5822; from the representation of Joseph, the one who 'gave', as internal good, dealt with in 5826, 5827, 5869, 5877; from the meaning of 'three hundred' as a complete amount, dealt with below; and from the meaning of 'silver' as truth, dealt with in 1551, 2954, 5658. From all this it is evident that 'to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver' means that he imparted to the intermediary a complete amount of truth from good; for the intermediary, represented by 'Benjamin', is interior truth, through an influx into it from the internal celestial, 5600, 5631. The reason why 'three hundred' means a complete amount is that this number is the product of three multiplied by a hundred - 'three' meaning what is complete, 2788, 4495, and 'a hundred' meaning much, 4400. For the meaning held by compound numbers is clear from the simple numbers that are their factors.

[2] 'Three hundred' holds a similar meaning when mentioned elsewhere in the Word, as in Genesis 6:15, where it says that Noah's ark was three hundred cubits long, also in the reference to the three hundred men whom Gideon used to strike a blow at Midian, spoken of in Judges as follows,

The number of those who lapped in their hand to their mouth was three hundred men. Jehovah said to Gideon, By the three hundred men who were lapping I will give Midian into your hand. Gideon divided the three hundred men into three lines of battle, and he put a trumpet into the hand of each one of them, and empty water-pots, and torches in the middle of the water-pots. When they sounded the blast on the three hundred trumpets, Jehovah set the sword of [each] man against his companion and against the whole camp. Judges 7:6-8, 16, 22.

By 'the three hundred men' in this description too a complete amount is meant, and the same is meant by 'three lines of battle' into which the three hundred were divided. And by 'a hundred', the number in each line of battle, is meant much or enough, consequently that there were enough men to stand against Midian. Besides, every detail in this description was representative - the selection of those who lapped the water in their hand; the trumpet given to each man; and the water-pots with the torches inside them. This was so because 'Midian', whom they were opposing, represented truth that was not truth because there was no goodness of life in it. But such details will in the Lord's Divine mercy be explained elsewhere. The fact that numbers too were representative is evident from many other places, for example the number seven in Joshua, when they were going to capture Jericho. The command was given for seven priests to carry seven trumpets of rejoicing in front of the Ark; and on the seventh day they were to go round the city seven times, Joshua 6:4.

1919. That 'Abram said to Sarai' means perception is clear from what has been stated above in 1898. The perception which the Lord had was represented and is here meant by 'Abram said to Sarai', but thought which sprang from that perception is meant by 'Sarai said to Abram' - perception being the source of thought. The thought possessed by those who have perception comes from no other source. Yet perception is not the same as thought. To see that it is not the same, let conscience serve to 'illustrate this consideration.

[2] Conscience is a kind of general and thus obscure dictate which presents those things that flow in from the Lord by way of the heavens. Those things that flow in manifest themselves in the interior rational man where they are enveloped so to speak in cloud. This cloud is the product of appearances and illusions concerning the goods and truths of faith. Thought is, in truth, distinct and separate from conscience; yet it flows from conscience, for people who have conscience think and speak according to it. Indeed thought is scarcely anything more than a loosening of the various strands that make up conscience, and a converting of these into separate ideas which pass into words. Hence it is that the Lord holds those who have conscience in good thoughts regarding the neighbour and withholds them from evil thoughts. For this reason conscience can never exist except with people who love the neighbour as themselves and have good thoughts regarding the truths of faith. These considerations brought forward here show how conscience differs from thought, and from this one may recognize how perception differs from thought.

[3] The Lord's perception came directly from Jehovah, and so from Divine Good, whereas His thought came from intellectual truth and the affection for it, as stated above in 1904, 1914. No idea, not even an angelic one, is adequate as a means to apprehend the Lord's Divine perception, and thus this lies beyond description. The perception which angels have - described in 1384 and following paragraphs, 1394, 1395 - adds up to scarcely anything at all when contrasted with the perception that was the Lord's. Because the Lord's perception was Divine, it was a perception of everything in heaven; and being a perception of everything in heaven it was also a perception of everything on earth. For such is the order, interconnection, and influx that anyone who has a perception of heavenly things has a perception of earthly as well.

[4] But after the Lord's Human Essence had become united to His Divine Essence, and had become at the same time Jehovah, the Lord was then above what is called perception, for He was above the order which exists in the heavens and from there upon earth. It is Jehovah who is the source of order, and therefore one may say that Jehovah is Order itself, for from Himself He governs order, not merely, as is supposed, in the universal but also in its most specific singulars, for it is these singulars that make up the universal. To speak of the universal and then separate such singulars from it would be no different from speaking of a whole that has no parts within it and so no different from speaking of something consisting of nothing. Thus it is sheer falsity - a figment of the imagination, as it is called - to speak of the Lord's Providence as belonging to the universal but not to its specific singulars; for to provide and govern universally but not specifically is to provide and govern absolutely nothing. This is true philosophically, yet, strange to say, philosophers themselves, including the more eminent, understand this matter in a different way and think in a different way.