10134. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning. That this signifies the removal of evils through the good of innocence from the Lord in a state of love and of the consequent light in the internal man, is evident from the signification of “offering a lamb,” or sacrificing it, as being the removal of evils through the good of innocence from the Lord (of which below); and from the signification of “morning,” as being a state of love and of the consequent light in the internal man (of which also below). By “offering,” or “sacrificing, a lamb” is signified the removal of evils through the good of innocence from the Lord, because by burnt-offerings and sacrifices was signified purification from evils and the derivative falsities, or what is the same, their removal, and the implantation of good and truth, and their conjunction by the the Lord, (n. 9990, 9991, 10022, 10042, 10053). (That purification from evils is their removal, see the places cited in n. 10057; and that a “lamb” denotes the good of innocence, n. 10132)

[2] That the removal of evils, and the implantation of good and truth, and their conjunction, are effected through the good of innocence by the Lord, is because in all good there must be innocence in order that it be good, and because without innocence good is not good. For innocence is not only the plane in which truths are sown, but is also the very essence of good; so far therefore as a man is in innocence, so far good becomes good, and truth lives from good; consequently so far the man becomes alive, and so far the evils with him are removed; and insofar as they are removed, goods and truths are implanted and conjoined by the Lord. This is the reason why the continual burnt-offering was made by means of lambs. (That all the good of heaven and the church has innocence in it, and that without innocence good is not good, see n. 2736, 2780, 6013, 7840, 7887, 9262; also what innocence is, n. 3994, 4001, 4797, 5236, 6107, 6765, 7902, 9262, 9936)

[3] That “morning” denotes a state of love and of the consequent light in the internal man, is because in the heavens the states with the angels vary as to love and the faith thence derived, as in the world with men times vary as to heat and its attendant light. These times, as is well known, are morning, noon, evening, and night; hence in the Word by “morning” is signified a state of love; by “noon,” a state of light in clearness; by “evening,” a state of light in obscurity; and by “night,” or “twilight,” a state of love in obscurity. (That there are such variations of states in the heavens, see n. 5672, 5962, 6110, 7218, 8426; and that morning there is a state of peace and innocence, thus a state of love to the Lord, n. 2405, 2780, 8426, 8812, 10114; that noon is a state of light in clearness, n. 3708, 5672, 9642; evening a state of light in obscurity, n. 3056, 3833, 6110; and that there is no night in heaven, but twilight, n. 6110, by which is signified a state of love in obscurity.)

[4] That by “morning” is signified a state of love and of the consequent light in the internal man, is because when an angel is in a state of love and light, he is then in his internal man; but when he is in a state of light and love in obscurity, he is then in the external man. For the angels have an internal and an external, and when they are in the internal, the external is almost quiescent; but when they are in the external, they are in a more gross and obscure state. Consequently when they are in a state of love and light, they are in their internal, thus in their morning; and when they are in a state of light and love in obscurity, they are in the external, thus in their evening; from which it is plain that variations of states are made by elevations toward more interior things, thus into a higher sphere of heavenly light and heat, consequently nearer to the Lord; and by lowerings toward more exterior things, into a lower sphere of heavenly light and heat, and thus more remote from the Lord.

[5] Be it known that interior things are higher, thus nearer to the Lord; and that exterior things are lower, thus more remote from the Lord; and that light in the heavens is the Divine truth which is of faith, and heat in the heavens is the Divine good which is of love, both proceeding from the Lord. For the Lord in heaven is a Sun, from which the angels have everything of life, and from it man has everything of spiritual and heavenly life (see the p laces cited in n. 9548, 9684; also that interior things are higher, thus nearer to the Lord, n. 2148, 3084, 4599, 5146, 8325).

[6] The man who is being regenerated, and likewise the man who has been regenerated, also undergo variations of state as to love and as to faith, by means of elevations toward more interior things, and by lowerings toward more exterior things; but there are few who are able to reflect upon this, because they do not know what it is to think and to will in the internal man, and in the external; nor indeed what the internal man is, and what the external. To think and to will in the internal man is to think and to will in heaven, for the internal man is there; but to think and to will in the external man is to think and to will in the world, for the external man is there; and therefore when a man is in love to God and in the consequent faith, he is in the internal man, because in heaven; but when he is in obscurity as to love and the consequent faith, he is in the external man, because in the world. These states also are meant by “morning,” “noon,” “evening,” and “night” or “twilight” in the Word.

[7] It is similar with the states of the church, the first state of which is also called “morning” in the Word, the second “noon,” the third “evening,” and the fourth or last, “night.” But when the church is in its night, in which it is when no longer in love to God and in faith, then from the twilight morning begins with another nation, where a new church is set up.

[8] For it is with the church in general as with man in particular; his first state is a state of innocence, thus also of love toward his parents, nurse, and infant companions; his second is a state of light, for when the infant becomes a child, he learns things that belong to light, that is, the truths of faith, and believes them; the third state is when he begins to love the world and to love himself, which takes place when he becomes a youth and when he thinks from himself, and in proportion as these loves increase, faith decreases, and with faith charity toward the neighbor and love to God; the fourth and last state is when he does not care for these things, and still more when he denies them.

[9] Such also are the states of every church from its beginning to its end. Its first state is likewise a state of infancy, thus also of innocence, consequently of love to the Lord, which state is called “morning;” the second state is a state of light; the third is a state of light in obscurity, which is its “evening;” and the fourth is a state of no love and hence of no light, which is its “night.” This is so because evils increase day by day, and insofar as they increase, one person infects another like a contagion; especially parents their children, besides that hereditary evils are successively condensed, and so transmitted.

[10] That “morning” signifies the first state of the church, and also a state of love, is evident from Daniel:

A holy one said, How long shall be the vision, the continual sacrifice, and the wasting transgressions? And he said to me, Until evening and morning two thousand three hundred; then shall the holy thing be justified (Daniel 8:13-14).

The subject here treated of is the coming of the Lord; “evening” denotes the state of the church before his coming, while “morning” denotes the first state of the church after His coming, and in the supreme sense it denotes the Lord Himself. That in the supreme sense the Lord is the “morning” is because He is the Sun of heaven, and the Sun of heaven never sets, but is always rising; hence also the Lord is called the “east,” consequently also the “morning” (n. 2405, 2780, 9668).

[11] And in Isaiah:

One crieth unto me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? what of the night? The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night (Isaiah 21:11-12);

by the “watchman” in the internal sense is meant one who observes the states of the church and its changes, thus every prophet; by “night” is meant the last state of the church; by “morning” its first state; by “Seir,” from which the watchman crieth, is signified the enlightening of the nations which are in darkness (that “Seir” has this meaning, see n. 4240; and that “night” denotes the last state of the church, n. 6000); “the morning cometh, and also the night,” signifies that though there is enlightening to those who are of the new church, yet there is night to those who are in the old. The like is signified by “morning” in David:

In the evening weeping may pass the night, but in the morning shall be singing (Psalms 30:5).

About the time of evening behold terror; before the morning he is not (Isaiah 17:14).

[12] As in the supreme sense “morning” signifies the Lord, and from this, love from Him to Him, therefore the manna, which was heavenly bread, “rained down every morning” (Exodus 16:8, 12-13, 21). (That the Lord is the bread which comes down from heaven, thus the manna, see John 6:33, 35, 48, 50; and that “bread” denotes celestial love, which is love from the Lord to the Lord, n. 2165, 2177, 3464, 4217, 4735, 5405, 5915, 9545.) And as the Lord is “the east,” and “the morning,” and as all celestial love is from Him, therefore also He rose “in the morning on the day of the Sabbath” (Mark 16:9); and therefore also the day before the feast of the passover was called “the evening;” for by the feast of the passover was signified the presence of the Lord and the liberation of the faithful by Him from damnation (n. 7867, 9286-9292).

[13] He who is acquainted with the internal sense of the Word, is able to know what is involved in Peter’s thrice denying the Lord before the cock crew twice (Matthew 26:34, 74-75; Mark 14:30, 68, 72; Luke 22:34, 60-61; John 18:27); for by Peter was represented the faith of the church, or what is the same, the church as to faith; by the time when the cock crew was signified the last state of the church, which time was also called “cockcrowing;” by the denial three times was signified full and complete denial of the Lord in the end of the church. That Peter represented the faith of the church, thus the church as to faith, see the preface to Genesis 18 and Genesis 22, and also n. 3750, 4738; and that these words to Peter signified the denial of the Lord in the church at the time of its end (n. 6000, 6073, 10087); for the Lord is denied when there is no longer any faith, and there is no faith when there is no longer any charity. That “three” signifies what is full and complete, see n. 2788, 4495, 7715, 8347, 9198, 9488, 9489; and from this it was said that he would deny three times. That this was done in twilight, when morning was about to come, is evident in John 18:28; and that cock crowing and twilight are the same, is evident in Mark:

Watch ye, for ye know not when the lord of the house will come; at even, or at midnight, or at cock crowing, or in the morning (Mark 13:35).

From all this it can now be seen what is signified by “morning.”

2921. My lord, thou art a prince of God in the midst of us. That this signifies the Lord as to the good and truth Divine with them, is evident from the signification of “lord,” and of a “prince of God;” and from the signification of “in the midst of us.” That it is said “Lord” where good is treated of, is evident from the Word of the Old Testament; for there Jehovah is now called Jehovah, now God, now Lord, now Jehovah God, now the Lord Jehovih, now Jehovah Zebaoth; and this from a hidden cause which can be known only from the internal sense. In general, when the subject is the celestial things of love, or good, it is said “Jehovah;” but when it is the spiritual things of faith, or truth, it is said “God;” when both together are treated of, it is said “Jehovah God;” but when the Divine power of good or omnipotence is treated of, it is said “Jehovah Zebaoth,” that is, “Jehovah of Armies,” and likewise “Lord,” so that “Jehovah Zebaoth” and “Lord” are of the same sense and signification. From this, namely, the power of good, men and angels are also called “lords;” and in the opposite sense those are called “servants” in whom there is no power, or who have power from the former. From all this it may be seen that here “my lord” in the internal sense signifies the Lord as to good; which will be illustrated from the Word in the passages that follow. “Prince of God,” however, signifies the Lord as to the power of truth, or as to truth; as is evident from the signification of a “prince,” or of “princes,” as being primary truths (see n. 1482, 2089); and also from its being said “prince of God,” for it is said “God” where truth, and “Jehovah” where good is treated of, (see n. 2586, 2769, 2807, 2822). That “in the midst of us” means among them, or with them, is evident without explication.

[2] That in the Word of the Old Testament “Jehovah Zebaoth” and “Lord” are of the same sense and signification, is evident in Isaiah:

The zeal of Jehovah Zebaoth shall perform this; the Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath fallen on Israel (Isaiah 9:7-8).

And in another place:

A mighty king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, Jehovah Zebaoth (Isaiah 19:4).

In Malachi:

Behold the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple, even the angel of the covenant whom ye desire; behold He cometh, saith Jehovah Zebaoth (Malachi 3:1).

Still more plainly in Isaiah:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up; above Him stood the seraphim; six wings and six wings for each; the one cried to the other, Holy, holy, holy, Jehovah Zebaoth. Woe is me, for I am undone, for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah Zebaoth. And I heard the voice of the Lord (Isaiah 6:1, 3, 5, 8);

from which it is plain that “Jehovah Zebaoth” and “the Lord” have the same meaning.

[3] But the name “Lord Jehovih” is used especially when the aid of omnipotence is sought and implored as in Isaiah:

Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God. Behold the Lord Jehovih will come in a strong one, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold His reward is with Him and His work before Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:9-11).

That the name “Lord Jehovih” is used when such aid is sought, may be seen further in Isaiah 25:8; 40:10; 48:16; 50:4-5, 7, (Isaiah 50:7)9; 61:1; Jeremiah 2:22; Ezekiel 8:1; 11:13, 17, 21; 12:10, 19, 28; 13:8, 13, 16, 18, 20; 14:4, 6, 11, 18, 20-21; Micah 1:2; Psalms 71:5, 16; and frequently elsewhere.

[4] And besides this in the Word of the Old Testament the name “Lord” involves the like as “Jehovah,” namely, that it is said “Lord” when good is treated of; wherefore also “Lord” is similarly distinguished from “God” as “Jehovah” is distinguished from “God.” As in Moses:

Jehovah your God, He is God of gods and Lord of lords (Deuteronomy 10:17).

In David:

Give thanks unto the God of gods, for His mercy is forever; give thanks unto the Lord of lords, for His mercy is forever (Psalms 136:1-3).

[5] But in the Word of the New Testament, with the Evangelists and in Revelation, “Jehovah” is nowhere named; but instead of “Jehovah” it is said “Lord,” and this from hidden causes of which we shall speak below. That in the Word of the New Testament it is said “Lord,” instead of “Jehovah” is very plain in Mark:

Jesus answered, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord; therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God from all thy heart, and from all thy soul, and from all thy thought, and from all thy strength (Mark 12:29-30).

The same is thus written in Moses:

Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God from all thy heart, and from all thy soul, and from all thy strength (Deuteronomy 6:4-5); where it is plain that “the Lord” is said instead of “Jehovah.” So too in John:

I saw and behold there was a throne set in heaven, and one sitting upon the throne; and round about the throne four animals full of eyes before and behind; each one of them had six wings round about, and was full of eyes within; and they said, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty (Revelation 4:2, 6 (Revelation 4:6), 8).

But in Isaiah we read:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. Above him stood the seraphim; six wings and six wings for each; the one cried to the other, Holy, holy, holy, Jehovah Zebaoth (Isaiah 6:1, 3, 5, 8).

Here “the Lord” is said instead of “Jehovah”; or “the Lord God Almighty” instead of “Jehovah Zebaoth” (that the “four animals” are seraphim or cherubim is plain in Ezekiel, 1:5, 13-15, 19; 10:15). That “the Lord” in the New Testament is “Jehovah” is also evident from many other passages as in Luke:

There appeared to Zacharias an angel of the Lord (Luke 1:11);

an “angel of the Lord” meaning an “angel of Jehovah.”

In the same:

The angel said to Zacharias concerning his son, Many of the sons of Israel shall he turn unto the Lord their God (Luke 1:16);

“unto the Lord their God” meaning “unto Jehovah God.” In the same:

The angel said to Mary concerning Jesus, He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David (Luke 1:32);

“the Lord God” here is instead of “Jehovah God.” In the same:

Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath exalted itself upon God my savior (Luke 1:46-47);

here too “the Lord” is instead of “Jehovah.” In the same:

Zacharias prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel (Luke 1:68);

“the Lord God” is instead of “Jehovah God.” In the same:

An angel of the Lord stood by the shepherds; and the glory of the Lord shone round about them (Luke 2:9);

an angel of “the Lord,” and the glory of “the Lord,” instead of an angel of “Jehovah,” and the glory of “Jehovah.”

In Matthew:

Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (Matthew 21:9; 23:39; Luke 13:35; John 12:13);

“in the name of the Lord,” instead of “in the name of Jehovah.” Besides many other passages as Luke 1:28; 2:15, 22-24, 29, 38-39; 5:17; Mark 12:10-11.

[6] Among the hidden causes of their calling Jehovah “the Lord” were the following. If at that time it had been said that the Lord was the Jehovah so often named in the Old Testament (see n. 1736), men would not have accepted it, for they would not have believed it; and moreover the Lord did not become Jehovah as to the Human also until He had completely united the Divine Essence to the Human Essence, and the Human to the Divine (see n. 1725, 1729, 1733, 1745, 1815, 2156, 2751). The full unition was accomplished after the last temptation, which was that of the cross; and for this reason, after the resurrection the disciples always called Him “the Lord” (John 20:2, 13, 15, 18, 20, 25; 21:7, 12, 15-17, 20; Mark 16:19-20); and Thomas said, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). And because the Lord was the Jehovah so often named in the Old Testament, He therefore also said to the disciples:

Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for I am (John 13:13-14, 16);

and these words signify that He was Jehovah God; for He is here called “Lord” as to good, and “Master” as to truth. That the Lord was Jehovah is also meant by the words of the angel to the shepherds:

Unto you is born this day a Saviour who is Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11);

He is called “Christ” as the Messiah, the Anointed, King; and “Lord” as Jehovah; “Christ” in respect to truth, and “Lord” in respect to good. One who does not closely study the Word could not know this, for he would think that our Savior was called Lord, like others, from the common title of reverence; when yet He was so called because He was Jehovah.