229. The beginning of the working of God, signifies faith from Him, which in appearance is the first thing of the church. This is evident from the signification of "beginning," as being the first; and from the signification of "the working of God," as being the church (of which presently). Faith is what is meant by "the beginning of the working of God," for this is the subject treated of in what is written to the angel of this church; but that faith is "the beginning of the working of God," that is, in appearance the first thing of the church, shall now be explained. By faith here is meant faith from the Lord, for faith not from the Lord is not the faith of the church; but faith from the Lord is the faith of charity. This faith is in appearance the first thing of the church, because it is the first to appear to the man of the church. But charity itself is actually the first thing of the church, because this is what makes the church with man.

[2] There are two things that make the church, charity and faith. Charity is of affection, and faith is of thought therefrom. Affection is the very essence of thought, for apart from affection no one can think; everything of life that is in thought is from affection. From this it is clear that the first thing of the church is the affection that is of charity or love. But faith is called the first thing of the church because it is the first to appear; for what a man believes, that he thinks, and by thought sees; but that whereby he is spiritually affected he does not think, and therefore does not see in thought, but he perceives it by a certain sensation that has no relation to sight, but to another feeling called the feeling of enjoyment. This enjoyment, as it is spiritual and is above the sense of natural enjoyment, man does not perceive, except when he has become spiritual, that is, when he has been regenerated by the Lord. For this reason the things that are of faith, and thus of sight, are believed to be the first things of the church, although they are not first except in appearance. This therefore is called "the beginning of the working of God," because the Word in the letter is according to appearance, since it is for the simple. But spiritual men, like the angels, are lifted above appearances, and perceive the Word as it is in its internal sense; consequently they perceive that charity is the first thing of the church, and that faith is therefrom; for as was said above, the faith that is not from charity and that is not of charity, is not faith (about which, see also in the small work on The Last Judgment 33-39).

[3] Even from ancient times, what the first thing of the church is, whether faith or charity, has been a disputed point; and those who have not known what charity is have declared that faith is the first things; but those who have known what charity is have declared that charity is the first thing, and that faith is charity in its manifestation, since the affection of charity made manifest to sight in thought, is faith; for when the delight of affection passes from the will into the thought it takes form, and presents itself to view in a variety of forms. This the simple have not apprehended, consequently they have taken that which appeared before the sight of their thought to be the first thing of the church; and because the Word in the letter is according to appearances, this therefore is there called "the first," "the beginning," and "the firstborn." For the same reason, Peter, by whom the faith of the church was represented, was called the first of the apostles; when yet John was the first, because by "John" the good of charity was represented. That John, not Peter, was the first of the apostles, is clear from this, that it was John who leaned on the breast of the Lord, and that he, and not Peter, followed the Lord (John 21:20-22). (That the twelve disciples of the Lord represented all the truths and goods of the church, see Arcana Coelestia 2129, 3354, 3488, 3858, 6397; that Peter represented faith, n. 4738, 6000, 6073, 6344, 10087, 10580; and that John represented the good of charity, n. 3934, 6073, 10087).

[4] For the same reason, by Reuben also, because he was the firstborn of the sons of Jacob, faith was represented, and it was believed that the tribe that had its name from him was the first; but yet that tribe was not the first, but the tribe of Levi, since by Levi the good of charity was represented; and for this reason the tribe of Levi was appointed to the priesthood, and the priesthood is the first of the church. (That the twelve sons of Jacob, or the twelve tribes named from them, represented all the truths and goods of the church, see, n. Arcana Coelestia 3858, 3926, 4060, 6335, 7836, 7891, 7996; that Reuben represented faith, n. 3861, 3866, 4605, 4731, 4734, 4761, 6342-6345; and that Levi represented the good of charity, n. 3875, 4497, 4502, 4503.) For the same reason in the first chapter of Genesis, where in the sense of the letter the creation of heaven and earth is treated of, but in the internal sense the new creation or regeneration of the man of the church at that time, it is said that light was first made, and afterwards the sun and the moon (See verses 3-5, 14-19); when yet the sun is first, and light is from it. Light was said to be the first of creation, because "light" signifies the truth of faith, and "the sun and moon" the good of love and of charity. (That by the creation of heaven and earth in the first chapter of Genesis, in the spiritual sense, the new creation of the man of the celestial church, or his regeneration, is meant and described, see the explanation of that chapter in the Arcana Coelestia, also n.8891, 9942, 10545. That "light" signifies truth from good, thus also the truth of faith, see in the work on Heaven and Hell 126-140; and that "the sun" signifies the good of love, and "the moon" the good of charity, both from the Lord, in the same work, n. 116-125, 146.) From this it can now be seen what "the beginning of the working of God" signifies, namely, faith from the Lord, which in appearance is the first thing of the church.

10109. 'And they shall eat those things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities. This is clear from the meaning of 'eating' as making one's own, dealt with above in 10106; and from the meaning of 'what has been expiated' as that which has been purified from evils and consequent falsities, dealt with in 9506. The words 'purified from evils and consequent falsities' are used because falsities as well as truths exist with those ruled by evil, and also falsities as well as truths exist with those who are governed by good. The falsities present with those ruled by evil are falsities of evil, and the truths present with them are falsified truths, which are dead. But the falsities present with those governed by good are accepted as truths, for those falsities are tempered by the good and put to good and useful purposes, and the truths present with them are the truths of good, which are alive. Regarding both kinds of falsity and truth, see what has been shown in 2243, 2408, 2863, 4736, 4822, 6359, 7272, 7437, 7574, 7577, 8051, 8137, 8138, 8149, 8298, 8311, 8318 (end), 9258, 9298.

[2] Since 'eating the holy things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities, anyone unclean was strictly forbidden to eat of those things; for uncleanness means defilement by evils and consequent falsities. For the situation is that as long as a person is steeped in evils and consequent falsities good cannot by any means be made his own. This is because evil comes up from hell and good comes down from heaven, and where hell is heaven cannot be, since they are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore to make a place for heaven - that is, for good from heaven - hell, that is, evil from hell, must be removed. From this it may be seen that good cannot by any means be made a person's own as long as he is ruled by evil. By making good his own the implanting of good in the will should be understood, for good cannot be said to have been made a person's own until it becomes part of his will. A person's will is the actual person, and his understanding also, to the extent that it derives from the will. For what is part of the will forms part of the person's love and consequently his life, since what a person wills he loves and calls good, and also when it is done by him it is felt to be such. The situation is different with those things which are part of the understanding but not at the same time part of the will. It should also be recognized that when a person is said to make good his own, no more should be understood than his ability to receive good from the Lord, an ability he is endowed with through regeneration. Consequently good as it exists with a person is not that person's; rather it is the Lord's with him. And he is maintained in it to the extent that he allows himself to be withheld from evils. The impossibility for good to become a person's own, that is, for it to be transmitted to him, as long as he is ruled by evil was the reason for the prohibition which prevented one who was unclean from eating the flesh and the bread of a sacrifice; for that eating represented making good one's own, as stated above.

[3] Those who were unclean were forbidden on pain of death to eat from holy offerings, as is clear in Moses,

Everyone who is clean shall eat flesh. The soul who eats the flesh of sacrifices while uncleanness is on him shall be cut off from his people. The soul who touches anything unclean - the uncleanness of a human being or an unclean beast or any unclean creeping thing whatever - and eats of the flesh of the eucharistic sacrifice shall be cut off from [his] people. Leviticus 7:19-21.

All those outward kinds of uncleanness represented inward kinds, which are a person's evils; and they are evils present in his will, having been made his own by the life he actually leads.

[4] This matter is described further elsewhere in Moses,

Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or suffers a discharge shall not eat of the holy things until he has been made clean. Whoever has touched anything made unclean by a corpse ¹ , [or any] man who has had an emission of semen ² , or [any] man who has touched any creeping thing by which he is defiled, or [has touched] a person by whom any one is defiled, as to all his uncleanness - the soul who has touched that thing shall be unclean until evening and not eat of the holy things. But when he has washed his flesh with water, and the sun has gone down, he shall be clean; and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his bread. No outsider shall eat what is holy; a stranger staying with a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat what is holy. If the priest buys a soul - a buying with his silver - [that soul] may eat of it, and one who is born in his house; these shall eat of his bread. When a priest's daughter has married a man, an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of holy things. But if the priest's daughter has been made a widow or divorced and has no seed, and has indeed returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread. Leviticus 22:1-16.

All these rules, it is plainly evident, serve to mean more internal considerations, that is, they imply the transmission of holy things to those in a receptive state of mind, who then make those things their own. The rule that no outsider could eat the holy things meant, not those who do not acknowledge the Lord within the Church, thus not those with whom none of the Church's truth and good exists. The rule that no stranger or hired servant could eat them meant, neither those with whom natural good exists devoid of the good of faith, nor those who do good for the sake of reward. The rule that those bought with silver and those born in the house could eat them meant, those who have been converted, and those with whom the Church's truth and good exists as the result of faith and love. The rule that a priest's daughter married to a man who was an outsider could not eat them meant that the good which had not been wedded to the Church's truths [but to something other] could not make the holy things of the Church its own. The rule however that a widow or a divorcee who had no seed could eat them meant that good can be made one's own after the removal of things which do not belong to the Church, provided that no notions have been hatched or born out of that union that have become an integral part of one's faith. The fact that such considerations are meant is evident from the internal sense of these specific rules.

[5] But hereditary evils do not prevent anyone from making good his own. This consideration too is described in Moses,

No man of the seed of Aaron in whom there is a blemish shall approach to offer the bread of God - no man who is blind, lame, mutilated, or [has a limb] too long; none who has a broken foot or hand, is a hunchback, is bruised, has a defect in his eye, has scabs, has warts, or has a crushed testicle. He shall not approach to offer the bread of his God; but he shall eat the bread of God from among the most holy and the holy things. Leviticus 21:17-23.

These defects, as has been stated, serve to mean hereditary evils, some specific evil being meant by each particular defect. The reason why these men should not offer bread or approach the altar as priests was that if they did so the people would catch sight of those imperfections or ills, and in what was caught sight of some representation would take shape, none of which would happen if those defects remained hidden. For although a priest, Levite, or the people were unclean inwardly, they were nevertheless called clean and also thought to be sanctified, provided that outwardly they were washed and looked clean.

Note a piè di pagina: