4156. And put them in the camel’s straw. That this signifies in memory-knowledges, is evident from the signification of the “camel’s straw,” as being such knowledges (n. 3114). They are called “straw,” both because this is the food of a camel, and because they are relatively gross and devoid of order. For this reason memory-knowledges are also signified by “thickets” of trees and of the forest (n. 2831). (That “camels” denote the general memory-knowledges which are of the natural man, may be seen above, n. 3048, 3071, 3143, 3145.)

[2] That memory-knowledges are relatively gross and devoid of order, and are therefore signified by “straw,” and also by “thickets,” is not apparent to those who are in mere memory-knowledges, and are on this account reputed learned. These believe that the more a man knows, or the more memory-knowledge he possesses, the wiser he is. But that the case is very different has been made evident to me from those in the other life who when they had lived in the world had been in mere memory-knowledges, and thereby had gained the name and reputation of being learned, for they are sometimes more stupid than those who have no such skill in memory-knowledges. The reason of this has also been disclosed, namely, that memory-knowledges are indeed a means of becoming wise, but are also a means of becoming insane. To those who are in the life of good, memory-knowledges are a means of becoming wise; but to those who are in a life of evil, they are a means of becoming insane; for by means of memory-knowledges these persons confirm not only their life of evil, but also principles of falsity, and this arrogantly and with persuasion, because they believe themselves to be wiser than others.

[3] From this it comes to pass that they destroy their rational; for it is not the man who can reason from memory-knowledges, even when he can apparently do so in a more lofty manner than others, who is in the enjoyment of the rational faculty; for this skill is the result of a mere fatuous light. But that man excels in the rational who is able clearly to see that good is good, and truth truth, consequently that evil is evil, and falsity falsity; whereas the man who regards good as evil and evil as good, and also the man who regards truth as falsity and falsity as truth, can by no means be said to be rational, but rather, irrational, however able he may be to reason. With him who clearly sees that good is good and that truth is truth, and on the other hand that evil is evil and falsity is falsity, light flows in from heaven, and enlightens his intellectual faculty, and causes the reasons which he sees in his understanding to be so many rays of that light. The same light also illuminates the memory-knowledges, so that they confirm the truth, and moreover disposes them into order and into heavenly form. But they who are against good and truth, as are all who are in the life of evil, do not admit that heavenly light, but are delighted solely with their own fatuous light, the nature of which is to see as one who in the dark beholds spots and streaks on a wall, and out of them fancifully makes all kinds of figures, which however are not really figures, for when the light of day is let in, it is seen that they are nothing but spots and streaks.

[4] From all this we can see that memory-knowledges are a means of becoming wise, and also a means of becoming insane; that is, that they are a means of perfecting the rational, and also a means of destroying the rational. In the other life therefore they who by means of such knowledges have destroyed their rational, are much more stupid than they who have not been versed in them. That these knowledges are relatively gross, is manifest from their belonging to the natural or external man; whereas the rational, which is cultivated by their means, belongs to the spiritual or internal man. How far these differ and are distant the one from the other in regard to purity, may be known from what has been said and shown concerning the two memories (n. 2469-2494).

3670. And He will give thee the blessing of Abraham. That this signifies the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural, is evident from the signification of a “blessing,” as being conjunction (n. 3660, 3667); and from the representation of Abraham, as being the Lord’s Divine Itself which is called the “Father” (concerning which see n. 2011, 3251, 3439). And inasmuch as these words are spoken to Jacob, by whom there would be represented the Lord’s Divine natural as to the Divine good and truth therein, therefore the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural is what is signified, in the internal sense, by “He will give thee the blessing of Abraham.” In the sense of the letter, it is the possession of the land of Canaan that is meant by the “blessing of Abraham,” and also by the words which follow: “to cause thee to inherit the land of thy sojournings, which God gave unto Abraham;” and according to this sense do all apprehend the words who believe that the historicals of the Word do not contain within them things more heavenly and secret: and especially so do the Jewish nation, who on the strength of these words claim for themselves privileges above every other nation and people. Their fathers understood the words in the same manner, and especially were they so understood by Jacob, whose quality is evident from what was said just above (n. 3667), in that he would not have known Jehovah, nor have been willing to acknowledge Him, unless He had given him corporeal and worldly blessings. But that neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob was meant, and that by Jacob is represented the Lord as to the natural which He would make Divine, is abundantly manifest from the explications given above. That it is immaterial what is the quality of the man who represents, as to whether he is evil or good, and that evil men equally with good men can represent and have represented the Lord’s Divine, may be seen above (n. 665, 1097, 1361).

[2] The same may be seen from the representatives which exist even to this day; for all kings, whoever they may be, and of whatever quality, by the royalty itself that appertains to them represent the Lord; in like manner all priests, whoever and of whatever quality they may be, by the priestly office itself. The royal and the priestly office itself is holy, whatever be the quality of him who ministers therein; and this is the reason why the Word taught by an evil man is equally holy, and also the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper, and other such things. And from this it is also evident that no king can possibly claim for himself anything of the sanctity that belongs to his royalty; nor any priest anything of the sanctity that belongs to his priesthood. Insofar as either claims anything thereof to himself, or attributes it to himself, so far he brands himself with the character of a spiritual thief, or with the mark of spiritual theft; and also insofar as he does evil, that is, acts contrary to what is just and equitable, and contrary to what is good and true, so far a king puts off the representative of holy royalty, and a priest the representative of holy priesthood, and represents the opposite. For this reason in the representative Jewish Church there were so many laws enjoined concerning the holiness in which priests especially should be during their ministration-on which subject, of the Lord’s Divine mercy, more will be said in what follows.