성경

 

Cuộc di cư 23:6

공부

       

6 Trong cơn kiện cáo, ngươi chớ phạm quyền lợi của người nghèo ở giữa vòng ngươi.

스웨덴보그의 저서에서

 

Arcana Coelestia #3519

해당 구절 연구하기

  
/ 10837  
  

3519. And take me from thence two good kids of the she-goats. That this signifies the truths of this good, is evident from the signification of “kids of the she-goats,” as being the truths of good, concerning which in what follows. The reason there were two, is that as in the rational, so in the natural, there are things which are of the will and things which are of the understanding. The things in the natural that have relation to the will are delights, and those which have relation to the understanding are memory-knowledges, and in order to be something these two must be conjoined together.

[2] That “kids of the she-goats” signify the truths of good, may be seen from those passages of the Word where “kids” and “she-goats” are mentioned. Be it known that in the genuine sense all the tame and useful beasts mentioned in the Word signify the celestial things of good and the spiritual things of truth (see n. 45, 46, 142, 143, 246, 714, 715, 2180, 2781, 3218); and because there are various kinds of celestial things or goods, and consequently various kinds of spiritual things or truths, one kind is signified by one beast, and another by another; thus one kind is signified by a “lamb,” another by a “kid,” another by a “sheep,” by a “she-goat,” a “ram,” a “he-goat,” a “bullock,” an “ox;” another also by a “horse” and by a “camel;” another likewise by birds; and also another by the beasts of the sea, as by “whales” and “fishes.” There are more genera of celestial and spiritual things than can be enumerated, consequently of goods and truths, although when the celestial or good is mentioned, and also the spiritual or truth, it appears as if it were not manifold, but only one. But how manifold they both are, or how innumerable their genera are, may be seen from what has been said concerning heaven (n. 3241), namely, that it is distinguished into innumerable societies, and this according to the genera of celestial and spiritual things, or of the goods of love and thence of the truths of faith; and moreover every single genus of good, and every single genus of truth, has innumerable species into which the societies of each genus are distinguished, and every species in like manner.

[3] The most universal genera of good and truth are what were represented by the animals that were offered in the burnt-offerings and sacrifices; and because the genera are most distinct from one another it was expressly enjoined that such and no other should be offered-in some cases, for instance, male and female lambs, also male and female kids; in some cases rams and sheep, and also he-goats; but in others, calves, bullocks, and oxen; also pigeons and turtle-doves (n. 922, 1823, 2180, 2805, 2807, 2830, 3218). What was signified by “kids” and “she-goats” may be seen both from the sacrifices in which they were offered, and also from other passages in the Word; whence it is evident that male and female “lambs” signified the innocence of the internal or rational man, and that “kids” and “she-goats” signified the innocence of the external or natural man, thus the truth and good thereof.

[4] That the truth and good of the innocence of the external or natural man is signified by “kids” and “she-goats” is evident from the following passages in the Word.

In Isaiah:

The wolf shall abide with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the sheep 1 together; and a little child shall lead them (Isaiah 11:6); where the Lord’s kingdom is treated of, and a state of no fear from evil, or of no dread on account of hell, because one of presence with the Lord. The “lamb” and the “kid” denote those who are in innocence, and because these are the safest of all, they are mentioned first.

[5] When all the firstborn of Egypt were smitten, it was commanded that they should slay perfect and male young of the flock, of lambs or of kids, and should put some of the blood on the door-posts and on the lintel of the houses, and thus there should not be a plague on them from the destroyer (Exodus 12:5, 7, 13). The “firstborn of Egypt” denotes the good of love and charity extinct (n. 3325); “lambs” and “kids” are states of innocence; and those who are in these states are safe from evil, for all in heaven are protected by the Lord through states of innocence; and this protection was represented by the slaying of a lamb or kid, and by the blood upon the door-posts and lintel of the houses.

[6] When Jehovah appeared to anyone through an angel, a kid of the goats was sacrificed, lest the man should die-as when he appeared to Gideon (Judges 6:19), and to Manoah (13:15-16, 19). The reason was that Jehovah or the Lord cannot appear to anyone, not even to an angel, unless he to whom He appears is in a state of innocence; and therefore as soon as the Lord is present with anyone he is let into a state of innocence; for the Lord enters through innocence, even with the angels in heaven. On this account no one can come into heaven unless he has somewhat of innocence, according to the words of the Lord in Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17. That men believed they should die when Jehovah appeared, unless they offered such a burnt-offering may be seen in Judges 13:22-23.

[7] Inasmuch as genuine conjugial love is innocence (see n. 2736), it was customary in the representative church to enter in unto a wife by a present of a kid of the she-goats; as we read of Samson (Judges 15:1); likewise of Judah when he went in unto Tamar (Genesis 38:17, 20, 23). That a “kid” and a “she-goat” signified innocence, is also evident from the sacrifices of guilt, which they were to offer when anyone had sinned through error (Leviticus 1:10; 4:28; 5:6); sin through error is a sin of ignorance in which is innocence. The same is evident from the following Divine command in Moses:

The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring into the house of Jehovah thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19; 34:26); where by the “first-fruits of the ground, which they were to bring into the house of Jehovah,” is signified the state of innocence which is in infancy; and by “not seething a kid in its mother’s milk,” that they should not destroy the innocence of infancy. Because these things are signified, in both passages the one command follows the other without a break; and yet in the literal sense they appear to be altogether different; but in the internal sense they cohere together.

[8] Because as before said “kids” and “she-goats” signified innocence, it was also commanded that the curtain of the tent over the tabernacle should be made of the wool of she-goats (Exodus 25:4; 26:7; 35:5-6, 23, 26; 36:14), for a sign that all the holy things therein represented derived their essence from innocence. By the “wool of she-goats” is signified the ultimate or outermost of the innocence that is in ignorance, such as exists with the Gentiles; and who in the internal sense are the “curtains” of the tabernacle. From all this it is evident what and of what quality are the truths of good that are signified by the “two good kids of the she-goats” concerning which Rebekah his mother spoke unto Jacob her son, namely, that they are those of innocence or of infancy, being in fact those which Esau was to bring to his father Isaac; concerning which above (n. 3501, 3508); and which indeed were not these truths of good, but at first appeared as if they were; and it is for this reason that by means of these Jacob simulated Esau.

각주:

1. The Hebrew for “sheep” (ovis) here is meri, which in the A. V. is rendered “fatling” three times, “fat cattle” twice, “fat beast” once, “fed beast” once. By Swedenborg it is rendered saginatum seven times, pinguis once, pingue pecus once, and ovis once. In the passage before us he has rendered it saginatum in n. 10132; True Christian Religion789; Apocalypse Explained514, 780, 781; pingue pecus in n. 430 and ovis here in n. 3519 of the same work. The commentators usually understand by it a fattened calf; some rabbis a wild ox (buffalo or bubalus); none have “sheep.”

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.

스웨덴보그의 저서에서

 

Arcana Coelestia #2180

해당 구절 연구하기

  
/ 10837  
  

2180. And took a son of an ox tender and good. That this signifies the celestial natural which the rational associated to itself, in order that it might conjoin itself with the perception from the Divine, is evident from the signification in the Word of a “bullock” or “son of an ox,” as being natural good. And as the Lord’s rational is treated of, it is called “tender” from the celestial-spiritual, or the truth of good; and “good” from the celestial itself, or good itself. In the genuine rational there is the affection of truth and the affection of good; but its chief thing [primarium] is the affection of truth (as before shown, n. 2072). Hence it is first called “tender,” and yet is called both “tender and good,” according to the usual practice in the Word, to indicate the marriage of good and truth (spoken of above, n. 2173).

[2] That a “bullock,” or “son of an ox,” signifies the celestial natural, or what is the same, natural good, is especially evident from the sacrifices, which were the principal representatives of worship in the Hebrew Church, and afterwards in the Jewish. Their sacrifices were made either from the herd or from the flock, thus from animals of various kinds that were clean, such as oxen, bullocks, he-goats, sheep, rams, she-goats, kids, and lambs; besides turtledoves and young pigeons, all of which animals signified internal things of worship, that is, things celestial and spiritual (n. 2165, 2177); the animals taken from the herd signifying celestial natural things, and those from the flock celestial rational things; and as both the natural and the rational things are more and more interior, and are various, therefore so many kinds and species of those animals were made use of in the sacrifices; as is also evident from its being prescribed what animals should be offered-in the burnt-offerings; in the sacrifices of various kinds, as in those that were daily, those of the Sabbaths and festivals, those that were voluntary, those for thanksgiving and vows, those expiatory of guilt and sin, those of purifying and cleansing, and those of inauguration-and also from their being expressly named, and how many of them should be used in each kind of sacrifice; which would never have been done unless each had signified some special thing. This is very evident from those passages where the sacrifices are treated of (as Exodus 29; Leviticus 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, 23; Numbers 7, 8, 15, 29). But this is not the place to set forth what each one signified. The case is similar in the Prophets where these animals are named, and from them it is evident that “bullocks” signified celestial natural things.

[3] That no other than heavenly things were signified, is also evident from the cherubs seen by Ezekiel, and from the animals before the throne seen by John. Concerning the cherubs the Prophet says:

The likeness of their faces was the face of a man, and they four had the face of a lion on the right side, and they four had the face of an ox on the left side, and they four had the face of an eagle (Ezekiel 1:10).

Concerning the four animals before the throne John says:

Around the throne were four animals; the first animal was like a lion, the second animal like a young bullock, the third animal had a face like a man, the fourth animal was like a flying eagle; saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come (Revelation 4:6-8).

Everyone can see that holy things were represented by the cherubs and by these animals, and also by the oxen and young bullocks in the sacrifices. In like manner in the prophecy of Moses concerning Joseph:

Let it come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the head of him that was a Nazirite from his brethren. The firstling of his ox, honor is his; and his horns are the horns of the unicorn, with them he shall push the peoples together, to the ends of the earth (Deuteronomy 33:16-17).

None can understand these things unless it is known what an ox, a unicorn, horns, and other things signify in the internal sense.

[4] As regards sacrifices in general, they were indeed enjoined through Moses on the people of Israel, but the Most Ancient Church, that existed before the flood, knew nothing whatever about sacrifices; nor did it even come into their minds to worship the Lord by slaughtering animals. The Ancient Church, that existed after the flood, was likewise unacquainted with sacrifices. This church was indeed in representatives, but not in sacrifices. In fact sacrifices were first instituted in the following church, which was called the Hebrew Church, and from this spread to the nations, and from the same source they came to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thus to the descendants of Jacob. That the nations were in a worship of sacrifices, was shown above (n. 1343); and that so were Jacob’s posterity before they went out of Egypt, thus before sacrifices were commanded by Moses upon Mount Sinai, is evident from what is said in Exodus 5:3; 10:25, 27; 18:12; 24:4-5; and especially from their idolatrous worship before the golden calf.

[5] Thus described in Moses:

Aaron built an altar before the calf, and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is the feast of Jehovah. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat, and to drink, and rose up to play (Exodus 32:5-6).

This was done while Moses was upon Mount Sinai, and thus before the command concerning the altar and the sacrifices came to them. The command came on this account-that the worship of sacrifices had become idolatrous with them, as it had with the gentiles, and from this worship they could not be withdrawn, because they regarded it as the chief holy thing. For what has once been implanted from infancy as holy, especially if by fathers, and thus inrooted, the Lord never breaks, but bends, unless it is contrary to order itself. This is the reason why it was directed that sacrifices should be instituted in the way described in the books of Moses.

[6] That sacrifices were by no means acceptable to Jehovah, thus were merely permitted and tolerated for the reason just stated, is very evident in the Prophets, as we read in Jeremiah:

Thus saith Jehovah Zebaoth the God of Israel, Add your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat flesh. I spoke not unto your fathers, and I commanded them not in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offering and sacrifice; but this word I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God (Jeremiah 7:21-23).

In David:

O Jehovah, sacrifice and offering Thou hast not willed, burnt-offering and sin-offering Thou hast not required. I have desired to do Thy will, O my God (Psalms 40:6, 8).

In the same:

Thou delightest not in sacrifice, that I should give it; burnt-offering Thou dost not accept. The sacrifices of God are a broken 1 spirit (Psalms 51:16-17).

In the same:

I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds; sacrifice to God confession (Psalms 50:9, 13-14; 107:21-22; 116:17; Deuteronomy 23:19).

In Hosea:

I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings (Hos. 6:6).

Samuel said to Saul:

Hath Jehovah pleasure in burnt-offerings and sacrifices? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, to hearken than the fat of rams (1 Samuel 15:22).

In Micah:

Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself to the high God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself in walking with thy God (Micah 6:6-8).

[7] From all this it is now evident that sacrifices were not commanded, but permitted; also that nothing else was regarded in the sacrifices than what is internal; and that it was the internal, not the external, that was acceptable. On this account also, the Lord abrogated them, as was likewise foretold by Daniel in these words:

In the midst of the week shall He cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease (Daniel 9:27),

where the Lord’s advent is treated of. (See what is said concerning sacrifices in volume 1, n. 922-923, 1128, 1823.) As regards the “son of an ox” which Abraham “made” or prepared for the three men, the case is the same as with that animal in the sacrifices. That it had a like signification is evident also from his telling Sarah to take three measures of fine flour. Concerning the fine flour to a bullock, we read in Moses:

When ye be come into the land; when thou shalt make a son of an ox a burnt-offering or a sacrifice, in pronouncing publicly a vow, or peace-offerings unto Jehovah, thou shalt offer upon the son of an ox a meat offering of three tenths of fine flour, mingled with oil (Numbers 15:8-9), where it is in like manner “three,” here “three tenths,” and above, “three measures;” but to a ram there were to be only two tenths, and to a lamb one tenth (Numbers 15:4-6).

각주:

1. Contritus; but infractus n. 9818.

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.