10040. Since the flesh of the young bull together with its skin and dung was burned with fire outside the camp, it becomes clear that the good of love was not meant by its 'flesh' but the evil of [self] love, as accords with the things stated above in 10035 regarding its 'flesh', and in 10038 just above regarding 'the camp'. But the reason why they were allowed to eat the flesh of the sacrifice, as becomes clear from places which come further on, was that in its worship that nation was interested in the outward performance but not in anything internal, see the places referred to in 9320(end), 9380. And an outward performance devoid of anything internal is not at all holy because then it is something done merely by the body and spoken by the mouth, and the heart and soul are not in it. Nevertheless the outward performance devoid of anything internal was called holy because it represented holy and internal things, these being everything that belongs to love and faith received from the Lord and offered back to Him. Since that nation was by nature such they were not permitted to eat blood and fat, because 'blood' meant Divine Truth which composes faith, while 'fat' meant Divine Good which constitutes love, both of which are received from the Lord, see above in 10033. But they were permitted to eat the flesh of a sacrifice because this flesh meant the human proprium or selfhood, 10035; and the proprium of that nation was such that they worshipped the outward forms as being holy but made nothing whatever of their inward substance. And that worship - apart from the representative aspect of it, which was holy - was idolatrous, see 4281, 4311. Furthermore that flesh, as a representative sign, had no other meaning, when its blood represented Divine Truth and its fat Divine Good, 10033; for then that flesh represented something which was devoid of life and soul, as the outward devoid of the inward is, which is referred to as being dead and which is in keeping with the following words in Moses,

You shall not eat the blood, because the blood is the soul; and you shall not eat the soul with the flesh. Deuteronomy 12:23.

[2] The worship of the nation of the catholic religion, as it is called ¹ , is almost the same; that is to say, its worship is outward, devoid of anything inward. The common people are prevented from knowing the inner truths of the Word, because they are forbidden to read it, for which reason also it has come about in the Lord's Divine Providence that in the Holy Supper the common people are given the bread or flesh, but not the wine or blood. And yet blood is that which gives life to flesh, even as wine gives it to bread. For just as the bread without the wine provides no nourishment to the body, neither therefore does the good of love, meant by the bread and the flesh, without the truth of faith, meant by the wine and the blood, provide any nourishment to the soul. In the Lord's Divine Providence it has also come about there that the priest should drink the wine, because by this is meant nourishing the soul by means of Divine Truth devoid of the good of love, which is something outwardly holy devoid of anything inwardly so. They have no knowledge that this has happened in the Lord's Divine Providence because they venerate outward things in an idolatrous manner and so have no idea about inward things. If it had been otherwise, then not unlike the Jews they would have profaned holy things. That drinking of the wine by the priest alone is also a sign that knowledge of Divine Truth resides with priests alone and not with the common people, except so far as they are willing to give them it. Regarding the Holy Supper, that the bread and flesh in it are the Divine Good of the Lord's Divine Love towards the human race, and people's love offered back to the Lord, and that the blood and wine are the Divine Truth emanating from the Lord's Divine Good, and so the truth of faith received from the Lord and offered back to Him, see 3464, 3813, 4211, 4217, 4735, 4976, 6135, 6377, 6789, 7850, 9127.

As regards when it was that the flesh of sacrifices should be taken outside the camp to be burned with fire, see Leviticus 4:11-12, 21; and when it was, and by whom, that it should be eaten, Leviticus 6:26-30; 7:6, 15-19; 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 12:7, 17-18, 27; 27:6-7.

Bilješke:

3670. 'And He will give you the blessing of Abraham' means the joining of the Divine itself to the good and truth of the natural. This is clear from the meaning of 'blessing' as a joining together, dealt with above in 3660, 3667, and from the representation of 'Abraham' as the Lord's Divine itself, which is called the Father, dealt with in 2011, 3251, 3439. And as these words are addressed to Jacob, who is to represent the Divine Good and Truth of the Lord's Divine Natural, it is a joining together of the Divine itself to the good and truth of the Natural - this joining together being meant in the internal sense by 'He will give you the blessing of Abraham'. In the sense of the letter it is possession of the land of Canaan that is meant by 'the blessing of Abraham', and also by the words that follow, 'to inherit the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham'. This also is what these words are taken to mean by all who believe that the historical descriptions of the Word do not embody anything more heavenly and deeper than that. This is especially so with the Jewish nation, which also claims from that sense to hold a superior position to all other nations and peoples. Their forefathers understood those words in the same way, especially Jacob, who had that kind of disposition, as becomes clear from what has been stated just above in 3667. That is to say, he did not know Jehovah and was unwilling to acknowledge Him unless He conferred bodily and worldly benefits on him. The fact that neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob were meant, but that Jacob represented the Lord's Natural which He was to make Divine is abundantly evident from the explanations given. The same applies to the character of any person who represents, whether evil or good; for the evil are no less able to represent, and have represented, the Lord's Divine, see 665, 1097, 1361.

[2] The same may be seen from the representatives which also exist at the present day. For all kings, no matter who they are or what they are like, represent the Lord through the kingly office itself residing with them; and in like manner all priests, no matter who they are or what they are like, do so through their priestly office. The kingly office itself and the priestly office itself are sacred, no matter who serves in them. Consequently the Word taught by someone evil is no less sacred; nor is the Sacrament of Baptism, or the Holy Supper, or similar ministrations any less so. From this it may also be seen that no king can possibly claim as his own the sacredness that goes with his kingly office, nor any priest the sacredness that goes with his priestly office. Insofar as he does claim it or attribute it to himself he brands himself with the sign of a spiritual thief, or the mark of spiritual theft. And insofar as he commits what is evil, that is, acts contrary to what is right and fair, and contrary to what is good and true, a king throws off his representation of the sacred kingly office, and a priest his representation of the sacred priestly office, and then represents the reverse of this. This explains why so many laws were laid down in the Jewish representative Church concerning the sacredness which was to be attached in particular to priests when ministering. More on this matter will in the Lord's Divine mercy be stated later on.