3160. And Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The word hath gone forth from Jehovah; we cannot speak unto thee evil or good. That this signifies acknowledgment that it was of the Lord alone, may be seen from the explication of the several words as to the internal sense; but that this is the conclusion from them, is evident without such explication. That “the word hath gone forth from Jehovah,” signifies from the Lord, is evident; for by “Jehovah,” so often named in the Old Testament, no other is ever meant than the Lord (see n. 1343, 1736, 1815, 2156, 2329, 2921, 3023, 3035). That these things involve arcana, is evident from the fact that here Laban made answer, who was a brother, and then Bethuel who was the father; but not the father and mother; and that the virgin did not answer till afterwards. The reason of this is that by Laban as a brother is represented the affection of good in the natural man (see n. 3129, 3130); and by Bethuel, the origin of the affection of good. The affection of good and the affection of truth in the natural man are as brother and sister; and the affection of truth called forth from the natural man into the rational and there conjoined with good, is as a married woman.

[2] The secret reason why Laban and Bethuel answered, that is, the brother first and then the father, is that while good from the rational man is flowing into the natural, it does not flow immediately into the truth there, but into the good there, and through the good into the truth; and unless there is this influx the affection of truth cannot come into actual being. The affection of good in the natural man is that which acknowledges, and thus is that which first consents; for there is an immediate communication between rational good and natural good, but not between rational good and natural truth (concerning the parallelism of these see above, n. 1831, 1832). Two ancient formulas of speech are found here, namely, “The word hath gone forth from Jehovah,” meaning that it was done of Jehovah; and “We cannot speak unto thee evil or good,” meaning that they neither dared to deny nor to affirm. Concerning the acknowledgment that it was of the Lord alone, see what now follows.

1832. And the birds he did not divide. That this signifies spiritual things, and that in them there is not such a parallelism and correspondence, is evident from the signification of “birds,” as being what is spiritual [as distinguished from what is celestial], and as treated of in verse 9, just above; and from the statement that he did not divide the birds in the midst; consequently that there is not such a parallelism and correspondence. By spiritual things are signified, as often said before, all the things of faith, consequently all doctrinal things, for these are called things of faith, although they are not of faith until they have been conjoined with charity. Between these and the Lord there is not a parallelism and correspondence, for they are such things as do not flow in by internal dictate and conscience, as do those which are of love and charity, but they flow in by instruction, and so by hearing, thus not from the interior, but from the exterior, and in this way they form their vessels or recipients in man.

[2] The greater part of them appear as if they were truths, but are not truths, such as those things which are of the literal sense of the Word, and are representatives of truth and significatives of truth, and thus are not in themselves truths; some of them even being falsities, which however can serve as vessels and recipients. But in the Lord there are none but truths that are essentially such; and therefore with these there is no parallelism and correspondence on the part of those apparent truths, but still they may be so adapted as to serve as vessels for the celestial things which are of love and charity. These apparent truths are what constitute the cloud of the intellectual part, before spoken of, into which the Lord insinuates charity, and so makes conscience.

[3] For example: with those who remain in the sense of the letter of the Word, and suppose that it is the Lord who leads into temptation and who then torments man’s conscience, and who suppose that because He permits evil He is the cause of evil, and that He thrusts the evil down into hell, with other similar things: these are apparent truths, but are not truths; and because they are not truths that are such in themselves, there is no parallelism and correspondence. Still the Lord leaves them intact in man, and miraculously adapts them by means of charity so that they can serve celestial things as vessels. So also with the worship, the religious teachings and morals, and even with the idols, of the well-disposed Gentiles; these likewise the Lord leaves intact, and yet adapts them by means of charity so that they also serve as vessels. The case was the same in regard to the very numerous rites in the Ancient Church, and afterwards in the Jewish Church; which in themselves were nothing but rituals in which there was not truth, but which were tolerated and permitted, and indeed commanded, because they were held as sacred by parents, and so were implanted in the minds of children and impressed upon them from infancy as truths.

[4] These and other such things are what are signified by the statement that the birds were not divided. For the things that are once implanted in a man’s opinion, and are accounted as holy, the Lord leaves intact, provided they are not contrary to Divine order; and although there is no parallelism and correspondence, still He adapts them. These same things are what was signified in the Jewish Church by the birds not being divided in the sacrifices; for to divide is to place the parts opposite to each other in such a manner that they may adequately correspond; and because the things which have been spoken of are not adequately in correspondence, they are obliterated in the other life with those who suffer themselves to be instructed, and truths themselves are implanted in their affections of good. That in the Jewish Church for the sake of this representation and signification the birds were not divided, is evident in Moses:

If his offering to Jehovah be a burnt-offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves or of the sons of the pigeon. And he shall cleave it with its wings, he shall not divide it (Leviticus 1:14, 17).

And the same in the case of the sacrifices for sin (Leviticus 5:7-8).