2842. And said, By Myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah. That this signifies irrevocable confirmation from the Divine, namely, concerning the things which follow, is evident from the signification of “saying by Myself have I sworn,” and of “saith Jehovah;” all which involve confirmation, and indeed from the Divine, that is, from Himself. The Divine cannot confirm from any other source than from Itself; and what it confirms is irrevocable, because it is eternal truth. Whatever Jehovah or the Lord speaks is eternal truth (Matthew 24:35), for it comes from the very being of truth. But His confirming it as it were by an oath (as here and elsewhere in the Word) is not for the reason that it may be more true, but for the reason that it is said to such as do not receive truth Divine unless it is so confirmed; for they have no other idea of Jehovah or the Lord than as of a man, who can say, and change, as we frequently read in the Word; but in the internal sense it is very different. Everyone may know that Jehovah or the Lord never confirms anything by an oath; but when the Divine truth itself, and its confirmation, passes down to a man of such nature, it is turned into the semblance of an oath.

The case herein is as it was with the devouring fire and smoke that appeared upon Mount Sinai before the eyes of the people, when Jehovah or the Lord came down (Exodus 19:18; Deuteronomy 4:11-12; 5:19-21): His glory in heaven, even mercy itself, appeared in this manner before the people there, who were in evil and falsity (see n. 1861); and the case is the same with many things called the sayings and doings of Jehovah that are spoken of in the Word. It may be seen from this that the expression, “by Myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah,” is significative of irrevocable confirmation from the Divine.

[2] That to “swear,” when predicated of Jehovah, signifies to confirm with a man who is of such nature, may be seen from many other passages in the Word; as in David:

Jehovah remembered His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations; which He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac (Psalms 105:8-9).

The case is the same with a covenant as with an oath, in that Jehovah or the Lord does not make a covenant with man, but when conjunction by love and charity is treated of, this is set forth in act as a covenant (see n. 1864). In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest forever, after the manner of Melchizedek ¹ (Psalms 110:4).

This is said concerning the Lord, and “Jehovah hath sworn” denotes irrevocable confirmation from the Divine, that is, that it is eternal truth.

[3] In the same:

I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to generation and generation (Psalms 89:3-4).

This also is concerning the Lord: to “make a covenant with the chosen,” and to “swear unto David,” denote irrevocable confirmation or eternal truth; “David” denotes the the Lord, (n. 1888); to “make a covenant” regards the Divine good; to “swear,” the Divine truth. In the same:

My covenant will I not profane nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips; once have I sworn by My holiness, I will not lie unto David (Psalms 89:34-35); where also “David” denotes the Lord; the “covenant” here likewise has regard to the Divine good; and the “thing that has gone out of My lips,” to the Divine truth, and this on account of the marriage of good and truth which is in everything in the Word (see n. 683, 793, 801, 2516, 2712).

[4] In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn unto David in truth, He will not turn from it. Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne, if thy sons will keep My covenant, and My testimony that I shall teach them (Psalms 132:11-12);

“Jehovah hath sworn unto David in truth” manifestly denotes the confirmation of eternal truth; and therefore it is said, “He will not turn from it; “that by David is meant the Lord has been stated already; the oath was still “to David,” because he was of such a character that he believed that the confirmation was concerning himself and his posterity; for David was in the love of himself and of his posterity, and hence believed that it was concerning him; that is, as said above, that his seed should be established forever, and his throne to generation and generation; but this was said of the Lord.

[5] In Isaiah:

This is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee (Isaiah 54:9); where to “swear” denotes making a covenant and confirming it by an oath. That it was a covenant, and not an oath, may be seen in Genesis 9:11. In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass (Isaiah 14:24).

In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength (Isaiah 62:8).

In Jeremiah:

Hear ye the word of Jehovah, all Judah, that dwell in the land of Egypt; behold I have sworn by My great name, saith Jehovah, that My name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah, saying, As the Lord Jehovih liveth, in all the land of Egypt (Jeremiah 44:26).

By Myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, that Bozrah shall become a desolation (Jeremiah 49:13).

In the same:

Jehovah Zebaoth hath sworn by His soul, Surely I will fill thee with men as with the locust (Jeremiah 51:14).

In Amos:

The Lord Jehovih hath sworn by His holiness, that behold the days shall come (Amos 4:2).

In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their deeds (Amos 8:7).

[6] In these passages, “Jehovah swearing by His right hand,” “by His great name,” by “Himself,” by His “soul,” by His “holiness,” by the “excellency of Jacob,” signifies the confirmation there is in Jehovah or the Lord. A confirmation by Jehovah can be given only from Himself. The “right hand of Jehovah,” the “great name of Jehovah,” the “soul of Jehovah,” the “holiness of Jehovah,” the “excellency of Jacob,” signify the Lord’s Divine Human: “swearing” thereby was confirmation.

[7] Jehovah or the Lord “swearing” to give the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or to their posterity, signifies in the internal sense the confirmation that He would give the heavenly kingdom to those who are in love to Him and faith in Him. It is they who are meant in the internal sense of the Word by the sons and the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or of the fathers; which was also actually represented by the fact that the land of Canaan was given to their posterity, and that the church at that time with them represented the Lord’s heavenly kingdom, as the land itself also did. (That “land” and the “land of Canaan” in the internal sense is the Lord’s kingdom, may be seen above, n. 1413, 1437, 1607.) It is from this that it is said in Moses:

That ye may prolong your days upon the ground which Jehovah sware unto your fathers, to give unto them, and to their seed, a land flowing with milk and honey; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the ground which Jehovah sware unto your fathers, to give them, as the days of the heavens upon the earth (Deuteronomy 11:9, 21).

From these passages it must now be evident that Jehovah’s “swearing” was representative of confirmation, and indeed of an irrevocable one. This is still more plainly manifest in Isaiah:

By Myself have I sworn, the word of righteousness is gone forth from My mouth, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear (Isaiah 45:23).

[8] Moreover it was enjoined upon those who were of the representative Jewish Church, that when they confirmed covenants by an oath, and likewise vows, also promises, and sureties, they should “swear by the name of Jehovah.” The reason why this was enjoined upon them, although it was only permitted, was that the confirmation of the internal man also would thus be represented; so that oaths at that time in the name of Jehovah, were as other things were, namely, representative. That it was enjoined, that is, permitted, is evident in Moses:

Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God, and Him shall thou serve, and shalt swear by His name; ye shall not go after other gods (Deuteronomy 6:13-14).

Again in the same:

Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God, Him shalt thou serve and to Him shalt thou cleave, and shalt swear by His name (Deuteronomy 10:20).

In Isaiah:

He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth, and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth (Isaiah 65:16).

In Jeremiah:

If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith Jehovah, unto Me shall thou return; and if thou wilt put away thine abominations from before Me, waver not; and thou shalt swear, Jehovah liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness (Jeremiah 4:1-2).

In the same:

If learning they will learn the ways of My people, to swear by My name, then they shall be built up in the midst of My people (Jeremiah 12:16).

That they also swore “by the name of Jehovah,” or swore “to Jehovah,” may be seen in Isaiah:

Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, that are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, that swear by the name of Jehovah, and have made mention of the God of Israel, not in truth, and not in righteousness (Isaiah 48:1).

In the same:

In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Jehovah Zebaoth (Isa 19:18).

In Joshua:

The princes of the congregation sware to the Gibeonites by Jehovah the God of Israel (Josh. 9:18-19).

[9] From this it is evident that they were permitted to swear by the name of Jehovah, or by Jehovah; yet it is evident that this was nothing else than a representative of the confirmation of the internal man. But it is known that internal men, that is, those who have conscience, have no need to confirm anything by an oath; and that they do not thus confirm. To them oaths are a cause of shame. They can indeed say with some asseveration that a thing is so, and can also confirm the truth by reasons; but to swear that it is so, they cannot. They have an internal bond by which they are bound, namely, that of conscience. To superadd to this an external bond, which is an oath, is like imputing to them that they are not upright in heart. The internal man is also of such a character that he loves to speak and act from freedom, but not from compulsion; for with them the internal compels the external, but not the reverse. On this account they who have conscience do not swear; still less do they who have perception of good and truth, that is, celestial men. These do not even confirm themselves or one another by reasons, but merely say that a thing is so, or is not so (n. 202, 337, 2718); wherefore they are still further removed from taking an oath.

[10] For these reasons, and because oaths were among the representatives which were to be abrogated, the Lord taught that we are not to swear at all, in these words in Matthew:

Ye have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself; but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king; neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matthew 5:33-37).

By these words is meant that we are not to swear at all by Jehovah, nor by anything which is of Jehovah or the Lord.

Footnotes:

6148. Only the ground of the priests bought he not. That this signifies that the internal procured for itself from the natural, capacities to receive good, because these are from itself, is evident from the representation of Joseph, of whom these things are said, as being the internal (of which above); from the signification of the “ground,” as being the receptacle of truth (of which also above, n. 6135-6137), here the capacity to receive good, for capacity is receptibility, and this must be within it, in order that a receptacle may be a receptacle. This capacity comes from good, that is, through good from the Lord; for unless the good of love flowed in from the Lord, no man would have the capacity to receive either truth or good. It is the influx of good of love from the Lord which causes all things within man to be disposed for reception. That the capacity to receive good is from the natural, is signified by the ground being in Egypt, for by “Egypt” is signified the natural in respect to memory-knowledges (n. 6142). The internal sense as given above is further evident from the signification of “priests,” as being good (of which in what follows); and from the signification of “not buying,” as being not to appropriate to himself these capacities as he had appropriated to himself truths and the goods of truth with their receptacles (which was done by means of desolations and sustainings), for the reason that these capacities were from himself, that is, from the internal. Thus it is that by these words, “Only the ground of the priests bought he not” is signified that the internal procured for itself from the natural, capacities to receive good, because these are from itself.

[2] The case herein is this. The capacities in man to receive truth and good are immediately from the Lord, nor does man render any aid in the procuring of them. For man is always kept in the capacity to receive good and truth, and from this capacity he has understanding and will; but a man’s not receiving them is the result of his turning to evil: the capacity does indeed then remain, but the approach to the thought and feeling of them is closed against him; and therefore the capacity to see truth and feel good perishes in proportion as a man turns himself to evil and confirms himself therein in life and faith. That man contributes nothing whatever to the capacity to receive truth and good, is known from the doctrine of the church, that nothing of the truth of faith and nothing of the good of charity comes from man, but that all comes from the Lord. Nevertheless a man can destroy this capacity in himself. From this it may now be seen how it is to be understood that the internal procured for itself from the natural, capacities to receive good, because these are from itself. It is said “from the natural,” because the influx of good from the Lord is effected by the Lord through the internal into the natural. When a capacity to receive has been acquired in the natural, then there is influx, for then there is reception (as may be seen above, n. 5828).

[3] In regard to goods being signified by “priests,” be it known that there are two things which proceed from the Lord, namely, good and truth. The Divine good was represented by priests, and the Divine truth by kings. Hence it is that by “priests” are signified goods, and by “kings” truths. (Concerning the priesthood and royalty which are predicated of the Lord, see n. 1728, 2015, 3670.) In the Ancient Representative Church the priesthood and the royalty were joined together in one person, because the good and truth which proceed from the Lord are united, and in heaven with the angels are also joined together.

[4] The person in whom these two things in the Ancient Church were joined together was called “Melchizedek,” or “King of Righteousness,” as may be seen from the Melchizedek who came to Abraham, of whom it is thus written:

Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest to God Most High; and he blessed Abraham (Genesis 14:18-19).

That he represented the Lord as to both is manifest from the fact that he was king and at the same time priest, and that he was allowed to bless Abraham and to offer him bread and wine, which at that time also were symbols of the good of love and the truth of faith. That Melchizedek represented the Lord as to both is further manifest from David:

Jehovah hath sworn and He will not repent, Thou art a priest eternally after the manner of Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4);

which was said of the Lord; “after the manner of Melchizedek” means that he was both king and priest, that is, in the supreme sense, that from Him proceed the Divine good and the Divine truth together.

[5] Moreover as a representative church was instituted with the posterity of Jacob, therefore in one person conjointly was represented the Divine good and the Divine truth which proceed united from the Lord. But on account of the wars and of the idolatry of that people, these two offices were at first divided, and they who ruled over the people were called “leaders,” and afterward “judges;” while they who officiated in holy things were called “priests,” and were of the seed of Aaron, and Levites. Yet afterward these two offices were joined together in one person, as in Eli and in Samuel. But because the people were of such a character that a representative church could not be instituted among them, but only the representative of a church, by reason of the idolatrous disposition which prevailed among them, therefore it was permitted that the two offices should be separated, and that the Lord as to Divine truth should be represented by kings, and as to Divine good by priests. That this was done at the will of the people, and not of the Lord’s good pleasure, is manifest from the word of Jehovah unto Samuel:

Obey the voice of the people in all that they shall say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them; and thou shalt show them the king’s right (1 Samuel 8:7 to the end, and 12:19-20).

[6] The reason why these two offices were not to be separated, was that the Divine truth separated from the Divine good condemns everyone; whereas the Divine truth united to the Divine good saves. For from the Divine truth man is condemned to hell, but by the Divine good he is taken out therefrom, and is elevated into heaven. Salvation is of mercy, thus from the Divine good; but damnation is when man refuses mercy, and thus rejects from himself the Divine good; wherefore he is left to judgment from truth. (That kings represented the Divine truth may be seen, n. 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 5068.)

[7] That priests represented the Lord as to Divine good, and that from this they signify good, may be seen from all those things in the internal sense which were instituted with respect to the priesthood when Aaron was chosen, and afterward the Levites; as that the high priest alone should enter into the Holy of holies and there minister; that the holy things of Jehovah should be for the priest (Leviticus 23:20; 27:21); that they should not have a portion and inheritance in the land, but that Jehovah should be their portion and inheritance (Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:1); that the Levites were given to Jehovah instead of the firstborn, and that by Jehovah they were given to Aaron (Numbers 3:9, 12-13, 40 to the end; 8:16-19); that the high priest with the Levites should be in the midst of the camp when they pitched and when they set forward (Numbers 1:50-54; 2:17; 3:23-38; 4:1 to the end); that no one of the seed of Aaron in whom was any blemish should come near to offer burnt-offerings and sacrifices (Leviticus 21:17-21); besides many other things (see Leviticus 21:9-13, and elsewhere).

[8] All these things represented in the supreme sense the Divine good of the Lord, and thus in the relative sense the good which is of love and of charity. But the garments of Aaron, which were called the “garments of holiness,” represented the Divine truth from the Divine good; concerning which garments of the Lord’s Divine mercy more shall be said in the explications of what is written in Exodus.

[9] As truth is signified by “kings,” and good by “priests,” therefore in the Word “kings and priests” are frequently mentioned together; as in Revelation:

Jesus Christ hath made us kings and priests to God and His Father (Revelation 1:5-6; 5:10);

“kings” are said to be “made” from the truth which is of faith, and “priests” from the good which is of charity. Thus with those who are in the Lord truth and good are joined together, as they are in heaven (as was said above), and this is meant by “being made kings and priests.”

[10] In Jeremiah:

It shall come to pass in that day that the heart of the king and of the princes shall perish; and the priests shall be amazed; and the prophets shall wonder (Jeremiah 4:9).

Again:

The house of Israel are ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets (Jeremiah 2:26).

Again:

The kings of Judah, the princes, the priests, and the prophets, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 8:1).

In these passages “kings” denote truths; “princes,” primary truths (n. 1482, 2089, 5044); “priests,” goods; and “prophets,” those who teach (n. 2534).

[11] Be it known further that the fact of Joseph’s not buying the ground of the priests was a representative that all capacity to receive truth and good is from the Lord, is evident from a similar law concerning the fields of the Levites in Moses:

The field of the suburbs of the cities of the Levites may not be sold; for it is their eternal possession (Leviticus 25:34);

by this is meant in the internal sense that no man ought to claim for himself anything of the good of the church, which is the good of love and of charity, because this is from the Lord alone.