300. As regards the first arcanum, that 'Jehovah God' is used to mean the Lord and at the same time heaven, it should be recognized that in the Word, always for some hidden reason, the Lord is sometimes called simply Jehovah, sometimes Jehovah God, sometimes Jehovah and God interchangeably, sometimes the Lord Jehovah, sometimes the God of Israel, and sometimes simply God. In Genesis 1, for example, where again an utterance is made in the plural, 'Let Us make man in Our image', God is the only name used. Not until the next chapter, where the celestial man is the subject, is He called Jehovah God-Jehovah, because He alone has Being and is Living, and so from His essence; God, because of His ability to accomplish all things, and so from His power, as is clear in the Word where the two names are used separately, Isaiah 49:4-5; 55:7; Psalms 18:2, 28, 30-31; Psalms 38:15. Consequently any angel or spirit who spoke to a person, or who people thought had the ability to accomplish something, they called God, as is clear in David,

God stands in the assembly of God, in the midst of the Gods will He judge. Psalms 82:1.

And elsewhere in David,

Who in the sky will be compared to Jehovah? Who will be likened to Jehovah among the sons of gods? Psalms 89:6.

And elsewhere in the same,

Confess the God of Gods; confess the Lord of lords. Psalms 136:2-3

It is from power that even men are called 'gods', as in Psalms 82:6; John 10:34-35. And Moses is spoken of as 'a god to Pharaoh', Exodus 7:1. And this also is why [in Hebrew] the word for God, Elohim, is plural. But because angels have no power whatsoever from themselves, as they themselves also confess, but from the Lord only, and as there is but one God, Jehovah God is therefore used in the Word to mean the Lord alone. Yet when anything is accomplished through the ministry of angels He is spoken of in the plural, as in Genesis 1. In the present chapter too, since a celestial man, as man, did not bear comparison with the Lord, but with angels, it is therefore said that 'the man has become as one of Us in knowing good and evil', that is, become someone wise and having intelligence.

4730. 'And we shall see what his dreams are going to be' means that declarations concerning Him were by their reckoning false ones and were seen by them as such. This is clear from the meaning of 'dreams' as declarations, dealt with in 4682. Because these declarations seemed in their eyes to be falsities, 4726, 4729, 'dreams' here means declarations concerning Divine Truth - in particular the declaration that the Lord's Human is Divine - which in their view were false ones. The fact that they were also seen by them as falsities is meant by their saying, 'We shall see what they are going to be'. The fact that declarations concerning the Lord's Human seemed and still seem to be falsities to the adherents to faith alone may be seen from what has been stated immediately above at the end of 4729; for confirmations arising from a life of evil desires do not present themselves as anything else.

[2] A further reason why the life of evil desires leads to the confirmation of falsities is that those people do not know what heaven is or what hell is, nor also what love towards the neighbour is, and what self-love and love of the world are. If they did know what these were, indeed if they had merely the wish to know, their thoughts would be completely different. Who at the present day knows of love towards the neighbour as anything other than giving what he possesses to the poor, using his own wealth to help anyone else, and doing good to him in every possible way, irrespective of whether he is good or wicked? And because by doing this he would deprive himself of his own resources and would make himself poor and wretched, he therefore casts aside teaching concerning charity and embraces that concerning faith. Then he uses many ideas to confirm himself against charity, that is to say, the idea that he is born in sins and as a consequence cannot by himself do anything good at all; and that if he does do the works of charity or genuine piety he inevitably places merit in them. And when on the one hand he has thoughts like these, and on the other he is motivated by a life of evil desires, he associates himself with those who say that faith alone saves. In doing this he confirms himself all the more in that idea, until he is convinced that the works of charity are not necessary for salvation. Once these ideas have crystallized, he then easily accepts a new one - that because this is what a person is like the Lord has provided the means of salvation which is called faith. At length he accepts the idea that he is saved even in his final hour when he dies, provided that in confidence or trust he asks that God may be merciful to him by looking upon the Son as having suffered for his sake - giving no weight at all to what the Lord said in John 1:12-13, and in a thousand places elsewhere. So it is that faith alone has been acknowledged within Churches as the essential thing. But the reason it is not acknowledged everywhere in this way is that parish priests can gain nothing from faith alone, only from preaching about works.

[3] But if those same people had known what charity towards the neighbour really was they would never have fallen for this falsity that is taught. The fundamental requirement of charity is to act in an upright and just way in everything connected with one's duty or function. For example, if a judge punishes a wrong-doer in accordance with the laws, and does so out of zeal, he is moved by charity towards the neighbour, for he desires the reform, and so the good, of that person, as well as desiring what is good for the community and his country. He punishes him to prevent him doing further harm to the community, and so is able to love him if he is reformed - as a father loves a son whom he chastises - and in so doing loves the community and his country, which in general is his neighbour. The same applies to all other people in the duties or functions they perform. But in the Lord's Divine mercy these matters will be discussed more fully elsewhere.