3623. 'What would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. This is clear from the meaning of 'life' as conjunction by means of truths and goods. For when it was not possible for any truth from a common stem or genuine source to be joined to natural truth, there could not be any alliance of the natural to the truth of the rational, in which case it seemed to the rational as though its own life were no life, 3493, 3620. This is why here 'what would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. Here and in other places the word 'life' in the original language is plural, and the reason for this is that in man there are two powers of life. The first is called the understanding and is the receptacle of truth, the second is called the will and is the receptacle of good. These two forms or powers of life make one when the understanding is rooted in the will, or what amounts to the same, when truth is grounded in good. This explains why in Hebrew the noun 'life' is sometimes singular, sometimes plural. The plural form of that noun is used in all the following places, Jehovah God formed the man, dust from the ground; and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7. Jehovah God caused to spring up out of the ground every tree desirable to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden. Genesis 2:9. Behold, I am bringing a flood of waters over the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 6:17.

They went in to Noah into the ark, two by two from all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 7:15 (in 780).

Everything which had the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils breathed its last. Genesis 7:12.

In David,

I believe [I am going] to see the goodness of Jehovah in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

In the same author,

Who is the man who desires life, who loves [many] days, that he may see good? Psalms 34:12

In the same author,

With You, O Jehovah, is the fountain of life; in Your light do we see light. Psalms 36:9.

In Malachi,

My covenant with Levi was [a covenant] of life and peace. Malachi 2:5.

In Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah, Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. Jeremiah 21:8.

In Moses,

To love Jehovah your God, to obey His voice, and to cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days, so that you may dwell in the land. Deuteronomy 30:20.

In the same author,

It is not an empty word from you; for it is your life, and through this word you will prolong your days in the land. Deuteronomy 32:47.

And in other places too the plural form of the noun 'life' is used in the original language because, as has been stated, there are two kinds of life which yet make one. It is similar with the word 'heavens' in the Hebrew language, in that the heavens are many and yet make one, or like the expression 'waters' above and below, in Genesis 1:7-9 , by which spiritual things in the rational and in the natural are meant which ought to be one through being joined together. As for the plural form of 'life', when this is used both the life of the will and that of the understanding are meant, and therefore both the life of good and that of truth are meant. For man's life consists in nothing else than good and truth which hold life from the Lord within them. Devoid of good and truth, and of the life which these hold within them, no one is human. For devoid of these no one would ever have been able to will or to think anything. Everything that a person wills originates in good or in that which is not good, and everything he thinks originates in truth or in that which is not truth. Consequently man possesses two kinds of life and these make one when his thinking flows from his willing, that is, when truth which is the truth of faith flows from good which is the good of love.

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.