3024. That thou shalt not take a woman for my son of the daughters of the Canaanite. That this signifies that the Divine rational was not to be conjoined with any affection disagreeing with truth, is evident from the signification of “taking a woman,” as being to be conjoined by a covenant of marriage; from the signification of “my son,” namely Isaac, as being the Lord’s Divine rational (see n. 1893, 2066, 2083, 2630); from the signification of “daughters,” as being affections (see n. 489-491, 568, 2362); and from the signification of the “Canaanite,” as being evil (see n. 1444, 1573, 1574); from which it is that the “daughters of the Canaanite” are affections that do not agree with truth. The subject here treated of is the Divine truth that was to be adjoined to the Divine good of the Lord’s rational, as may be seen from the Contents (n. 3013). By the “woman” who was to be associated by a covenant of marriage, is meant that truth itself, which was to be called forth from the natural man by the common way; by “my son” is meant the Lord’s rational in respect to good, to which it was to be adjoined or associated; hence it may be known that by “not taking a woman from the daughters of the Canaanite,” is signified that this rational was not to be conjoined with any affection that disagreed with truth. All conjunction of truth with good is effected by means of affection; for no truth can possibly enter into man’s rational and be conjoined there, except by means of affection; for in affection is the good of love, which alone conjoins (n. 1895); as may also be known to anyone who reflects.

[2] That the “daughters of the Canaanite” signify affections which disagree with truth, that is, affections of what is false, is evident from the signification of “daughters;” for daughters are mentioned in many passages of the Word, and everyone can see that daughters are not there meant, as where it is said, the “daughter of Zion,” the “daughter of Jerusalem,” the “daughter of Tarshish,” the “daughter of My people.” That by these are signified affections of good and of truth, has been shown in passages quoted above. And because they are affections of good and of truth, they are also churches, for churches are churches from these affections. Thus by the “daughter of Zion” is signified the celestial church, and this from the affection of good; but by the “daughter of Jerusalem” is signified the spiritual church, from the affection of truth (n. 2362); this is also signified by the “daughter of My people” (Isaiah 22:4; Jeremiah 6:14, 26; 8:19, 21-22; 14:17; Lam. 2:11; 4:6; Ezekiel 13:17).

[3] From this it is evident what is signified by the “daughters” of the nations; as by the “daughters of the Philistines,” the “daughters of Egypt,” the “daughters of Tyre and of Zidon,” the “daughters of Edom,” the “daughters of Moab,” the “daughters of the Chaldeans” and “of Babel,” and the “daughters of Sodom,” namely, the affections of evil and falsity from which were their religious systems, and thus the religious systems themselves. That such is the signification of “daughters,” may be seen from the passages that follow.

In Ezekiel:

The daughters of the nations shall lament for Egypt. Wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cause her to go down, her and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the earth of the regions below, with them that go down into the pit (Ezekiel 32:16, 18).

The “daughters of the famous nations” denote the affections of evil.

In Samuel:

Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph (2 Samuel 1:20).

In Ezekiel:

Thou hast committed whoredom with the sons of Egypt; I have delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of the reproach of the daughters of Syria, and of all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines which do despite unto thee round about (Ezekiel 16:26-27, 57).

That daughters are not meant here, anyone can see; but the religiosities of such as are signified by the Philistines, which are of such a kind that they talk much about faith and lead no life of faith (see n. 1197, 1198); for this reason they are also called the “uncircumcised,” that is, those who are devoid of charity.

[4] In Jeremiah:

Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin daughter of Egypt. O thou daughter that dwellest in Egypt, make thee vessels of exile. The daughter of Egypt shall be put to shame, she is delivered into the hand of the people of the north (Jeremiah 46:11, 19, 24).

The “daughter of Egypt” denotes the affection of reasoning from memory-knowledges concerning the truths of faith, as to whether they be so; thus she denotes the kind of religion that arises from this, which is such that nothing is believed except that which is comprehended by the senses, and thus nothing of the truth of faith (see n. 215, 232, 233, 1164, 1165, 1186, 1385, 2196, 2203, 2209, 2568, 2588).

[5] In Isaiah:

He said, Thou shalt no more exult, O thou oppressed daughter of Zidon (Isaiah 23:12).

And in David:

The daughter of Tyre with a gift, the rich among the people shall entreat thy faces (Psalms 45:12).

What is meant by the “daughter of Zidon” and the “daughter of Tyre,” is evident from the signification of Zidon and of Tyre (see n. 1201).

In Jeremiah:

Rejoice and be glad O daughter of Edom. Thine iniquity is consummated, O daughter of Zion. He will no more cause thee to migrate; thine iniquity shall be visited, O daughter of Edom (Lam. 4:21-22).

In Isaiah:

As a wandering bird, a nest sent forth, shall the daughters of Moab be (Isaiah 16:2).

Again:

Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babel; sit on the earth, without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans. Sit thou silent, and enter into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans, for thou shalt no more be called the lady of kingdoms (Isaiah 47:1, 5).

In Jeremiah:

A people cometh from the north set in array as a man to the battle, against thee, O daughter of Babel (Jeremiah 50:41-42).

The daughter of Babel is like a threshing-floor, it is time to thresh her (Jeremiah 51:33).

In Zechariah:

Alas O Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babel (Zech. 2:7).

In David:

The daughter of Babel is laid waste (Psalms 137:8).

In Ezekiel:

Thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their ancient estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their ancient estate (Ezekiel 16:55).

[6] Anyone can see that in these passages by “daughters” are not meant daughters, but affections that disagree with truth, and thus religiosities that come from this source; but what these religiosities are, is evident from the signification of the peoples named-as Edom, Moab, the Chaldeans, Babel, Sodom, and Samaria, which have been treated of in many places in the explications of the foregoing chapters of Genesis. Hence now it is evident what is here meant by the “daughters of the Canaanite.”

[7] That the Israelites were not to contract marriages with the daughters of the Canaanites, also had regard to the spiritual laws that good and falsity, and evil and truth are not to be joined together; for thence comes profanation. The prohibition was also representative of the matter concerning which we read in Deuteronomy 7:3; and in Malachi:

Judah hath profaned the holiness of Jehovah, in that he hath loved and hath married the daughter of a strange god (Malachi 2:11).

2196. And it was behind him. That this signifies near the good in which the rational then was, and separated from it insofar as anything of the human was in it, is evident from the fact that it is said of the door where Sarah was that it was “behind him.” To be “behind him” signifies not to be conjoined, but at his back. That which is separated from anyone is represented by a kind of rejection as it were to the back, as is evident from the representatives in the other life (concerning which from experience, n. 1393, 1875). This is here expressed by its being said that the door where Sarah was, was “behind him.”

[2] As regards the merely human rational truth which was then with the Lord being separated from Him when He conjoined Himself with the Divine, the case is this. Human rational truth does not apprehend Divine things, because these are above the sphere of its understanding, for this truth communicates with the memory-knowledges which are in the natural man, and in so far as it looks from these at the things which are above itself, so far it does not acknowledge them. For this truth is in appearances, which it is not able to put off; and appearances are born from sensuous things, which induce a belief as if Divine things themselves also were of a like nature, when yet these are exempt from all appearances, and when they are stated, this rational truth cannot possibly believe them, because it cannot apprehend them.

[3] If for example it is stated that man has no life except what is from the Lord, the rational supposes from appearances that in that case man cannot live as of himself; whereas he for the first time truly lives when he perceives that he does so from the Lord.

[4] The rational supposes from appearances that the good which man does is from himself, and yet there is nothing of good from self, but all is from the Lord.

[5] From appearances the rational supposes that man merits salvation when he does what is good; whereas of himself man can merit nothing, but all merit is the Lord’s.

[6] From appearances man supposes that when he is withheld from evil and is kept in good by the Lord, there is nothing with him but what is good and just, nay, holy; whereas there is nothing in man but what is evil, unjust, and profane.

[7] From appearances man supposes that when he does what is good from charity, he does it from his will; whereas it is not from his will part, but from his intellectual part, in which charity has been implanted.

[8] From appearances man supposes that there can be no glory without the glory of the world; whereas in the glory of heaven there is not a particle of the world’s glory.

[9] From appearances man supposes that no one can love his neighbor more than himself, but that all love begins from self; when yet in heavenly love there is nothing of the love of self.

[10] From appearances man supposes that there can be no light but that which is from the light of the world; whereas in the heavens there is not one whit of the light of the world, and yet the light is so great that it surpasses the world’s noon day light a thousand times.

[11] From appearances man supposes that the Lord cannot shine before the universal heaven as a sun; when yet all the light of heaven is from Him.

[12] From appearances man cannot apprehend that in the other life there are motions forward; whereas those who are there appear to themselves to move forward just as do men on earth-in their dwellings, courts, and paradises; and still less can he apprehend if it is said that these movings forward are changes of state, which so appear.

[13] Nor can man from appearances apprehend that spirits and angels, who are invisible before our eyes, can be seen; nor that they can speak with man; when yet they appear to the internal sight, or that of the spirit, more manifestly than man does to man on earth; and their voices are heard as distinctly; besides thousands of thousands of such things, which man’s rational, from its own light, born from things of sense, and thereby darkened, cannot possibly believe. Nay, the rational is blinded in natural things themselves, not being able to apprehend, for instance, how those who dwell on the opposite side of the globe can stand on their feet and walk; and it is the same with very many other things. How blind then must the rational not be in spiritual and heavenly things, which are far above natural things?

[14] As the human rational is of such a character, it is here said of it that it was separated when the Lord in Divine perception was united to the Divine, which is signified by the standing of Sarah (who is here such rational truth) at the door of the tent, and by this being behind him.