8910. 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male slave nor his female slave, nor his ox nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbour's' means that one must be on one's guard against self-love and love of the world, and so one must take care to prevent the evils contained in the preceding commandments from becoming present in the will and consequently going out of it. This is clear from the meaning of 'coveting' as a wanting that springs from an evil love. The reason why 'coveting' has this meaning is that all covetousness or craving exists as the result of some kind of love. For nothing is coveted unless there is a love of it, and therefore covetousness extends as a continuation from some kind of love, in this instance from self-love and love of the world. It is so to speak the life of what those loves breathe, for what an evil kind of love breathes is called covetousness or craving, whereas what a good kind breathes is called desire. The love itself belongs to one of two parts of the mind, which is called the will; for what a person loves, that he wills and intends. but covetousness belongs to both parts, to both the will and the understanding, that is, it is an attribute of the will within the understanding, to be precise. All this shows why it is that the words 'you shall not covet the things that are your neighbour's' mean that one must take care to prevent them from becoming present in the will, since what takes possession of the will becomes the person's own; for, to be sure, the will is the real person.

[2] The world believes that thought is the person. But there are two powers that constitute a person's life - understanding and will - and thought belongs to the understanding, the affection inherent in love being what belongs to the will. Thought without the affection inherent in love does not in any way at all constitute a person's life; but thought springing from such affection, that is, the understanding springing from the will, does constitute it. Those two powers are distinct from each other, which is evident to anyone who stops to reflect on the matter from the consideration that with his understanding a person can perceive that that thing is bad which his will desires, and that that thing is good which his will either does or does not desire. From all this it is plain that the will is the real person, not his thought, except so far as anything passes into it from the will. So it is that things which enter a person's thought but do not pass on through it into his will do not render him unclean; only those which pass through thought on into the will do so. The reason why the latter render a person unclean is that he takes them to himself then and makes them his; for the will, as has been stated, is the real person. The things which become part of his will are said to go into his heart and to go out from there, whereas those which are merely part of his thought are said to go into the mouth and to go out by way of the bowels into the sewer, according to the Lord's words in Matthew,

Not what enters the mouth renders a person unclean, but what comes out of the mouth, this renders the person unclean. Everything that goes into the mouth departs into the bowels and is cast out into the sewer. But the things which come out of the mouth come out of the heart, and these render a person unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, ravishments, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Matthew 15:11, 17-19.

[3] From these words as from all the others the nature of the Lord's manner of speaking becomes clear. That is, its nature was such that internal or spiritual matters were meant, but they were expressed by means of external or natural things and in accordance with correspondences. For the mouth corresponds to thought, and so do all parts of the mouth, such as the lips, tongue, and throat, while the heart corresponds to the affection inherent in love, and so to the will. For the correspondence of the heart to these, see 2930, 3313, 3883-3896, 7542. Consequently 'entering the mouth' is entering thought, and 'going out of the heart' is going out of the will. 'Departing into the bowels and being cast out into the sewer (or latrine)' is going away into hell; for the bowels correspond to the way to hell, while the sewer or latrine corresponds to hell itself. Hell also in the Word is called 'the latrine'. All this shows what is meant by 'everything that goes into the mouth departs into the bowels and is cast out into the sewer', namely that evil and falsity are introduced into a person's thought by hell and are discharged back there again. Such evil and falsity cannot render a person unclean because they are discharged from him. For a person cannot help thinking what is evil, but he can refrain from doing it. As soon however as he receives evil from his thought into his will it does not go out but enters into him; and this is said 'to enter the heart'. The things that go out from here are what render him unclean; for what a person desires in his will goes out into speech and action, so far as external restraints do not inhibit him, those restraints being fear of the law, and fear of the loss of reputation, position, gain, or life. From all this it is now evident that 'you shall not covet' means that one must take care to prevent evils from becoming present in the will and consequently going out of it.

[4] The fact that 'covetousness' is a craving or lusting on the part of the will, and so of the heart, is also clear from the Lord's words in Matthew,

You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that if anyone looks at a woman ¹ so that he lusts after her he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28.

'Lusting for' is used here to mean desiring in the will, and - but for the fears acting as external restraints - also doing. This is why it says that one who looks at a woman so that he lusts after her has committed adultery with her in his heart.

[5] Lusting after what is evil is also meant by 'the right eye causing one to stumble', and lusting after what is false by 'the right hand causing one to stumble' in the Lord's words, again in Matthew,

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you; for it will be better for you that one of your members perish, than that your whole body be cast into gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you; for it will be better for you that one of your members perish, than that your whole body be cast into gehenna. Matthew 5:29-30.

From these words the Lord's way of saying things is again clear. That is to say, He was speaking from the Divine, as in every other place in the Word, in such a way that He expressed inward and heavenly matters through outward or natural ones in accordance with correspondences. In this instance He expressed an affection for evil or lusting after it by 'the right eye causing one to stumble', and an affection for falsity or lusting after it by 'the right hand causing one to stumble'. For the eye corresponds to faith, the left eye to the truth of faith, and the right eye to the good of faith, or in the contrary sense to the evil of faith, so that 'the right eye causing one to stumble' corresponds to lusting after what is evil, 4403-4421, 4523-4534. But the hand corresponds to the power that truth possesses, the right hand to the power of truth coming from good, or in the contrary sense the power of falsity coming from evil, so that 'the right hand causing one to stumble' corresponds to a lusting after it, 3091, 4931-4937, 8281. 'Gehenna' is the hell of lusts, cravings, or covetousness. Anyone may see that here 'the right eye' was not used to mean the right eye or that it was to be plucked out; also that 'the right hand' was not used to mean the right hand or that it was to be cut off, but that something other was meant. What this is cannot be known unless one knows what is really meant by 'the eye', in particular by 'the right eye', also what is meant by 'the hand', and in particular by 'the right hand', as well as what 'causing to stumble' really means. Nor can the meaning of these expressions be known except from the internal sense.

[6] Lusts, cravings, or covetous desires are what spring from an evil will, thus from a heart that is such; and according to the Lord's words in Matthew 15:19, murders, adulteries, ravishments, thefts, false witness, blasphemies come out of the heart or will, that is, the kinds of evils contained in the preceding commandments of the Decalogue. In all this lies the reason for saying that this - 'you must not covet the things which are your neighbour's' - means that one must take care to prevent the evils contained in the ''receding commandments from becoming present in the will and consequently going out of it. The reason why 'you shall not covet the things which are your neighbour's' also means that one must be on one's guard against self-love and love of the world is that all the evils composing covetousness well up from those loves as their source, see 2045, 7178, 7255, 7366 7377, 7488, 8318, 8678.

Footnotes:

7542. 'Onto your heart' means into what is inmost. This is clear from the meaning of 'heart' as that which belongs to a person's will, thus to his love, dealt with in 2930, 3317, 3888, 3889, consequently what is central to the actual life within him; for his love, belonging intrinsically to his will, constitutes that life within him. This is why 'heart' means what is inmost. What is inmost in the case of the good is love to the Lord and love towards the neighbour, whereas what is inmost in the case of the evil is self-love and love of the world. The latter is what is meant here; and what is around it, constituting so to speak the surrounding parts, are the evils and falsities that lend support, arranged into order according to the ways in which they support it. In the next life they are brought out into the open in the order in which they have been arranged. First to come forth are those that occupy the outermost surrounding parts, then those that lie further in; and finally what is inmost is revealed. So it is that a person in the next life passes through a large number of states, and that the evil are afflicted in successive stages by scourges or plagues before they are cast into hell, as accords with what has been stated immediately above. What is inmost, which they come to last of all, is hell itself residing with them, for it is the evil that had been central to their love, and so the end which they held in view in everything they did and which in the world they had kept deeply hidden within them.

6148. 'Only the ground of the priests he did not buy' means that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself. This is clear from the representation of 'Joseph', about whom these things are said, as the internal, dealt with already; from the meaning of 'the ground' as the receptacle of truth, dealt with above in 6135-6137, at this point the capacity to receive good, for the capacity of something is its inherent ability to receive, which causes a receptacle to be a receptacle (that capacity comes from good, that is, from the Lord through good, for if the good of love did not flow in from the Lord no one would ever have the capacity to receive truth or good. That inflow of the good of love from the Lord causes everything present inwardly in a person to be of a receptive nature. The truth that the capacity to receive good comes from the natural is meant by the fact that the ground lay in Egypt, since 'Egypt' means the natural in respect of factual knowledge, 6142); from the meaning of 'the priests' as good, dealt with below; and from the meaning of 'not buying' as not taking those capacities to itself - not in the way that it made truths and forms of the good of truth, together with their receptacles, its own, which came about through periods of desolation and sustainment - for the reason that those capacities came from itself, from the internal. All these meanings serve to show that 'only the ground of the priests he did not buy' means that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself.

[2] The implications of all this are that a person's capacities to receive truth and good come directly from the Lord; he obtains them without any help at all from himself. A person's capacity to receive goodness and truth is maintained in him unceasingly; and from that capacity he possesses understanding and will. But a person does not receive them if he turns to evil. The capacity to receive does, it is true, remain, but its access to thought and sensitivity is blocked, on account of which his capacity to see what is true and have a sensitive awareness of what is good perishes. And it perishes to the extent that he turns to evil and in faith and life becomes firmly settled in it. The fact that a person contributes nothing whatever to his capacity to receive truth and good is well known from the Church's teaching that nothing at all of the truth of faith and nothing at all of the good of charity comes from man but from the Lord. Yet a person can destroy that capacity residing with him. From all this one may now see how one should understand the idea that the internal obtained for itself from the natural every capacity to receive good, because every such capacity came from itself. The expression 'from the natural' is used because the inflow of good from the Lord is effected by the Lord through the internal into the natural; and once the capacity to receive has been obtained from there, the inflow takes place, for now there is reception, see 5828.

[3] So far as the meaning of 'the priests' as forms of good is concerned, it should be recognized that there are two realities which go forth from the Lord - goodness and truth. Divine Good was represented by priests, and Divine Truth by kings; and this is why 'the priests' means forms of good and 'the kings' truths. Regarding the attribution of Priesthood and Kingship to the Lord, see 1728, 2015 (end), 3670. In the representative Ancient Church those two offices of priest and king existed jointly in one personage, the reason for this being that goodness and truth which go forth from the Lord are united; and they are also joined together in heaven among the angels.

[4] A personage in the Ancient Church in whom the two offices existed joined together was called Melchizedek, a name meaning king of righteousness. This may be seen from the following statement about Melchizedek who came to Abraham, ¹

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

His representation of the Lord in both offices is evident from the fact that he was a king and at the same time a priest, and from the fact that he was allowed to bless Abraham and offer him bread and wine, which even at that time were the symbols of the good of love and the truth of faith. His representation of the Lord in both offices is further evident in David,

Jehovah has sworn and will not repent, You are a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek. Psalms 110:4.

These words were spoken in reference to the Lord. 'After the manner of Melchizedek' means that He is both King and Priest, that is, in the highest sense that Divine Good and Divine Truth go forth together from Him.

[5] Because a representative Church was going to be established also among the descendants of Jacob, they too were to have a single personage to represent jointly Divine Good and Divine Truth, which go forth from the Lord united. But on account of the wars and the idolatry of that people the two were in fact divided right from the start; those who ruled over the attended to sacred duties were referred to as the priests, who belonged to the seed of Aaron and were the Levites. At a later time the two functions were joined together in a single person, as they were in Eli and Samuel. Yet because the nature of the people was such that the representative Church could not be established among them, only a representative of the Church, on account of the practice of idolatry prevalent among them, the two functions were allowed to be separated. The Lord was then represented in respect of Divine Truth by kings and in respect of Divine Good by priests. The separation took place because the people desired it, not because the Lord took any pleasure in it, as is clear from the Word of Jehovah to Samuel,

Obey the voice of the people in all that they have said to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them; and show them the right of the king. 1 Samuel 8:7-end; 12:19-20.

[6] The reason why the two functions were not meant to be separated was that Divine Truth separated from Divine Good condemns all people, whereas Divine Truth united to Divine Good saves them. Judged by Divine Truth a person is condemned to hell, but Divine Good brings him out of there and raises him into heaven. Salvation comes of mercy and so sprigs from Divine Good; but damnation exists when a person rejects mercy and so casts Divine Good away from himself, as a consequence of which he is left to be judged by Truth. As regards 'kings' representing Divine Truth, see 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 5068.

[7] 'The priests' represented the Lord in respect of Divine Good, and for that reason good is meant by them. This becomes clear from the internal sense of all that was prescribed regarding the priesthood when Aaron was chosen, and after him the Levites, such as these prescriptions:

The High Priest alone should enter the Holy of holies and minister there. [Leviticus 16.]

Things holy to Jehovah were to be for the priest. Leviticus 23:20; 27:21.

They were not to have any portion or inheritance in the land, but Jehovah would be their portion and inheritance. Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:1.

The Levites were given to Jehovah instead of the firstborn, and they were given by Jehovah to Aaron. Numbers 3:9, 12-13, Numbers 3:40-end; 8:16-19.

The high priest and the Levites were to be in the middle of the camp when they pitched it and when they were journeying. Numbers 1:50-54; 2:17; 3:23-38; 4:1-end.

No one from the seed of Aaron who had a blemish in himself was to approach to offer burnt offerings or sacrifices. Leviticus 21:17-20.

And there are many other prescriptions besides these, such as those in Leviticus 21:9-13, and elsewhere.

[8] In the highest sense all these prescriptions relating to the priests represented the Lord's Divine Good and therefore in the relative sense the good of love and charity. Aaron's vestments however, called 'vestments of holiness', represented Divine Truth from Divine Good. These matters will in the Lord's Divine mercy be dealt with in the explanations of what appears in Exodus.

[9] Since truth is meant by 'kings' and good by 'priests', 'kings and priests' are mentioned together many times in the Word, as in John, Jesus Christ has made us kings and priests to His God and Father. Revelation 1:6; 5:10.

By virtue of the truth of faith we are said to have been made 'kings', and by virtue of the good of charity to have been made 'priests', so that the truth and good residing with those who abide in the Lord have been joined together, in the way they are in heaven, as stated above. This is what is meant by 'being made kings and priests'.

[10] In Jeremiah,

It will happen on that day, that the heart of the king and of the princes will perish, and the priests will be dumbfounded and the prophets left wondering. Jeremiah 4:9.

In the same prophet,

The house of Israel is ashamed, they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets. Jeremiah 2:26.

In the same prophet,

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

In these places 'kings stands for truths, 'princes' for first and foremost truths, 1482, 1089, 5044, 'priests' for forms of good, and 'prophets' for those who teach, 2534.

[11] Quite apart from this it should be recognized that Joseph did not buy the ground of the priests. The fact that this was representative of the consideration that the whole of a person's capacity to receive truth and good comes from the Lord is evident from a similar law in Moses regarding the fields belonging to the Levites,

The field of the country surrounding the cities of the Levites shall not be sold, for it is their eternal possession. Leviticus 25:34.

The meaning here in the internal sense is that no one ought to lay any claim to the good of the Church, which is the good of love and charity, because that good is from the Lord alone.

Footnotes: