2803. That the Divine Truth is the “son,” and the Divine Good the “father,” is evident from the signification of a “son,” as being truth (see n. 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2633); and of a “father,” as being good; and also from the conception and birth of truth, which is from good. Truth cannot be and come forth [existere] from any other source than good, as has been shown many times. That the “son” here is the Divine Truth, and the “father” the Divine Good, is because the union of the Divine Essence with the Human, and of the Human Essence with the Divine, is the Divine marriage of Good with Truth, and of Truth with Good, from which comes the heavenly marriage; for in Jehovah or the Lord there is nothing but what is infinite; and because infinite, it cannot be apprehended by any idea, except that it is the being and the coming forth [esse et existere] of all good and truth, or is Good itself and Truth itself. Good itself is the “Father,” and Truth itself is the “Son.” But because as before said there is a Divine marriage of Good and Truth, and of Truth and Good, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as the Lord Himself teaches in John:

Jesus saith unto Philip, Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me ? Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:10-11).

And again in the same Evangelist:

Jesus said to the Jews, Though ye believe not Me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father (John 10:36, 38).

And again:

I pray for them; for all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee (John 17:9-10, 21).

And again:

Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him; if God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself. Father, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee (John 13:31-32; 17:1).

[2] From this may be seen the nature of the union of the Divine and the Human in the Lord; namely, that it is mutual and alternate, or reciprocal; which union is that which is called the Divine Marriage, from which descends the heavenly marriage, which is the Lord’s kingdom itself in the heavens—thus spoken of in John:

In that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you (John 14:20).

And again:

I pray for them, that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us, I in them and Thou in Me; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them (John 17:21-23, 26).

That this heavenly marriage is that of good and truth, and of truth and good, may be seen above (n. 2508, 2618, 2728, 2729 and following numbers).

[3] And because the Divine Good cannot be and come forth without the Divine Truth, nor the Divine Truth without the Divine Good, but the one in the other mutually and reciprocally, it is therefore manifest that the Divine Marriage was from eternity; that is, the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as the Lord Himself teaches in John:

And now O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thyself, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was (John 17:5, 24).

But the Divine Human which was born from eternity was also born in time; and what was born in time, and glorified, is the same. Hence it is that the Lord so often said that He was going to the Father who sent Him; that is, that He was returning to the Father. And in John:

In the beginning was the Word (the “Word” is the Divine Truth itself), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-3, 14; see also John 3:13; 6:62).

4292. In the internal historical sense by “he said, Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,” is signified that they could not represent as Jacob, but as from a new quality given them. This may be seen from the meaning of “Jacob” in the Word, as being his posterity (see n. 4281); and from the signification of a “name,” as being quality (s ee just above, n. 4291). The new quality itself is “Israel” in the internal sense; for “Israel” is the celestial spiritual, thus the internal man (n. 4286). And because “Israel” is the celestial spiritual and thus the internal man, “Israel” is also the internal spiritual church; for whether you speak of the spiritual man or the spiritual church, it is the same thing; because the spiritual man is a church in particular, and a number are a church in general. If a man were not a church in particular, there would not be any church in general. A congregation in general is what in common speech is called a church, but in order that there may be any church, everyone in this congregation must be such as is the church in general, because every general involves parts similar to itself.

[2] As regards the matter itself (that they could not represent as Jacob, but as from a new quality given them, which is “Israel”) the case is this. It was specifically Jacob’s posterity who represented the church, but not Isaac’s specifically; for Isaac’s posterity were not from Jacob only, but also from Esau. Still less was it Abraham’s posterity specifically; for Abraham’s posterity were not from Jacob only, but also from Esau, and likewise from Ishmael, as also from his sons by his second wife Keturah—thus from Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah, and their sons (see Genesis 25:1-4). Now as Jacob’s posterity insisted on being representative (as shown just above n. 4290), they could not represent as Jacob, nor as Isaac, nor as Abraham. That they could not as Jacob was because Jacob represented the external of the church, but not its internal; and they could not as Isaac at the same time, nor as Abraham at the same time, for the reason just adduced.

[3] There was therefore no other way by which they could represent the church than by a new name being given to Jacob, and thereby a new quality; which new quality should signify the internal spiritual man, or what is the same, the internal spiritual church. This new quality is “Israel.” Every church of the Lord is internal and external, as has been repeatedly shown. The internal church is what is represented, and the external is what represents. Moreover the internal church is either spiritual or celestial. The internal spiritual church was represented by Israel, and the internal celestial church was afterwards represented by Judah. Therefore also a division was made, and the Israelites were a kingdom by themselves, and the Jews were a kingdom by themselves; but on this subject of the Lord’s Divine mercy hereafter. Hence it is evident that Jacob (that is, the posterity of Jacob) could not represent a church as Jacob, for this would be to represent only the external of a church; but must also do so as Israel, because “Israel” is the internal.

[4] That the internal is what is represented, and the external what represents, has been shown before, and may likewise be seen from man himself. Man’s speech represents his thought, and his action represents his will. Speech and action are man’s externals, and thought and will are his internals. Furthermore, man’s face itself, by its varying looks, represents both his thought and his will. That the face by its looks represents, is known to everyone; for with the sincere their interior states may be seen from the looks of the face. In a word, all things of the body represent what is of the animus and of the mind.

[5] The case is similar with the externals of the church, for these are like a body, and the internals are like a soul—as the altars and the sacrifices upon them, which as is known were external things; in like manner the showbreads; also the lampstand with its lights; and likewise the perpetual fire: that these represented internal things may be known to everyone; and it is the same with the rest of the rites. That these external things could not represent external but internal things, is evident from what has been adduced. Thus Jacob could not represent as Jacob, because “Jacob” is the external of the church; but Jacob could represent as Israel, because “Israel” is its internal. This is what is meant by the new quality given in order that the posterity of Jacob might represent.