6716. And there went a man from the house of Levi. That this signifies the origin of truth from good, is evident from the signification of “a man,” as being truth (see n. 3134); and from the signification of “from the house,” as being the origin; and from the representation of Levi, as being good; for Leviticus in the supreme sense represents the Divine love (n. 3875), and in the internal sense spiritual love (n. 3875, 4497, 4502, 4503); and because he represents love, he represents good, for all good is of love. As regards the origin of truth from good, which is here signified by “a man from the house of Levi,” be it known that in what follows, in the supreme sense, the subject treated of is the Lord, how as to His Human He became the law Divine, that is, truth itself. It is known that the Lord was born as are other men, and that when a child He learned to speak like other children, and that He then grew in knowledge, and also in intelligence, and in wisdom.

[2] From this it is evident that His Human was not Divine from birth, but that He made it Divine by His own power. That He did this by His own power was because He was conceived of Jehovah, and hence the inmost of His life was Jehovah Himself; for the inmost of the life of every man, which is called the “soul,” is from the father; but what this inmost puts on, which is called the “body,” is from the mother. That the inmost of life, which is from the father, is continually flowing and working into the external, which is from the mother, and is in the effort to make this like itself, even in the womb, can be seen from sons, in that they are born into the disposition of the father, and sometimes grandsons and great-grandsons into that of the grandfather and great grandfather. The reason of this is that the soul, which is from the father, continually wills to make the external, which is from the mother, a likeness and image of itself.

[3] This being the case with man, it can be seen that it was especially so with the Lord. His inmost was the Divine Itself, because it was Jehovah Himself, for He was His only-begotten Son; and because the inmost was the Divine Itself, was not this, more than in any man, able to make the external, which is from the mother, an image of itself, that is, like itself? thus making the Human, which was external and from the mother, Divine; and this by His own power, because the Divine, which was inmost, from which He worked into the Human, was His, as the soul of man, which is the inmost, is man’s. And as the Lord advanced according to Divine order, He made His Human, when He was in the world, Divine truth; but afterward, when He was fully glorified, He made it Divine good, thus one with Jehovah.

[4] How this was done is described in this chapter in the supreme sense, but as the things contained in the supreme sense, all of which treat of the Lord, surpass human understanding, I may in what follows set forth the things contained in this chapter in the internal sense. These treat of the beginning and successive states of truth Divine with the man of the church, that is, with the man who is being regenerated (see n. 6713, 6714). The reason why these things are contained in the internal sense, is that the regeneration of man is an image of the glorification of the Lord’s Human (n. 3138, 3212, 3245, 3246, 3296, 3490, 4402, 5688).

3246. And to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts. That this signifies the spiritual adopted by the Lord’s Divine Human, that they have allotted places in His spiritual kingdom, is evident from the signification of the “sons of the concubines,” as denoting those who are spiritual (concerning whom in what follows); from the representation here of Abraham, as being the Lord’s Divine Human; so that by the words “which Abraham had,” is signified that they (namely, the spiritual) were adopted by the Lord’s Divine Human; and from the signification of the “gifts” which Abraham gave them, as being allotted places in the Lord’s spiritual kingdom.

[2] From what has already been shown in several places (as n. 3235, and elsewhere) concerning those who constitute the Lord’s spiritual kingdom and are called the spiritual, it can be seen that they are not sons born of the marriage itself of good and truth, but of a certain covenant not so conjugial; they are indeed from the same father, but not from the same mother; that is, they are from the same Divine good, but not from the same Divine truth. For as the celestial are from the very marriage of good and truth, they have good and thence truth; wherefore they never inquire what is true, but perceive it from good; and they discourse not about truth beyond affirming that it is so-according to what the Lord teaches in Matthew:

Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, Nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matthew 5:37); whereas the spiritual, because they are from a covenant not so conjugial, do not know from any perception what truth is, but call that true which they have been told to be so by parents and masters; and therefore in them there is not the marriage of good and truth; but still the truth which they thus believe is adopted by the Lord for truth when they are in the good of life (concerning this see n. 1832). Therefore it is that those who are spiritual are here called the “sons of the concubines,” and by these are meant all the sons of Keturah hitherto enumerated, and also the sons of Hagar, who will be named immediately below, from the twelfth to the eighteenth verse.

[3] In former times, in order that both the celestial and the spiritual might be represented in marriages, it was permissible for a man to have a concubine in addition to a wife; such concubine being given to the husband by the wife, and she was then called his “woman,” or was said to be “given to him for a woman,” as when Hagar the Egyptian was given to Abraham by Sarah (Genesis 16:3); when Bilhah the handmaid was given by Rachel to Jacob (Genesis 30:4), and the handmaid Zilpah to Jacob by Leah (Genesis 30:9). They are there called “women,” but elsewhere they are called “concubines,” as Hagar the Egyptian in this verse, and Bilhah in Genesis 35:22, also Keturah herself in 1 Chronicles 1:32.

[4] That those ancients had concubines besides a wife, as was the case not only with Abraham and Jacob, but also with their descendants, as Gideon (Judges 8:31), Saul (2 Samuel 3:7), David (2 Samuel 5:13; 15:16), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), was of permission, for the sake of the representation, namely, of the celestial church by a wife, and of the spiritual church by a concubine: this was of permission because they were such that they had no conjugial love, neither was marriage to them marriage, but only a carnal coupling for the sake of procreating offspring. To such there might be permissions without injury to conjugial love, and consequently to its covenant; but never to those who are in good and truth, and who are or can become internal men; for as soon as man is in good and truth, and in things internal, such things cease. For this reason it is not allowable for Christians, as it was for the Jews, to take to themselves a concubine together with a wife, for this is adultery. That the spiritual were adopted by the Lord’s Divine Human, may be seen from what has been stated and shown before on the same subject (n. 2661, 2716, 2833, 2834).