8588. And Meribah. That this signifies the quality of the complaining, is evident from the fact that in the original tongue “Meribah” means “contention,” or “quarreling,” and “quarreling” signifies complaining (see n. 8563, 8566); and because names signify the quality of the thing (n. 8587), therefore “Meribah” here signifies the quality of the complaining. As regards this temptation itself and its quality, be it known that in this passage are described those who in temptations almost yield, namely, those who complain against heaven and also against the Divine Itself, and at last almost disbelieve in the Divine Providence. These things are signified in the internal sense by what precedes, and also by what follows in this verse, namely, the quality of the state of the temptation, which is signified by “Massah,” and the quality of the complaining in the temptation, which is signified by “Meribah.” That this quality is here signified by “Meribah,” is plain in David:

Thou calledst upon Me in distress, and I rescued thee; I answered thee in the secret place, I proved thee at the waters of Meribah (Psalms 81:7).

[2] But in the internal historical sense, in which the subject treated of is the state of religion with the Israelitish nation, that nation is described in respect to its quality toward Jehovah, namely, that they were not willing by supplication to entreat Him for aid, but that they expostulated. The reason was, that at heart they did not acknowledge Jehovah as the supreme God, but only in the mouth, when they saw the miracles. That at heart they did not acknowledge Him is very evident from the Egyptian calf which they made for themselves and worshiped, saying that these were their gods; also from their frequent apostasy (of which see n. 8301). This is what is here described in the internal historical sense; but in the internal spiritual sense is described the quality of the temptation with those who before they are liberated are brought to the last of temptation.

[3] That the quality of the Israelitish nation and of its religiosity is described by contention with Moses at Massah and Meribah, is also evident in the following passages:

Harden not your heart, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, where your fathers tempted Me; they tempted Me, and saw My work; for forty years did I feel loathing at the generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and the same have not known My ways, to whom I sware in Mine anger that they should not come unto My rest (Psalms 95:8-11).

Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16; 9:22, 24).

Of Leviticus he said, Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with the Holy Man, whom thou didst tempt at Massah, with whom thou didst contend at the waters of Meribah (Deuteronomy 33:8).

“The Holy Man” here denotes the Lord, whom they tempted, and whom Moses and Aaron did not sanctify.

[4] In the internal historical sense, in which the subject treated of is the religiosity of the Israelitish nation, by Moses and Aaron is not represented truth Divine, but the religiosity of that nation whose leaders and heads they were (n. 7041). Because this religiosity was such as said above, it was intimated to them that they should not bring the people into the land of Canaan, as is written in the book of Numbers:

Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye have not believed in Me, and sanctified Me in the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them; these are the waters of Meribah, because the sons of Israel contended with Jehovah (Numbers 20:12-13; 27:14).

Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall not come into the land which I have given to the sons of Israel, because ye rebelled against My mouth at the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:24).

The same is said of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:50-51).

[5] That still representative Divine worship was instituted with that nation, was because representative worship could be instituted with any nation that had holy externals of worship, and worshiped almost idolatrously; for what is representative does not regard the person, but the thing (n. 1361), and it was the genius of that nation, beyond any other nation, to worship merely external things as holy and Divine, without any internal; as for instance to worship as deities their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and afterward Moses and David, and moreover to account holy and as Divine, and to worship, every stone and every piece of wood that had been inaugurated in their Divine worship; as the arks, the tables therein, the lamp, the altar, the garments of Aaron, the Urim and Thummim, and afterward the temple. Of the Lord’s Providence there was then given a communication of the angels of heaven with man by means of such things. For there must needs be somewhere a church, or the representative of a church, in order that there may be communication of heaven with the human race; and as that nation, beyond any other nation, could make Divine worship consist in external things, and thus act the representative of a church, therefore that nation was taken.

[6] At that time communication with the angels in heaven was effected by means of representatives in the following way. Their external worship was communicated to angelic spirits who are simple, and who do not reflect upon internal things, but still are interiorly good. Such are they who in the Grand Man correspond to the outer skin. These pay no attention whatever to the internal of man, but only to his external. If this appears holy, they think holily of the internal also. The more interior angels of heaven saw in those spirits the things that were represented, consequently the heavenly and Divine things that corresponded; for they could be present with these spirits, and see those things; but not with the men except by means of the spirits. For angels dwell with men in things interior; but where there are no such things, they dwell in the interior things of simple spirits; for the angels have no interest in other than spiritual and heavenly things, which are the interior things contained in representatives. From these few words it can be seen how there could be communication with heaven by means of such a people. But see what has been previously shown on this subject, namely: That with the Jews the holy of worship was miraculously elevated into heaven quite apart from them (n. 4307); that whatever their quality might be, the descendants of Jacob could represent what is holy, provided they closely observed the rituals commanded (n. 3147, 3479, 3480, 3881, 4208, 4281, 4288, 4289, 4293, 4307, 4444, 4500, 4680, 4825, 4844, 4847, 4899, 4912, 6304, 6306, 7048, 7051, 8301).

19. (Verse 4) John. That this signifies the Lord as to doctrine, is evident from the representation of John, as being the good of love, of which above, n. 8. Because he represents the good of love, he also, in the highest sense, represents the Lord, since all the good of love is from the Lord, men, spirits and angels being only recipients; and those who are recipients, are said to signify that which is from the Lord. The case is similar with many other persons in the Word, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, Peter, and the rest of the apostles, each of whom signifies some good or truth of heaven and of the church, but still all of them, in the highest sense, signify the Lord. As, for instance, David, in the internal sense signifies Divine truth in the spiritual kingdom, which is called the Lord's royalty; therefore, in the highest sense, he signifies the Lord as to that truth and as to His royalty; for this reason it is said of David in the Word, that he is to come and reign over the sons of Israel (Ezekiel 37:24, 25; Hosea 3:5). Similarly, Elijah and Elisha, who, because in the internal sense they signify the Word, therefore, in the highest sense, they signify the Lord from whom is the Word. (That Elijah and Elisha signify the Word, and thus the Lord as to the Word, may be seen, Arcana Coelestia 2762, 5247; the case is the same with John the Baptist, who is therefore called Elijah, n. 7643, 9372. That Peter signifies faith, and thence the Lord as to faith, because faith is from the Lord, may be seen above, n. 9.) It is therefore evident why John signifies the Lord. The reason he signifies the Lord as to doctrine is, because it is said, "John to the seven churches," and by the seven churches, in the internal sense, are meant all who are in truths from good, or in faith from charity; for these are they who constitute the church; and it is doctrine that teaches those things. For this reason the Lord, as He is the Word, is also the doctrine of the church, for all doctrine is from the Word. (That the Lord is the doctrine of the church, because all the truth which pertains to doctrine is from the Word, thus from the Lord, may be seen, Arcana Coelestia 2531, 2859, 3712.)

4899. Behold I sent this kid. That this signifies that it is enough that there is a pledge, is evident from the signification of a “kid of the goats,” as being a pledge of conjugial love, or of conjunction (n. 4871), here only a pledge, because the kid was not accepted, for the reason (of which above) that there was nothing conjugial; and as this was the reason, therefore by thou hast not found her is signified if there is not anything conjugial; this also flows from indifference, of which above (n. 4897). It is needless to explain these things any further, for the reason stated above (n. 4893), that they would fall into the shade of the understanding; and whatever falls into this shade, falls into unbelief, as for instance that there must be what is conjugial in order that there may be a church, namely, the conjugial between truth and good; and also that there must be an internal in the external; and that without the two there is nothing of a church. In the present words the internal and external in the Jewish Church are described in the internal sense, and it is shown that as to that nation there was not any internal in the external; but that in respect to the statutes and laws abstracted from the nation, there was.

[2] Who at this day has any other belief than that there was a church with the Jewish nation, and that it was chosen and loved above all others, the reason for this belief being chiefly that miracles so many and so great were wrought among them, and that so many prophets were sent to them, and also that they had the Word. And yet that nation in itself had nothing of the church, for it was not in any charity, did not know even what genuine charity is, and also had no faith in the Lord. They indeed knew that He was to come, but supposed that it was to exalt them above all in the whole world; and because this was not done they entirely rejected Him, being unwilling to know anything about His heavenly kingdom. These things, which are the internals of the church, that nation did not acknowledge even in doctrine and still less in life. From all this alone it may be concluded that there was nothing of the church in that nation.

[3] It is one thing for the church to be with a people, and another for the church to be in a people—as for example, the Christian Church is with those who have the Word, and from doctrine preach the Lord; but still there is nothing of the church in them unless they are in the marriage of good and truth, that is, unless they are in charity toward the neighbor, and thence in faith; thus unless the internals of the church are in the externals. The church is not in those who are solely in externals separate from internals; neither is it in those who are in faith separate from charity, nor in those who acknowledge the Lord from doctrine and not life. Hence it is plain that it is one thing for the church to be with a nation, and quite another to be in the nation.

[4] In the internal sense of this chapter is described the church as it was with the Jewish nation, and as it was in that nation. The quality of the church with that nation is described by the conjunction of Tamar with Judah under the pretext of the duty of a husband’s brother, and the quality of the church in that nation is described by the conjunction of Judah with Tamar as with a harlot. But a more particular description of these things is omitted for the reason spoken of above, for as there stated they would fall into the shade of the understanding. That the shade of the understanding is in these things may be seen from the fact that at this day scarcely anyone knows what the internal of the church is. And who knows that charity toward the neighbor consists in willing, and from willing in acting, and hence that faith consists in perceiving? When this is unknown, and especially when it is denied, as it is by those who make faith saving without the works of charity, into what shade must those things fall which are here said in the internal sense concerning the conjunction of what is internal with the external of the church with the Jewish nation and in that nation. They who do not know that charity is the internal and thus the essential of the church, stand very remote from the first step toward the understanding of such things, and therefore very far from the innumerable and ineffable things that are in heaven, where the things relating to love to the Lord and love toward the neighbor are the all of life, and consequently the all of wisdom and of intelligence.