9373. Come up unto Jehovah. That this signifies conjunction with the Lord, is evident from the signification of “coming up,” as being to be raised toward interior things (see n. 3084, 4539, 4969, 5406, 5817, 6007), consequently also to be conjoined (n. 8760). That it denotes conjunction with the Lord, is because by “Jehovah” in the Word is meant the the Lord, (n. 1343, 1736, 1793, 2004, 2005, 2018, 2025, 2921, 3023, 3035, 5663, 6280, 6303, 6905, 8274, 8864, 9315). A secret which also lies hidden in the internal sense of these words, is that the sons of Jacob, over whom Moses was the head, were not called and chosen; but they themselves insisted that Divine worship should be instituted among them (according to wh at has been said in n. 4290, 4293); and therefore it is here said, “and He said unto Moses, Come up unto Jehovah,” as if not Jehovah, but another, had said that he should come up. For the same reason in what follows it is said that “the people should not go up” (verse 2); and that “Jehovah sent not His hand unto the sons of Israel who were set apart” (verse 11); and that “the appearance of the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the sons of Israel” (verse 17); and lastly that Moses, being called the seventh day, “entered into the midst of the cloud.” For by “the cloud” is meant the Word in the letter (n. 5922, 6343, 6752, 6832, 8106, 8443, 8781); and with the sons of Jacob the Word was separated from its internal sense, because they were in external worship without internal, as can be clearly seen from the fact that now, as before, they said, “all the words which Jehovah hath spoken we will do” (verse 3); and yet scarcely forty days afterward they worshiped a golden calf instead of Jehovah; which shows that this was hidden in their hearts while they were saying with their lips that they would serve Jehovah alone. But nevertheless those who are meant by “the called and the chosen” are those who are in internal worship, and who from internal worship are in external; that is, those who are in love to and faith in the Lord, and from this in love toward the neighbor.

2814. And laid him on the altar upon the wood. That this signifies in the Human Divine to which righteousness belongs, is evident from the signification of an “altar,” as being the Lord’s Divine Human (see just above, n. 2811); and from the signification of the “wood of a burnt-offering,” as being the merit of righteousness (see n. 2784, 2798, 2812). The Truth Divine in the Lord’s Human Divine, which underwent the temptations, and which has been treated of, is not the Divine Truth itself, for this is above all temptation; but it is rational truth, such as the angels have, consisting in the appearances of truth, and is what is called the “Son of man,” but before the glorification. But the Divine Truth in the Lord’s glorified Divine Human is above appearances, nor can it possibly come to any understanding, and still less to the apprehension of man, nor even to that of angels, and thus not at all to anything of temptation. It appears in the heavens as light which is from the Lord. Concerning this Divine Truth, or the Son of man glorified, it is thus written in John:

Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him: if God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him (John 13:31-32).

That a distinct idea may be had of this very deep arcanum, we may call the Truth with the Lord which could be tempted, and which underwent temptations, Truth Divine in the Lord’s Human Divine; but the Truth which could not be tempted, or undergo any temptation, because it was glorified, the Divine Truth in the Lord’s Divine Human; this distinction has also been observed here and there in what goes before.

3974. 'Give me my womenfolk' means that the affections for truth belonged to that natural, 'and my children' means as did the truths born from those affections. This is clear from the meaning of 'womenfolk' or 'wives' as affections for truth - his wife 'Leah' meaning the affection for external truth, and 'Rachel' the affection for internal truth, both dealt with often above; and from the meaning of 'children' as truths born from those affections. For 'sons' means truths, 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2623, 3373, and the children born of the womenfolk truths that spring from those affections.

It was a regulation among the Ancients that women given to slaves belonged to the master with whom they served, and so did the children born from them, as may be seen in Moses,

If you buy a Hebrew slave he shall serve for six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If his master has given him a wife and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out by himself. ¹ Exodus 21:2, 4.

It was because this was also a regulation in the Ancient Church and was therefore well known to Laban that he laid claim to Jacob's wives and children, as is evident in the next chapter,

Laban said to Jacob, The daughters are my daughters, and the sons are my sons, and the flock is my flock, and all that you see belongs to me. Genesis 31:43.

And because Jacob knows this he says to Laban, 'Give me my womenfolk and my children'. But this regulation as stated in Moses in the verses quoted above represented the right of the internal or rational man to the goods and truths of the external or natural man which the latter has obtained for itself. For a slave represented the truth of the natural man as that truth exists at first before genuine truths are instilled. The truth which is present at first is not truth but the outward appearance of it. Nevertheless it serves as the means by which genuine truths and goods are introduced, as has been shown already. For this reason once goods and truths have been instilled through that truth present at first, that is, through the service it renders, it is dispensed with, but the genuine truths obtained in that way are retained. It was for the sake of this representation that this law about slaves was laid down.

[2] But as for Jacob, he was not a slave who had been purchased, but a man from a more distinguished family than Laban. He himself - that is to say, Jacob - purchased Laban's daughters, and so also the children by them, through the service he rendered; for they were his instead of wages. Consequently Laban's assumptions concerning them were not correct. Furthermore 'a Hebrew slave' means the truth which serves to introduce genuine goods and truths, and his wife the affection for natural good. But Jacob's position was different from that of a slave. He represented the good of natural truth, and his wives the affections for truth. Nor does Laban have the same representation as the master in the law that has been quoted relating to a Hebrew slave. That is to say, he does not represent the rational, but a parallel good, 3612, 3665, 3778, which is such that it is not genuine good but the outward appearance of the genuine, serving to introduce truths, 3665, 3690, which were accordingly 'Jacob's'.

[3] These details which have been presented are indeed such as fall within the mental grasp of none but a very few, for most people do not know what the truth and good of the natural are, and that these are different from the truth and good of the rational. Still less do they know that goods and truths which are not genuine but only so to external appearance serve to introduce genuine truths and goods, especially at the outset of regeneration. All the same, as these details are contained in the internal sense of these words, and also in the internal sense of those that follow concerning Laban's flock from which Jacob obtained a flock for himself, they ought not to be passed over in silence. There will perhaps be some who grasp them. Any who have a strong desire to know such things, that is, who are stirred by an affection for spiritual good and truth, receive enlightenment in such matters.

Footnotes: