4992. Behold, my lord knoweth not what is with me in the house. That this signifies that natural good did not desire even appropriation, is evident from the signification of his “lord,” as being natural good (see n. 4973); and from the signification of “not knowing what is with me in the house,” as being not to desire appropriation. That this is the meaning cannot be seen except from the series of things in the internal sense; for a third state is now treated of, in which the celestial of the spiritual was in the natural: in this state the good and truth natural which is spiritual, is separate from the good and truth natural which is not spiritual; and consequently by “not knowing what is in the house” is signified that there is no desire for appropriation. But these things, being arcana, cannot be made clear except by examples. Let the following example therefore serve for illustration. To be conjoined with one’s wife from lust alone, this is natural not spiritual; but to be conjoined with one’s wife from conjugial love, this is spiritual natural; and when the husband is afterward conjoined from lust alone, he believes that he transgresses, as one who does what is lascivious, and therefore he no longer desires that this should be appropriated to him. Let this also serve as an example. To benefit a friend, no matter what his quality, provided he is a friend is natural not spiritual; but to benefit a friend for the sake of the good that is in him, and still more to hold good itself as the friend which is to be benefited, this is spiritual natural; and when anyone is in this, he knows that he transgresses if he benefits a friend who is evil, for then through him he injures others. When he is in this state, he holds in aversion the appropriation of good natural not spiritual, in which good he was before. And so it is with everything else.

4973. And he was in the house of his lord the Egyptian. That this signifies that it might be initiated into natural good, is evident from the signification of a “lord,” as being good, of which presently; and from the signification of an “Egyptian,” as being memory-knowledge in general, and hence the natural (see n. 4967). That to be “in a house” is to be initiated, is because a “house” is the mind in which good is (see n. 3538), here the natural mind; and moreover “house” is predicated of good (n. 3652, 3720). There is in man a natural mind and a rational mind; the natural mind is in his external man, the rational mind in his internal. Memory-knowledges are the truths of the natural mind, which are said to be “in their house” when they are conjoined there with good; for good and truth constitute together one house, as husband and wife. But the goods and truths here treated of are interior; for they correspond to the celestial of the spiritual from the rational, which is represented by Joseph. The interior corresponding truths in the natural mind are applications to uses, and the interior goods therein are uses.

[2] The name “Lord” is often used in the Word; and one who has no knowledge of the internal sense supposes that nothing more is meant by it than what is meant by the use of this term in common speech; but “Lord” is never used in the Word except where good is treated of, and the same is true of “Jehovah;” but when truth is treated of, “God” and “King” are used. For this reason by a “lord” is signified good, as is evident from the following passages.

In Moses:

Jehovah your God, He is God of gods, and Lord of lords (Deuteronomy 10:17).

In David:

Confess ye to Jehovah. Confess ye to the God of gods. Confess ye to the Lord of lords (Psalms 136:1-3); where Jehovah or the Lord is called “God of gods” from the Divine truth which proceeds from Him, and “Lord of lords” from the Divine good which is in Him.

[3] So in the Revelation:

The Lamb shall overcome them; for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings (Revelation 17:14).

And again:

He that sat upon the white horse hath upon His vesture and upon His thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).

That the Lord is here called “King of kings” from Divine truth, and “Lord of lords” from Divine good, is plain from the particulars; the “name written” is His quality (n. 144, 145, 1754, 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006); the “vesture” on which it was written is the truth of faith (n. 1073, 2576, 4545, 4763); the “thigh” on which also that quality was written, is the good of love (n. 3021, 4277, 4280, 4575). From this also it is plain that the Lord from Divine truth is called “King of kings” and from Divine good “Lord of lords.” (That the Lord is called “King” from Divine truth may be seen above, n. 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4581)

[4] From this it is also clear what is meant by the “Lord’s Christ,” in Luke:

Answer was made to Simeon by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death, until he had seen the Lord’s Christ (Luke 2:26).

The “Lord’s Christ” is the Divine truth of the Divine good; for “Christ” is the same as “Messiah,” and “Messiah” is the “Anointed” or “King” (n. 3008, 3009). “The Lord” here is Jehovah. In the Word of the New Testament the name “Jehovah” is nowhere used; but instead of it “Lord” and “God” (n. 2921); as also in Luke:

Jesus said, How say they that the Christ is David’s Son? for David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand (Luke 20:41-42).

The same passage reads thus in David:

The saying of Jehovah unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand (Psalms 110:1).

It is plain that “Jehovah” in David is called “Lord” in the Evangelist. “Lord” there denotes the Divine good of the Divine Human; omnipotence is signified by “sitting at the right hand” (n. 3387, 4592, 4933 at the end).

[5] When the Lord was in the world He was Divine truth; but when He was glorified, that is, when He had made the Human in Himself Divine, He became Divine good, from which thereafter Divine truth proceeds. For this reason the disciples after the resurrection did not call Him “Master,” as before, but “Lord,” as is evident in John (21:7, 12, 15-17, 20), and also in the rest of the Evangelists. The Divine truth, which the Lord was when in the world, and which thereafter proceeds from Him, that is, from the Divine good, is called also “the angel of the covenant,” in Malachi:

The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple, and the Angel of the covenant whom ye desire (Malachi 3:1).

[6] As Divine good is meant by “Lord,” and Divine truth by “King,” therefore where the Lord is spoken of as having dominion and a kingdom, “dominion” is predicated of Divine good, and a “kingdom” of Divine truth, and therefore also the Lord is called “Lord of nations,” and “King of peoples;” for by “nations” are signified those who are in good, and by “peoples” those who are in truth (n. 1259, 1260, 1849, 3581).

[7] Good is called a “lord” relatively to a servant, and it is called a “father” relatively to a son-as in Malachi:

A son honoreth his father, and a servant his lord; if then I be a father, where is My honor; and if I be a lord, where is My fear? (Malachi 1:6).

And in David:

Joseph was sold for a servant. The discourse of Jehovah proved him. The king sent and loosed him, the ruler of nations opened for him, he set him lord of his house, and ruler in all his possession (Psalms 105:17, 19-21).

That by “Joseph” here is meant the Lord, is evident from the several particulars; the “lord” here is the Divine good of the Divine Human.