1813. 'He reckoned it to him as righteousness' means that in this the Lord first became righteousness. This too becomes clear from the train of thought in the internal sense, in which the Lord is the subject. That the Lord alone became righteousness for the sake of the whole human race becomes clear from the consideration that He alone has fought out of Divine Love, that is to say, out of love towards the whole human race, whose salvation, that and nothing else, He desired and longed for in His conflicts. The Lord was not born righteousness as regards the Human Essence but became righteousness through the conflicts brought about by temptations and through victories, something He achieved by His own power. And as often as He fought and won the victory, this was reckoned to Him as righteousness, that is, it was added to the righteousness He was becoming, as an increase to it every time, until He became perfect righteousness.

[2] When one who is begotten from a human father, that is, from the seed of a human father, fights for himself, he cannot possibly do so out of any other love than love of self and love of the world, thus not out of heavenly love but out of hellish, for such is the nature of the proprium he possesses from his father in addition to the proprium he has acquired by his own actions. Consequently the person who imagines that he fights the devil from himself is grossly mistaken. So too the person who wishes to make himself righteous by his own powers, that is, to believe that the goods of charity and the truths of faith come from himself, and consequently to merit heaven through them, is acting and thinking contrary to the good and truth of faith. For it is a truth of faith, that is, it is the truth itself, that the Lord is the one who does battle. Thus because he is acting and thinking contrary to a truth of faith, he deprives the Lord of what is His and makes what is the Lord's his own; or what amounts to the same, he replaces the Lord with himself and so with that in himself which is from hell. It is for this reason that people wish to become great or the greatest in heaven, and thus it is that they believe quite wrongly that the Lord fought against the hells so that He might be the greatest. The human proprium has delusions such as these within it which have all the appearance of being truths but which are quite the reverse.

[3] That the Lord came into the world so as to become righteousness, and that He alone is righteousness, was also foretold by the Prophets. Thus it was possible to know of this even before His Coming, and also to know that He could not become righteousness except by means of temptations and victories over all evils and over all the hells, as in Jeremiah,

In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell with confidence. And this is His name which they will call Him. Jehovah our Righteousness. Jeremiah 23:6.

In the same prophet,

In those days and at that time I will cause a shoot of righteousness to sprout forth for David, and he will execute judgement and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell with confidence. And this is what they will call Him, Jehovah our Righteousness. Jeremiah 33:15-16.

In Isaiah,

He saw and there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor, and His own arm brought salvation to Him, and His righteousness upheld Him. And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation upon His head. Isaiah 59:16-17.

And see especially Isaiah 63:3, 5. 'His own arm' stands for His own power. Since the Lord alone is righteousness, the expression a habitation of righteousness is also used, in Jeremiah 31:23; 50:7.

5008. 'And he left his garment in her hand' means that this outermost truth was removed. This is clear from the meaning of 'leaving in her hand' as leaving to its power and control, for 'the hand' means power or power and control, 878, 3091, 3387, 3563, 4931-4937, a removal being meant here since it is said that 'she took hold of his garment'; and from the meaning of 'a garment' as outermost truth, dealt with above in 5006. No one can begin to understand what is meant by a wish on the part of unspiritual natural truth to join itself to spiritual natural truth, or by the latter being filled with aversion to such a joining together and therefore leaving the outermost truth behind, that is, allowing this to be removed, except with the help of examples to shed light on the matter. But first, see what unspiritual natural truth is, and what spiritual natural truth is, in 4988, 4992; also the fact that the two are associated with each other so far as outermost things are concerned but that they are in no way joined to each other [4989].

[2] But, as has been said, examples will help to shed light on this matter. Take this one first. Within the Church there exists the unspiritual natural truth which says that good should be done to the poor, widows and orphans, and that doing good to these is the charity which is commanded in the Word. But unspiritual truth, or rather, people guided by unspiritual truth, understand the poor, widows and orphans to be those who are literally called such, whereas spiritual natural truth, or rather, people guided by this kind of truth - while giving their firm assent to this unspiritual natural truth - place such an understanding of the expression 'poor, widows and orphans' in the last or outermost position. For in their hearts they say that not all people calling themselves the poor are in fact such, and also that some of those who are poor lead very wicked lives, fearing neither God nor men, and ready to plunge into every unmentionable deed but for the fear that holds them back. They also say in their hearts that in the Word the expression 'the poor' is used to mean those who are such spiritually, that is to say, those who know and in their hearts confess that nothing good or true at all that originates in themselves resides with them and that everything that is there has been freely given them. The expressions 'widows' and 'orphans' are considered by them in a similar way, the difference being that each involves some different state. From this example it may be seen that to people guided by spiritual natural truth doing good to the poor, widows and orphans who are literally called such is an outermost truth, and that this outermost truth is like a garment covering the things within. One may also see that this outermost truth fits in with the truth as understood by those guided by unspiritual natural truth; and that even so the two are not joined together but have merely an association with each other.

[3] Take the example of doing good to the neighbour. Those guided by spiritual natural truth consider every individual person to be their neighbour, yet each one to be such in a different manner and degree. In their hearts they say that those governed by good are pre-eminently the neighbour to whom good should be done. They also say that those governed by evil are likewise the neighbour, but that good is done to these if they suffer the punishments prescribed by laws, because those punishments serve to correct them, as well as to prevent evil being done to the good by them and the bad examples they set. Those within the Church who are guided by unspiritual natural truth likewise call every individual person the neighbour; but they do not take into consideration the degree or manner in which each one is a neighbour. Therefore if motivated by natural goodness they do good indiscriminately, to everyone who moves them to pity, most of all to the evil rather than the good because the evil in their malice know how to arouse feelings of pity. From this example too one may see that this outermost truth brings together those guided by unspiritual natural truth and those guided by spiritual natural truth, and yet the two are still not joined together but have merely an association with each other, since one has a different idea and different perception from the other of the neighbour and of charity towards him.

[4] Take a further example. Those guided by spiritual natural truth say in general that the poor and the wretched are to inherit the kingdom of heaven. But for them this is an outermost truth since they gather up within this the belief that 'the poor' and 'the wretched' are those who are spiritually such, and that these are the ones meant in the Word, to whom the heavenly kingdom will belong. But those within the Church who are guided by unspiritual natural truth say that no others can inherit the kingdom of heaven but those who in the world have been reduced to poverty, live in wretched circumstances, and suffer greater affliction than everyone else. They also call riches, important positions, and worldly joys just so many distractions or means that divert a person from heaven. This example also shows what an outermost truth is and the nature of the harmony between the two kinds of natural truth; it shows that they are not joined together, but have merely an association with each other.

[5] Take this example too. Those guided by spiritual natural truth consider it an outermost truth that those objects which in the Word are called holy really were holy, such as the ark and mercy seat, the lampstand, the incense, the leaves, and so on, as well as the altar; also the temple; and Aaron's vestments too, which are called vestments of holiness - in particular the ephod together with the breastplate where the urim and thummim were. Yet the idea they have so far as this outermost truth is concerned is that those objects were not in themselves holy, nor had they had any holiness instilled into them, but that they were holy in a representative sense, that is to say, they represented the spiritual and celestial realities of the Lord's kingdom, and in the highest sense the Lord Himself. People guided by unspiritual natural truth however also call those objects holy, but holy in themselves because holiness has been instilled into them. From this one may see that the two kinds of truth meet but do not become joined to each other; for as the spiritual man's conception of that outermost truth is different from that of the merely natural man, a different form is taken by each.

[6] Take yet another example. To the spiritual man it is an outermost truth that all Divine truths can be substantiated from the literal sense of the Word, and also by means of the rational or intellectual concepts known to the enlightened. That same outermost or general truth is also accepted by the natural man, but he has the simple belief that everything is true which can be substantiated from the Word, above all that which he himself has substantiated from it. The spiritual man and the natural man meet each other therefore in their common acceptance of the idea that every Divine truth can be substantiated; yet one sees this general truth in a different way from the other. The merely natural man believes that whatever he himself has substantiated for himself, or else has heard others substantiate, is a Divine truth. He does not realize that falsity can be substantiated just as easily as truth, and that, once substantiated, falsity has all the appearance of truth; indeed it appears to be more true than the truth itself, because the illusions of the senses enter in and present it in the light of the world separated from the light of heaven.

[7] This too shows what outermost spiritual truth seems like to the natural man - like a garment. It also shows that when this garment is removed nothing at all is left to draw the two together, as a consequence of which the spiritual man no longer has anything with which to protect himself from the natural man, which considerations are meant by Joseph's leaving his garment behind, fleeing, and going out of doors. For the merely natural man does not acknowledge interior truths, and therefore when exterior ones are taken away or removed a severance instantly takes place. What is more, all the ideas introduced by the spiritual man to substantiate outermost truth are called falsities by the natural man since he has no ability to see whether the idea substantiated by the spiritual man is really true. It is not possible to see by natural light what belongs to spiritual light, for to do so is contrary to order. But seeing by spiritual light what belongs to natural light is in keeping with order.