3623. 'What would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. This is clear from the meaning of 'life' as conjunction by means of truths and goods. For when it was not possible for any truth from a common stem or genuine source to be joined to natural truth, there could not be any alliance of the natural to the truth of the rational, in which case it seemed to the rational as though its own life were no life, 3493, 3620. This is why here 'what would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. Here and in other places the word 'life' in the original language is plural, and the reason for this is that in man there are two powers of life. The first is called the understanding and is the receptacle of truth, the second is called the will and is the receptacle of good. These two forms or powers of life make one when the understanding is rooted in the will, or what amounts to the same, when truth is grounded in good. This explains why in Hebrew the noun 'life' is sometimes singular, sometimes plural. The plural form of that noun is used in all the following places, Jehovah God formed the man, dust from the ground; and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7. Jehovah God caused to spring up out of the ground every tree desirable to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden. Genesis 2:9. Behold, I am bringing a flood of waters over the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 6:17.

They went in to Noah into the ark, two by two from all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 7:15 (in 780).

Everything which had the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils breathed its last. Genesis 7:12.

In David,

I believe [I am going] to see the goodness of Jehovah in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

In the same author,

Who is the man who desires life, who loves [many] days, that he may see good? Psalms 34:12

In the same author,

With You, O Jehovah, is the fountain of life; in Your light do we see light. Psalms 36:9.

In Malachi,

My covenant with Levi was [a covenant] of life and peace. Malachi 2:5.

In Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah, Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. Jeremiah 21:8.

In Moses,

To love Jehovah your God, to obey His voice, and to cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days, so that you may dwell in the land. Deuteronomy 30:20.

In the same author,

It is not an empty word from you; for it is your life, and through this word you will prolong your days in the land. Deuteronomy 32:47.

And in other places too the plural form of the noun 'life' is used in the original language because, as has been stated, there are two kinds of life which yet make one. It is similar with the word 'heavens' in the Hebrew language, in that the heavens are many and yet make one, or like the expression 'waters' above and below, in Genesis 1:7-9 , by which spiritual things in the rational and in the natural are meant which ought to be one through being joined together. As for the plural form of 'life', when this is used both the life of the will and that of the understanding are meant, and therefore both the life of good and that of truth are meant. For man's life consists in nothing else than good and truth which hold life from the Lord within them. Devoid of good and truth, and of the life which these hold within them, no one is human. For devoid of these no one would ever have been able to will or to think anything. Everything that a person wills originates in good or in that which is not good, and everything he thinks originates in truth or in that which is not truth. Consequently man possesses two kinds of life and these make one when his thinking flows from his willing, that is, when truth which is the truth of faith flows from good which is the good of love.

10109. 'And they shall eat those things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities. This is clear from the meaning of 'eating' as making one's own, dealt with above in 10106; and from the meaning of 'what has been expiated' as that which has been purified from evils and consequent falsities, dealt with in 9506. The words 'purified from evils and consequent falsities' are used because falsities as well as truths exist with those ruled by evil, and also falsities as well as truths exist with those who are governed by good. The falsities present with those ruled by evil are falsities of evil, and the truths present with them are falsified truths, which are dead. But the falsities present with those governed by good are accepted as truths, for those falsities are tempered by the good and put to good and useful purposes, and the truths present with them are the truths of good, which are alive. Regarding both kinds of falsity and truth, see what has been shown in 2243, 2408, 2863, 4736, 4822, 6359, 7272, 7437, 7574, 7577, 8051, 8137, 8138, 8149, 8298, 8311, 8318 (end), 9258, 9298.

[2] Since 'eating the holy things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities, anyone unclean was strictly forbidden to eat of those things; for uncleanness means defilement by evils and consequent falsities. For the situation is that as long as a person is steeped in evils and consequent falsities good cannot by any means be made his own. This is because evil comes up from hell and good comes down from heaven, and where hell is heaven cannot be, since they are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore to make a place for heaven - that is, for good from heaven - hell, that is, evil from hell, must be removed. From this it may be seen that good cannot by any means be made a person's own as long as he is ruled by evil. By making good his own the implanting of good in the will should be understood, for good cannot be said to have been made a person's own until it becomes part of his will. A person's will is the actual person, and his understanding also, to the extent that it derives from the will. For what is part of the will forms part of the person's love and consequently his life, since what a person wills he loves and calls good, and also when it is done by him it is felt to be such. The situation is different with those things which are part of the understanding but not at the same time part of the will. It should also be recognized that when a person is said to make good his own, no more should be understood than his ability to receive good from the Lord, an ability he is endowed with through regeneration. Consequently good as it exists with a person is not that person's; rather it is the Lord's with him. And he is maintained in it to the extent that he allows himself to be withheld from evils. The impossibility for good to become a person's own, that is, for it to be transmitted to him, as long as he is ruled by evil was the reason for the prohibition which prevented one who was unclean from eating the flesh and the bread of a sacrifice; for that eating represented making good one's own, as stated above.

[3] Those who were unclean were forbidden on pain of death to eat from holy offerings, as is clear in Moses,

Everyone who is clean shall eat flesh. The soul who eats the flesh of sacrifices while uncleanness is on him shall be cut off from his people. The soul who touches anything unclean - the uncleanness of a human being or an unclean beast or any unclean creeping thing whatever - and eats of the flesh of the eucharistic sacrifice shall be cut off from [his] people. Leviticus 7:19-21.

All those outward kinds of uncleanness represented inward kinds, which are a person's evils; and they are evils present in his will, having been made his own by the life he actually leads.

[4] This matter is described further elsewhere in Moses,

Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or suffers a discharge shall not eat of the holy things until he has been made clean. Whoever has touched anything made unclean by a corpse ¹ , [or any] man who has had an emission of semen ² , or [any] man who has touched any creeping thing by which he is defiled, or [has touched] a person by whom any one is defiled, as to all his uncleanness - the soul who has touched that thing shall be unclean until evening and not eat of the holy things. But when he has washed his flesh with water, and the sun has gone down, he shall be clean; and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his bread. No outsider shall eat what is holy; a stranger staying with a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat what is holy. If the priest buys a soul - a buying with his silver - [that soul] may eat of it, and one who is born in his house; these shall eat of his bread. When a priest's daughter has married a man, an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of holy things. But if the priest's daughter has been made a widow or divorced and has no seed, and has indeed returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread. Leviticus 22:1-16.

All these rules, it is plainly evident, serve to mean more internal considerations, that is, they imply the transmission of holy things to those in a receptive state of mind, who then make those things their own. The rule that no outsider could eat the holy things meant, not those who do not acknowledge the Lord within the Church, thus not those with whom none of the Church's truth and good exists. The rule that no stranger or hired servant could eat them meant, neither those with whom natural good exists devoid of the good of faith, nor those who do good for the sake of reward. The rule that those bought with silver and those born in the house could eat them meant, those who have been converted, and those with whom the Church's truth and good exists as the result of faith and love. The rule that a priest's daughter married to a man who was an outsider could not eat them meant that the good which had not been wedded to the Church's truths [but to something other] could not make the holy things of the Church its own. The rule however that a widow or a divorcee who had no seed could eat them meant that good can be made one's own after the removal of things which do not belong to the Church, provided that no notions have been hatched or born out of that union that have become an integral part of one's faith. The fact that such considerations are meant is evident from the internal sense of these specific rules.

[5] But hereditary evils do not prevent anyone from making good his own. This consideration too is described in Moses,

No man of the seed of Aaron in whom there is a blemish shall approach to offer the bread of God - no man who is blind, lame, mutilated, or [has a limb] too long; none who has a broken foot or hand, is a hunchback, is bruised, has a defect in his eye, has scabs, has warts, or has a crushed testicle. He shall not approach to offer the bread of his God; but he shall eat the bread of God from among the most holy and the holy things. Leviticus 21:17-23.

These defects, as has been stated, serve to mean hereditary evils, some specific evil being meant by each particular defect. The reason why these men should not offer bread or approach the altar as priests was that if they did so the people would catch sight of those imperfections or ills, and in what was caught sight of some representation would take shape, none of which would happen if those defects remained hidden. For although a priest, Levite, or the people were unclean inwardly, they were nevertheless called clean and also thought to be sanctified, provided that outwardly they were washed and looked clean.

Фусноте: