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.

脚注:

7988. 'That all the hosts of Jehovah went out of the land of Egypt' means that those with whom truth and good were present but who had been held back until then were released. This is clear from the meaning of 'going out of the land of Egypt' as being released and delivered from molestations, 'going out' self-evidently meaning being released, while 'the land of Egypt' means molestations, see 7278; and from the meaning of 'the hosts of Jehovah' as the truths and forms of good that the spiritual Church possesses, and so those with whom truth and good are present, dealt with in 3448, 7236. The fact that truths and forms of good are meant by 'the hosts of Jehovah' is clear in Daniel,

There came out one small-sized horn of the he-goat, and it grew exceedingly towards the south, and towards the east, and towards the glorious [land]. And it grew even towards the hosts of heaven, and cast down to the earth some of the host, and of the stars, and trampled on them. It drew itself up even towards the prince of the host. And the host was set over the continual [burnt offering] on account of the transgression, because it cast down truth to the earth. At that point I heard a holy one speaking, How long is both the sanctuary and the host being trodden down? He said to me, Up to the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred times; then the sanctuary will be made correct. Daniel 8:9-14.

Here it is plainly evident that 'the hosts' means truths and forms of good, for it says that [the hem] cast down to the earth some of the host and of the stars, and after this that it cast down truth to the earth, and that the host was to be trodden down up to the evening and morning, which is the Lord's Coming.

[2] Since truths and forms of good make up 'the hosts of Jehovah', angels are therefore called His 'hosts' in the first Book of Kings,

Micah the prophet said, I saw Jehovah sitting on His throne, and the entire host of heaven standing beside Him. 1 Kings 22:19.

And in David,

Bless Jehovah, His angels, powerful with strength; bless Jehovah, all His hosts, His ministers. Psalms 103:20-21.

Angels are called 'hosts' by virtue of the truths and forms of good present with them. Not only angels used to be referred to as the hosts of Jehovah but also the lights in the sky - the sun, moon, and stars. And they were referred to as such because 'the sun' was a sign of the good of love, 'the moon' a sign of the good of faith, and 'the stars' a sign of cognitions of goodness and truth. Reference to those lights as 'hosts' is evident in the Book of Genesis,

The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts. Genesis 1:1.

Here 'hosts' is used to mean all the lights in the sky; but in the internal sense, in which the subject at that point is the new creation of a person, 'hosts' is used to mean truths and forms of good.

[3] Likewise in David,

Praise Jehovah, all His angels, praise Him, all His hosts; praise Him, sun and moon, praise Him, all stars of light. Psalms 148:1, 3.

'Sun' means the good of love, and 'moon' the good of faith, see 1529, 1530, 2441, 2495, 4060, 4696, 5377, 7083; and 'stars' means cognitions of good and truth, 1808, 2120, 2495, 2849, 4697.

[4] One reason why 'sun, moon, and stars' means forms of good and truths is that in heaven the Lord is a Sun to those who are celestial and a Moon to those who are spiritual, 1521, 1529-1531, 3636, 3643, 4300, 4721 (end), 5097, 7078, 7083, 7171, 7173; and another reason is that angelic dwelling-places shine like stars, in keeping with the following in Daniel,

Then those who have intelligence will shine like the brightness of the expanse, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and into eternity. Daniel 12:9.

[5] Since angels, by virtue of truths and forms of good, are spoken of as 'the hosts of Jehovah', and also the sun, moon, and stars are called such, and since all truth and good come from the Lord, the Word refers to the Lord as Jehovah Zebaoth, that is, Jehovah of Hosts, 3448. And another reason why it refers to Him in this way is that He fights on a person's behalf against the hells.

From all this one may now see what 'the hosts of Jehovah' is used to mean in the internal sense. The children of Jacob who went out of Egypt were not such, though they represented them. This is evident from their life in Egypt, where they were unacquainted with Jehovah, even with His name before it was made known to Moses from the bramble bush, Exodus 3:13-16; and also they were calf-worshippers no less than the Egyptians were, as may be deduced from Exodus 32. And their life in the wilderness too shows that their character was such that they could not be led into the land of Canaan. Thus they were anything but the hosts of Jehovah.