3519. 'And take for me from there two good kids of the she-goats' means truths born from that good. This is clear from the meaning of 'kids of the she-goats' as truths born from good, dealt with below. The reason for having 'two' was that as in the rational so in the natural there are things of the will and those of the understanding. Things in the natural that belong to the will are delights, while those that belong to the understanding are facts. These two have to be joined together if they are to be anything at all.

[2] As regards 'kids of the she-goats' meaning truths born from good, this becomes clear from those places in the Word where kids and she-goats are mentioned. It should be recognized that all gentle and useful beasts mentioned in the Word mean in the genuine sense celestial things, which are forms of good, and spiritual things, which are forms of truth, see 45, 46, 142, 143, 246, 714, 715, 776, 2179, 2180, 2781, 3218. And since there are various genera of celestial things or forms of good, and consequently there are various genera of spiritual things or forms of truth, one beast has a different meaning from another; that is to say, a lamb has one meaning, a kid another, and a sheep, she-goat, ram, he-goat, young bull, or ox another, while a horse or a camel has yet another meaning. Birds have a different meaning again, as also do beasts of the sea, such as sea monsters, and fish. The genera of celestial and spiritual things, and consequently of forms of good and truth, are more than anyone can number, even though when that which is celestial or good is mentioned, and also when that which is spiritual or truth, this is not envisaged as being anything complex, consisting of many parts, but as a single entity. Yet how complex both of these are, that is, how countless the genera are of which they consist, may be seen from what has been stated about heaven in 3241, to the effect that it is distinguished into countless separate communities, according to the genera of celestial and spiritual things, that is, of goods of love and of derivative truths of faith. Furthermore each genus of good and each genus of truth has countless species into which the communities of each genus are separated. And each species in a similar way has separate sub-species.

[3] The commonest genera of good and truth are what the living creatures offered as burnt offerings and sacrifices represented. And because the genera are quite distinct and separate, people were explicitly commanded to use those living creatures and no others, that is to say, in some sacrifices lambs and ewe-lambs, and also kids and female kids of she-goats were to be used, in other sacrifices rams and sheep, and also he-goats, were to be used, while in other sacrifices again, calves, young bulls, and oxen, or else pigeons and doves, were to be used, see 992, 1823, 2180, 2805, 2807, 2830, 3218. What kids and she-goats meant however becomes clear both from the sacrifices in which they used to be offered and from other places in the Word. These show that lambs and ewe-lambs meant innocence belonging to the internal or rational man, and kids and she-goats innocence belonging to the external or natural man, and so the truth and the good of the latter.

[4] The fact that truth and good present in the innocence that belongs to the external or natural man is meant by a kid and a she-goat is clear from the following places in the Word: In Isaiah,

The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, the calf also and the young lion and the sheep together; and a little child will lead them. Isaiah 11:6.

This refers to the Lord's kingdom and to the state there in which people have no fear of evil, that is, no dread of hell, because they are with the Lord. 'The lamb' and 'the kid' stand for people who have innocence within them, and who, being the most secure of all, are mentioned first.

[5] When all the firstborn of Egypt were smitten the people were commanded to kill from among the lambs or among the kids a male without blemish, and to put some of the blood on the doorposts and on the lintel of their houses; and so the destroyer would not strike them with the plague, Exodus 12:5, 7, 13. 'The firstborn of Egypt' means the good of love and charity that was wiped out, 3325. 'The lambs' and 'the kids' are states of innocence, in which those with whom these exist are secure from evil. Indeed all in heaven are kept secure by the Lord through states of innocence. That security was represented by the killing of the lamb or kid, and putting the blood on the doorposts and on the lintel of the houses. .

[6] To avert his own death when a person saw Jehovah manifested as an angel he would sacrifice 'a kid of the she-goats', as Gideon did when he saw Him, Judges 6:19, and also Manoah, Judges 13:15-16, 19. The reason they offered a kid was that Jehovah or the Lord cannot appear to anybody, not even to an angel, unless the one to whom He appears is in a state of innocence. Therefore as soon as the Lord is present people are brought into a state of innocence, for the Lord enters in by way of innocence, even with angels in heaven. Consequently no one is able to enter heaven unless he has a measure of innocence, according to the Lord's words recorded in Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17. Regarding people's belief that they would die when Jehovah appeared to them if they did not offer such a burnt offering, see Judges 13:22-23.

[7] Since genuine conjugial love is innocence itself, 2736, it was customary in the representative Church for a man to go to his wife with the gift of a kid of the she-goats, as one reads of Samson in Judges 15:1, and also of Judah when he visited Tamar, Genesis 38:17, 20, 23. The fact that 'a kid' and 'a she-goat' meant innocence is also evident from the sacrifices made as guilt offerings that a person would offer if he had sinned through error, Leviticus 1:10; 4:28; 5:6. Sinning through error is sinning through ignorance that has innocence within it. The same is evident from the following Divine command in Moses,

You shall bring the first of the firstfruits of your land to the house of Jehovah your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk. Exodus 23:19; 34:26.

Here the requirement 'to bring the firstfruits of the land to the house of Jehovah' means the state of innocence which exists in early childhood; and 'not boiling a kid in its mother's milk' means that they were not to destroy the innocence of early childhood. This being their meaning, the one command, in both places referred to, follows directly after the other. In the literal sense there seems to be no connection at all between them as there is in the internal sense.

[8] Because kids and she-goats, as has been stated, meant innocence it was also required that the curtains over the tabernacle should be made from she-goat hair, Exodus 25:4; 26:7; 35:5-6, 23, 26; 36:14, as a sign that all the holy things represented in it depended for their very being on innocence. 'She-goat hair' means the last or outermost degree of innocence present in ignorance, such as exists with gentiles who in the internal sense are meant by the curtains of the tabernacle. These considerations now show what truths born of good are, and what the nature of these is, meant by the two good kids of the she-goats which Rebekah his mother spoke about to Jacob. That is to say, they are truths belonging to innocence or early childhood, meant also by the things which Esau was to bring to Isaac his father, dealt with in 3501, 3508. They were not in fact such truths, but initially they appeared to be. Thus it was that Jacob pretended by means of them to be Esau.

3498. 'I do not know the day of my death' means the life within the natural. This is clear from the meaning of 'day' as state, dealt with in 23, 487, 488, 493, 893, 2788, and from the meaning of 'death' as rising again or awakening into life, dealt with in 3326. 'The day of death' accordingly means a state of awakening to life, or what amounts to the same, it means life - the life within the natural, it is evident, being meant in particular here, because that life is the subject here. What is implied in all this does not become clear unless one knows about the life of the rational, and the life of the natural, or what amounts to the same, about the life of the internal man and the life of the external man. The life of the rational or internal man is distinct and separate from that of the natural or external man, so distinct indeed that the life of the rational or internal man may exist quite independently of the life of the natural or external man; but the life of the natural or external man cannot exist apart from that of the rational or internal man. For the external man lives from the internal man, so much so that if the life of the internal man ceased to be, the life of the external man would instantly be no more. Exterior things are accordingly dependent on interior in the way that things which are posterior exist from those that are prior, or as an effect exists from its efficient cause. For if the efficient cause ceased to be, the effect would instantly be no more. The same is also so with the life of the external man in relation to the life of the internal man.

[2] This may be seen even more clearly in the human being, for while a person is in the world, that is, while he lives in the body, his rational is distinct and separate from the natural, so much so that he can be raised above the level of external sensory perceptions which belong to the body, and even to a certain extent above the level of inner sensory perceptions which belong to his natural man, and to be aware on the level of his rational, and so of spiritual thought. This is even more evident from the fact that when a person dies he leaves behind him altogether the external sensory perceptions that belong to the body, retaining at the same time the life of his interior man. Indeed he brings with him even the facts that exist in the external or natural memory, though he does not have the use of them, see 2475-2477, 2479-2483, 2485, 2486. From this it is evident that the rational or internal man is distinct and separate from the external man. But while a person is living in the body his rational does not seem to be distinct and separate from the natural, the reason being that he is living in the world or the natural order. That being so the life of the rational manifests itself within the natural, so much so that the rational does not seem to have any life at all if the natural does not at the same time have any. The amount of life that the rational seems to have in this case depends on how far the natural corresponds to it - see above in 3493. From this it may be seen that there is a corresponding life in the natural, which life is meant by the words which Isaac addressed to Esau, 'I do not know the day of my death'. For 'Isaac' represents the rational, and 'Esau' the natural, in both cases as regards good.