8588. And Meribah. That this signifies the quality of the complaining, is evident from the fact that in the original tongue “Meribah” means “contention,” or “quarreling,” and “quarreling” signifies complaining (see n. 8563, 8566); and because names signify the quality of the thing (n. 8587), therefore “Meribah” here signifies the quality of the complaining. As regards this temptation itself and its quality, be it known that in this passage are described those who in temptations almost yield, namely, those who complain against heaven and also against the Divine Itself, and at last almost disbelieve in the Divine Providence. These things are signified in the internal sense by what precedes, and also by what follows in this verse, namely, the quality of the state of the temptation, which is signified by “Massah,” and the quality of the complaining in the temptation, which is signified by “Meribah.” That this quality is here signified by “Meribah,” is plain in David:

Thou calledst upon Me in distress, and I rescued thee; I answered thee in the secret place, I proved thee at the waters of Meribah (Psalms 81:7).

[2] But in the internal historical sense, in which the subject treated of is the state of religion with the Israelitish nation, that nation is described in respect to its quality toward Jehovah, namely, that they were not willing by supplication to entreat Him for aid, but that they expostulated. The reason was, that at heart they did not acknowledge Jehovah as the supreme God, but only in the mouth, when they saw the miracles. That at heart they did not acknowledge Him is very evident from the Egyptian calf which they made for themselves and worshiped, saying that these were their gods; also from their frequent apostasy (of which see n. 8301). This is what is here described in the internal historical sense; but in the internal spiritual sense is described the quality of the temptation with those who before they are liberated are brought to the last of temptation.

[3] That the quality of the Israelitish nation and of its religiosity is described by contention with Moses at Massah and Meribah, is also evident in the following passages:

Harden not your heart, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, where your fathers tempted Me; they tempted Me, and saw My work; for forty years did I feel loathing at the generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and the same have not known My ways, to whom I sware in Mine anger that they should not come unto My rest (Psalms 95:8-11).

Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16; 9:22, 24).

Of Leviticus he said, Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with the Holy Man, whom thou didst tempt at Massah, with whom thou didst contend at the waters of Meribah (Deuteronomy 33:8).

“The Holy Man” here denotes the Lord, whom they tempted, and whom Moses and Aaron did not sanctify.

[4] In the internal historical sense, in which the subject treated of is the religiosity of the Israelitish nation, by Moses and Aaron is not represented truth Divine, but the religiosity of that nation whose leaders and heads they were (n. 7041). Because this religiosity was such as said above, it was intimated to them that they should not bring the people into the land of Canaan, as is written in the book of Numbers:

Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye have not believed in Me, and sanctified Me in the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them; these are the waters of Meribah, because the sons of Israel contended with Jehovah (Numbers 20:12-13; 27:14).

Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall not come into the land which I have given to the sons of Israel, because ye rebelled against My mouth at the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:24).

The same is said of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:50-51).

[5] That still representative Divine worship was instituted with that nation, was because representative worship could be instituted with any nation that had holy externals of worship, and worshiped almost idolatrously; for what is representative does not regard the person, but the thing (n. 1361), and it was the genius of that nation, beyond any other nation, to worship merely external things as holy and Divine, without any internal; as for instance to worship as deities their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and afterward Moses and David, and moreover to account holy and as Divine, and to worship, every stone and every piece of wood that had been inaugurated in their Divine worship; as the arks, the tables therein, the lamp, the altar, the garments of Aaron, the Urim and Thummim, and afterward the temple. Of the Lord’s Providence there was then given a communication of the angels of heaven with man by means of such things. For there must needs be somewhere a church, or the representative of a church, in order that there may be communication of heaven with the human race; and as that nation, beyond any other nation, could make Divine worship consist in external things, and thus act the representative of a church, therefore that nation was taken.

[6] At that time communication with the angels in heaven was effected by means of representatives in the following way. Their external worship was communicated to angelic spirits who are simple, and who do not reflect upon internal things, but still are interiorly good. Such are they who in the Grand Man correspond to the outer skin. These pay no attention whatever to the internal of man, but only to his external. If this appears holy, they think holily of the internal also. The more interior angels of heaven saw in those spirits the things that were represented, consequently the heavenly and Divine things that corresponded; for they could be present with these spirits, and see those things; but not with the men except by means of the spirits. For angels dwell with men in things interior; but where there are no such things, they dwell in the interior things of simple spirits; for the angels have no interest in other than spiritual and heavenly things, which are the interior things contained in representatives. From these few words it can be seen how there could be communication with heaven by means of such a people. But see what has been previously shown on this subject, namely: That with the Jews the holy of worship was miraculously elevated into heaven quite apart from them (n. 4307); that whatever their quality might be, the descendants of Jacob could represent what is holy, provided they closely observed the rituals commanded (n. 3147, 3479, 3480, 3881, 4208, 4281, 4288, 4289, 4293, 4307, 4444, 4500, 4680, 4825, 4844, 4847, 4899, 4912, 6304, 6306, 7048, 7051, 8301).

4763. And he rent his garments. That this signifies mourning, is evident from the signification of “rending the garments,” as being mourning, namely, on account of truth having been destroyed, or because there was no faith. We often read in the Word, especially the historic, of persons rending their garments; but the origin of this is not known at the present day, and it is also unknown that it was representative of grief on account of truth being lost. This act became representative from the fact that “garments” signified truths, as before shown (n. 4545). Further on in this chapter it is also said that when Jacob recognized his son’s tunic he rent his garments (verse 34), and by this is signified mourning for truth destroyed. So in other places in the Word, as when Rabshakeh, who was sent by Sennacherib the king of Assyria, spoke insults against Jerusalem; whereupon Eliakim who was over the King’s household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the recorder, rent their garments and told these things to King Hezekiah; and when the king heard it he also rent his garments, and covered himself with sackcloth (Isaiah 36:22; 37:1; 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1). The insults which Rabshakeh spoke were against God, the King, and Jerusalem, thus against Divine truth, as is still plainer from the internal sense of the passage; hence the garments were rent because of mourning.

[2] When Jehudi had read before the king the roll of the book which Jeremiah wrote, it is said that the king cast it into the fire, and that the king and his servants, who heard all those words, did not rend their garments (Jeremiah 36:23-24); their not rending their garments denoted that they did not mourn when Divine truth was not received. The rending of their garments by Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, when the spies brought an evil report of the land of Canaan, and their speaking against them (Numbers 14:6), involves a similar meaning; for the land of Canaan signifies the Lord’s kingdom, to speak against which is to speak falsity against Divine truth. When the ark of God was taken by the Philistines, and the two sons of Eli were slain, that there ran a man out of the army to Shiloh with his garments rent and dust upon his head (1 Samuel 4:11-12), signified mourning over lost Divine truth and Divine good; for, as the ark represented the Lord’s kingdom, and in the supreme sense the Lord Himself, and hence the holy of the church, the rent garments signified mourning over lost Divine truth; and dust upon the head, over lost Divine good.

[3] We read of Samuel and Saul:

As Samuel turned about to go away, Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his tunic, and it was torn off. And Samuel said unto him, Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of Israel from upon thee this day, and hath given it to thy companion. I will not return with thee, for thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, and Jehovah hath rejected thee from being king over Israel (1 Samuel 15:26-28);

Saul’s tearing off the skirt of Samuel’s tunic represented what Samuel said—that the kingdom should be rent from him, and that he should no longer be king of Israel; for “kingdom” in the internal sense signifies Divine truth (n. 1672, 2547, 4691), as also do a “king” and “royalty” (n. 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581), and specifically the Kingdom and king of Israel, because by Israel was represented the Lord’s royalty. So what is related of Jeroboam and the prophet Ahijah:

When Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, and the prophet Ahijah found him in the way, when he had clad himself with a new garment, and they two were alone in the field, Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was upon him, and rent it in twelve pieces; and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus saith Jehovah the God of Israel, Behold I rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee (1 Kings 11:29-31).

[4] The same is true of their rending their garments when Saul was slain in battle, as related in the second book of Samuel:

After Saul had been slain in battle, on the third day a man came from the camp whose garments were rent; and when David heard of the death of Saul, David took hold of his garments and rent them; as did all his servants that were with him (2 Samuel 1:1-2, 11:11);

by this also was represented mourning on account of Divine truth lost and thrown away by those who were in faith separate; for as before said Divine truth was signified by royalty, and they who were in faith separate were represented by the Philistines, by whom Saul was slain (n. 1197, 1198, 3412, 3413); as also is evident from David’s lament over him in the same chapter (2 Samuel 1:17-27).

[5] When Absalom had smitten his brother Amnon, and the tidings came to David that Absalom had smitten all the king’s sons, David “rent his garments and lay on the earth, and all his servants stood by with their garments rent” (2 Samuel 13:28, 30-31); this also was done for the sake of representing that truths from the Divine were destroyed, these being signified in the internal sense by the king’s sons. So when David fled before Absalom he was met by Hushai the Archite with his tunic rent (2 Samuel 15:32); for in the Word by a king, especially by David, is represented Divine truth. In like manner also when Elijah spoke to Ahab king of Israel the words of Jehovah, that he should be extirpated on account of the evil which he had done, Ahab rent his garments and put sackcloth upon his flesh (1 Kings 21:27).

[6] That the rending or tearing of garments represented mourning on account of lost truth, is further evident from the following passages:

Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah; and Shaphan read it before king Josiah. And when the king heard the words of the book of the law, he rent his garments (2 Kings 22:11);

manifestly on account of the Word (that is, Divine truth) having been so long lost, and obliterated in hearts and life. When the Lord confessed that He was the Christ the Son of God, that the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy (Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:63-64), signified that he had no other belief than that the Lord spoke against the Word, and thus against Divine truth.

[7] When Elijah went up in a whirlwind, and Elisha saw it, he took hold of his own garments, and rent them in two pieces; and he took up the tunic of Elijah that fell from upon him, and smote the waters, and they were parted hither and thither, and Elisha went over (2 Kings 2:11-14); that Elisha then rent his garments in two pieces was on account of mourning that the Word (that is, Divine truth) was lost; for by Elijah is represented the Lord as to the Word, that is, Divine truth (n. 2762). The tunic falling from Elijah, and being taken up by Elisha, represented that Elisha continued the representation. That a tunic is Divine truth may be seen above (n. 4677), wherefore also the garment which was rent in such mourning was the tunic, as is evident from some of the passages above cited. As a “garment” signified the truth of the church, and in the supreme sense Divine truth, it was therefore a disgrace to go with rent garments, except in such mourning—as is evident from what was done to the servants of David by Hanun the king of the sons of Ammon, in that he shaved off half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks; for which reason they were not admitted to David (2 Samuel 10:4-5).

3670. And He will give thee the blessing of Abraham. That this signifies the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural, is evident from the signification of a “blessing,” as being conjunction (n. 3660, 3667); and from the representation of Abraham, as being the Lord’s Divine Itself which is called the “Father” (concerning which see n. 2011, 3251, 3439). And inasmuch as these words are spoken to Jacob, by whom there would be represented the Lord’s Divine natural as to the Divine good and truth therein, therefore the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural is what is signified, in the internal sense, by “He will give thee the blessing of Abraham.” In the sense of the letter, it is the possession of the land of Canaan that is meant by the “blessing of Abraham,” and also by the words which follow: “to cause thee to inherit the land of thy sojournings, which God gave unto Abraham;” and according to this sense do all apprehend the words who believe that the historicals of the Word do not contain within them things more heavenly and secret: and especially so do the Jewish nation, who on the strength of these words claim for themselves privileges above every other nation and people. Their fathers understood the words in the same manner, and especially were they so understood by Jacob, whose quality is evident from what was said just above (n. 3667), in that he would not have known Jehovah, nor have been willing to acknowledge Him, unless He had given him corporeal and worldly blessings. But that neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob was meant, and that by Jacob is represented the Lord as to the natural which He would make Divine, is abundantly manifest from the explications given above. That it is immaterial what is the quality of the man who represents, as to whether he is evil or good, and that evil men equally with good men can represent and have represented the Lord’s Divine, may be seen above (n. 665, 1097, 1361).

[2] The same may be seen from the representatives which exist even to this day; for all kings, whoever they may be, and of whatever quality, by the royalty itself that appertains to them represent the Lord; in like manner all priests, whoever and of whatever quality they may be, by the priestly office itself. The royal and the priestly office itself is holy, whatever be the quality of him who ministers therein; and this is the reason why the Word taught by an evil man is equally holy, and also the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper, and other such things. And from this it is also evident that no king can possibly claim for himself anything of the sanctity that belongs to his royalty; nor any priest anything of the sanctity that belongs to his priesthood. Insofar as either claims anything thereof to himself, or attributes it to himself, so far he brands himself with the character of a spiritual thief, or with the mark of spiritual theft; and also insofar as he does evil, that is, acts contrary to what is just and equitable, and contrary to what is good and true, so far a king puts off the representative of holy royalty, and a priest the representative of holy priesthood, and represents the opposite. For this reason in the representative Jewish Church there were so many laws enjoined concerning the holiness in which priests especially should be during their ministration-on which subject, of the Lord’s Divine mercy, more will be said in what follows.