4502. And took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went forth. That this signifies that they took away the affection of truth, is evident from the representation of Dinah, as being the affection of truth (see above, n. 4498). It is according to the proximate internal sense that they took away the affection of truth from those who were of the remains of the Most Ancient Church, because it is said that they “took her out of Shechem’s house,” “Shechem’s house” signifying the good of the truth of that church. But as the subject treated of is the extirpation of truth and good among the descendants of Jacob who are here signified by his sons, and as all things are to be taken in application to the subject treated of, therefore by “Shechem’s house” is here signified simply the good of truth such as had existed with the man of the Most Ancient Church; and what is signified is that this was extinguished in the nation sprung from Jacob; for in the internal sense of the Word the signification of the names and words is determined by the subject to which they are applied; yet here there is at the same time signified the breaking down of the good and truth with Hamor and Shechem and his family, because they acceded to externals, as shown above (n. 4493).

[2] That what has thus far been unfolded about Simeon and Leviticus is really so, may be seen from the prophetic utterances of Jacob just before his death:

Simeon and Leviticus are brethren, instruments of violence are their swords; let not my soul come into their secret, in their congregation let not my glory be united, for in their anger they slew a man, and in their pleasure they unstrung an ox; cursed be their anger, for it was vehement, and their fury, for it was grievous; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel (Genesis 49:5-7);

by “Simeon and Levi” are signified the truth of faith which with the descendants of Jacob was turned into falsity, and the good of charity which was turned into evil (as shown above, n. 4499, 4500). They are called “brethren” because good is the brother of truth, or charity is the brother of faith (n. 4498). “Instruments of violence are their swords” signifies that falsities and evils inflicted violence on truths and goods (n. 4499). “Let not my soul come into their secret, in their congregation let not my glory be united” signifies disjunction as to life and doctrine, for in the Word “soul” is predicated of life (n. 1000, 1040, 1742, 3299), and “glory” of doctrine. “For in their anger they slew a man, and in their pleasure they unstrung an ox” signifies that in evil of set purpose they extinguished the truth of the church and the good of the church (for a “man” is the truth of the church, n. 3134, and an “ox” is its good, n. 2180, 2566, 2781). “Cursed be their anger, for it was vehement, and their fury, for it was grievous” signifies the penalty for turning away from truth and good (for “to curse” is to turn one’s self away, and also to be punished therefor, n. 245, 379, 1423, 3530, 3584; “anger” is a turning away from truth, and “fury,” from good, n. 357, 3614). “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel” signifies that goods and truths will no longer be in the external and the internal of their church (“to divide” and “to scatter” denote to separate and to extirpate from them, n. 4424; “Jacob” is the external of the church, and “Israel” the internal, n. 4286).

[3] These things were said of Simeon and Leviticus in that prophecy because by them is signified the truth and good of the church in general; but when these have become null and void, and still more when falsities and evils succeed in their place, the church is then extinct. That such is the meaning of these prophetic words is evident from the fact that the tribe of Simeon and the tribe of Leviticus were not cursed above the other tribes; for the tribe of Leviticus was taken for the priesthood, and the tribe of Simeon was among the other tribes of Israel as one of them.

2180. And took a son of an ox tender and good. That this signifies the celestial natural which the rational associated to itself, in order that it might conjoin itself with the perception from the Divine, is evident from the signification in the Word of a “bullock” or “son of an ox,” as being natural good. And as the Lord’s rational is treated of, it is called “tender” from the celestial-spiritual, or the truth of good; and “good” from the celestial itself, or good itself. In the genuine rational there is the affection of truth and the affection of good; but its chief thing [primarium] is the affection of truth (as before shown, n. 2072). Hence it is first called “tender,” and yet is called both “tender and good,” according to the usual practice in the Word, to indicate the marriage of good and truth (spoken of above, n. 2173).

[2] That a “bullock,” or “son of an ox,” signifies the celestial natural, or what is the same, natural good, is especially evident from the sacrifices, which were the principal representatives of worship in the Hebrew Church, and afterwards in the Jewish. Their sacrifices were made either from the herd or from the flock, thus from animals of various kinds that were clean, such as oxen, bullocks, he-goats, sheep, rams, she-goats, kids, and lambs; besides turtledoves and young pigeons, all of which animals signified internal things of worship, that is, things celestial and spiritual (n. 2165, 2177); the animals taken from the herd signifying celestial natural things, and those from the flock celestial rational things; and as both the natural and the rational things are more and more interior, and are various, therefore so many kinds and species of those animals were made use of in the sacrifices; as is also evident from its being prescribed what animals should be offered-in the burnt-offerings; in the sacrifices of various kinds, as in those that were daily, those of the Sabbaths and festivals, those that were voluntary, those for thanksgiving and vows, those expiatory of guilt and sin, those of purifying and cleansing, and those of inauguration-and also from their being expressly named, and how many of them should be used in each kind of sacrifice; which would never have been done unless each had signified some special thing. This is very evident from those passages where the sacrifices are treated of (as Exodus 29; Leviticus 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, 23; Numbers 7, 8, 15, 29). But this is not the place to set forth what each one signified. The case is similar in the Prophets where these animals are named, and from them it is evident that “bullocks” signified celestial natural things.

[3] That no other than heavenly things were signified, is also evident from the cherubs seen by Ezekiel, and from the animals before the throne seen by John. Concerning the cherubs the Prophet says:

The likeness of their faces was the face of a man, and they four had the face of a lion on the right side, and they four had the face of an ox on the left side, and they four had the face of an eagle (Ezekiel 1:10).

Concerning the four animals before the throne John says:

Around the throne were four animals; the first animal was like a lion, the second animal like a young bullock, the third animal had a face like a man, the fourth animal was like a flying eagle; saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come (Revelation 4:6-8).

Everyone can see that holy things were represented by the cherubs and by these animals, and also by the oxen and young bullocks in the sacrifices. In like manner in the prophecy of Moses concerning Joseph:

Let it come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the head of him that was a Nazirite from his brethren. The firstling of his ox, honor is his; and his horns are the horns of the unicorn, with them he shall push the peoples together, to the ends of the earth (Deuteronomy 33:16-17).

None can understand these things unless it is known what an ox, a unicorn, horns, and other things signify in the internal sense.

[4] As regards sacrifices in general, they were indeed enjoined through Moses on the people of Israel, but the Most Ancient Church, that existed before the flood, knew nothing whatever about sacrifices; nor did it even come into their minds to worship the Lord by slaughtering animals. The Ancient Church, that existed after the flood, was likewise unacquainted with sacrifices. This church was indeed in representatives, but not in sacrifices. In fact sacrifices were first instituted in the following church, which was called the Hebrew Church, and from this spread to the nations, and from the same source they came to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thus to the descendants of Jacob. That the nations were in a worship of sacrifices, was shown above (n. 1343); and that so were Jacob’s posterity before they went out of Egypt, thus before sacrifices were commanded by Moses upon Mount Sinai, is evident from what is said in Exodus 5:3; 10:25, 27; 18:12; 24:4-5; and especially from their idolatrous worship before the golden calf.

[5] Thus described in Moses:

Aaron built an altar before the calf, and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is the feast of Jehovah. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat, and to drink, and rose up to play (Exodus 32:5-6).

This was done while Moses was upon Mount Sinai, and thus before the command concerning the altar and the sacrifices came to them. The command came on this account-that the worship of sacrifices had become idolatrous with them, as it had with the gentiles, and from this worship they could not be withdrawn, because they regarded it as the chief holy thing. For what has once been implanted from infancy as holy, especially if by fathers, and thus inrooted, the Lord never breaks, but bends, unless it is contrary to order itself. This is the reason why it was directed that sacrifices should be instituted in the way described in the books of Moses.

[6] That sacrifices were by no means acceptable to Jehovah, thus were merely permitted and tolerated for the reason just stated, is very evident in the Prophets, as we read in Jeremiah:

Thus saith Jehovah Zebaoth the God of Israel, Add your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat flesh. I spoke not unto your fathers, and I commanded them not in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offering and sacrifice; but this word I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God (Jeremiah 7:21-23).

In David:

O Jehovah, sacrifice and offering Thou hast not willed, burnt-offering and sin-offering Thou hast not required. I have desired to do Thy will, O my God (Psalms 40:6, 8).

In the same:

Thou delightest not in sacrifice, that I should give it; burnt-offering Thou dost not accept. The sacrifices of God are a broken ¹ spirit (Psalms 51:16-17).

In the same:

I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds; sacrifice to God confession (Psalms 50:9, 13-14; 107:21-22; 116:17; Deuteronomy 23:19).

In Hosea:

I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings (Hos. 6:6).

Samuel said to Saul:

Hath Jehovah pleasure in burnt-offerings and sacrifices? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, to hearken than the fat of rams (1 Samuel 15:22).

In Micah:

Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself to the high God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself in walking with thy God (Micah 6:6-8).

[7] From all this it is now evident that sacrifices were not commanded, but permitted; also that nothing else was regarded in the sacrifices than what is internal; and that it was the internal, not the external, that was acceptable. On this account also, the Lord abrogated them, as was likewise foretold by Daniel in these words:

In the midst of the week shall He cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease (Daniel 9:27),

where the Lord’s advent is treated of. (See what is said concerning sacrifices in volume 1, n. 922-923, 1128, 1823.) As regards the “son of an ox” which Abraham “made” or prepared for the three men, the case is the same as with that animal in the sacrifices. That it had a like signification is evident also from his telling Sarah to take three measures of fine flour. Concerning the fine flour to a bullock, we read in Moses:

When ye be come into the land; when thou shalt make a son of an ox a burnt-offering or a sacrifice, in pronouncing publicly a vow, or peace-offerings unto Jehovah, thou shalt offer upon the son of an ox a meat offering of three tenths of fine flour, mingled with oil (Numbers 15:8-9), where it is in like manner “three,” here “three tenths,” and above, “three measures;” but to a ram there were to be only two tenths, and to a lamb one tenth (Numbers 15:4-6).

Imibhalo yaphansi: