New Christian Bible Study

Commentary

 

Memorable Occurrences in Swedenborg's Writings

This list of Memorable Occurrences in Swedenborg's Writings was originally compiled by W. C. Henderson in 1960 but has since been updated.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Conjugial Love #293

Study this Passage

  
/ 535  
  

293. To this I will append two narrative accounts. Here is the first:

I once looked out my window toward the east and saw seven women sitting next to a rose garden by a spring drinking water. I strained my eyes intently to see what they were doing, and the intensity of my gaze caught their attention. With a motion of the head one of them therefore invited me over. Accordingly I left the house and hurried in their direction. And when I arrived, I politely asked them where they were from.

They then said, "We are wives. We are talking here about the delights of conjugial love, and we have concluded from a good deal of evidence that these delights are also delights of wisdom."

This response so delighted my heart that I seemed to be more interiorly in the spirit and to have on that account a more enlightened perception than ever before. So I said to them, "Permit me an opportunity to ask you some questions about those pleasant delights." And they nodded their assent.

So I asked, "How do you wives know that the delights of conjugial love are at the same time delights of wisdom?"

[2] They then replied, "We know it from the correspondence that exists between wisdom in our husbands and the delights of conjugial love in us. For the delights of this love in us heighten or diminish and take on altogether different qualities according to the wisdom in our husbands."

On hearing this I inquired further, saying, "I know you are affected by gentle words from your husbands and cheerful states of mind on their part, and that you take delight on account of these with all your heart. But I wonder at your saying that it is in response to their wisdom. However, tell me what wisdom is and what sort of wisdom you mean."

[3] To this the wives replied with annoyance, "You think we do not know what wisdom is and what sort of wisdom we mean, even though we continually reflect on it in our husbands and daily learn it from their mouths. Indeed, we wives think about the state of our husbands from morning to evening, with scarcely any time intervening in a day when this is interrupted or in which our instinctive thought is entirely withdrawn or gone from them. Our husbands in contrast spend very little time in the course of a day thinking about our state. As a result we know what sort of wisdom in them finds delight in us. Our husbands call this wisdom a spiritual-rational wisdom and a spiritual-moral one. Spiritual-rational wisdom, they say, is a matter of the intellect and its intellectual concepts, while spiritual-moral wisdom is a matter of the will and its mode of life. Yet they join the two together and regard them as one; and they maintain that the pleasant delights of this wisdom are transposed from their minds into delights in our hearts, and from our hearts back to their hearts, so that these return to the wisdom from which they originated."

[4] I then asked whether they knew anything more about this wisdom in their husbands - "wisdom," I said, "which finds delight in you."

"We do," they said. "It is a spiritual wisdom, and from that a rational and moral one. Spiritual wisdom is to acknowledge the Lord our Savior as God of heaven and earth, and through the Word and discourses from it to acquire from Him truths connected with the Church, from which comes a spiritual rationality; and in addition to live from Him according to those truths, from which comes a spiritual morality. Our husbands call these two the wisdom which in general works to produce truly conjugial love. We have also heard from them the reason, namely, that this wisdom opens the inner faculties of their mind and thus of their body, providing free passage from the firsts to the last of these for the stream of love, on whose flow, sufficiency and strength conjugial love depends for its existence and life.

"As regards marriage in particular, the spiritual-rational and spiritual-moral wisdom of our husbands has as its end and goal to love only their wives and to rid themselves of all desire for other women. Moreover, to the extent they achieve this, to that extent that love is heightened in degree and perfected in quality, and the more clearly and keenly do we then feel matching delights in us corresponding to the contented pleasures of our husbands' affections and the pleasant exaltations of their thoughts."

[5] I asked them next whether they knew how the communication took place.

They said, "All conjunction by love requires action, reception, and reaction. The state of our love and its delights is the agent or that which acts. The state of our husbands' wisdom is the recipient or that which receives. And this same wisdom is also the reagent or that which reacts in accordance with their reception. This reaction is then perceived by us with feelings of delight in our hearts according to our state and the measure in which it is continually open and ready to receive those elements which in some way are connected with and so emanate from virtue in our husbands, thus which in some way are connected with and so emanate from the final state of love in us."

At that point they also inserted, "Take care you do not interpret the delights we have mentioned to mean the end delights of conjugial love. We never talk about these, but only about the delights of our hearts which constantly correspond to the state of wisdom in our husbands."

[6] After that there appeared in the distance what looked like a dove in flight with a leaf from a tree in its mouth; but as it drew near, instead of a dove we saw a little boy with a piece of paper in his hand. Coming over to us then, he held it out to me and said, "Read it in the presence of these maidens of the spring."

So I read the following:

Tell the inhabitants of the earth among whom you live that there is such a thing as truly conjugial love, offering a million delights scarcely any of which are yet known to the world. But they will be discovered when the church betroths itself to her Lord and becomes His bride and wife.

Then I asked the wives, "Why did the boy call you 'maidens of the spring'?"

"We are called maidens when we sit by this spring," they replied, "because we are forms of affection for the truths of our husbands' wisdom; and an affection for truth in form is termed a maiden. The spring likewise symbolizes the truth of wisdom, and the rose garden we are sitting next to its delights."

[7] One of the seven wives then wove a garland of roses; and sprinkling it with water from the spring, she placed it over the cap the boy had on, fitting it around his little head and saying, "Receive the delights of intelligence. Your cap, you see, symbolizes intelligence, and the garland from this rose garden its delights."

Thus adorned the boy then departed, and in the distance he looked once more like a dove in flight, but this time with a little crown on its head.

  
/ 535  
  

Many thanks to the General Church of the New Jerusalem, and to Rev. N.B. Rogers, translator, for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

True Christian Religion #111

Study this Passage

  
/ 853  
  

111. The second experience 1 .

In the natural world people's speech is twofold, because so is their thought, for it may be external or internal. For one can speak as a result of internal thought and at the same time of external thought, or simply as the result of external thought without the internal, or even contrary to it. This is the origin of pretence, insincerity and hypocrisy. But in the spiritual world people do not have twofold speech but only one way of speaking; they speak as they think, otherwise the sound of their voices is harsh and hurts the ears. One can, however, still keep quiet and not reveal the thoughts arising in the mind. Consequently a hypocrite on coming into the company of wise people either goes away, or hurries into a corner of the room, makes himself inconspicuous and sits in silence.

[2] There was once a large assembly in the world of spirits to discuss this subject. They said that being unable to speak except as one thought was hard for those who did not have right ideas about God and the Lord, when they mixed with good people. The middle of the assembly consisted of people from the Reformed Churches, many of them clergy, and next to them were the Roman Catholics and their monks. To begin with, both parties said that this was not hard. 'What need is there,' they said, 'to speak otherwise than one thinks? And if perhaps anyone does not think aright, can he not keep his mouth shut and be silent?'

A clergyman said: 'Is there anyone who does not think aright about God and the Lord?'

But some people in the assembly said: 'Let us put them to the test.' So they told those who have a firm conviction about God as a Trinity of Persons to think about and say 'One God'. They could not do so; they twisted and screwed up their mouths into all kinds of shapes, but were unable to utter any words except those which agreed with their thoughts, and these were about three Persons, so consequently three Gods.

[3] They went on to tell those who had convinced themselves of the doctrine of faith separated from charity to name 'Jesus'. They could not do so, though they were able to say 'Christ', and also 'God the Father'. This surprised them and they asked why. The reason they discovered to be the fact that they had prayed to God the Father for the sake of His Son, and not to the Saviour Himself; and 'Jesus' means Saviour.

[4] Then they were told to think about the Lord's Human and say 'the Divine Human'. None of the clergy present was able to do so; but some of the laymen could. So they made this the subject of a profound debate. Then (i) the following passages from the Gospels were read to them:

The Father gave all things into the hand of the Son, John 3:35.

The Father gave the Son power over all flesh, John 17:2.

All things were handed to me by the Father, Matthew 11:27.

All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18.

'Now keep in mind,' they were told, 'that Christ both in His Divine and in His Human is the God of heaven and earth, and while doing so say the Divine Human.' But they were still unable to do so; and they said that although they could retain some thoughts coming from their understanding of the subject, still they could not acknowledge this at all, and that was the reason for their failure.

[5] (ii) Then the passages from Luke (Luke 1:32, 34-35) were read to them, which prove that the Lord in His Human was the Son of Jehovah God, and that He is there called 'the Son of the Most High', and in many other passages 'the Son of God', as well as 'the Only-begotten'. They begged them to keep this in mind, and also that the only-begotten Son of God who was born in the world must inevitably be God, just as His Father is God, and then to say 'the Divine Human.' But they said: 'We cannot, because our spiritual, that is, interior thought does not permit any but similar ideas to enter the thought which is nearest to speech.' As a result they said they perceived that now they were not allowed to divide their thoughts, as they had in the natural world.

[6] (iii) Next, these words of the Lord to Philip were read to them:

Philip said, Lord, show us the Father; and the Lord said, He who sees me sees the Father; do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? John 14:8-11.

Also other passages stating that the Father and He are one (e.g, John 10:30). They were told to keep these in mind, and so to say 'the Divine Human.' But because their thought was not rooted in the acknowledgment of the Lord as God in His Human too, they screwed up their mouths until they became indignant, wanting to force their mouths to utter the words, but being unable to do so. The reason was that the ideas one thinks of, which are derived from acknowledgment, are identical with the words of language, when one is in the spiritual world. In the absence of those ideas, the words will not come, for speaking is putting ideas into words.

[7] (iv) Then the following passage was read to them from the doctrine received throughout the Christian world:

The Divine and the Human in the Lord are not two, but one, in fact one Person, united like soul and body in man.

This is from the Athanasian Creed, and has been accepted by the Councils. Then they were told: 'This at least will give you some idea and enable you to acknowledge that the Lord's Human is Divine, because His soul is Divine. This is the doctrine of your church, and you acknowledged it in the world. Moreover, the soul is the very essence of a person, and the body is the form, and essence and form make one, like being and coming-into-being, or like the efficient cause which produces the effect and the effect itself.' They held this idea in mind, and tried by means of it to say 'the Divine Human', but still they could not. For the idea deep within their minds about the Lord's Human banished and drove out this new supplementary idea, as they called it.

[8] (v) After this the following passage from John was read to them:

The Word was with God, and the Word was God; and the Word was made flesh, John 1:1, 14.

and also this:

Jesus Christ is the true God and everlasting life. 1 John 5:20.

and from Paul:

In Christ Jesus all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, Colossians 2:9.

John 2:9.

They were told to think along these lines: that God who was the Word became man; that He was the true God; and that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily. They did so, but only in their external thought; for the resistance of their internal thought prevented them from saying the words 'the Divine Human.' They said frankly that they could not have any idea of a Divine Human, 'because God is God, and man is man; and God is a spirit, and we have never understood spirit as anything but wind or ether.'

[9] (vi) Finally they were told: 'You know that the Lord said:

Remain in me and I in you; he who remains in me, and I in him, bears much fruit, because without me you can do nothing, John 15:4-5.

Because some of the English clergy were present, a passage was read to them from one of the prayers used in the Holy Communion:

For, when we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood, then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in Us. 2

Now consider that this would be impossible, if the Lord's Human were not Divine, and then say 'the Divine Human', acknowledging this in your thought. But they were still unable to do so, because the idea was so deeply stamped on their minds that what is Divine could not be human, and what is human could not be Divine; and that the Lord's Divine was from the Divine of the Son born from eternity, while His Human was like that of any other man. They were told: 'How can you think this? Can the rational mind ever conceive of a Son born of God from eternity?'

[10] (vii) Then they turned to the Evangelical party and said that the Confession of Augsburg and Luther taught that the Son of God and the Son of Man were one Person in Christ, and that even in His human nature He was omnipotent and omnipresent; and this enabled Him to sit at the right hand of God the Father, and control all things in the heavens and upon earth, to fulfil all prophecies, be with us, and dwell and work in us; that there was no distinction in worship, because through the visible nature the invisible Godhead is worshipped; and that in Christ God is man and man is God. On hearing this they replied: 'Is that so?' They looked around and after a while said: 'We did not know this before; that is why we cannot say 'the Divine Human.' One or two said: 'We read that and wrote it, but when we pondered it in our hearts, they were only words, of which we had no inward notion.'

[11] (viii) Lastly they turned to the Roman Catholics and said: 'Perhaps you can name the Divine Human, because you believe that in your Eucharist Christ is wholly present in the bread and wine, and in every part of them. Moreover you worship Him, when you display and carry around the Host, as the Most Holy God. You also call Mary the mother of God. Consequently you acknowledge that she gave birth to God, that is, the Divine Human.' Then they tried to say the words, but because there then slipped in a material idea of the body and blood of Christ, and also a belief that His Human could be separated from the Divine, and in fact is so separated in the Pope, to whom only His human and not His Divine power was transferred, they could not pronounce them. Then a monk got up and said that he could think of the Divine Human in the case of the most holy Virgin Mary, or the patron saint of his monastery. Another monk came up who said: 'The idea which I now cherish in my mind enables me to say the Divine Human of his Holiness the Pope, rather than of Christ.' But then some of the Catholics pulled him back saying: 'You should be ashamed of yourself.'

[12] After this heaven appeared to open, and tongues like small flames were seen coming down and lighting on certain people. These then praised the Divine Human of the Lord, saying: 'Banish the idea of three Gods, and believe that in the Lord all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, and that the Father and He are one, just as soul and body are one, and that God is not wind or ether, but is man. Then you will be linked with heaven, and the Lord will enable you to name Jesus and to say "the Divine Human."'

Footnotes:

1. This section is repeated with minor changes from Apocalypse Revealed 294.

2. These words are quoted in English in the original.

  
/ 853  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.

©2024 New Christian Bible Study Corporation. All rights reserved. Printed from newchristianbiblestudy.org