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 #294

Study this Passage

  
/ 535  
  

294. The second account:

Several days later I again saw the same seven wives in a rose garden, but in a different one from the one previously. It was a magnificent garden, the like of which I had never seen before. It was laid out almost in a circle, and the roses in it formed a kind of rainbow-like arc. Purple-colored roses or flowers formed its outmost ring; golden-yellow ones the next ring in; dark-blue ones the ring inside that; and bluish-green or bright-green ones the inmost ring. And enclosed within that rainbow-like rose garden was a little pool of clear water.

Those seven wives, previously called maidens of the spring, were sitting there, and seeing me at my window they again called me over. Then, when I arrived, they said, "Have you ever seen anything more beautiful on earth?"

"Never," I said.

So they said, "A marvel like this is created by the Lord in instant, and it represents a new development on earth, for everything created by the Lord represents something. But divine if you can what that is. We are guessing that it is the delights of conjugial love."

[2] On hearing this I said, "What are the delights of conjugial love, of which you spoke with so much wisdom and also so much eloquence last time? After I left you, I related what you said to wives living in our world, and I told them, 'Having now been instructed, I know that you feel delights in your hearts arising from your conjugial love, which you are able to communicate to your husbands in accordance with their wisdom. I also know that from morning to evening you therefore continually contemplate your husbands with the eyes of your spirit and consider how to turn and guide their hearts to becoming wise, in order that you may realize those delights.' I further reported what you meant by wisdom, saying that it is a spiritual-rational and spiritual-moral wisdom, and that as regards marriage it is to love only one's wife and to rid oneself of all desire for other women.

"But to this the wives in our world responded with laughter, saying, 'What are you talking about? What you have said is preposterous. We do not know what conjugial love is. If our husbands experience anything of it, still we do not. How then do its delights originate with us? Indeed, when it comes to the delights which you call the end delights, we sometimes resist vehemently, for to us they are repugnant, in almost the same way as acts of rape. In fact, if you look, you will not see one sign of any such love in our faces. Therefore you are either talking nonsense or joking if, like those seven wives of yours, you too say that we think about our husbands from morning to evening and continually give attention to their wishes and pleasures, in order that we may gain from them delights such as those!'

"I have retained from the responses of those wives these declarations, to report them to you, since they call into dispute and even more entirely contradict the discourse I heard from you by the spring, which I listened to so eagerly and also believed."

[3] To this the wives sitting in the rose garden replied, "Dear friend, you do not know the wisdom and prudence of wives, because they hide it altogether from men and keep it hidden precisely in order to be loved by them. For every man who is not spiritually rational and moral but only naturally so possesses a coldness towards his wife, such a coldness being inherent in him in his inmost elements. This coldness a wise and prudent wife acutely and keenly notices, and she then conceals her conjugial love, withdrawing into her heart so much of it and hiding it there so deeply that not the least bit of it appears in her face, her tone of voice, or gesture. She does this, because to the extent her love appears, to that extent a man's coldness with respect to marriage pours forth from the inmost elements of his mind where it resides and descends into its outmost expressions, producing a total frigidity in the body and an urge to separate himself therefore from the bed and bedroom."

[4] I asked them then, "What causes such coldness, which you call coldness with respect to marriage."

"It comes from a lack of rationality on their part in matters of the spirit. Every man who is irrational in matters of the spirit is inmostly cold to his wife and inmostly warm toward harlots. And because conjugial love and licentious love are opposed to each other, it follows that conjugial love becomes cold whenever licentious love is warm. Then, when coldness reigns in a man, he cannot endure any feeling of love or even therefore any whisper of it from his wife. That is why a wife so wisely and prudently conceals it; and to the extent she does this by denying and resisting, to that extent a wanton atmosphere flows in which revives and restores the man's interest. As a result the wife of a man like that does not experience any delights of the heart such as we do, but only physical gratifications, which on the man's part have to be termed pleasures of insanity, because they are the pleasures of a licentious love.

[5] "Every chaste wife loves her husband, even a husband who is unchaste; but because wisdom is the only quality that receives her love, therefore a wife spends every effort to turn his insanity into wisdom, at least to the point that he does not desire any other women but her. This she accomplishes in a thousand ways, taking especial care that none of these ways be detected by her husband; for she well knows that love cannot be compelled, but is subtly infused in a state of freedom. For that reason it is granted to women to discern from sight, hearing and touch their husbands' every state of mind, while it is not granted to men conversely to discern any of their wives' states of mind.

[6] "A chaste wife can look at her husband with a stern expression, speak to him in a sharp voice, and even be angry at him and fight with him, and yet at the same time in her heart cherish a gentle and tender love for him. The object, however, of these expressions of anger and concealments of love is wisdom and a consequent reception of love on the part of her husband, as is clearly apparent from how quickly she can be placated. Wives furthermore have such ways of concealing the love implanted in their heart and marrows in order by these means to keep a man's coldness with respect to marriage from breaking out in him and extinguishing even the fire of his licentious heat, the result of which would be to turn him from green wood into a dry stick."

[7] After those seven wives made these statements and a number of others like them, their husbands came with clusters of grapes in their hands, some of which had a delicious flavor and some an offensive one. So the wives said, "Why did you bring bad or wild grapes, too?"

"Because," replied their husbands, "your souls being united with ours, we perceived in our souls that you were speaking with this man here about truly conjugial love, saying that its delights are delights of wisdom, and also about licentious love, saying that its delights are pleasures of insanity. The grapes with the delicious flavor are the first kind of delights, while the offensive-tasting or wild grapes are the second kind."

The husbands then confirmed what their wives had said, adding that the pleasures of insanity appear in outward respects similar to the delights of wisdom, but not in their inner qualities - "just like the good and bad grapes that we brought," they said. "For both chaste and unchaste men are capable of a similar wisdom in outward respects, but in its inner qualities their wisdom is entirely different."

[8] After that the little boy came again with a piece of paper in his hand, and he held it out to me, saying, "Read."

So I read as follows:

Be advised, all who read this, that the delights of conjugial love ascend up to the highest heaven, and on the way and in that heaven they join with the delights of all heavenly loves, and so enter into their felicity, which lasts to eternity. That is because the delights of that love are also delights of wisdom.

Be advised, too, that the pleasures of licentious love descend down to the lowest hell, and on the way and in that hell they join with the pleasures of all hellish loves, and so enter into their misery, which consists in a frustration of all the heart's delights. That is because the pleasures of that love are also pleasures of insanity.

The husbands subsequently departed with their wives, and accompanying the little boy as far as the path he took to ascend to heaven, they discovered that the society he had been sent from was a society of the New Heaven, the heaven with which the New Church on earth will be affiliated.

  
/ 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

 

Apocalypse Revealed #417

Study this Passage

  
/ 962  
  

417. To this I will append the following account:

I saw in the spiritual world two flocks, one a flock of goats, and the other a flock of sheep. I wondered who they were, since I knew that animals seen in the spiritual world are not really animals, but are correspondent forms of the affections and consequent thoughts of the local inhabitants. Therefore I drew nearer, and as I approached, the likenesses of animals disappeared, and instead of them I saw people. It also became clear that those who formed the flock of goats were people who had confirmed themselves in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and that those who formed the flock of sheep were people who believed that charity and faith are inseparable, as goodness and truth are inseparable.

[2] I then spoke with those who had looked like goats, and I said, "Why are you gathered together like this?"

They were mostly clergy, who vaunted themselves on account of their reputation for learning, because they knew the arcana of justification by faith alone. They said they had assembled to convene a council, because they had heard that the saying of Paul in Romans 3:28, that "a person is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law," was not rightly understood, since by deeds of the law Paul meant the deeds prescribed by Mosaic law, which existed for Jews.

"We see this clearly," they said, "also from Paul's words to Peter, whom he rebuked for Judaizing, even though Peter knew that no one is justified by the works of the law (Galatians 2:14-16). Moreover, Paul distinguishes between the law of faith and the law of works, 1 and between Jews and gentiles, 2 or between circumcision and uncircumcision; 3 and by circumcision he means Judaism, as he does everywhere else. He also then concludes with these words: 'Do we then abolish the law by faith? Not at all. Rather we establish the law.' He says all of this in one series of verses, in Romans 3:27-31.

"In addition, he says as well in the preceding chapter, 'not the hearers of the law will be justified in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified' (Romans 2:13). Furthermore, that God will render to each one according to his deeds (Romans 2:6). And still further, 'We must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may give an account of the things done in the body..., whether good or evil' (2 Corinthians 5:10). Not to mention many other statements in Paul's writing, which make it apparent that Paul rejected faith apart from good works, just as much as James (James 2:17-26).

[3] "That Paul meant the deeds prescribed by Mosaic law, which existed for Jews - this we have further confirmed from the fact that all the statutes for the Jews in the books of Moses are called the Law, being thus works prescribed by the Law, which we see to be so from the following statements:

This is the law of the grain offering. (Leviticus 6:14ff.)

This is the law of the trespass offering... (Leviticus 7:1, 7)

This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings... (Leviticus 7:11ff.)

This is the law of the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering and trespass offering, the consecrations, and the sacrifice of the peace offerings... (Leviticus 7:37)

This is the law regarding animals and birds... (Leviticus 11:46f.)

This is the law regarding her who gives birth, to a son or a daughter. (Leviticus 12:7)

This is the law regarding a leprous plague... (Leviticus 13:59, cf. 14:2, 14:32, 14:54, 14:57)

This is the law regarding one suffering a discharge of fluid... (Leviticus 15:32)

This is the law regarding jealousness... (Numbers 5:29-30)

This is the law for the Nazirite... (Numbers 6:13, 21)

This is the law (regarding cleanness). (Numbers 19:14)

This is... the law (regarding the red heifer). (Numbers 19:2)

(The law for a king.) (Deuteronomy 17:15-19)

"In fact," the speakers said, "the whole five books of Moses are called the Book of the Law, in Deuteronomy 31:9, 11-12, 26, and elsewhere."

To this they added also that they saw in Paul that the law in the Ten Commandments ought to be lived, and that it is fulfilled by charity, which is love for the neighbor (Romans 13:8-10), thus not by faith alone.

They said that this was why they had come together.

[4] In order not to disturb them, however, I withdrew, and at a distance then they looked again like goats, sometimes like ones lying down, and sometimes like ones standing, but turned away from the flock of sheep. They looked like goats lying down when they were deliberating, and like ones standing when they drew conclusions.

But I kept my eyes on their horns, and I was surprised to see that the horns on their foreheads appeared sometimes as though extending forward and upward, and sometimes curving back to the rear, and finally to be completely turned backward. At that they suddenly all turned then to face the flock of sheep, though they looked like goats.

I went over to them again, therefore, and asked what was happening now. They said they had concluded that faith alone produces the goods of charity called good works, as a tree produces fruit.

But then we heard a clap of thunder and saw a flash of lightning from above; and presently an angel appeared, standing between the two flocks, who cried out to the flock of sheep, "Do not listen to them! They have not abandoned their earlier faith, which teaches that God the Father took pity for the sake of the Son. That faith is not faith in the Lord. Nor is faith a tree. Rather a person is a tree. Only repent and turn to the Lord, and you will have faith. Before then faith is not faith having any life in it."

The goats with their horns turned backward then tried to approach the sheep, but the angel standing between them divided the sheep into two groups and said to those on the left, "Attach yourselves to the goats. But I tell you that a wolf is going to come that will carry them off, and you with them."

[5] However, after the two groups of sheep had been separated, and those on the left heard the angel's warning, they looked at each other and said, "Let's confer with our former comrades."

So then the group on the left addressed the one on the right, saying, "Why did you leave your pastors? Are not faith and charity inseparable, as a tree and its fruit are inseparable? For a tree continues on through the branch into the fruit. Take away anything from the branch that flows by an unbroken connection into the fruit, and will not the fruit perish? Ask our priests if that is not the case."

So then they asked, and the priests looked around at the rest, who winked to tell them to speak well. And after that they replied that such was the case. "Faith is preserved by its fruits," they said. But they would not say that faith is contained in the fruits.

[6] At that one of the priests among the sheep on the right rose and said, "They replied to you that such is the case, but still they tell their own flock that it is not the case, as they think otherwise."

The group on the right asked, therefore, how those priests think then. "Do they not teach as they think?"

"No," the priest replied. "They think that every good of charity that is called a good work, that a person does for his salvation or for the sake of eternal life, is not good but evil, because by the work the person is trying of himself to save himself, claiming for himself the righteousness and merit of Him who is the only Savior. And this is the case, they think, with every good work in which a person is conscious of his own will. Consequently among themselves they call good works done by a person of himself not blessings but curses, saying that they merit hell rather than heaven."

[7] However, those of the group on the left said, "You are telling lies about them. Do they not clearly in our presence preach charity and its works, which they call works of faith?"

But the priest replied, "You do not understand their preaching. Only a clergyman who is present pays attention and understands. They think only of moral charity and its civic and political goods, which they call goods of faith, but which are absolutely not. For an atheist can do the same things in the same way and give them the same appearance. Therefore they unanimously say that no one is saved by any works, but by faith alone.

"But let us illustrate this with analogies. They say that an apple tree produces apples; however, if a person does good deeds for his salvation, as the tree does apples by an unbroken connection, then the apples are rotten inside and full of worms. They say, too, that a grapevine produces grapes; but if a person were to produce spiritual goods as a grapevine does grapes, he would produce wild grapes."

[8] At that those of the group on the left asked in response, "What then is the nature of their goods of charity or good works, which are the fruits of faith?"

The priest replied that they are unseen, being within a person from the Holy Spirit, of which the person is totally unaware.

Responding, they said, "If a person is totally unaware of them, there must at least be some connection. Otherwise how can they be called works of faith? Perhaps those unfelt goods are then insinuated into the person's volitional works by some mediating influx, as by some affecting, influencing, inspiring, prodding or spurring of the will, by a silent perception in the thought and a resulting admonition, contrition, and thus conscience, and so by an impulse, an obedience to the Ten Commandments and the Word, either as a little child or as a wise adult, or by some other means like these."

But the priest replied, "No, they are not. Even if their proponents say that it comes about by such means because good works come about by faith, still they sew these up in their sermons with words whose result is to deny that they originate from faith. Some of them still teach such means, but as signs of faith, and not as its bonds with charity."

Some of those on the left nevertheless conceived of a connection by means of the Word, and they said, "Is there not thus a connection, that a person acts voluntarily in accord with the Word?"

But the priest replied, "That's not what they think. Rather they think it is formed simply by hearing the Word, thus not by understanding the Word, lest something enter perceptibly through the intellect into a person's thought and will. For they assert that everything in a person's volitional makeup is merit-seeking, and that in spiritual matters a person cannot undertake, will, think, understand, believe, do or cooperate in anything any more than a log.

"Still, however, the case is different with the influx of the Holy Spirit through faith into the discourses of preachers, because these are actions of the mouth and not actions of the body, and because by faith a person acts with God, but by charity with men."

[9] But when one of those on the left heard that a connection is formed simply by hearing the Word and not by understanding the Word, he said irately, "Is it then by an understanding of the Word gained from the Holy Spirit only, when a person in church turns away or sits as deaf as a post, or when he sleeps, or gained simply from some exhalation from the Word, the book? What could be more absurd?"

After that a man from the group on the right, who excelled the rest in judgment, asked to be heard, and speaking said, "I heard someone say, 'I have planted a vineyard. Now I will drink wine till I am drunk.' But someone else said, 'Will you drink wine from your glass with your right hand?' And the first one said, 'No. I will drink it from an unseen glass with an unseen hand.' So the second one said, 'Then you surely won't get drunk!'"

Then the same man said, "Only listen to me, please. I say to you, drink wine from the Word understood. Do you not know that the Lord embodies the Word? Does the Word not come from the Lord? Is He not therefore present in it? If then you do good in obedience to the Word, do you not do it from the Lord, in obedience to His utterance and will? And if you then look to the Lord, He Himself also will lead you and do the good, and do it through you, so that you do it as though of yourself. Who can say, if he does something for a king, in obedience to his utterance and will, 'I do this of myself, in compliance with my own utterance or command, by my own will?'"

Following that the priest turned to the clergy and said, "Ministers of God, do not lead the flock astray!"

[10] Hearing this, a large majority of the group on the left went back and joined the group on the right. Some of the clergy also then said, "We have heard something we have not heard before. We are pastors. We will not abandon the sheep." And they went back with them and said, "That man spoke a true word. Who can say, if he acts in obedience to the Word, thus from the Lord, in obedience to His utterance and will, 'I do this of myself'? Who says, if he does something for a king, in obedience to his utterance and will, 'I am doing this of myself'?

"We see now the Divine providence in why the conjunction of faith and works acknowledged by the ecclesiastical body has not been found. It could not be found, because it cannot be imparted; for that faith is not faith in the Lord who embodies the Word, and so is not a faith derived from the Word."

But the rest of the priests went away, and waving their caps they cried, "Faith alone, faith alone! It will yet survive!"

Footnotes:

1. Romans 3:27.

2. Romans 3:29; 9:24.

3. Romans 2:25-27; 3:30; 4:9, 10

  
/ 962  
  

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

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