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

 

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.

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:

  
/ 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.