[2] The implications of this particular matter - the inability of [the descendants on Jacob to play the representative part, except by virtue of the new nature imparted to them, meant by 'Israel' - are as follows: It was specifically Jacob's descendants who were to represent the Church but not specifically Isaac's since Isaac's descended not only through Jacob but also through Esau. Still less was it specifically Abraham's, for Abraham's descended not only through Jacob but also through Esau, and likewise through Ishmael, as well as through his sons by his second wife Keturah, who were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah, and the sons of these, see Gen 25:1-4. Now because Jacob's descendants insisted that they should be representative, as shown just above in 4290, they could not represent as Jacob, or as Isaac, or as Abraham. The reason why they could not do so as Jacob was that 'Jacob' represented the external aspect of the Church, but not the internal. And they could not do so as Isaac at the same time or as Abraham at the same time for the reason advanced immediately above.

[3] So that they could represent the Church therefore, a new name had inevitably to be given to Jacob, and through that name a new nature, which new nature was to be a sign of the internal spiritual man, or what amounts to the same, of the internal spiritual Church. That new nature is meant by 'Israel'. Every Church of the Lord is internal and external, as has been shown several times already, the internal Church being that which is represented, the external that which represents. The internal Church is also either spiritual or else celestial, the internal spiritual Church being represented by 'Israel', but the internal celestial Church at a later time by 'Judah'. Therefore a division also took place, and the Israelites became a kingdom on their own and the Jews another on their own. But these matters will in the Lord's Divine mercy be discussed later on. From this it is evident that 'Jacob', that is, Jacob's descendants, could not represent the Church as Jacob, for that would have been to represent solely the external aspect of the Church. They had to do so as Israel as well because 'Israel' is the internal aspect.

[4] It has been shown in various places already that it is the internal which is represented and the external which represents, as may also be seen in the human being. A person's speech represents his thought, and a person's action represents his will. Speech and action are the external aspects of the person, thought and will the internal. In addition the various looks seen on a person's face represent both, that is to say, both his thought and his will. It is well known to everyone that the looks on a person's face are representative, for the looks on the faces of people who are sincere enable their interior states to be seen. In short, every part of the body represents some facet of a person's inclination (animus) and mind (mens).

[5] It is similar with the external aspects of the Church, for these are like the body, while its internal aspects are like the soul. There were, for example, the altars and the sacrifices on them, which, as is well known, were external things. There was likewise the bread of the presence, also the lampstand with its lamps, as well as the fire that was kept burning all the time. Anyone can recognize that these external things represented internal ones, as likewise did everything else of a ritual nature. The fact that these external things could not represent anything external, only what was internal, becomes clear from the considerations introduced already. So 'Jacob' could not represent as Jacob, because 'Jacob' means the external aspect of the Church, but he could do so as Israel because 'Israel' means its internal aspect. This is what is meant by a new nature being imparted to enable the descendants of Jacob to play the representative part.