Lecter series - unified analysis - part 19: The Nimrod correspondence

CATEGORY: MOVIES

Previously in this analysis we have explored Emanuel Swedenborg's correspondences for the great red dragon from the book of Revelation. However, we know from the Manhunter analysis that Francis Dollarhyde not only represents the dragon, but he also represents the biblical giant Nimrod, from the book of Genesis. To tell us what the correspondences are which have to do with Nimrod, Swedenborg first recites Genesis chapter 10, verses 8-10 (in Arcana Coelestia):

8. And Cush begat Nimrod. He began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9. He was mighty in hunting before Jehovah; wherefore it was said, As Nimrod, mighty in hunting before Jehovah. 10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (--from A.C. n. 1129.)

Now the correspondence:

Verses 8, 9. And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was mighty in hunting before Jehovah; wherefore it was said, As Nimrod mighty in hunting before Jehovah. By "Cush" are signified here as before, interior knowledges of things spiritual and celestial; by "Nimrod" are signified those who made internal worship external; thus by "Nimrod" is signified such external worship. "Cush begat Nimrod," means that they who had knowledges of interior things instituted such worship. He was "a mighty one in the earth," signifies that such a religion prevailed in the church, "the earth" being the church, as before. "He was mighty in hunting before Jehovah," signifies that he persuaded many; "wherefore it was said, As Nimrod mighty in hunting before Jehovah," signifies that because so many were persuaded, such a form of speech became proverbial; and further, it signifies that such a religion easily captivates the minds of men. (--from A.C. n. 1173.)

That by "Nimrod" are signified those who made internal worship external, and that "Nimrod" thus signifies such external worship, may be seen from what follows. It must be here stated, beforehand, what is meant by making internal worship external. It was said and shown above that internal worship, which is from love and charity, is worship itself; and that external worship without this internal worship is no worship. To make internal worship external is to make external worship essential, rather than internal, which is the reverse of the former, being as if it was said that internal worship without external is no worship, while the truth is that external worship without internal is no worship. Such is the religion of those who separate faith from charity, in that they set the things which are of faith before those which are of charity, or the things which are of the knowledges of faith before those which are of the life, thus formal things before essential ones. All external worship is a formality of internal worship, for internal worship is the very essential; and to make worship consist of that which is formal, without that which is essential, is to make internal worship external. As for example, to hold that if one should live where there is no church, no preaching, no sacraments, no priesthood, he could not be saved, or could have no worship; when yet he can worship the Lord from what is internal. But it does not follow from this that there ought not to be external worship.

[2] To make the matter yet more clear, take as a further example the setting up as the essential itself of worship the frequenting of churches, going to the sacraments, hearing sermons, praying, observing feasts, and many other things which are external and ceremonial, while, talking about faith, men persuade themselves that these are sufficient-all of which are formal things of worship. It is quite true that those who make worship from love and charity the essential, act in the same way, that is, they frequent churches, go to the sacraments, hear sermons, pray, observe feasts, and the like, and this very earnestly and diligently; but they do not make the essential of worship consist in these things. In the external worship of these men there is what is holy and living, because there is internal worship in it; but in the external worship of those referred to before there is not what is holy and not what is living. For the very essential itself is what sanctifies and vivifies the formal or ceremonial; but faith separated from charity cannot sanctify and vivify worship, because the essence and life are absent. Such worship is called "Nimrod;" and it is born of the knowledges which are "Cush," as these are born from faith separated from charity, which faith is "Ham." From "Ham," or faith separated, through the knowledges which belong to faith separated, no other worship can possibly be born. These are the things that are signified by "Nimrod." (--from A.C. n. 1175.)

Notice how all this meshes with the red dragon correspondence: Those who make internal worship external, separate faith from charity, and believe the former alone to be sufficient. Also note from Genesis 10:10 that Babel was part of Nimrod's kingdom. Finally, since Nimrod was descended from Ham, one of Noah's sons, then Dollarhyde represents a descendant of Ham.

To skip over the remainder of the Swedenborgian analysis of the Hannibal Lecter movies, click here.

The works of Emanuel Swedenborg from the Internet Sacred Texts Archive
Arcana Coelestia, by Emanuel Swedenborg, [1749-56], tr. by John F. Potts [1905-10], at sacred-texts.com. Web. 17 Jun. 2010.