9372. And He said unto Moses. That this signifies that which concerns the Word in general, is evident from the representation of Moses, as being the Word (of which below); and from the signification of “He said,” as involving those things which follow in this chapter, thus those which concern the Word (see n. 9370). (That Moses represents the Word, can be seen from what has been often shown before about Moses, as from the preface to Genesis 18; and n. 4859, 5922, 6723, 6752, 6771, 6827, 7010, 7014, 7089, 7382, 8601, 8760, 8787, 8805.) Here Moses represents the Word in general, because it is said of him in what follows, that he alone should come near unto Jehovah (verse 2); and also that, being called unto out of the midst of the cloud, he entered into it, and went up the mount (verses 16-18).

[2] In the Word there are many who represent the Lord in respect to truth Divine, or in respect to the Word; but chief among them are Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist. That Moses does so, can be seen in the explications just cited above; that so do Elijah and Elisha, can be seen in the preface to Genesis 18; and n. 2762, 5247; and that John the Baptist does so is evident from the fact that he was “Elias who was to come.” He who does not know that John the Baptist represented the Lord as to the Word, cannot know what all those things infold and signify which are said about him in the New Testament; and therefore in order that this secret may stand open, and that at the same time it may appear that Elias, and also Moses, who were seen when the Lord was transfigured, signified the Word, some things may here be quoted which are spoken about John the Baptist; as in Matthew:

After the messengers of John had departed, Jesus began to speak concerning John, saying, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? a reed shaken by the wind? But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft things are in kings’ houses. But what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, even more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, Behold I send Mine angel before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee. Verily I say unto you, Among those who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist; nevertheless he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he. All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye are willing to believe, he is Elias who was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 11:7-15; and also Luke 7:24-28).

No one can know how these things are to be understood, unless he knows that this John represented the Lord as to the Word, and unless he also knows from the internal sense what is signified by “the wilderness” in which he was, also what by “a reed shaken by the wind,” and likewise by “soft raiment in kings’ houses;” and further what is signified by his being “more than a prophet,” and by “none among those who are born of women being greater than he, and nevertheless he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he,” and lastly by his being “Elias.” For without a deeper sense, all these words are uttered merely from some comparison, and not from anything of weight.

[3] But it is very different when by John is understood the Lord as to the Word, or the Word representatively. Then by “the wilderness of Judea in which John was” is signified the state in which the Word was at the time when the Lord came into the world, namely, that it was “in the wilderness,” that is, it was in obscurity so great that the Lord was not at all acknowledged, neither was anything known about His heavenly kingdom; when yet all the prophets prophesied about Him, and about His kingdom, that it was to endure forever. (That “a wilderness” denotes such obscurity, see n. 2708, 4736, 7313.) For this reason the Word is compared to “a reed shaken by the wind” when it is explained at pleasure; for in the internal sense “a reed” denotes truth in the ultimate, such as is the Word in the letter.

[4] That the Word in the ultimate, or in the letter, is crude and obscure in the sight of men; but that in the internal sense it is soft and shining, is signified by their “not seeing a man clothed in soft raiment, for behold those who wear soft things are in kings’ houses.” That such things are signified by these words, is plain from the signification of “raiment,” or “garments,” as being truths (n. 2132, 2576, 4545, 4763, 5248, 6914, 6918, 9093); and for this reason the angels appear clothed in garments soft and shining according to the truths from good with them (n. 5248, 5319, 5954, 9212, 9216). The same is evident from the signification of “kings’ houses,” as being the abodes of the angels, and in the universal sense, the heavens; for “houses” are so called from good (n. 2233, 2234, 3128, 3652, 3720, 4622, 4982, 7836, 7891, 7996, 7997); and “kings,” from truth (n. 1672, 2015, 2069, 3009, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 6148). Therefore by virtue of their reception of truth from the Lord, the angels are called “sons of the kingdom,” “sons of the king,” and also “kings.”

[5] That the Word is more than any doctrine in the world, and more than any truth in the world, is signified by “what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet;” and by, “there hath not arisen among those who are born of women a greater than John the Baptist;” for in the internal sense “a prophet” denotes doctrine (n. 2534, 7269); and “those who are born,” or are the sons, “of women” denote truths (n. 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2623, 2803, 2813, 3704, 4257).

[6] That in the internal sense, or such as it is in heaven, the Word is in a degree above the Word in the external sense, or such as it is in the world, and such as John the Baptist taught, is signified by, “he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he;” for as perceived in heaven the Word is of wisdom so great that it transcends all human apprehension. That the prophecies about the Lord and His coming, and that the representatives of the Lord and of His kingdom, ceased when the Lord came into the world, is signified by, “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” That the Word was represented by John, as by Elijah, is signified by his being “Elias who is to come.”

[7] The same is signified by these words in Matthew:

The disciples asked Jesus, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? He answered and said, Elias must needs first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias hath come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they wished. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them. And they understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13).

That “Elias hath come, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they wished” signifies that the Word has indeed taught them that the Lord is to come, but that still they did not wish to comprehend, interpreting it in favor of the rule of self, and thus extinguishing what is Divine in it. That they would do the same with the truth Divine itself, is signified by “even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.” (That “the Son of man” denotes the Lord as to truth Divine, see n. 2803, 2813, 3704)

[8] From all this it is now evident what is meant by the prophecy about John in Malachi:

Behold I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah cometh (Malachi 4:5).

Moreover, the Word in the ultimate, or such as it is in the external form in which it appears before man in the world, is described by the “clothing” and “food” of John the Baptist, in Matthew:

John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, had His clothing of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:1, 4).

In like manner it is described by Elijah in the second book of Kings:

He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins (2 Kings 1:8).

By “clothing,” or a “garment,” when said of the Word, is signified truth Divine there in the ultimate form; by “camel’s hair” are signified memory-truths such as appear there before a man in the world; by the “leathern girdle” is signified the external bond connecting and keeping in order all the interior things; by “food” is signified spiritual nourishment from the knowledges of truth and of good out of the Word; by “locusts” are signified ultimate or most general truths; and by “wild honey” their pleasantness.

[9] That such things are signified by “clothing” and “food” has its origin in the representatives of the other life, where all appear clothed according to truths from good, and where food also is represented according to the desires of acquiring knowledge and growing wise. From this it is that “clothing,” or a “garment,” denotes truth (as may be seen from the citations above; and that “food” or “meat” denotes spiritual nourishment, n. 3114, 4459, 4792, 5147, 5293, 5340, 5342, 5576, 5579, 5915, 8562, 9003; that “a girdle” denotes a bond which gathers up and holds together interior things, n. 9341; that “leather” denotes what is external, n. 3540; and thus “a leathern girdle” denotes an external bond; that “hairs” denote ultimate or most general truths, n. 3301, 5569-5573; that “a camel” denotes memory-knowledge in general, n. 3048, 3071, 3143, 3145, 4156; that “a locust” denotes nourishing truth in the extremes, n. 7643; and that “honey” denotes the pleasantness thereof, n. 5620, 6857, 8056). It is called “wild honey,” or “honey of the field,” because by “a field” is signified the church (n. 2971, 3317, 3766, 7502, 7571, 9139, 9295). He who does not know that such things are signified, cannot possibly know why Elijah and John were so clothed. And yet that these things signified something peculiar to these prophets, can be thought by everyone who thinks well about the Word.

[10] Because John the Baptist represented the Lord as to the Word, therefore also when he spoke of the Lord, who was the Word itself, he said of himself that he was “not Elias, nor the prophet,” and that he was “not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord’s shoe,” as in John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory. The Jews from Jerusalem, priests and Levites, asked John who he was. And he confessed, and denied not, I am not the Christ. Therefore they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? But he said, I am not. Art thou the prophet? He answered, No. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. They said therefore, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet? He answered, I baptize with water; in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not; He it is who is to come after me, who was before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. When he saw Jesus, he said, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was before me; for he was before me (John 1:1, 14, 19-30).

From these words it is plain that when John spoke about the Lord Himself, who was Truth Divine itself, or the Word, he said that he himself was not anything, because the shadow disappears when the light itself appears, that is, the representative disappears when the original itself makes its appearance. (That the representatives had in view holy things, and the Lord Himself, and not at all the person that represented, see n. 665, 1097, 1361, 3147, 3881, 4208, 4281, 4288, 4292, 4307, 4444, 4500, 6304, 7048, 7439, 8588, 8788, 8806.) One who does not know that representatives vanish like shadows at the presence of light, cannot know why John denied that he was Elias and the prophet.

[11] From all this it can now be seen what is signified by Moses and Elias, who were seen in glory, and who spoke with the Lord when transfigured, of His departure which He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:29-31); namely, that they signified the Word (“Moses” the historic Word, and “Elias” the prophetic Word), which in the internal sense throughout treats of the Lord, of His coming into the world, and of His departure out of the world; and therefore it is said that “Moses and Elias were seen in glory,” for “glory” denotes the internal sense of the Word, and the “cloud” its external sense (see the preface to Genesis 18, and n. 5922, 8427).

5147. There was some of every kind of food for Pharaoh' means full of celestial good for nourishing the natural. This is clear from the meaning of 'food' as celestial good, dealt with below; and from the representation of 'Pharaoh' as the interior natural, dealt with in 5080, 5095, and also the natural in general, since the interior natural and the exterior natural make one when they correspond. And because food exists to provide nourishment, 'every kind of food for Pharaoh' means full of celestial good for nourishing the natural. It is said that this food was in the highest basket, meaning that the inmost degree of the will was full of celestial good. For good from the Lord flows in by way of the inmost degree in a person; and from there it passes degree by degree, so to speak down a flight of steps, to what is more exterior. For in relation to other degrees the inmost one exists in the most perfect state, and can therefore receive good from the Lord directly, in a way the lower ones cannot. If these were to receive good from the Lord directly, they would either obscure it or pervert it, since they are less perfect in comparison with the inmost degree.

[2] As regards the influx of celestial good from the Lord and the reception of it, it should be recognized that the will part of the human mind is the receiver of good and the understanding part is the receiver of truth. The understanding part cannot possibly receive truth so as to make this its own unless at the same time the will part receives good; and vice versa. For one flows as a result into the other and disposes that other to be receptive. All that constitutes the understanding may be compared to forms which are constantly varying, and all that constitutes the will may be compared to the harmonies resulting from those variations. Consequently truths may be compared to variations, and forms of good may be compared to the delights which those variations bring. And this being pre-eminently the case with truths and forms of good it is evident that one cannot exist without the other, as well as that one cannot be brought forth except by means of the other.

[3] The reason 'food' means celestial good is that angels' food consists in nothing else than forms of the good of love and charity, and that these serve to enliven angels and to rejuvenate them. Especially when they are expressed in action or practice do those forms of good cause angels to feel rejuvenated, for they are the desires they have; for it is a well known fact that when a person's desires are expressed in action he feels rejuvenated and enlivened. Those desires also nourish a person's spirit when material food supplies nourishment to his body, as may be recognized from the fact that when no delight is taken in food it is not very nutritious, but when delight is taken in it, it is nutritious. The delight taken in food is what opens the meatus or channels which serve to convey it into the blood, whereas the opposite closes them. Among angels those delights are forms of the good of love and charity, and from this one may deduce that these are spiritual kinds of food which correspond to earthly ones. Also, just as forms of good are meant by different kinds of food, so truths are meant by 'drink'.

[4] In the Word 'food' is mentioned in many places, yet someone unacquainted with the internal sense will inevitably suppose that in those places ordinary food is meant. In fact spiritual food is meant, as in Jeremiah,

All the people groan as they search for bread. They have given their desirable things for food to restore the soul. Lamentations 1:11.

In Isaiah,

Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters, and he who has no money, come, buy, and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Isaiah 55:1.

In Joel,

The day of Jehovah is near, and as destruction from the thunderbolt-hurler will it come. [s not the food cut off before our eyes, gladness and joy from the house of our God? The grains have rotted under their clods, the storehouses have been laid waste, the granaries have been destroyed, because the grain has failed. Joel 1:15-17.

In David,

Our storehouses are full, yielding food and still more food; our flocks are thousands, and ten thousands in our streets. There is no outcry in our streets. Blessed are the people for whom it is thus. Psalms 144:13-15.

In the same author,

They all look to You, that You may give them their food in due season. You give to them - they gather it up; You open Your hand - they are satisfied with good. Psalms 104:27-28.

[5] In these places celestial and spiritual food is meant in the internal sense when material food is referred to in the sense of the letter. From this one may see how the interior features of the Word and its exterior features correspond to one another, that is, how what belongs inwardly to its spirit and what belongs to its letter do so; so that while man understands those things according to the sense of the letter, the angels present with him understand the same things according to the spiritual sense. The Word has been written in such a way that it may serve not only the human race but heaven also, and for this reason all expressions are used to mean heavenly realities, and every matter described there is representative of these realities. This is so with the Word even to the tiniest jot.

[6] Furthermore the Lord Himself explicitly teaches that good is meant in the spiritual sense by 'food': In John,

Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. John 6:27.

In the same gospel,

My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink. John 6:55.

'Flesh' means Divine Good, 3813, and 'blood' Divine Truth, 4735. And in the same gospel,

Jesus said to the disciples, I have food to eat of which you do not know. The disciples said to one another, Has anyone brought Him [anything] to eat? Jesus said to them, My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. John 4:33-34.

'Doing the will of the Father and finishing His work' means Divine Good when expressed in actions or practice, which in the genuine sense is 'food', as stated above.

4292. In the internal historical sense by “he said, Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,” is signified that they could not represent as Jacob, but as from a new quality given them. This may be seen from the meaning of “Jacob” in the Word, as being his posterity (see n. 4281); and from the signification of a “name,” as being quality (s ee just above, n. 4291). The new quality itself is “Israel” in the internal sense; for “Israel” is the celestial spiritual, thus the internal man (n. 4286). And because “Israel” is the celestial spiritual and thus the internal man, “Israel” is also the internal spiritual church; for whether you speak of the spiritual man or the spiritual church, it is the same thing; because the spiritual man is a church in particular, and a number are a church in general. If a man were not a church in particular, there would not be any church in general. A congregation in general is what in common speech is called a church, but in order that there may be any church, everyone in this congregation must be such as is the church in general, because every general involves parts similar to itself.

[2] As regards the matter itself (that they could not represent as Jacob, but as from a new quality given them, which is “Israel”) the case is this. It was specifically Jacob’s posterity who represented the church, but not Isaac’s specifically; for Isaac’s posterity were not from Jacob only, but also from Esau. Still less was it Abraham’s posterity specifically; for Abraham’s posterity were not from Jacob only, but also from Esau, and likewise from Ishmael, as also from his sons by his second wife Keturah—thus from Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah, and their sons (see Genesis 25:1-4). Now as Jacob’s posterity insisted on being representative (as shown just above n. 4290), they could not represent as Jacob, nor as Isaac, nor as Abraham. That they could not as Jacob was because Jacob represented the external of the church, but not its internal; and they could not as Isaac at the same time, nor as Abraham at the same time, for the reason just adduced.

[3] There was therefore no other way by which they could represent the church than by a new name being given to Jacob, and thereby a new quality; which new quality should signify the internal spiritual man, or what is the same, the internal spiritual church. This new quality is “Israel.” Every church of the Lord is internal and external, as has been repeatedly shown. The internal church is what is represented, and the external is what represents. Moreover the internal church is either spiritual or celestial. The internal spiritual church was represented by Israel, and the internal celestial church was afterwards represented by Judah. Therefore also a division was made, and the Israelites were a kingdom by themselves, and the Jews were a kingdom by themselves; but on this subject of the Lord’s Divine mercy hereafter. Hence it is evident that Jacob (that is, the posterity of Jacob) could not represent a church as Jacob, for this would be to represent only the external of a church; but must also do so as Israel, because “Israel” is the internal.

[4] That the internal is what is represented, and the external what represents, has been shown before, and may likewise be seen from man himself. Man’s speech represents his thought, and his action represents his will. Speech and action are man’s externals, and thought and will are his internals. Furthermore, man’s face itself, by its varying looks, represents both his thought and his will. That the face by its looks represents, is known to everyone; for with the sincere their interior states may be seen from the looks of the face. In a word, all things of the body represent what is of the animus and of the mind.

[5] The case is similar with the externals of the church, for these are like a body, and the internals are like a soul—as the altars and the sacrifices upon them, which as is known were external things; in like manner the showbreads; also the lampstand with its lights; and likewise the perpetual fire: that these represented internal things may be known to everyone; and it is the same with the rest of the rites. That these external things could not represent external but internal things, is evident from what has been adduced. Thus Jacob could not represent as Jacob, because “Jacob” is the external of the church; but Jacob could represent as Israel, because “Israel” is its internal. This is what is meant by the new quality given in order that the posterity of Jacob might represent.