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).

2722. He planted a grove in Beersheba. That this signifies doctrine thence with its knowledges and its quality, is evident from the signification of a “grove,” and from the signification of “Beersheba.” As regards groves: in the Ancient Church holy worship was performed on mountains and in groves; on mountains, because mountains signified the celestial things of worship; and in groves, because groves signified its spiritual things. So long as that church, namely, the Ancient, was in its simplicity, their worship at that time on mountains and in groves was holy, for the reason that celestial things, which are those of love and charity, were represented by things high and lofty, such as mountains and hills; and spiritual things, which are therefrom, by things fruitful and leafy, such as gardens and groves; but after representatives and significatives began to be made idolatrous, by the worship of external things without internal, that holy worship became profane; and they were therefore forbidden to worship on mountains and in groves.

[2] That the ancients held holy worship on mountains is evident from the twelfth chapter of Genesis, where we read of Abraham:

He removed thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the sea, and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar, and called on the name of Jehovah (Genesis 12:8, n. 1449-1455);

and also from the signification of a “mountain,” as being the celestial of love (n. 795, 796, 1430). That they also held holy worship in groves is evident from what is stated in this verse: “Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the God of eternity;” and also from the signification of a “garden,” as being intelligence (n. 100, 108, 1588); and of “trees,” as being perceptions (n. 103, 2163). That this was forbidden is evident from the following passages.

In Moses:

Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any tree beside the altar of Jehovah thy God which thou shalt make thee, and thou shalt not set thee up a pillar; which Jehovah thy God hateth (Deuteronomy 16:21-22).

In the same:

The altars of the nations shall ye break down, and dash in pieces their pillars, and cut down their groves (Exodus 34:13);

and they were commanded to burn the groves of the nations with fire (Deuteronomy 12:3).

[3] And as the Jews and Israelites, among whom the representative ritual of the Ancient Church was introduced, were solely in externals, and at heart were nothing but idolaters, neither knowing nor wishing to know what anything internal was, nor the life after death, nor even that the Messiah’s kingdom was a heavenly one, therefore whenever they were in freedom they held profane worship on mountains and hills, and also in groves and forests; and likewise in place of mountains and hills they made for themselves high places, and in place of groves carved representations of a grove, as is evident from many passages in the Word. As in the book of Judges:

The sons of Israel served Baalim and the groves (Judg. 3:7).

In the book of Kings:

Israel made groves provoking Jehovah (1 Kings 14:15).

And in another place:

Judah built them high places, and pillars, and groves, upon every high hill, and under every green tree (1 Kings 14:23).

And again:

Israel built them high places in all their cities, and set up pillars and groves upon every high hill, and under every green tree (2 Kings 17:9-10).

And again:

Manasseh king of Judah reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel, and set the carved image of the grove which he had made in the house of God (2 Kings 21:3, 7);

from which it is manifest that they also made for themselves carved images of a grove. That these were destroyed by king Josiah may be seen in the same book:

Josiah caused all the vessels that were made for Baal and for the grove, and for the sun and the moon, and for all the army of the heavens, to be brought out of the temple of Jehovah, and he burnt them without Jerusalem, and the houses which the women had woven there for the grove (2 Kings 23:4-5, 7, 14-15).

He also cut down the groves which Solomon had made, and likewise the grove in Bethel which Jeroboam had made (2 Kings 23:4, 6-7, (23:6-7) 13-15). That king Hezekiah also demolished such things may be seen in the same book:

Hezekiah king of Judah removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the grove, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made (2 Kings 18:4).

[4] That the brazen serpent was holy in the time of Moses is evident; but when the external was worshiped it became profane, and was broken in pieces, for the same reason that worship on mountains and in groves was forbidden. These things are still more evident in the Prophets.

In Isaiah:

Inflaming yourselves with gods under every green tree; sacrificing the children in the rivers under the crags of the rocks; thou hast also poured out a drink-offering to the rivers, thou hast offered a gift; upon a high and lofty mountain hast thou set thy habitation, and thither wentest thou up ¹ to offer sacrifice (Isaiah 57:5-7).

In the same:

In that day shall a man look unto his Maker, and his eyes shall see the Holy One of Israel; and he shall not look to the altars the work of his hands, neither shall he see that which his fingers have made, and the groves and the sun images (Isaiah 17:7-8).

In Micah:

I will cut off thy graven images and thy pillars out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more bow thyself down to the work of thy hands; and I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy cities (Micah 5:13-14).

In Ezekiel:

That their slain may be among their idols, round about their altars, upon every high hill, on all the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every tangled oak, the place where they did offer an odor of rest to all their idols (Ezekiel 6:13).

[5] From all this it is now manifest from what origin idolatrous worship came, namely, the worship of objects that were representative and significative. The most ancient people who were before the flood saw in each and everything-in mountains, hills, plains, and valleys, gardens, groves, and forests, rivers and waters, fields and plantations, trees and animals of every kind, and the luminaries of heaven-something representative and significative of the Lord’s kingdom; but they never dwelt with their eyes, still less with their minds, on these objects; but these things served them as means for thinking about the celestial and spiritual things in the Lord’s kingdom; and this to such a degree that there was nothing at all in universal nature that did not serve them as such means. The real fact is that everything in nature is representative, which is an arcanum at this day and scarcely believed by anyone. But after the celestial which is of love to the Lord had perished, the human race was then no longer in that state-namely, that from objects as means they could see the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom.

[6] Yet the ancients after the flood knew, from traditions, and from collections made by certain persons, that these things had such a signification; and as they were significative they esteemed them holy. Hence came the representative worship of the Ancient Church; which church, being spiritual, was not in the perception that a thing was so, but was in the knowledge of the fact; for it was relatively in obscurity (n. 2715). Nevertheless they did not worship outward things, but by means of outward things they called to mind inward things; and hence when they were in those representatives and significatives, they were in holiness of worship. They were able to be so because they were in spiritual love, that is, in charity, which they made an essential of worship; and therefore holiness from the Lord could flow into their worship. But when the state of the human race had become so changed and perverted that they removed themselves from the good of charity, and thus no longer believed that there was any heavenly kingdom, or any life after death, but that men were in a similar condition with animals, save only that they could think (as is also believed at this day), then the holy representative worship was turned into idolatry, and the outward things were worshiped. Hence with many Gentiles at that time, and also with the Jews and Israelites, the worship was not representative, but was a worship of the representatives and significatives; that is, of the outward things without the inward.

[7] As regards groves in particular, among the ancients they were of various signification, and indeed according to the kinds of trees in them. Groves of olive-trees signified the celestial things of worship; groves of vines signified the spiritual things of worship; but groves of fig-trees, cedars, fir-trees, poplars, and oaks, signified various things relating to what is celestial and spiritual. In the passage before us mention is made simply of a grove or plantation of trees; and this signifies the things of reason that were adjoined to doctrine and its knowledges; for trees in general signify perceptions (n. 103, 2163), but when they are predicated of the spiritual church they signify knowledges, for the reason that the man of the spiritual church has no other perceptions than those which come through knowledges from doctrine or the Word; for these become of his faith, and thus of conscience, from which he has perception.

Footnotes: