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).

Elijah (referred to as Elias in the New Testament) was the renowned prophet sent to the split kingdoms of Israel and Judah. His first appearance is in Chapter 17 of I Kings where he comes to speak to Ahab, king of Israel. He contends with Ahab, and Ahab’s wife Jezebel, and later Ahab’s son Ahaziah. These contentions have passed down to us in many well known stories.

In II Kings, Chapter 2, Elijah is carried up to heaven in a chariot of fire, and his mantle is given to Elisha, his disciple and successor. Elijah represents the Lord as He comes to us in the Word, that is, the way we think about the Lord when we read the Word (especially the prophetic parts of the Word). Elijah and John the Baptist are similar in their symbolic meaning.

(References: Arcana Coelestia 5247 [6], 6752, 9372 [2])

878. 'He put out his hand' means his own power. 'And he took hold of it, and brought it in to himself into the ark' means that self was the source of the good he did and of the truth he thought. This is clear from the meaning of 'the hand' as power. Here therefore his own power from which he acts is meant. Indeed 'putting out his hand and taking hold of the dove and bringing it in to himself' is attaching and attributing to himself the truth meant by the dove. That 'the hand' means power, and also the exercise of power, and resulting self-confidence, is clear from many places in the Word, as in Isaiah,

I will visit upon the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Asshur, for he has said, By the power of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding. Isaiah 10:12-13.

Here 'hand' clearly stands for his own power to which he attributed what he had done, on account of which visitation was made on him.

[2] In the same prophet,

Moab will stretch out his hands in the midst of him as swimmer does to swim, but He will lay low his pride together with the powerfulness ¹ of his hands. Isaiah 25:11.

'Hands' stands for his own power resulting from projection of self above others, and so from pride. In the same prophet,

Their inhabitants were shorn of power, ² they were dismayed and filled with shame. Isaiah 37:27.

'Shorn of power' ² stands for having no power. In the same prophet,

Will the clay say to its potter, What are you making? or your work [say], He has no hands? Isaiah 45:9.

'He has no hands' stands for no power to it. In Ezekiel,

The king will mourn, and the prince will be wrapped in stupidity, and the hands of the people of the land will be all atremble. Ezekiel 7:17.

Here 'the hands' stands for power. In Micah,

Woe to those devising iniquity and working out evil upon their beds, which they carry out at morning light, and because they make their own hand their god! Micah 2:1.

'Hand' stands for their own power which they trust in as their god. In Zechariah,

Woe to the worthless shepherd deserting the flock! The sword will fall upon his arm and upon his right eye. His arm will be wholly withered, and his right eye utterly darkened. Zechariah 11:17.

[3] Since 'hands' means powers, men's evils and falsities are throughout the Word therefore called 'the works of their hands'. Evils come from the will side of man's proprium, falsities from the understanding side. The fact that this is the source of evils and falsities becomes quite clear from the nature of the human proprium, that it is nothing but evil and falsity. That this is the nature of the proprium see what has been stated already in 39, 41, 141, 150, 154, 210, 215. Because 'the hands' in general means power, the Word therefore frequently attributes hands to Jehovah, or the Lord. And in those contexts 'hands' in the internal sense means omnipotence, as in Isaiah, Jehovah, Your hand has been lifted up. Isaiah 26:11. 'Hand' stands for Divine power. In the same prophet,

Jehovah stretches out ³ His hand, they are all destroyed. Isaiah 31:3.

'Hand' stands for Divine power. In the same prophet,

Over the work of My hands command Me. My hands stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. Isaiah 45:11-12.

'Hands' stands for Divine power. In the Word regenerate people are often called 'the work of Jehovah's hands'. In the same prophet,

My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand measured out the heavens. Isaiah 48:13.

'Hand' and 'right hand' stand for omnipotence.

[4] In the same prophet,

Has My hand been shortened, that it cannot redeem? Is there no power in Me to deliver? Isaiah 50:2.

'Hand' and 'power' stand for Divine power. In Jeremiah,

You did bring Your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, and with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm. Jeremiah 32:17, 21.

'Power' in verse Jeremiah 32:17 and 'hand' in verse Jeremiah 32:21 stand for Divine power. It is quite often stated that 'they were brought out of Egypt with a strong hand and an outstretched arm': in Ezekiel,

Thus said the Lord Jehovih, On the day I chose Israel and lifted up My hand to the seed of the house of Jacob and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I lifted up My hand to them, to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Ezekiel 20:5-6, 23.

In Moses,

Israel saw the great work ⁴ which Jehovah did on the Egyptians. Exodus 14:31.

[5] All these quotations plainly show that 'the hand' means power. Indeed so much was the hand the symbol of power that it also became its representative, as is clear from the miracles performed in Egypt, when Moses was commanded to stretch out his rod or his hand and they were accomplished -

Moses stretched out his hand and there was hail all over Egypt. Exodus 9:22-23.

Moses stretched out his hand and there was darkness. Exodus 10:21-22.

Moses stretched out his hand and rod over the Sea Suph and it was dried up, and he stretched out his hand and it returned. Exodus 14:11, 27. ⁵

No mentally normal person can believe that any power resided in Moses' hand or rod. Rather, because the lifting up and stretching out of the hand symbolized Divine power, that action also became its representative in the Jewish Church.

[6] The same applies to Joshua's stretching out his javelin, described as follows,

Jehovah said, Stretch out the javelin that is in your hand towards Ai, for I will give it into your hand. When Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in his hand, they entered the city and took it. And Joshua did not draw back the hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Joshua 8:18-19, 26.

This also makes clear the nature of the representatives which comprised the external features of the Jewish Church. Consequently the Word is such that details recorded in its external sense do not give the appearance of being representatives of the Lord and His kingdom, such as the reference in these quotations to Moses or Joshua stretching out his hand, and all other details recorded there. In these it is never evident that such things are being represented as long as the mind is fixed solely on the historical details of the letter. From this it is also evident how far the Jews had receded from a true understanding of the Word and of the religious practices of their Church by focusing the whole of their worship purely on things of an external nature, even to the extent of attributing power to Moses' rod and to Joshua's javelin, when in fact these had no more power in them than a piece of wood. Yet because they did symbolize the Lord's omnipotence, which was at the time understood in heaven, signs and miracles were accomplished when by command they stretched out their hand or rod. Something similar happened when Moses on the hilltop held up his hands. When he did so Joshua was winning, but when he dropped them he was losing. So they held his hands up for him. Exodus 17:9-13.

[7] It was similar with the laying on of hands when men were being consecrated, as the people did to the Levites, Numbers 8:9-10, 12, and as Moses did to Joshua when the latter was to succeed him, Numbers 27:18, 23 - the purpose being to confer power. And this is why in our own times the ceremonies of ordination and of blessing are accompanied by the laying on of hands. To what extent the hand meant and represented power becomes clear from the following references in the Word to Uzzah and Jeroboam,

Of Uzzah it says that he reached out (his hand) to the Ark of God and took hold of it, and as a consequence died. 2 Samuel 6:6-7.

'The Ark' represented the Lord, and so everything holy and heavenly. 'Uzzah reached out to the Ark' represented man's own power, which is his proprium. And because the proprium is unholy the word 'hand' is left out but nevertheless understood. It is left out to prevent angels perceiving anything so profane as his touching with his hand that which was holy. And because he 'reached out' he died.

[8] In reference to Jeroboam,

It happened, when he heard the saying of the man of God which he cried out against the altar, that Jeroboam reached out his hand from above the altar saying, Lay hold of him. And his hand which he reached out against him dried up, and he could not draw it back to himself. He said to the man of God, Entreat now the face ⁶ of Jehovah your God, that my hand may be restored to me. And the man of God entreated the face ⁶ of Jehovah and his hand was restored to him, and became as it was before. 1 Kings 13:4-6.

Here similarly 'reaching out his hand' means man's own power, or proprium, which is unholy. He was willing to violate what was holy by stretching out his hand against the man of God, as a consequence of which his hand was dried up. Yet because he was an idolater and therefore not able to profane, as stated already, his hand was restored. The fact that 'the hand' means and represents power becomes clear from representatives in the world of spirits. In that world a bare arm sometimes comes into sight possessing so much strength that it can break bones to bits and crush their inner marrow to nothing at all. It consequently strikes so much terror as to cause heart-failure. It really does possess such strength.

Footnotes: