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).

John the Baptist represents the natural, literal sense of the Bible. He and Jesus were cousins. He paved the way for Jesus, just as the literal sense of the Bible paves the way for the spiritual sense. John is described as a rough man clothed with camel's hair. The literal sense of the Bible can be rough and unpleasant as well. The fact that John lived in the wilderness speaks to the state of the Old Testament at the time. His message of repentance is the first step towards spiritual rebirth. (Arcana Coelestia 9372, 10528)

Yet even in its externals, the Bible stands above human-generated ideas: Jesus said John was "greater than a prophet," and prophets represent doctrine. "Those born of women" represent true ideas; John was the greatest of all. And the simple power of his message – a message of repentance – helped people examine and begin to fight their evils, preparing them for the love and goodness that Jesus would preach.

3952. 'And he lay with her that night' means the actual joining together. This too becomes clear without explanation. The reason why the explanation of the expressions immediately preceding this has for the most part been limited to giving simply the meanings which they have in the internal sense is that they are the kind of things which cannot be understood unless they are presented separately one after another. For the subject is the joining of truth to good and of good to truth, and this joining together of them is the conjugial relationship meant in the spiritual sense; that is, when with man or in the Church the two are so joined together the heavenly marriage is effected. The arcana of this heavenly marriage have been described in the verses above, where they are shown to be the following: As has been stated, the heavenly marriage is a marriage of good to truth and of truth to good. It is not however a marriage between good and truth which both belong to one and the same degree, but between good and truth which belong one to a lower degree, the other to a higher. That is, it is not a marriage between the good of the external man and the truth of the same, but between the good of the external man and the truth of the internal man; or what amounts to the same, it is not a marriage between the good of the natural man and the truth of the same, but between the good of the natural man and the truth of the spiritual man. It is when good and truth of different degrees are joined together that the marriage comes into effect.

[2] The same applies in the internal or spiritual man. The heavenly marriage is not a marriage between the good and the truth present there but between the good of the spiritual man and the truth of the celestial man, for compared with the spiritual man the celestial man belongs to a higher degree. Nor again is the heavenly marriage between the good and the truth present there, but between the good of the celestial man and the Divine truth which proceeds from the Lord. From this it is in addition evident that the Divine marriage itself within the Lord is not a marriage between the Divine good and the Divine truth present in His Divine Human but between the Good of the Divine Human and the Divine itself, that is, between the Son and the Father, for the Good of the Lord's Divine Human is that which in the Word is called 'the Son of God' and the Divine itself that which is called 'the Father'.

[3] These are the arcana contained in the internal sense present within the things said about the dudaim. Anyone may see that there is some arcanum hidden within them. For the following details - those about Reuben's finding dudaim in the field and Rachel's desiring them, and, so that she might acquire them, about her agreeing to their husband's lying with Leah, and about Leah's going out to meet Jacob when he came from the field in the evening and her saying that she had hired him for the dudaim - would not have been important enough for them to be mentioned in any historical description in the Word unless something Divine had lain hidden within them. Exactly what that something Divine is nobody can know unless he knows what is meant by the sons of Jacob and by the tribes named after them, and also unless he knows the flow of ideas belonging to the subject dealt with in the internal sense, and on top of this unless he knows what the heavenly marriage is. For that marriage is the subject; that is to say, the joining of the good of the external man to the affection for the truth of the internal man is the subject. But to enable this arcanum to be seen more clearly, let a further illustration be given.

[4] The truths of the external man are the facts and the matters of doctrine which he acquires first through parents and also teachers, after that through books, and at length by his own endeavours. The good of the external man is the pleasure and delight which he finds in those facts and matters of doctrine. Facts which are essentially truths, and delights which are essentially good, are joined together, but these do not constitute the heavenly marriage with him, for even with people who are governed by self-love and love of the world and who are consequently under the influence of evil and falsity, facts, and indeed matters of doctrine, are joined to delights; but they are the delights that go with self-love and love of the world, to which truths are able to be joined. All the same, such people are outside the heavenly marriage. But the heavenly marriage exists in a person when pleasure or delight, which essentially is the good of the external or natural man, stems from spiritual love. That is, the heavenly marriage exists with him when that good stems from love towards the neighbour, towards his country or the general public, towards the Church, towards the Lord's kingdom; and it exists even more fully when it stems from celestial love, which is love to the Lord. For when that spiritual or celestial love passes from the internal or spiritual man into the delight of the external or natural man and fashions that delight, it is then joined to the facts and the matters of doctrine of the external or natural. But such a marriage cannot exist with the evil, only with the good, that is to say, with those who have those things as the end in view. But see what has been said already in 3286, 3288, 3314, 3321, about the influx of the internal or spiritual man into the external or natural man.

[5] Once acquainted with these arcana one may now come to see the overall meaning of the individual expressions, the explanations of which in preceding paragraphs was limited simply to giving their individual meanings in the internal sense, those expressions and their meanings being these: 'Reuben', who means the truth of faith, which is the first stage of regeneration, 'found dudaim'; 'he brought them to Leah his mother' who means the affection for external truth; 'Rachel' who means the affection for interior truth 'desired them', and they were also 'given to her'; Leah therefore 'lay with Jacob her husband' who means the good of truth within the natural man. Likewise the expressions in what comes after this: Sons were born to Jacob by Leah, 'Issachar and Zebulun', by whom things to do with conjugial love and so with the heavenly marriage are meant and represented; and after this, 'Joseph' was born, by whom the Lord's spiritual kingdom - the marriage itself, which is the subject here - is meant and represented.