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).

To some degree, there really is no spiritual meaning to the word “love” in the Bible. Why? Because if you truly love another, that is already a spiritual state. To put it simply, the Lord is Love Itself, a perfect and infinite love that is the source of all actual life and substance in the universe. Thus everything we are and everything we experience is a product of the Lord's love; there is no way for us to have any love from ourselves that is not ultimately the Lord's love, because the Lord's love is everything. When we feel love, what we're really doing is opening ourselves to be a conduit for the Lord's love -- truly a spiritual state. This also means that the more we can align our love with the Lord's love, the stronger our experience of love will be. The Lord's love is a constant desire to be conjoined with us, to be able to love us fully while protecting our right to choose. So the more we try to love that way, the more in harmony with Him we will be and the more powerful our feelings of love will be. In a general sense, then, most uses of “love” in the Bible represent a desire for union, connection, powered, and enriched by the Lord.

In Matthew 6:24, this signifies celestial of love. (Arcana Coelestia 3875[3])

In Malachi 2:11, this signifies to conjoin oneself with falsity. (Arcana Coelestia 4434[3])

4926. And she said, Wherefore hast thou broken upon thee a breach? That this signifies its apparent separation from good, is evident from the signification of a “breach,” as being the infraction and perversion of truth by separation from good-of which presently. That “to break a breach” here is to pull off the double-dyed from the hand, and thus to separate good, is evident, for by “double-dyed” is signified good (n. 4922); that this was apparently so follows from the fact that it so appeared to the midwife; for this was not the one who had the double-dyed, but his brother, by whom is represented truth. On this subject see what is shown just above (n. 4925), namely that good is actually the firstborn, but truth apparently. This may be further illustrated from the uses and members in the human body. It appears as if the members and organs are prior, and that their uses follow; for the former are first presented to the eye, and are also known before the uses. Nevertheless the use is prior to the members and organs, these latter being from the uses, and therefore formed according to them; nay, the use itself forms them, and adapts them to itself. Unless this were so, all and each of the things in man would by no means conspire so unanimously to a one. It is similar with good and truth: it appears as if truth were prior, but it is good, for good forms truths and adapts them to itself; wherefore regarded in themselves truths are nothing else than goods formed, or forms of good. Truths also in respect to good are like the viscera and fibers in the body in respect to uses; and regarded in itself good is nothing else than use.

[2] That a “breach” signifies infraction of truth and perversion of it by separation from good, is evident also from other passages in the Word, as in David:

Our garners are full, affording from food to food; our flocks are thousands and ten thousands in our streets; our oxen are laden; there is no breach (Psalms 144:13-14);

treating of the Ancient Church, such as it was in its youth; the “food with which the garners were full” denotes spiritual food, that is, truth and good; “flocks” and “oxen” denote internal and external goods; “there is no breach” denotes that truth is not infracted or broken through by separation from good.

[3] In Amos:

I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen, and fence up the breaches thereof; and I will restore its ruins, and I will build it according to the days of eternity (Amos 9:11);

describing the church which is in good, the “tent of David that is fallen” being the good of love and charity from the Lord. (That “tent” is this good, may be seen above, n. 414, 1102, 2145, 2152, 3312, 4128, 4391, 4599, and that “David” is the Lord, n. 1888) To “fence up the breaches” means to amend the falsities which have entered by the separation of truth from good; “to build it according to the days of eternity” denotes according to the state of the church in ancient times; that state and those times are called in the Word the “days of eternity,” the “days of an age,” and also “of generation and generation”—as in Isaiah:

[4] Builds of thee the wastes of an age, the foundations of generation and generation; and thou shall be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in (Isaiah 58:12);

describing the church in which charity and life is the essential. Here also “repairing the breach” denotes amending the falsities which have crept in by the separation of good from truth, every falsity being from this source; and “restoring paths to dwell in” denotes truths which are of good, for “paths” or “ways” are truths (n. 627, 2333), and “dwelling” is predicated of good (n. 2268, 2451, 2712, 3613).

[5] Again:

Ye saw the breaches of the city of David, that they were many; and ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool (Isaiah 22:9).

The “breaches of the city of David” denote falsities of doctrine, and the “waters of the lower pool” the traditions by which they made infractions of the truths that are in the Word (Matthew 15:1-6; Mark 7:1-14).

In Ezekiel:

Ye have not gone up into the breaches, neither have ye built up the fence for the house of Israel, that ye might stand in the war in the days of Jehovah (Ezekiel 13:5).

Again,

I sought from them a man that buildeth the fence, and standeth in the breach before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none (Ezekiel 22:30);

to “stand in the breach” denotes to defend and to take heed lest falsities break in.

In David:

Jehovah said that He would destroy the people, unless Moses His chosen had stood before Him in the breach (Psalms 106:23); where also “to stand in the breach” denotes to take heed lest falsities break in. “Moses” is the Word (see pref ace to Gen. 18, and n. 4859e).

[6] In Amos:

They shall draw out your posterity with fish-hooks. Ye shall go forth through the breaches, everyone straight before her; and ye shall throw down the palace (Amos 4:2-3);

“to go forth through the breaches” denotes through falsities from reasonings; the “palace” is the Word, consequently the truth of doctrine which is from good. And as by “breaches” is signified the falsity which comes into existence by the separation of good from truth, the same is also signified, in the representative sense, by “strengthening and repairing the breaches of the house of Jehovah” (2 Kings 12:6-8, 12; 22:5). In the second book of Samuel:

It grieved David because Jehovah had broken a breach upon Uzzah; therefore he called that place Perez-Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:8);

speaking of Uzzah, who died because he touched the ark; by the ark was represented heaven, in the supreme sense the Lord, consequently Divine good; by Uzzah however was represented that which ministers, thus truth, for this ministers to good. The separation above described is signified by the “breach upon Uzzah.”