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).

10453. 'And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets' means the outward sense of the Word and the inward - which come from the Divine - and Divine Truth. This is clear from the meaning of 'the tablets' as the Word in its entirety, dealt with immediately above in 10452, but at this point the outward form of the Word, dealt with below; from the meaning of 'the work of God' as its coming from the Divine; from the meaning of 'the writing' as the inward form of the Word, also dealt with below, so that 'the writing of God' is the inward form of the Word coming from the Divine, and thus is Divine Truth; and from the meaning of 'engraved on the tablets' as the inward impressed on and so contained within the outward.

[2] The reason why the tablets here mean the outward form of the Word is that they are distinguished here from the writing, which is its inward form; but when they are not distinguished from the writing they mean the inward and the outward forms of the Word together, thus the Word in its entirety, as above in 10452. They are distinguished here because these tablets were broken, but nevertheless the same words were afterwards inscribed by Jehovah on the other tablets which were hewn by Moses. The outward form of the Word is its literal sense, the inward form is its internal sense. The former - the literal sense - is meant by 'the tablets', because this sense is like a tablet or level surface on which the internal sense is inscribed.

[3] The breaking by Moses of the tablets which were the work of God, when he saw the calf and the dances, and the hewing by Moses, as commanded by Jehovah, of other tablets, which then had the same words inscribed on them (so that the tablets were no longer the work of God but the work of Moses, though the writing was still the writing of God), hold an arcanum unknown up to now. The arcanum is that the literal sense of the Word would have been different if the Word had been written among another people, or if the character of the Israelite people had not been such as it was. For the literal sense of the Word is all about that people since the Word was written among them, as is evident from both the historical sections and the prophetical parts of the Word. They were a people steeped in evil because they were idolatrous at heart; yet in order that the internal sense and the external sense might be in agreement that people had to be highly acclaimed, and to be called God's people, a holy nation, and a peculiar treasure. Consequently the simple, who would be taught by means of the outward sense of the Word, would believe that that nation was all those things, as that nation itself also believes, and indeed as the majority in the Christian world do at the present day. Most of the things furthermore that present themselves in and constitute the outward sense of the Word were ones that were permitted on account of their hardness of heart, such as those referred to in Matthew 19:8 and also others which need not be mentioned here.

[4] Since therefore the literal sense of the Word came to be what it was because of what those people were like, the tablets which were the work of God were broken and others, as commanded by Jehovah, were hewn by Moses. But since they nevertheless had the same holy and Divine content within them the same words as were on the first tablets were inscribed by Jehovah on them, as is evident from the following verses in Moses,

Jehovah said to Moses, Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke. And Jehovah wrote on those tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words. Exodus 34:1, 4, 28.

And elsewhere,

At that time Jehovah said to me, Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke. And Jehovah wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Words. Afterwards Jehovah gave them to me. Deuteronomy 10:1-4.

[5] The fact that Jehovah did not acknowledge that people as His own people - even though they were called such so that the inward sense would accord with the outward - but as Moses' people is clear from the present chapter,

Your people have corrupted themselves, whom you caused to come up out of the land of Egypt. Go! lead the people to what I have spoken of to you. Exodus 32:7, 34.

And further on,

And Jehovah spoke to Moses, Go up, you and the people whom you have caused to come up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And I will send an angel before you, for I will not go up in your midst because you ¹ are a stiff-necked people. Exodus 33:1-3.

[6] The like is meant by Moses' being put in the hole of the rock, and his not being allowed to see Jehovah's face, but only His back parts, Exodus 33:22-23. The like is also meant, when the skin on Moses' face shone, by his putting a veil onto his face whenever he talked to the children of Israel, Exodus 34:30-35. What the character of that people would be is foretold by Jehovah to Abram, when he wanted his seed to inherit the land of Canaan, where it is stated that after Abram had parted down the middle the three year old heifer, the three year old she-goat, and the three year old ram, which served for entering into a covenant,

A deep sleep came over Abram, and behold, a dread of a great darkness was coming over him. And when the sun went down there was thick darkness, and behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. Genesis 15:8, 9, 12, 17.

Footnotes:

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.