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).

2165. That 'I will take a piece of bread' means something heavenly or celestial to go with [that something natural] is clear from the meaning of 'bread' as that which is celestial, dealt with already in 276, 680, 681, 1798. The reason 'bread' here means that which is celestial is that bread means all food in general, and so in the internal sense all heavenly or celestial food. What celestial food is has been stated in Volume One, in 56-58, 680, 681, 1480, 1695. That 'bread' means all food in general becomes clear from the following places in the Word: One reads of Joseph telling the man in charge of his house to bring the men, that is, his brothers, into the house, and then to slaughter what needed to be slaughtered and made ready. And after that, when these things had been made ready and the men were to eat them, he said, Set on bread, Genesis 43:16, 31, by which he meant that the table was to be made ready by them. Thus 'bread' stood for all the food that made up the entire meal. Regarding Jethro one reads that Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God, Exodus 18:12. Here also 'bread' stands for all the food that made up the entire meal. And regarding Manoah, in the Book of Judges,

Manoah said to the angel of Jehovah, Let us now detain you, and let us make ready a kid before you. And the angel of Jehovah said to Manoah, If you detain me I will not eat your bread. Judges 13:15-16.

Here 'bread' stands for the kid. When Jonathan ate from the honeycomb the people told him that Saul had commanded the people with an oath, saying,

Cursed be the man who eats bread this day. 1 Samuel 14:27-28.

Here 'bread' stands for all food. Elsewhere, regarding Saul,

When Saul sat down to eat bread he said to Jonathan, Why has not the son of Jesse come either yesterday or today, to bread? 1 Samuel 20:24, 27.

This stands for coming to the table, where there was food of every kind. Regarding David who said to Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son,

You will eat bread at my table always. 2 Samuel 9:7, 10.

Similarly regarding Evil-Merodach who said that Jehoiachin the king of Judah was to eat bread with him always, all the days of his life, 2 Kings 25:29. Regarding Solomon the following is said,

Solomon's bread for each day was thirty cors ¹ of fine flour, sixty cors of meal, ten fatted oxen, twenty pasture-fed oxen, and a hundred sheep, besides harts and wild she-goats and roebucks and fatted fowl. 1 Kings 4:22-23.

Here 'bread' plainly stands for all the provisions that are mentioned.

[2] Since then 'bread' means every kind of food in general it consequently means in the internal sense all those things that are called heavenly or celestial foods. This becomes even clearer still from the burnt offerings and sacrifices that were made of lambs, sheep, ² she-goats, kids, he-goats, young bulls, and oxen, which are referred to by the single expression bread offered by fire to Jehovah, as is quite clear from the following places in Moses where the various sacrifices are dealt with and which, it says, the priest was to burn on the altar as the bread offered by fire to Jehovah for an odour of rest, Leviticus 3:11, 16. All those sacrifices and burnt offerings were called such. In the same book,

The sons of Aaron shall be holy to their God, and they shall not profane the name of their God, for it is the fire-offerings to Jehovah, the bread of their God, that they offer. You shall sanctify him, for it is the bread of your God that he offers. No man of Aaron's seed who has a blemish in himself shall approach to offer the bread of his God. Leviticus 21:6, 8, 17, 21.

Here also sacrifices and burnt offerings are referred to as 'bread', as they are also in Leviticus 22:25. Elsewhere in the same author,

Command the children of Israel, and say to them, My gift, My bread, for fire-offerings of an odour of rest, you shall take care to offer to Me at their appointed times. Numbers 28:2.

Here also 'bread' stands for all the sacrifices that are mentioned in that chapter. In Malachi,

Offering polluted bread on My altar. Malachi 1:7.

This also has regard to sacrifices. The consecrated parts of the sacrifices which they ate were called 'bread' as well, as is clear from these words in Moses,

The person who has touched anything unclean shall not eat any of the consecrated offerings, but he shall surely bathe his flesh in water, and when the sun has set he will be clean. And afterwards he shall eat of the consecrated offerings, because it is his bread. Leviticus 22:6-7.

[3] Burnt offerings and sacrifices in the Jewish Church represented nothing else than the heavenly things of the Lord's kingdom in heaven, and of the Lord's kingdom on earth, which is the Church. They also represented the things of the Lord's kingdom or Church as it exists with every individual; and in general they represented all those things that are composed of love and charity, for those things are celestial or of heaven. In addition each type of sacrifice represented some specific thing. In those times all of the sacrifices were called 'bread', and therefore when the sacrifices were abolished and other things serving for external worship took their place, the use of bread and wine was commanded.

[4] From all this it is now clear what is meant by that 'bread', namely that it means all those things which were represented in the sacrifices, and thus in the internal sense means the Lord Himself. And because 'bread' there means the Lord Himself it means love itself towards the whole human race and what belongs to love. It also means man's reciprocal love to the Lord and towards the neighbour. Thus the bread now commanded means all celestial things, and wine accordingly all spiritual things, as the Lord also explicitly teaches in John,

They said, Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. They said to Him, Lord, give us this bread always. Jesus said to them, I am the Bread of life he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. John 6:31-35.

And in the same chapter,

Truly I say to you, He who believes in Me has eternal life. I am the Bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the Bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living Bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this Bread he will live for ever. John 6:47-51.

[5] Now because this 'Bread' is the Lord it exists within the celestial things of love which are the Lord's, for the Lord is the celestial itself, because He is love itself, that is, mercy itself. This being so, 'bread' also means everything celestial, that is, all the love and charity existing with a person, for these are derived from the Lord. People who are devoid of love and charity therefore do not have the Lord within them, and so are not endowed with the forms of good and of happiness which are meant in the internal sense by 'bread'. This external symbol [of love and charity] was commanded because the worship of the majority of the human race is external, and therefore without some external symbol scarcely anything holy would exist among them. Consequently when they lead lives of love to the Lord and of charity towards the neighbour, that which is internal exists with them even though they do not know that such love and charity constitute the inner core of worship. Thus in their external worship they are confirmed in the kinds of good which are meant by 'the bread'.

[6] In the Prophets as well 'bread' means the celestial things of love, as in Isaiah 3:1, 7; 30:23; 33:15-16; 55:2; 58:7-8; Lamentations 5:9; Ezekiel 4:16-17; 5:16; 14:13; Amos 4:6; 8:11; Psalms 105:16. Those things are in a similar way meant by 'the loaves of the Presence' on the table, referred to in Leviticus 24:5-9; Exodus 25:30; 40:23; Numbers 4:7; 1 Kings 7:48.

Footnotes:

4622. CONTINUATION CONCERNING CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE GRAND MAN, HERE CONCERNING THE CORRESPONDENCE OF ODOR AND OF THE NOSTRILS THEREWITH.

The dwellings of the blessed in the other life are of many kinds, and are constructed with such art as to be as it were embodiments of the very art of architecture, or to come straight from the art itself. (On this subject see what has already been related from experience, n. 1116, 1626-1630.) These dwellings appear not only to the sight, but also to the touch, for all things there are adapted to the sensations of spirits and angels, and hence are such as do not come to bodily sense like that of man, but to that possessed by those who are there. I know that this is incredible to many, but this is because nothing is believed which cannot be seen by the bodily eyes and felt with the hands of flesh. For this reason the man of this day, whose interiors are closed, knows nothing of the things which exist in the spiritual world or in heaven. He does indeed say from the Word and from doctrine that there is a heaven, and that the angels who are there are in joy and in glory, but he knows no more about the matter. How the case is there he would indeed like to know, but when told he still believes nothing, because at heart he denies the existence of such things, and his desire to know about them is prompted solely by his curiosity from doctrine, and not by any delight grounded in faith. They who are not in faith also deny at heart; but they who believe get ideas from various sources about heaven and its joy and glory, each person from such things as are of his own knowledge and intelligence, and the simple from the things of bodily sensation.

[2] Nevertheless most people do not apprehend that spirits and angels enjoy sensations much more exquisite than those of men in this world, namely, sight, hearing, smell, something analogous to taste, and touch; and especially the delights of the affections. If men would only believe that their interior essence is the spirit, and that the body and its sensations and members are adapted to uses in this world merely, and that the spirit and its sensations and organs are adapted to uses in the other life, then from themselves and almost of their own accord they would come into ideas about the state of their spirit after death; for they would reflect that the spirit must be the man himself who thinks, and who desires, longs for things, and is affected with them; and further that all the power of sensation which appears in the body belongs properly to the spirit, and to the body merely by influx; and they would afterwards confirm themselves in this idea by many considerations, and in this way would at last take more delight in the things of their spirit than in those of their body.

[3] It is also a real fact that it is not man’s body which sees, hears, smells, and feels, but his spirit; and therefore when the spirit is divested of the body, it is in its own sensations, the same as when it was in the body, only now far more exquisite; for the things of the body, being comparatively gross, had rendered the sensations obtuse, and this the more because the man had immersed them in earthly and worldly things. This I can aver-that a spirit has much more exquisite sight than a man in the body, and also much more exquisite hearing, and, astonishing to say, the sense of smell, and especially the sense of touch; for spirits see one another, hear one another, and touch one another. Moreover, anyone who believes in the life after death might infer that this is the case from the fact that no life is possible without sensation, and that the quality of the life is according to the quality of the sensation, nay, that the intellectual faculty is nothing but an exquisite sense of interior things, and the higher intellectual of spiritual things; and it is from this that the things of the intellectual and its perceptions are called internal senses.

[4] As regards man’s power of sensation immediately after death the case is this: As soon as a man dies and all things of his body grow cold, he is raised up into life, and at the same time into a state of all sensations; insomuch that at first he scarcely knows but that he is still in the body, for the sensations he then enjoys lead him so to believe. But when he observes that he has more exquisite sensations, and especially when he begins to speak with other spirits, it dawns upon him that he is in the other life, and that the death of his body has been the continuation of the life of his spirit. I have spoken with two of my acquaintances on the day of their burial, and with one who through my eyes saw his coffin and his bier; and as this man enjoyed all the sensation he had in this world, he spoke to me about the burial rites while I was following in his funeral procession, and also about his body, saying that they should throw that away because he himself was alive.

[5] Be it known, however, that they who are in the other life can see nothing whatever in this world through the eyes of any man; but that their being able to do so through mine was because I am in the spirit with them and at the same time in the body with those who are in the world (see also n. 1880). And be it further known that I did not see with my bodily eyes those with whom I have spoken in the other life, but with the eyes of my spirit; and yet I saw them as clearly, and sometimes more clearly, than with the eyes of the body; for of the Lord’s Divine mercy the senses of my spirit have been opened.

[6] But I am aware that what I have so far said will not be believed by those who are immersed in bodily, earthly, and worldly things (that is, by those of them who have such things as their end), for such people apprehend no other things than those which are dissipated by death. I am also well aware that those will not believe who have thought much and investigated much about the soul, and who have not at the same time comprehended that the soul of man is his spirit, and that his spirit is the man himself who is living in the body; for such persons could have no other notion about the soul than as of a thinking principle, whether of flame or of ether, that acts solely into the organic forms of the body, and not into those purer forms which are of the spirit in the body; thus that the soul is such a thing as must be dissipated together with the body. And this is especially the case with those who have confirmed themselves in such things by views that are inflated with a persuasion of their own preeminent wisdom.