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).

1361. That from being idolatrous the church became representative, no one can know unless he knows what a representative is. The things that were represented in the Jewish Church, and in the Word, are the Lord and His kingdom, consequently the celestial things of love, and the spiritual things of faith: these are what were represented, besides many things that pertain to these, such as all things that belong to the church. The representing objects are either persons or things that are in the world or upon the earth; in a word, all things that are objects of the senses, insomuch that there is scarcely any object that cannot be a representative. But it is a general law of representation that there is no reflection upon the person or upon the thing which represents, but only upon that thing itself which is represented.

[2] For example, every king, whoever he was, in Judah and Israel, and even in Egypt and elsewhere, could represent the Lord. Their royalty itself is what is representative. So that the worst of all kings could represent, such as the Pharaoh who set Joseph over the land of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon (Daniel 2:37-38), Saul, and the other kings of Judah and of Israel, of whatever character they were. The anointing itself-from which they were called Jehovah’s anointed-involved this. In like manner all priests, how many soever they were, represented the Lord; the priestly function itself being what is representative; and so in like manner the priests who were evil and impure; because in representatives there is no reflection upon the person, in regard to what his quality is. And not only did men represent, but also beasts, such as all that were offered in sacrifice; the lambs and sheep representing celestial things; the doves and turtledoves, spiritual things; and in like manner the rams, goats, bullocks, and oxen represented lower celestial and spiritual things.

[3] And not only were animate things used as representatives, but also inanimate things, such as the altar and even the stones of the altar, the ark and the tabernacle with all that was in them, and, as everyone may know, the temple with all that was therein, such as the lamps, the breads, and the garments of Aaron. Nor these things only, but also all the rites in the Jewish Church were representative. In the Ancient Churches, representatives extended to all the objects of the senses, to mountains and hills, to valleys, plains, rivers, brooks, fountains, and pools, to groves and trees in general, and to every tree in particular, insomuch that each tree had some definite signification; all which, afterwards, when the significative church had ceased, were made representatives. From all this it may be seen what is meant by representatives. And as things celestial and spiritual-that is-the things of the Lord’s kingdom in the heavens, and of the Lord’s kingdom on earth could be represented not only by men, whosoever and of what quality soever they were, but also by beasts, and even by inanimate things, it may now be seen what a representative church is.

[4] The representatives were of such an efficacy that all things that were done according to the rites commanded appeared holy before the spirits and angels, as for instance when the high priest washed himself with water, when he ministered clothed in his pontifical garments, when he stood before the burning lights, no matter what kind of man he was, even if most impure, and in his heart an idolater. The case was the same with all the other priests. For, as before said, in representatives the person was not reflected upon, but only the thing itself that was represented, quite abstractly from the person, as it was abstractly from the oxen, the bullocks, and the lambs that were sacrificed, or from the blood that was poured round about the altar, and also abstractly from the altar itself; and so on.

[5] This representative church was instituted-after all internal worship was lost, and when worship had become not only merely external, but also idolatrous-in order that there might be some conjunction of heaven with earth, that is, of the Lord through heaven with man, even after the conjunction by the internal things of worship had perished. But what kind of conjunction this is by representatives alone, shall of the Lord’s Divine mercy be told in what follows. Representatives do not begin until the following chapter; in which, and in those that follow, all things in general and in particular are purely representative. Here, the subject treated of is the state of those who were the fathers, before certain of them and their descendants became representative; and it has been shown above that they were in idolatrous worship.

10261. 'And olive oil' means the Lord's celestial Divine Good. This is clear from the meaning of 'oil' as good, both celestial and spiritual, dealt with in 886, 4582, 9780; and from the meaning of 'olive' as celestial love, dealt with below, so that 'olive oil' means the good of celestial love, or what amounts to the same thing, celestial good. The expression 'the Lord's celestial Divine Good' is used because the origin of all good that really is good and exists in the heavens lies in what is Divine and the Lord's.

[2] But it should be remembered that in itself the Lord's Divine Good is a single whole; for it is infinite and contains infinite characteristics. What is infinite is a single whole, because the infinite characteristics it contains make one. But the distinguishing of that Good into celestial and spiritual is due to the different ways in which angels in heaven and people on earth receive it. That received by angels and people belonging to the Lord's celestial kingdom is called celestial Divine Good, whereas that received by angels and people belonging to the Lord's spiritual kingdom is called spiritual Divine Good. For all angels in heaven and people on earth receive the Lord's Good, which is a single whole, in various or dissimilar ways. This may be compared to the heat and light from the sun in the world. Though these regarded in themselves are a single whole, they nevertheless vary according to the seasons of the year and times of the day, and are also different in each region of the planet. Such variations of heat and light are due not to the sun but to the changing conditions on the planet brought about by variations as it orbits round the sun and revolves on its axis, so that again the reception is the determining factor. The variations of the one same light as it falls on individual objects, producing different colours, is also attributable to the ways in which it is received. From all this it may now be recognized why it is that the Lord's Divine Good, which is a single whole because it is infinite, is called celestial and spiritual.

[3] The meaning of 'oil' as good, both celestial and spiritual, is clear in the places referred to above. But the fact that 'olive' means celestial love, and 'olive tree' the perception and affection belonging to that love, is clear from the places in the Word where 'olive tree' and 'olive' are mentioned, as in the following: In Zechariah,

The prophet saw a lampstand all of gold. It had seven lamps on it, [and had] two olive trees beside it, one on the right of the bowl, and one on the left of it. He said to the angel, What are these two olive trees, and what are the two olive berries which are in the spouts ¹ of the two tubes of gold? He said, These are the two sons of olives, standing beside the Lord of the whole earth. Zechariah 4:2-3, 11-12, 14.

[4] What these prophetic utterances imply none can know unless they know from the internal sense what 'a lampstand' means and what 'an olive tree' means. 'A lampstand' means the spiritual heaven, and its 'lamps' the holy truths there, see 9548, 9551, 9555, 9558, 9561, 9684. From these meanings it is clear that 'an olive tree' means the celestial kingdom born from the perception of and affection for good, and 'olive berries' the holy forms of good there, their truths being meant by 'the sons of olives'. 'Two' means the internal and the external parts of that kingdom, and a joining together.

[5] 'Oil' and 'lampstand' are used with similar meanings in John,

I will give [power] to My two witnesses, that they may prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth. Revelation 11:3-4.

In Isaiah,

I will plant ² in the wilderness the cedar of shittah, and the myrtle, and olive wood ³ . Isaiah 41:19.

'The cedar' and 'olive wood' are mentioned because 'the cedar' means spiritual good and 'olive wood' celestial good, spiritual good being charity towards the neighbour and celestial good being love to the Lord. 'Planting them in the wilderness' means doing so in lands outside the Church, thus among gentile nations.

[6] In Hosea,

His branches will go out and his beauty will be like that of the olive, and his smell like Lebanon. Hosea 14:6.

Here also 'the olive' means celestial good, and 'Lebanon' means spiritual good, so that 'Lebanon' is similar in meaning to 'the cedar'; for Lebanon was a forest consisting of cedars.

[7] In Isaiah,

Thus will it be in the midst of the earth, in the midst of the peoples, like the stripping of the olive tree, like the gleaning of grapes when the harvesting of them has finished. Isaiah 24:13.

Also Isaiah 17:6. Comparison is made with 'the stripping of the olive tree' and 'the gleaning of grapes after the harvesting has finished' because 'the olive tree' means a Church that is governed by celestial good, and 'the vine' a Church that is governed by spiritual good. For in the Word wherever good is the subject, truth is also, on account of the marriage of them. In like manner wherever the celestial is the subject, the spiritual is also. Furthermore the term 'celestial' is used in reference to good, and 'spiritual' to truth, see in the places referred to in 9263, 9314; therefore the terms are also used in reference to the vine and the olive tree. As regards 'the vine', that it means the spiritual Church, and its goodness and truth, see 1069, 5113, 6376, 9277.

[8] Here also is the reason why elsewhere the vine and the olive tree are spoken of together, as in David,

[Your] wife will be like a fruitful vine on the sides of your house, your sons will be like olive shoots, round about your table. Psalms 128:3-4.

In Habakkuk,

The fig tree will not blossom, neither will there be any produce on the vines; the olive crop will fail ⁴ . Habakkuk 3:17.

In Amos,

Your very many gardens, and your vineyards, and your fig trees, and your olive trees the caterpillar devoured. Amos 4:9.

The fig tree as well is mentioned, because 'the fig' means the external Church's good, 5113, whereas 'the vine' means the good of the internal spiritual Church, and 'the olive tree' the good of the internal celestial Church. Similar instances occur elsewhere.

[9] Since 'olive wood' meant the good of celestial love the two cherubs which were in the sanctuary in the temple were made from pieces of olive wood, as were the double doors, lintel, and posts, 1 Kings 6:23, 31-32. For the sanctuary in the temple represented the inmost heaven, where celestial good is present, and therefore everything in the sanctuary was a sign of something celestial. The ark there, for the sake of which the sanctuary existed, was a sign of the inmost heaven, where the Lord is, see 9485.

[10] 'The Mount of Olives', which was opposite the temple, had a similar meaning to 'the olive tree', just as 'Lebanon' had to 'the cedar'. Therefore in order that all the things the Lord did when He was in the world, especially Divine celestial ones, might be represented in the heavens, the Lord was very often on the Mount of Olives when He was in Jerusalem, as is clear in Luke,

By day Jesus was teaching in the temple, but by night He went out and spent the night on the mountain which is called Olivet ⁵ . Luke 21:37.

And elsewhere,

Jesus came out and went away, as was His custom ⁶ , to the Mount of Olives. Luke 22:39.

Regarding this mountain, that it was opposite the temple, see Mark 13:3; Matthew 24:3.

[11] The fact that 'the Mount of Olives' was a sign of celestial Divine Good is clear in Zechariah, where it is stated,

Jehovah's feet will stand upon the Mount of Olives, which faces ⁷ Jerusalem; and there He will fight against the nations. And the mountain will be split, part towards the east and towards the sea ⁸ , with a large valley; and part of it will move away towards the north, and part towards the south. Zechariah 14:3-4.

This is a description of the state of heaven and the Church when the Lord was in the world, fighting against the hells, conquering them, and at the same time restoring the heavens to order. 'The nations' there which He fought against are the evils coming from hell; 'the Mount of Olives' on which His feet stood is the Divine Good of Divine Love, for by this Good He fought and conquered. 'The splitting of the mountain with a large valley, towards the east and towards the sea' means the separation of heaven and hell; and the like is meant by 'its moving away towards the north and the south'. Those living in the light of truth are said to be in the south, and those in the love of good to be in the east, whereas those immersed in evils are said to be towards the sea, and those in falsities towards the north.

Footnotes: