From Swedenborg's Works

 

Arcana Coelestia #9372

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

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).

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Arcana Coelestia #1672

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

1672. And the kings that were with him. That this signifies the apparent truth which is of that good, is evident from the signification of “kings” in the Word. “Kings,” “kingdoms,” and “peoples,” in the historical and the prophetical parts of the Word, signify truths and the things which are of truths, as may be abundantly confirmed. In the Word an accurate distinction is made between a “people” and a “nation;” by a “people” are signified truths, and by a “nation” goods, as before shown (n. 1259, 1260). “Kings” are predicated of peoples, but not so much of nations. Before the sons of Israel sought for kings, they were a nation, and represented good, or the celestial; but after they desired a king, and received one, they became a people, and did not represent good or the celestial, but truth or the spiritual; which was the reason why this was imputed to them as a fault (see 1 Samuel 8:7-22, concerning which subject, of the Lord’s Divine mercy elsewhere). As Chedorlaomer is named here, and it is added, “the kings that were with him,” both good and truth are signified; by “Chedorlaomer,” good, and by “the kings,” truth. But what was the quality of the good and truth at the beginning of the Lord’s temptations has already been stated.

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Arcana Coelestia #4763

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

4763. 'And he rent his clothes' means mourning. This is clear from the meaning of 'rending clothes' as mourning, that is to say, mourning on account of the loss of truth, or the fact that no faith exists. In the Word, especially the historical part, one often reads about people rending their clothes, but the origin of that practice is not known at the present day. Nor is it known that it was representative of grief on account of the loss of truth. This practice became representative from the fact that 'clothes' meant truths, as has been shown and may be seen in 4545. Further on in this chapter it is also said that when Jacob recognized his son's tunic he rent his clothes, verse 34, by which mourning for lost truth is meant. Similar instances of this practice occur elsewhere in the Word, where it is stated that when the Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib king of Asshur and uttered insults against Jerusalem, Eliakim who was over the king's house, and Shebna the secretary, and Joash the recorder 1 rent their clothes and reported these things to king Hezekiah; and when he heard them the king too rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth, Isaiah 36:22; 37:1; 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1. The insults he uttered were directed against God, the king, and Jerusalem, and so against Divine Truth, as is even more evident from the internal sense of this narrative. It was to express mourning therefore that their clothes were rent.

[2] When Jehudi had read before the king the scroll which Jeremiah wrote, it is said that he threw it into the fire, but the king and his servants who were listening to all those words did not tear their clothes apart, Jeremiah 36:23-24. 'They did not tear their clothes apart' meant that they did not mourn on account of the non-acceptance of Divine Truth. Something similar is implied by Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh rending their clothes, when the spies spoke in opposition to them, by speaking unfavourably about the land of Canaan, Numbers 14:6; for 'the land of Canaan' means the Lord's kingdom, and 'to speak in opposition to this' describes falsity in opposition to Divine Truth. Mourning over the loss of Divine Truth and Divine Good is meant where it is said, in 1 Samuel 4:11-12, that when the ark of God was captured by the Philistines and both of Eli's sons died, a man ran from the line of battle to Shiloh, with rent clothes and dust on his head. Because 'the ark' represented the Lord's kingdom, and in the highest sense the Lord Himself, and consequently represented everything holy in the Church, 'rent clothes' meant grief over the loss of Divine Truth, while 'dust on his head' meant grief over the loss of Divine Good.

[3] In the narrative about Samuel and Saul one reads,

When Samuel turned to go away Saul took hold of the skirt of his tunic, and it was torn away. Therefore Samuel said to him, Jehovah has torn the kingdom of Israel from upon you this day and has given it to your companion. I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of Jehovah, and Jehovah has rejected you from being king over Israel. 1 Samuel 15:26-28.

The tearing away by Saul of the skirt of Samuel's tunic represented that which Samuel then stated - that the kingdom would be torn from him and that he would not be the king of Israel any longer. For 'the kingdom' in the internal sense means Divine Truth, 1672, 2547, 4691, as also does 'king' and 'kingship', 1672, 1728, 2015, 2069, 3009, 3670, 4575, 4581, especially the king and the kingdom of Israel, since 'Israel' represented the Lord's kingship. The meaning is similar in what is recorded concerning Jeroboam and Ahijah the prophet,

When Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet found him on the road, when he was covered with a new garment and both were alone in the field, Ahijah took hold of the new garment that was on him and rent it into twelve pieces; and he said to Jeroboam, Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus said Jehovah, the God of Israel, behold, I am rending [the kingdom] from the hand of Solomon and I will give you ten tribes. 1 Kings 11:29-31.

[4] The second Book of Samuel likewise records that when Saul was killed in battle they tore their clothes apart,

When Saul was killed in battle, on the third day a man came from the camp, whose clothes had been rent. And when David heard about the death of Saul, David took hold of his garments and tore them apart; and so did all his servants who were with him. 2 Samuel 1:2, 10-12.

This too represented mourning because of Divine Truth, lost and cast away by those who adhered to faith separated from charity. For as stated above, 'kingship' meant Divine Truth, while 'the Philistines' by whom Saul was slain represented adherents to faith separated from charity, 1197, 1198, 3412, 3413. The same is also evident from David's lament over him, in verses 18-27 of the same chapter.

[5] When Absalom had slain Amnon his brother and the news reached David that Absalom had slain all the king's sons, David tore his clothes apart and lay on the ground; and all his servants standing by tore their clothes apart, 2 Samuel 13:28, 30-31. This too was done for the sake of the representation that truths from the Divine were lost, those truths being meant in the internal sense by 'the king's sons'. A similar meaning exists in the reference to Hushai the Archite who with his tunic torn apart came to meet David when he fled from Absalom, 2 Samuel 15:32; for in the Word 'a king', and in particular David, represents Divine Truth. The meaning is also very similar in the reference to Ahab, who tore his clothes apart and put sackcloth over his flesh when Elijah told Ahab the king of Israel the words of Jehovah, to the effect that he would be completely wiped out for the evil he had done, 1 Kings 21:27-29.

[6] The fact that tearing apart or rending clothes represented mourning the loss of Truth is additionally clear from the following: Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the law in the house of Jehovah. When Shaphan read it before king Josiah and the king heard the words of the Book of the law, he tore his clothes apart, 2 Kings 22:11. Plainly the king did so because the Word, that is, Divine truth, had been lost for so long and in their hearts and life had been blotted out.

[7] The tearing apart of his own clothes by the high priest, when the Lord confessed He was the Christ the Son of God, and his declaration that He had spoken utter blasphemy, Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:63-64, meant that the high priest was absolutely convinced that the Lord had spoken against the Word and so against Divine truth. When Elijah went up in the whirlwind, and Elisha saw it, it is said,

He took hold of his own clothes and tore them into two pieces. And he took up Elijah's tunic that had fallen from upon him, and he struck the waters and they were divided this way and that, and Elisha went over. 2 Kings 2:11-14.

Elisha tore his own clothes apart at that time to express mourning the loss of the Word, that is, of Divine Truth; for 'Elijah' represents the Lord as regards the Word, that is, Divine Truth, 2762. When the tunic fell from Elijah and was picked up by Elisha, the continuation of Elijah's representation by Elisha was represented, 'the tunic' meaning Divine Truth, see 4677. This also explains why the garment torn apart when such mourning took place was the tunic, as is evident from some of the places that have been quoted. Because 'a garment' meant the truth possessed by the Church, and in the highest sense Divine Truth, it was therefore shameful, except when one was mourning, to go about with clothes that were torn. This is evident from what was done to David's servants by Hanun king of the children of Ammon, when he cut off half the beard of each one, and their garments at the middle even to their buttocks, for which reason they were not allowed to come to David, 2 Samuel 10:4-5.

Footnotes:

1. Reading commemorator (recorder) for commentator (interpreter)

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.