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 #8408

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

8408. 'When we sat by a pot of flesh' means a life according to their own pleasure, and such as they craved for. This is clear from the meaning of 'a pot' as a container of good, and in the contrary sense a container of evil, dealt with below; and from the meaning of 'flesh' as the heavenly proprium, thus good, and in the contrary sense as the proprium that is man's own, thus evil, also dealt with below. 1 And since 'flesh' means the proprium, 'sitting by a pot of flesh' means a life according to one's own pleasure, and such as one craves for; for that is the life of the proprium. The reason why 'a pot' means a container of good, and in the contrary sense a container of evil, is that 'the flesh' cooked in it means good and in the contrary sense evil. And having these meanings 'a pot' also means the bodily level or the natural level of the human mind, since these are containers of good or of evil. This being so, it is used in a general sense to mean a person, and in an even more general sense to mean a people or a city; and when 'a pot' is used to mean these, 'flesh' means the good or the evil that is in them, as in Ezekiel,

... the men who think iniquity and give wicked counsel in this city, saying, [The time] is not near; [the city] itself is the pot, we are the flesh. Therefore thus said the Lord Jehovih, Your slain whom you have placed in the midst of it, 2 they are the flesh, but it is the pot. Ezekiel 11:2-3, 7.

Here 'the pot' stands for the city or the people there, and 'the flesh' for evil, since 'the slain', who are called 'the flesh', are those among whom goodness and truth have been wiped out, 4503.

[2] In the same prophet,

Tell a parable against the house of rebellion, and say to them, Thus said the Lord Jehovih, Put on the pot, put it on, and also pour [water into it gather] the pieces into it - every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder. Fill it with the choice of the bones. The Lord Jehovih said, Woe to the city of blood, 3 to the pot whose scum is in it, and whose scum has not gone out of it! Ezekiel 24:3-6.

Here 'the pot' stands for the city or the people there, among whom there exists the evil that results when good is profaned. The good or flesh there is 'the thigh and the shoulder'; the evil is 'the scum' coming from it, and good when profaned is the scum remaining, which also accounts for the city's being called 'the city of blood'.

[3] In Jeremiah,

Jehovah said to Jeremiah, What do you see? I said, A puffed out pot do I see, its face towards the north. Then Jehovah said, From the north evil will be opened over all the inhabitants of the land. Jeremiah 1:11-14.

'A puffed-out pot' stands for a people whom falsities have taken possession of, and 'the north' for the sensory and bodily levels of the human mind, from which evil pours out. The subject here is the end of the Church, when what belongs to the external and therefore to sensory and bodily levels, together with falsity and evil, has dominion; for the Lord's Church moves in a series of stages from what is internal to what is external, at which point it breathes its last.

[4] In Zechariah,

On that day there will be on the horses' bells, Holiness to Jehovah. And the pots in the house of Jehovah will be as the bowls before the altar. And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holiness to Jehovah Zebaoth; and all offering sacrifice will come, and take from them, and cook in them. Zechariah 14:20-21.

The subject here is the salvation of faithful believers, faithful believers being 'the pots', which they are called because they receive good from the Lord; and because they receive that good every 'pot' is said to be 'holiness to Jehovah'. 'The bells of the horses, with Holiness on them' are truths in agreement with good. Since 'pots' are recipients and containers of good, they like all the other vessels for the altar were made of bronze, Exodus 38:3; for 'bronze' means the good of the natural, 425, 1551.

[5] In addition to this 'the pot' may mean religious teachings because these hold the Church's good and truth within them. Such teachings are meant by 'the pot' in which at Elisha's command a soup was boiled for the sons of the prophets, described as follows in the second Book of Kings,

Elisha came again to Gilgal, when there was a famine in the land. When the sons of the prophets were sitting before him he said to his servant, Put on a great pot, and boil a soup for the sons of the prophets. One of them went out into the field to gather herbs and found a wild vine, and gathered from it wild gourds, and cut them up into the pot of soup. While they were eating of the soup they cried out, There is death in the pot, O man of God! But he said that they should bring flour, which he threw into the pot, and said, Pour out for the people and let them eat. Then there was not anything bad in the pot. 2 Kings 4:38-41.

It should be recognized that all Divine miracles have to do with things connected with the Lord's kingdom and the Church, 7337, 8364, and that 'Elisha' represents the Word of the Lord, 2762, and 'prophets' teachings derived from it, 2534, 7269. From this one may see what thing connected with the Church was represented by this miracle, which was that if the Church's good has been falsified it is made good again by means of truth from the Word. 'A famine' is a lack of cognitions or knowledge of truth and good; 'the pot' is religious teachings; 'soup' is the good of the Jewish Church's outward religious observances; 'gourds from a wild vine' is falsification; and 'flour' is truth from the Word, 2177, used to make good again that which has been falsified, meant by 'death in the pot'. The reason why 'pots' means containers of good is that they were included among the utensils in which food was prepared, and 'food', every kind of it, means such things as nourish the soul, that is, affections for good and truth, 681, 1480, 3114, 4792, 5147, 5293, 5340, 5342, 5576, 5410, 5915.

Footnotes:

1. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary describes proprium as A distinctive characteristic; the essential nature, selfhood. It is a Latin word meaning 'one's own (thing)'. Swedenborg uses it in the specialized sense of 'what is of the self.'

2. i.e. the city

3. literally, bloods

  
/ 10837  
  

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