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).

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.

3021. Put I pray thy hand under my thigh. That this signifies pledging it according to its power to the good of conjugial love, is evident from the signification of “hand,” as being power (see n. 878); and from the signification of “thigh,” as being the good of conjugial love, concerning which in what follows. That it is pledging to the extent of its power, is evident from the fact that they who were pledged to anything that related to conjugial love, by an ancient rite placed the hand under the thigh of him to whom they were being pledged, and in this manner they were put under oath by him; and this for the reason that the “thigh” signified conjugial love, and the “hand” power, or so far as was possible; for all the parts of the human body correspond to spiritual and celestial things in the Grand Man which is heaven, as was shown above (n. 2996, 2998); and as will be shown more fully, of the Lord’s Divine mercy hereafter. The thighs themselves together with the loins, correspond to conjugial love.

These things were well known to the men of the most ancient times; and therefore they had a number of rites based on this correspondence, of which one was that they placed the hands under the thigh when they were pledged to any good of conjugial love. The knowledge of such things, which was in highest esteem among the ancients, and was one of the chief things of their knowledge and intelligence, is at this day wholly lost; so completely that it is not even known that there is any correspondence; and some may therefore wonder that such things are signified by the rite here described. The rite is mentioned in the present case because the betrothing of Isaac to some one of the family of Abraham is treated of, and the discharge of the duty was intrusted to the elder servant.

[2] That as before said the “thigh” from correspondence signifies conjugial love, may also be seen from other passages in the Word; as from the process enjoined when a woman was accused by her husband of adultery.

In Moses:

The priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing; and the priest shall say unto the woman, Jehovah make thee a curse and an oath in the midst of thy people, when Jehovah doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell. And when he hath given her the water to drink, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and hath trespassed a trespass against her husband, that the waters that are accursed shall enter into her and become bitterness, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall be a curse among her people (Numbers 5:21, 27).

That the “thigh should fall away,” signified evil relating to conjugial love, that is, it signified adultery. The other particulars mentioned in the same process signify each of them some special thing belonging to the subject, so that there is not the least thing that does not involve something, however surprising this may seem to a man who reads the Word without any idea of its sanctity. Because of the signification of the “thigh” as being the good of conjugial love, mention is sometimes made of “coming forth from the thigh”—as is said of Jacob:

Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come forth from thy thighs (Genesis 35:11).

And in another place:

Every soul that came with Jacob into Egypt, that came forth from his thigh (Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5).

And of Gideon:

Gideon had seventy sons that came forth from his thigh (Judges 8:30).

[3] And as the “thighs” and the “loins” signify the things belonging to conjugial love, they also signify the things of love and charity, for the reason that conjugial love is the fundamental love of all loves (see n. 686, 2733, 2737-2739); for all loves are from the same origin, that is, from the heavenly marriage, which is that of good and truth (see n. 2727-2759). That the “thigh” signifies the good of celestial love and the good of spiritual love, is evident from the following passages.

In John:

He that sat on the white horse had upon His vesture and upon His thigh a name written: King of kings, and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).

That He who sat on the white horse is the Word, thus the Lord who is the Word, may be seen above (n. 2760-2762); also that “vesture” is the Divine truth (n. 2576); therefore He is called “King of kings” (n. 3009). Hence it is plain what the “thigh” is, namely, the Divine good which is of His love; from which He is also called “Lord of lords” (n. 3004-3011). And because this is the Lord’s quality, it is said that He “had thereon a name written;” for “name” signifies quality (n. 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006).

[4] In David:

Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O Mighty One, in Thy glory and honor (Psalms 45:3);

speaking of the Lord; where “sword” denotes truth combating (n. 2799); and “thigh” the good of love; to “gird the sword upon the thigh” signifies that the truth from which He would fight would be from the good of love.

In Isaiah:

Righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and truth the girdle of His thighs (Isaiah 11:5);

speaking here too of the Lord; and because “righteousness” is predicated of the good of love (n. 2235), it is called the girdle of the loins;” and because truth is from good, it is called the “girdle of the thighs;” thus “loins” are predicated of the love of good, and “thighs” of the love of truth.

[5] In the same:

None shall be weary nor stumble in Him, He shall not slumber nor sleep, neither is the girdle of His thighs loosed, nor the latchet of His shoes broken off (Isaiah 5:27).

This again is said of the Lord, and the “girdle of His thighs” denotes the love of truth, as before.

In Jeremiah:

Jehovah said unto Jeremiah that he should buy a linen girdle and put it on his loins, but should not pass it through water; and that he should go to the Euphrates and hide it in a hole of the rock; and having done this, when he went and took it from the place, it was marred (Jeremiah 13:1-6).

The “linen girdle” denotes truth, and “putting it on the loins” was a representative that truth was from good. Everyone can see that these are representatives, and their signification cannot be known except from correspondences, concerning which of the Lord’s Divine mercy something will be said at the end of certain chapters.

[6] So too with the signification of the things seen by Ezekiel, by Daniel, and by Nebuchadnezzar. As in Ezekiel:

Above the expanse that was over the heads of the cherubim was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the appearance of a burning coal, as the appearance of fire within it round about; from the appearance of his loins and upward, and from the appearance of his loins and downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about Him; as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about, so was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah (Ezekiel 1:26-28).

That this was representative of the Lord and of His kingdom is evident; and that the appearance of the loins upward and the appearance of the loins downward has reference to His love, is evident from the signification of “fire,” as being love (n. 934); and from the signification of “brightness” and a “rainbow” as being the derivative wisdom and intelligence (n. 1042, 1043, 1053).

[7] Concerning Daniel it is said:

A man appeared to him clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz; his body also was like the tharshish stone, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and feet like the shining of burnished brass (Daniel 10:5-6).

What is signified by these particulars—by “loins,” “body,” “face,” “eyes,” “arms,” and “feet”—can appear to no one except from representations and their correspondences. From these it is evident that the Lord’s celestial kingdom is thus represented, in which the “loins” are Divine love; and the “gold of Uphaz” with which these were girded, is the good of wisdom which is from love (n. 113, 1551, 1552).

[8] Concerning what was seen by Nebuchadnezzar we read in Daniel:

The head of the statue was good gold; its breast and its arms were silver; its belly and thighs were brass; the feet were part iron and part clay (Daniel 2:32-33).

By that statue were represented the successive states of the church; by the “head which was gold,” the first state, which was celestial, because it was a state of love to the Lord; by the “breast and arms which were silver,” the second state, which was spiritual, as it was a state of charity toward the neighbor; by the “belly and thighs which were brass,” the third state, which was a state of natural good (for this is “brass,” n. 425, 1551). Natural good is of love or charity toward the neighbor in a degree below spiritual good. By the “feet which were iron and clay” is meant the fourth state, which was one of natural truth (which is “iron,” n. 425, 426); and also of no coherence with good (which is “clay”). From all these things it may be seen what is signified by the “thighs” and the “loins,” namely, in the chief place conjugial love, and from this all genuine love, as is evident from the passages quoted, and likewise from others (Genesis 32:25, 32; Isaiah 20:2-4; Nahum 2:1; Psalms 69:23; Exodus 12:11; Luke 12:35-36). In the opposite sense also are signified the opposite loves, which are the loves of self and of the world (see 1 Kings 2:5; Isaiah 32:10-11; Jeremiah 30:6; 48:37; Ezekiel 29:7; Amos 8:10).