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).

2803. That the Divine Truth is the “son,” and the Divine Good the “father,” is evident from the signification of a “son,” as being truth (see n. 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2633); and of a “father,” as being good; and also from the conception and birth of truth, which is from good. Truth cannot be and come forth [existere] from any other source than good, as has been shown many times. That the “son” here is the Divine Truth, and the “father” the Divine Good, is because the union of the Divine Essence with the Human, and of the Human Essence with the Divine, is the Divine marriage of Good with Truth, and of Truth with Good, from which comes the heavenly marriage; for in Jehovah or the Lord there is nothing but what is infinite; and because infinite, it cannot be apprehended by any idea, except that it is the being and the coming forth [esse et existere] of all good and truth, or is Good itself and Truth itself. Good itself is the “Father,” and Truth itself is the “Son.” But because as before said there is a Divine marriage of Good and Truth, and of Truth and Good, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as the Lord Himself teaches in John:

Jesus saith unto Philip, Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me ? Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:10-11).

And again in the same Evangelist:

Jesus said to the Jews, Though ye believe not Me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father (John 10:36, 38).

And again:

I pray for them; for all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee (John 17:9-10, 21).

And again:

Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him; if God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself. Father, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee (John 13:31-32; 17:1).

[2] From this may be seen the nature of the union of the Divine and the Human in the Lord; namely, that it is mutual and alternate, or reciprocal; which union is that which is called the Divine Marriage, from which descends the heavenly marriage, which is the Lord’s kingdom itself in the heavens—thus spoken of in John:

In that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you (John 14:20).

And again:

I pray for them, that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us, I in them and Thou in Me; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them (John 17:21-23, 26).

That this heavenly marriage is that of good and truth, and of truth and good, may be seen above (n. 2508, 2618, 2728, 2729 and following numbers).

[3] And because the Divine Good cannot be and come forth without the Divine Truth, nor the Divine Truth without the Divine Good, but the one in the other mutually and reciprocally, it is therefore manifest that the Divine Marriage was from eternity; that is, the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as the Lord Himself teaches in John:

And now O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thyself, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was (John 17:5, 24).

But the Divine Human which was born from eternity was also born in time; and what was born in time, and glorified, is the same. Hence it is that the Lord so often said that He was going to the Father who sent Him; that is, that He was returning to the Father. And in John:

In the beginning was the Word (the “Word” is the Divine Truth itself), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-3, 14; see also John 3:13; 6:62).

2842. And said, By Myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah. That this signifies irrevocable confirmation from the Divine, namely, concerning the things which follow, is evident from the signification of “saying by Myself have I sworn,” and of “saith Jehovah;” all which involve confirmation, and indeed from the Divine, that is, from Himself. The Divine cannot confirm from any other source than from Itself; and what it confirms is irrevocable, because it is eternal truth. Whatever Jehovah or the Lord speaks is eternal truth (Matthew 24:35), for it comes from the very being of truth. But His confirming it as it were by an oath (as here and elsewhere in the Word) is not for the reason that it may be more true, but for the reason that it is said to such as do not receive truth Divine unless it is so confirmed; for they have no other idea of Jehovah or the Lord than as of a man, who can say, and change, as we frequently read in the Word; but in the internal sense it is very different. Everyone may know that Jehovah or the Lord never confirms anything by an oath; but when the Divine truth itself, and its confirmation, passes down to a man of such nature, it is turned into the semblance of an oath.

The case herein is as it was with the devouring fire and smoke that appeared upon Mount Sinai before the eyes of the people, when Jehovah or the Lord came down (Exodus 19:18; Deuteronomy 4:11-12; 5:19-21): His glory in heaven, even mercy itself, appeared in this manner before the people there, who were in evil and falsity (see n. 1861); and the case is the same with many things called the sayings and doings of Jehovah that are spoken of in the Word. It may be seen from this that the expression, “by Myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah,” is significative of irrevocable confirmation from the Divine.

[2] That to “swear,” when predicated of Jehovah, signifies to confirm with a man who is of such nature, may be seen from many other passages in the Word; as in David:

Jehovah remembered His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations; which He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac (Psalms 105:8-9).

The case is the same with a covenant as with an oath, in that Jehovah or the Lord does not make a covenant with man, but when conjunction by love and charity is treated of, this is set forth in act as a covenant (see n. 1864). In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest forever, after the manner of Melchizedek ¹ (Psalms 110:4).

This is said concerning the Lord, and “Jehovah hath sworn” denotes irrevocable confirmation from the Divine, that is, that it is eternal truth.

[3] In the same:

I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to generation and generation (Psalms 89:3-4).

This also is concerning the Lord: to “make a covenant with the chosen,” and to “swear unto David,” denote irrevocable confirmation or eternal truth; “David” denotes the the Lord, (n. 1888); to “make a covenant” regards the Divine good; to “swear,” the Divine truth. In the same:

My covenant will I not profane nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips; once have I sworn by My holiness, I will not lie unto David (Psalms 89:34-35); where also “David” denotes the Lord; the “covenant” here likewise has regard to the Divine good; and the “thing that has gone out of My lips,” to the Divine truth, and this on account of the marriage of good and truth which is in everything in the Word (see n. 683, 793, 801, 2516, 2712).

[4] In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn unto David in truth, He will not turn from it. Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne, if thy sons will keep My covenant, and My testimony that I shall teach them (Psalms 132:11-12);

“Jehovah hath sworn unto David in truth” manifestly denotes the confirmation of eternal truth; and therefore it is said, “He will not turn from it; “that by David is meant the Lord has been stated already; the oath was still “to David,” because he was of such a character that he believed that the confirmation was concerning himself and his posterity; for David was in the love of himself and of his posterity, and hence believed that it was concerning him; that is, as said above, that his seed should be established forever, and his throne to generation and generation; but this was said of the Lord.

[5] In Isaiah:

This is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee (Isaiah 54:9); where to “swear” denotes making a covenant and confirming it by an oath. That it was a covenant, and not an oath, may be seen in Genesis 9:11. In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass (Isaiah 14:24).

In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength (Isaiah 62:8).

In Jeremiah:

Hear ye the word of Jehovah, all Judah, that dwell in the land of Egypt; behold I have sworn by My great name, saith Jehovah, that My name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah, saying, As the Lord Jehovih liveth, in all the land of Egypt (Jeremiah 44:26).

By Myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, that Bozrah shall become a desolation (Jeremiah 49:13).

In the same:

Jehovah Zebaoth hath sworn by His soul, Surely I will fill thee with men as with the locust (Jeremiah 51:14).

In Amos:

The Lord Jehovih hath sworn by His holiness, that behold the days shall come (Amos 4:2).

In the same:

Jehovah hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their deeds (Amos 8:7).

[6] In these passages, “Jehovah swearing by His right hand,” “by His great name,” by “Himself,” by His “soul,” by His “holiness,” by the “excellency of Jacob,” signifies the confirmation there is in Jehovah or the Lord. A confirmation by Jehovah can be given only from Himself. The “right hand of Jehovah,” the “great name of Jehovah,” the “soul of Jehovah,” the “holiness of Jehovah,” the “excellency of Jacob,” signify the Lord’s Divine Human: “swearing” thereby was confirmation.

[7] Jehovah or the Lord “swearing” to give the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or to their posterity, signifies in the internal sense the confirmation that He would give the heavenly kingdom to those who are in love to Him and faith in Him. It is they who are meant in the internal sense of the Word by the sons and the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or of the fathers; which was also actually represented by the fact that the land of Canaan was given to their posterity, and that the church at that time with them represented the Lord’s heavenly kingdom, as the land itself also did. (That “land” and the “land of Canaan” in the internal sense is the Lord’s kingdom, may be seen above, n. 1413, 1437, 1607.) It is from this that it is said in Moses:

That ye may prolong your days upon the ground which Jehovah sware unto your fathers, to give unto them, and to their seed, a land flowing with milk and honey; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the ground which Jehovah sware unto your fathers, to give them, as the days of the heavens upon the earth (Deuteronomy 11:9, 21).

From these passages it must now be evident that Jehovah’s “swearing” was representative of confirmation, and indeed of an irrevocable one. This is still more plainly manifest in Isaiah:

By Myself have I sworn, the word of righteousness is gone forth from My mouth, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear (Isaiah 45:23).

[8] Moreover it was enjoined upon those who were of the representative Jewish Church, that when they confirmed covenants by an oath, and likewise vows, also promises, and sureties, they should “swear by the name of Jehovah.” The reason why this was enjoined upon them, although it was only permitted, was that the confirmation of the internal man also would thus be represented; so that oaths at that time in the name of Jehovah, were as other things were, namely, representative. That it was enjoined, that is, permitted, is evident in Moses:

Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God, and Him shall thou serve, and shalt swear by His name; ye shall not go after other gods (Deuteronomy 6:13-14).

Again in the same:

Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God, Him shalt thou serve and to Him shalt thou cleave, and shalt swear by His name (Deuteronomy 10:20).

In Isaiah:

He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth, and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth (Isaiah 65:16).

In Jeremiah:

If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith Jehovah, unto Me shall thou return; and if thou wilt put away thine abominations from before Me, waver not; and thou shalt swear, Jehovah liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness (Jeremiah 4:1-2).

In the same:

If learning they will learn the ways of My people, to swear by My name, then they shall be built up in the midst of My people (Jeremiah 12:16).

That they also swore “by the name of Jehovah,” or swore “to Jehovah,” may be seen in Isaiah:

Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, that are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, that swear by the name of Jehovah, and have made mention of the God of Israel, not in truth, and not in righteousness (Isaiah 48:1).

In the same:

In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Jehovah Zebaoth (Isa 19:18).

In Joshua:

The princes of the congregation sware to the Gibeonites by Jehovah the God of Israel (Josh. 9:18-19).

[9] From this it is evident that they were permitted to swear by the name of Jehovah, or by Jehovah; yet it is evident that this was nothing else than a representative of the confirmation of the internal man. But it is known that internal men, that is, those who have conscience, have no need to confirm anything by an oath; and that they do not thus confirm. To them oaths are a cause of shame. They can indeed say with some asseveration that a thing is so, and can also confirm the truth by reasons; but to swear that it is so, they cannot. They have an internal bond by which they are bound, namely, that of conscience. To superadd to this an external bond, which is an oath, is like imputing to them that they are not upright in heart. The internal man is also of such a character that he loves to speak and act from freedom, but not from compulsion; for with them the internal compels the external, but not the reverse. On this account they who have conscience do not swear; still less do they who have perception of good and truth, that is, celestial men. These do not even confirm themselves or one another by reasons, but merely say that a thing is so, or is not so (n. 202, 337, 2718); wherefore they are still further removed from taking an oath.

[10] For these reasons, and because oaths were among the representatives which were to be abrogated, the Lord taught that we are not to swear at all, in these words in Matthew:

Ye have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself; but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king; neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matthew 5:33-37).

By these words is meant that we are not to swear at all by Jehovah, nor by anything which is of Jehovah or the Lord.

Footnotes: