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).

3128. And told her mother’s house according to these words. That this signifies toward natural good of every kind whithersoever enlightenment could reach, is evident from the signification of the “mother’s house,” as being the good of the external man, that is, natural good. (That a “house” denotes good may be seen above, n. 2233, 2234, 2559; also that man’s external or natural is from the mother, but the internal from the father, n. 1815.) The good with man is compared in the Word to a “house,” and on this account a man who is in good is called a “house of God;” but internal good is called the “father’s house,” and the good that is in the same degree is called the “house of the brethren;” but external good, which is the same as natural good, is called the “mother’s house.” Moreover all good and truth are born in this manner, namely, by the influx of internal good as of a father into external good as of a mother.

[2] As this verse treats of the origin of the truth which is to be conjoined with good in the rational, it is therefore said that Rebekah (by whom this truth is represented) ran to the house of her mother, for that was the origin of this truth. For as before said and shown, all good flows in by an internal way (that is, by the way of the soul) into man’s rational, and through this into his faculty of knowing, even into that which is of the senses; and by enlightenment there it causes truths to be seen. Truths are called forth thence, and are divested of their natural form, and are conjoined with good in the midway, that is, in the rational, and at the same time they make the man rational, and at last spiritual. But how these things are accomplished is utterly unknown to man; because at this day it is scarcely known what good is, and that it is distinct from truth; still less that man is reformed by means of the influx of good into truth, and by the conjunction of the two; neither is it known that the rational is distinct from the natural. And when these things, which are most general, are not known, it cannot possibly be known how the initiation of truth into good, and the conjunction of the two, is effected-which are the subjects treated of in this chapter in its internal sense. But whereas these arcana have been revealed, and are manifest to those who are in good, that is, who are angelic minds, therefore however obscure they may appear to others, they nevertheless are to be set forth, because they are in the internal sense.

[3] Concerning the enlightenment from good through truth in the natural man, which is here called the “mother’s house,” the case is this: Divine good with man inflows into his rational, and through the rational into his natural, and indeed into its memory-knowledges, that is, into the knowledges and doctrinal things therein, as before said; and there by a fitting of itself in, it forms truths for itself, through which it then enlightens all things that are in the natural man. But if the life of the natural man is such that it does not receive the Divine good, but either repels it, or perverts it, or suffocates it, then the Divine good cannot be fitted in, thus it cannot form for itself truths; and consequently the natural can no longer be enlightened; for enlightenment in the natural man is effected from good through truths; and when there is no longer enlightenment, there can be no reformation. This is the reason why in the internal sense the natural man also is much treated of in regard to its quality; thus whence truth is, namely, that it is from good there.

114. Who was dead and is alive. That this signifies that He is rejected, and yet that eternal life is from Him, is evident from the signification of being dead, when said of the Lord, as denoting to be rejected (concerning which see above, n. 83), and from the signification of being alive, as denoting that eternal life is from Him in (concerning which see also above, n. 84). The Lord is said to be rejected when He is not approached and worshipped, and also when He is approached and worshipped only as to His Human, and not at the same time as to the Divine. At this day therefore He is rejected by those within the church who do not approach and worship Him, but pray to the Father to have compassion on them for the sake of the Son, although no man, or angel, can ever approach the Father, and worship Him directly, the Divine being invisible, with which no one can be conjoined in faith and love. For that which is invisible cannot come into the thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and what does not come into the thought, does not enter into the faith, for what pertains to faith must be an object of thought. So also what does not enter into the affection of the will, does not enter into the love, for the things which pertain to the love must affect a man's will, as all a man's love resides in the will (see The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem 28-35). But the Divine Human of the Lord can be thought of and enter into the faith, and thence into the affection of the will, or into the love.

[2] It is therefore evident, that there can be no conjunction with the Father unless from the Lord, and in the Lord. This the Lord Himself teaches very clearly in the Evangelists.

In John:

"No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath brought him forth to view" (1:18).

Again:

"Ye have neither heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen his shape" (5:37).

In Matthew:

"Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (11:27).

In John:

I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (14:6).

Again:

"If ye know me, ye know my Father also; he that seeth me seeth the Father"; (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" (14:7-11);

and that the Father and the Lord are one (10:30, 38).

Again:

"I am the vine, ye are the branches; without me ye can do nothing" (15:5).

[3] It is therefore evident, that the Lord is rejected by those within the church who approach the Father directly, and pray to Him to have compassion for the sake of the Son; for these cannot but think of the Human of the Lord, as of the human of another man, thus they cannot think of His Divine in the Human, and still less of His Divine united with His Human as the soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine universally received in the Christian world (see above, n. 10 and 26).

Who is there in the Christian world, that acknowledges the Divine of the Lord that desires by this acknowledgment to separate His Divine from His Human? Nevertheless, to think of the Human alone, and not at the same time of the Divine in the Human, is to regard them as separate, which is not to think of the Lord, or of both as one person, although the doctrine received in the Christian world is, that the Divine and Human of the Lord make not two persons but one person.

[4] Those who constitute the church at this day do, indeed, think of the Divine of the Lord in His Human, when they speak from the doctrine of the church; but it is quite otherwise when they think and speak within themselves apart from doctrine. But let it be known, that a man is in one state when he thinks and speaks from doctrine, and another when he thinks and speaks apart from it. When a man thinks and speaks from doctrine, he thinks and speaks from the memory of his natural man; but when he thinks and speaks unfettered by doctrine, his thought and speech are then from his spirit. For to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from the interiors of one's mind, therefore, what he then speaks is his real faith. The state of a man also after death is such as were the thought and speech of his spirit within himself unfettered by doctrine, and not such as were his thought and speech from doctrine, if the latter has not become one with the former.

[5] Man has two states as to faith and love, one while he is in doctrine, and another when he is unfettered by it, but the state of his faith and love apart from doctrine saves him, and not the state of his speech concerning faith and love derived from doctrine, unless the latter has become one with the former. Man does not know this, although to think and speak from doctrine concerning faith and love, is to speak from the natural man and its memory, is evident from this circumstance alone, that both the evil and the good can think and speak in this way when they are with others. And it is for this reason that evil equally with good prelates, or prelates who have no faith equally with those who have faith, can preach the gospel, to all appearance with a similar zeal and affection. The reason is, that, in such case, a man, as stated, thinks and speaks from his natural man and its memory; but to think from the spirit is not to think from the natural man and its memory, but from the spiritual man, and from the faith and affection of this man. From this alone it is evident, that there are two states pertaining to man, and that the former state just referred to does not save him, but the latter. For after death a man is a spirit, therefore such as he was in the world as to his spirit, such does he remain after his departure out of the world.

[6] Moreover, that there are two states pertaining to the man of the church, it has been granted me to know from much experience; for after death a man can be brought into either state, and also is actually brought into both; many, when they have been brought into the former state, have spoken like Christians, and from their speech were believed by others to be Christians, but as soon as they were brought back into the latter state, the state of their own spirit, they then spoke like diabolical spirits, and in complete opposition to what they had spoken before (see the work Heaven and hell, n. 491-498, and n. 499-511).

[7] From these considerations it also is evident how it is to be understood that the Lord is repudiated at this day by those who are within the church, that is, that from doctrine indeed the Divine of the Lord must be acknowledged and believed equally as the Divine of the Father; for the doctrine of the church teaches, that, "as is the Father, so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, neither of them greater or less, before or after the other" (see the creed of Athanasius). Notwithstanding this, however, they do not approach and worship the Lord as Divine, but they worship the Divine of the Father, as is the case when they pray to the Father that He may have compassion on them for the sake of the Son. When they use these words, they do not in the least think of the Divine of the Lord, but of His Human separate from the Divine, thus of His Human as similar to that of another man. They then think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think in this way of the Lord, is to repudiate Him; for not to think of His Divine in conjunction with His Human, which nevertheless are not two persons but one person, and make a one as soul and body, is by separation to exclude the Divine.

[8] I have occasionally talked with spirits who, whilst they lived in the world, were of the Popish religion, and I inquired whether they ever thought in the world concerning the Lord's Divine? They said that they had thought on the subject as often as they were in doctrine with insight, and that then they acknowledged His Divine to be equal with that of the Father, but apart from doctrine, they thought of His Human alone, and not of His Divine. They were asked why they say that the power, which belonged to the Human of the Lord, was given Him by the Father, and not by Himself, since they acknowledged His Divine to be equal to that of the Father? They then turned away, without answering; but they were told that the reason was, that they arrogated to themselves all His Divine power; which they could not have done, unless they had separated the Divine from the Human. That the Lord is repudiated by them, every one may conclude from this circumstance, that they worship the Pope as the Lord, and that they no longer ascribe any power to the Lord.

[9] I will here relate a great scandal uttered by the Pope who was called Benedict XIV. He declared openly that he believed, when he lived in the world, that the Lord had no power, because He had transferred it all to Peter, and thence to his successors; adding that he believed that the Romish saints have more power than the Lord, because they retain it from God the Father, but that the Lord abdicated it entirely, and conferred it on the Popes; but that still He must be worshipped, because without such worship the Pope would not be worshipped with sanctity. But this Pope, because he arrogated to himself what was Divine, even after death, was, after some days, cast into hell.