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.

2722. That 'he planted a grove in Beersheba' means doctrine from this with the cognitions composing it and the nature of it is clear from the meaning of 'a grove' and from the meaning of 'Beersheba'. As regards 'groves', holy worship in the Ancient Church was offered on mountains and in groves. It was offered on mountains because 'mountains meant the celestial things of worship, and in groves because 'groves' meant the spiritual things of it. As long as that Church - the Ancient Church - retained its simplicity their worship on mountains and in groves was holy, the reason being that celestial things, which are those of love and charity, were represented by places that were high and lofty, such as mountains and hills, while spiritual things, which derive from celestial, were represented by places with fruits and foliage such as gardens and groves. But after representatives and meaningful signs began to be made idolatrous because people worshipped external things without internal, that holy worship became profane; and they were therefore forbidden to hold worship on mountains and in groves.

[2] The fact that the Ancients held holy worship on mountains becomes clear from what is said about Abram in Chapter 12,

He removed from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, Bethel being towards the sea and Ai towards the east. ¹ And there he built an altar and called on the name of Jehovah. Genesis 12:8 (1449-1455).

It is also clear from the meaning of 'a mountain' as the celestial entity of love, 795, 796, 1430. The fact that people also held worship in groves is clear from what is said in the present verse, 'Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of [Jehovah,] the God of Eternity', and also from the meaning of 'a garden' as intelligence, 100, 108, 1588, and of 'trees' as perceptions, 103, 2163. The fact that worship on mountains and in groves was forbidden is clear from the following: In Moses,

You shall not plant for yourself a grove of any kind of tree beside the altar of Jehovah your God which you shall make for yourself. And you shall not erect for yourself a pillar, which Jehovah your God hates. Deuteronomy 16:21-22.

In the same author,

The altars of the nations you shall destroy; you shall break down their pillars and cut down their groves. Exodus 34:13.

They were also commanded to burn the groves of the nations with fire, Deuteronomy 12:3.

[3] Now because the Jews and Israelites, among whom the representative ritual observances of the Ancient Church were introduced, were steeped solely in external things and were at heart nothing but idolaters, and because they were people who neither had nor wished to have knowledge of anything internal or of the life after death, and who did not know that the Messiah's kingdom was a heavenly kingdom, therefore whenever they were in freedom they held profane worship on mountains and hills, and also in groves and forests. They also made for themselves high places to serve instead of mountains and hills, and carved images of a grove instead of groves, as becomes clear from many places in the Word, as in the Book of Judges,

The children of Israel served the baals and the groves. Judges 3:7.

In the Book of Kings,

Israel made groves, provoking Jehovah to anger. 1 Kings 14:15.

And elsewhere in the same book,

Judah built for themselves high places and pillars and groves on every high hill, and under every leafy tree. 1 Kings 14:23.

Elsewhere in the Books of Kings,

Israel built for themselves high places in every city. And they set up pillars and groves on every high hill and under every leafy tree. 2 Kings 17:9-10.

And elsewhere in the same book,

Manasseh king of Judah erected altars to Baal and made a grove, as Ahab king of Israel had done. And the carved image of a grove that he had made he placed in the house of God. 2 Kings 21:3, 7,

From this it is evident that they also made for themselves carved images of a grove. The fact that king Josiah destroyed these images is mentioned in the same book,

Josiah made them bring out of the temple of Jehovah all the vessels made for Baal and for the grove, and for the sun and moon, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem, and the booths which the women had woven [in the house of Jehovah] for the grove. He also cut down the groves which Solomon had made, as well as the grove in Bethel which Jeroboam had made. 2 Kings 23:4-5, 7, 14-15.

The fact that King Hezekiah as well demolished such things is also stated in the same book,

Hezekiah king of Judah removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the grove, and broke to pieces the bronze serpent which Moses had made. 2 Kings 18:4.

[4] The bronze serpent, it is clear, was holy in the time of Moses, but when that which was external came to be worshipped, that bronze serpent became profane and was therefore smashed to pieces, for the same reason that worship on mountains and in groves was forbidden. These matters are made clearer still in the Prophets: In Isaiah,

You who inflame yourselves among the gods under every leafy tree, who slay the children in the rivers, under projections of the rocks. Even in the rivers you have poured out a drink offering. you have brought a gift. On a high and lofty mountain you have set your habitation and presented yourself there to offer sacrifice. Isaiah 57:5-7.

In the same prophet,

On that day a man will look to his Maker and his eyes will regard the Holy One of Israel. And he will not look to the altars, the work of his hands, and will not see what his fingers have made, both the groves and the solar pillars. Isaiah 17:7-8.

In Micah,

I will cut down your carved images and your pillars from the midst of you, and you will bow down no more to the work of your hands. And I will root out your groves from the midst of you and destroy your cities. Micah 5:13-14.

In Ezekiel,

That the slain may be in the midst of their idols, around their altars at every lofty hill, on all the mountain tops, and under every leafy tree, and under every entangled oak, the place where they offered an odour of rest to all their idols. Ezekiel 6:13.

[5] From all this it is now evident where idolatrous worship originated, namely in the worship of the objects themselves that were representative and carried a spiritual meaning. The most ancient people, who lived before the Flood, saw in every single thing - in mountains, hills, plains, and valleys, in gardens, groves, forests, rivers, and waters, in fields and crops, in trees of every kind, also in living creatures of every kind, and in the heavenly bodies giving light - something that was a representative and a meaningful sign of the Lord's kingdom. But they never let their eyes, still less their minds, linger over such objects; for them these objects served instead as the means for thinking about the celestial and spiritual things that exist in the Lord's kingdom. Indeed so much was this the case with those objects that there was nothing at all in the whole natural world that failed to serve those people as means. It is indeed true that in itself every single thing in the natural order is representative; but at the present day this is an arcanum and scarcely believed by anyone. But after that which is celestial, which is essentially love to the Lord, had perished with man, the human race existed no longer in that state, that is, in the state of seeing from worldly objects the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord's kingdom.

[6] Nevertheless the Ancients after the Flood knew from traditions, and from collections made by certain people, that worldly objects had such meanings; and because these had such meanings they also regarded them as holy. From this arose the representative worship of the Ancient Church, which Church, being spiritual, did not enjoy any perception, only the knowledge, that a thing was so; for that Church, compared with the Most Ancient Church, dwelt in obscurity, 2715. It did not however worship external things but by means of external things people called to mind those which were internal. Consequently when they turned to those representatives and meaningful signs they entered the holiness of worship. They were able to turn to them because they were moved by spiritual love, that is, by charity, which they made the essential of worship, and as a consequence holiness from the Lord was able to flow into their worship. But when the state of the human race had become so changed and perverted that people departed from the good of charity, and thus did not believe any longer in the existence of a heavenly kingdom or in life after death, but supposed - as is also supposed at the present day - that their condition was no different from that of animals (apart from the fact that they as human beings could think), holy representative worship was turned into idolatrous worship and external things came to be worshipped. This was why worship among many gentiles at that time, and even among Jews and Israelites, was not representative, but a worship of the representatives and meaningful signs, that is, of external things devoid of internal.

[7] As regards 'groves' in particular, these had, among the ancients, varying meanings, such meanings depending in fact on the kinds of trees that the groves had in them. Groves where there were olives meant the celestial things of worship, groves where there were vines the spiritual things of worship, but groves where there were figs, cedars, firs, poplars, oaks, meant various things that were of a celestial and spiritual kind. Here however simply 'a grove' or plantation of trees is mentioned and by it was meant ideas belonging to the rational that were allied to doctrine and its cognitions; for trees in general mean perceptions, 103, 2163, but when they have reference to the spiritual Church they mean cognitions, the reason being that the member of the spiritual Church has no other perceptions than those acquired through cognitions drawn from doctrine or from the Word. For such cognitions become part of his faith, and so of his conscience, from which he has perception.

Footnotes: