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).

3300. And the first came forth red all over like a hairy garment [tunica]. That this signifies the natural good of the life of truth, is evident from the signification of “coming forth,” as being to be born; from the signification of “red,” as being the good of life, as will be shown presently; and from the signification of a “hairy garment,” as being the truth of the natural, which also will be shown presently. This being the “first” signifies that as to essence good is prior, as before said (n. 3299); and it is said “like a hairy garment” in order to signify that good is clothed with truth, as with a tender vessel or body, as also before said (n. 3299). In the internal sense of the Word a “garment” [tunica] signifies merely that which invests something else, wherefore also truths are compared to garments (n. 1073, 2576).

[2] That “red,” or “ruddy,” signifies the good of life, is because all good is of love, and love itself is celestial and spiritual fire, and is also compared to fire and likewise is called “fire” (n. 933-936). So also is love compared to blood, and is called “blood” (n. 1001); and because they are both red, the good which is of love is signified by “red” or “ruddy,” as may also be seen from the following passages in the Word. In the prophecy of Jacob, then Israel:

He shall wash his raiment in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes; his eyes are redder than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk (Genesis 49:11-12); where Judah is treated of, by whom is there signified the Lord, as must be evident to everyone. “Raiment” and “vesture” in this passage signify the Lord’s Divine natural; “wine” and “the blood of grapes” signify the Divine good and Divine truth of the natural. Of the former it is said that “his eyes are redder than wine;” of the latter that “his teeth are whiter than milk;” it is the conjunction of good and truth in the natural which is thus described.

[3] In Isaiah:

Who is this that cometh from Edom? Wherefore art Thou red in Thine apparel? and Thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat? (Isaiah 63:1-2);

here “Edom” denotes the Divine good of the Lord’s Divine natural, as will appear from what follows; “red in Thine apparel” denotes the good of truth; “garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat,” the truth of good.

In Jeremiah:

Her Nazirites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in bone than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire (Lam. 4:7).

By the “Nazirites” was represented the Lord as to the Divine Human, especially as to the Divine natural; thus the good therein by their being “more ruddy in bone than rubies.”

[4] As “red” signified good, especially the good of the natural, therefore in the Jewish Church, in which each and all things were representative of the Lord, and thence of His kingdom (consequently of good and truth, because the Lord’s kingdom is from these), it was commanded that the covering of the tent should be of the skins of red rams (Exodus 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19); and also that the water of expiation should be made of the ashes of a red heifer burned (Numbers 19:2, 9). Unless the color red had signified something celestial in the Lord’s kingdom, it would never have been commanded that the rams should be red, and the heifer red. That holy things were thereby represented, everyone acknowledges who holds the Word to be holy. Inasmuch as the color red had such a signification, the coverings of the tent were interwoven and coupled together with threads of scarlet, crimson, and blue (Exodus 35:6).

[5] As almost all things have also an opposite sense, as has before been frequently stated, “red” in like manner then signifies the evil which is of the love of self; and this because the cupidities of the love of self are compared to fire and are called “fire” (n. 934, 1297, 1527, 1528, 1861, 2446); and in like manner they are compared to blood and are called “blood” (n. 374, 954, 1005). Hence in the opposite sense “red” has this signification; as in Isaiah:

Jehovah said, Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Isaiah 1:18).

In Nahum:

The shield of the mighty men (of Belial) is made red, the valiant men are made crimson, in the fire of torches are the chariots in the day (Nahum 2:3).

In John:

And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems (Revelation 12:3).

Again:

And I saw and behold a white horse, and he that sat thereon had a bow; and there was given unto him a crown; and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And another horse came forth that was red; and to him that sat thereon it was given to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another; and there was given unto him a great sword. Afterwards there came forth a black horse; and at last a pale horse, whose name was death (Revelation 6:2, 4-5, 8).

4859. And covered herself in a veil. That this signifies truth obscured, is evident from the signification of “covering herself” or her face “with her veil,” as being to conceal, and thus to obscure the truth which pretended to be from good, as just above (n. 4858); and this for the purpose of conjunction with Judah. For when a bride first approached the bridegroom she covered herself with a veil-as we read of Rebekah when she came to Isaac (Genesis 24:65); and by this were signified appearances of truth (n. 3207). For a wife signifies truth, and a husband good; and as truth does not appear in its quality until it is being conjoined with its good, therefore for the sake of representing this the bride covered herself with a veil on first seeing her husband. The case is similar here with Tamar, for she regarded Shelah Judah’s son as her husband, but because she was not given to him, she regarded his father in his stead as one to perform the duty of a husband’s brother. Therefore she covered herself with a veil as a bride, and not as a harlot, though Judah believed the latter because harlots also were wont at that time to cover their faces, as is evident from verse 15. The reason why Judah so regarded her was that the Jewish nation, which is there signified by “Judah,” regarded the internal truths of the representative church no otherwise than as a harlot; and therefore Judah was conjoined with her as with a harlot, but not so Tamar with him. Because internal truths could not appear otherwise to that nation, therefore truth obscured is here signified by Tamar’s covering herself in a veil. That the truth of the church is obscured to them, is represented also at this day by their covering themselves with veils in their synagogues.

[2] There was a similar representation with Moses when the skin of his face shone as he came down from Mount Sinai, so that he covered himself with a veil whenever he spoke to the people (Exodus 34:28 to the end). Moses represented the Word which is called the Law (see the preface to Genesis 18); for which reason it is sometimes said the “Law and the Prophets” (as in Matthew 5:17, 11:13; 22:36, 40); and sometimes “Moses and the Prophets” (as in Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44). By the shining of the skin of his face was represented the internal of the Word, for the “face” is the internal (n. 358, 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796, 4797), which being spiritual is in the light of heaven. His veiling his face whenever he spoke to the people represented that internal truth was covered to them, and thus obscured so that they should not have to endure any light from it.