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).

4281. That by “the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint in his wrestling with him,” is signified that this conjunction was wholly injured and displaced in Jacob’s posterity, is evident from the signification of being “out of joint” in the sense in question, as being to be displaced, and thus to be injured. That the “hollow of the thigh” denotes conjunction, is manifest from what was said above (n. 4280); and because in the Word “Jacob” denotes not only Jacob, but also all his posterity, as is evident from many passages in the Word (Numbers 23:7, 10, 21, 2 23:23; 24:5, 1 24:17, 19; Deuteronomy 33:10; Isaiah 40:27; 43:1, 22; 44:1-2, 21; 48:12; 59:20; Jeremiah 10:16, 25; 30:7, 10, 18; 31:7, 11; 46:27-28; Hosea 10:11 Amos 7:2; Micah 2:12; 3:8; Psalms 14:7; 24:6; 59:13; 78:5; 99:4 and elsewhere).

[2] That Jacob and his posterity were of such a character that with them celestial and spiritual love could not be conjoined with natural good (that is, the internal or spiritual man with the external or natural man), is manifest from everything which is related of that nation in the Word; for they did not know, nor were they willing to know, what the internal or spiritual man is, and therefore this was not revealed to them; for they believed that nothing exists in man except that which is external and natural. In all their worship they had regard to nothing else, insomuch that Divine worship was to them no otherwise than idolatrous; for when internal worship is separated from external, it is merely idolatrous. The church that was instituted with them was not a church, but only the representative of a church; for which reason that church is called a representative church. That a representative of a church is possible with such people may be seen above (n. 1361, 3670, 4208).

[3] For in representations the person is not reflected upon, but the thing which is represented; and therefore Divine, celestial, and spiritual things were represented not only by persons, but also by inanimate things, as by Aaron’s garments, the ark, the altar, the oxen and sheep that were sacrificed, the lampstand with its lamps, the bread of arrangement upon the golden table, the oil with which they were anointed, the frankincense, and other like things. Hence it was that their kings, the evil as well as the good, represented the Lord’s royalty; and the high priests, the evil as well as the good, represented the things that belong to the Lord’s Divine priesthood, when they discharged their office in an outward form according to the statutes and precepts. In order therefore that the representative of a church might come forth among them, such statutes and laws were given them by manifest revelation as were altogether representative; and therefore so long as they were in them and observed them strictly, so long they were able to represent; but when they turned aside from them, as to the statutes and laws of other nations, and especially to the worship of another god, they then deprived themselves of the faculty of representing. For this reason they were driven by outward means, such as captivities, disasters, threats, and miracles, to laws and statutes truly representative; but not by internal means, as are those who have internal worship in external. These things are signified by the “hollow of Jacob’s thigh being out of joint,” taken in the internal historical sense, which regards Jacob and his posterity.

2180. 'And took a young bull, tender and good' means a celestial-natural which the rational took to itself in order that it might join itself to perception from the Divine. This is clear from the meaning of 'a young bull' or 'a son of an ox' in the Word as natural good. And because the subject is the Lord's Rational, it is called 'tender' from the celestial-spiritual, which is truth grounded in good, and 'good' from the celestial itself, which is good itself. Within the genuine rational there is both the affection for truth and the affection for good, but that which is first and foremost there is the affection for truth, as shown already in 2072. This explains why 'tender' is mentioned before 'good'; but even so, as is quite usual in the Word, both are mentioned on account of the marriage of truth and good which is referred to above in 2173.

[2] That 'a young bull' or 'a son of an ox' means the celestial-natural, or what amounts to the same, natural good, becomes especially clear from the sacrifices, which were the principal representatives in the worship of the Hebrew Church and after this of the Jewish Church. Their sacrifices were made either from the herd or from the flock, thus from animals of various kinds that were clean, such as oxen, young bulls, he-goats, sheep, rams, she-goats, kids, and lambs, besides doves and fledgling pigeons. All of these creatures meant the internal features of worship, that is, celestial and spiritual things, 2165, 2177, those from the herd meaning celestial-natural, those from the flock celestial-rational. Because both of these - natural things and rational things - are more and more interior and are various, so many genera and so many species of these creatures were therefore employed in sacrifices. This fact becomes clear also from its being laid down as to which creatures were to be offered in burnt offerings and also which in every kind of sacrifice - the daily sacrifices; those offered on sabbaths and at festivals; those made as free-will, eucharistic, or votive offerings; and those offered in purifications, cleansings, and also in inaugurations. Which creatures were to be used, and how many, in each kind of sacrifice is mentioned explicitly. This would never have been done unless each one had had some specific meaning, as is quite evident from those places where the sacrifices are the subject, as in Chapter 29 of Exodus; Chapters 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, and 23 of Leviticus; and Chapters 7, 8, 15, and 29 of Numbers. But this is not the place to explain what each one meant. The situation is similar in the Prophets where those animals are mentioned, from which it may become clear that young bulls meant celestial-natural things.

[3] That none but heavenly things were meant becomes clear also from the cherubim seen by Ezekiel and from the living creatures before the throne which were seen by John. Regarding the cherubim the prophet says,

The likeness of their faces was the face of a man (homo); and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; and they four had the face of an eagle. Ezekiel 1:10.

Regarding the four living creatures before the throne John says,

Around the throne were four living creatures - the first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a young bull, the third living creature had a face like a man (homo), the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle - saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come. Revelation 4:7-8.

Anyone may see that holy things were represented by the cherubim and these living creatures, thus also by the oxen and young bulls in the sacrifices. The same applies in the prophecy of Moses concerning Joseph,

Let it come upon the head of Joseph and upon the crown of the head of the Nazirite among his brothers. The firstborn of his ox has honour, and his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with these he will thrust the peoples together, to the ends of the earth. Deuteronomy 33:16-17.

These words are not intelligible to anyone unless he knows what ox, unicorn, horns, and many other things mean in the internal sense.

[4] As for sacrifices in general they were indeed commanded to the Israelites through Moses. But the Most Ancient Church which existed before the Flood never knew anything at all about sacrifices, nor did it ever enter their minds to worship the Lord by the slaughtering of animals. The Ancient Church which existed after the Flood knew nothing about it either. Representatives did indeed exist there, but not sacrifices. These were first introduced in the subsequent Church called the Hebrew Church, and from there they spread to the gentile nations, and even to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so to Jacob's descendants. The fact that the gentile nations had sacrificial worship has been shown in 1343, and the fact that Jacob's descendants also had such worship before they left Egypt, thus before sacrifices were commanded through Moses on Mount Sinai, becomes clear from Exodus 5:3; 10:25, 27; 18:12; 24:4-5.

[5] This is especially clear from their idolatrous worship in front of the golden calf, regarding which the following is said in Moses,

Aaron built an altar in front of the calf, and Aaron made a proclamation and said, Tomorrow there will be a feast to Jehovah. And they rose up early the next morning and presented burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Exodus 32:5-6.

This happened while Moses was on Mount Sinai, and so before the command came to them regarding the altar and the sacrifices. That command came to them for the reason that sacrificial worship among them had been turned, as it had among the gentiles, into idolatrous worship, from which they could not be drawn away because they looked upon it as-the chief holy thing. Once something has been implanted in people from their earliest years as being holy, the more so if received from their fathers, and thus is inrooted, the Lord in no way breaks it - provided it is not contrary to order itself - but bends it. This was the reason for its being laid down that the sacrificial system should be established, such as one reads in the books of Moses.

[6] The fact that sacrifices were by no means acceptable to Jehovah, and so were merely permitted and tolerated for the reason just stated, is quite evident in the Prophets. Concerning them the following is said in Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah Zebaoth, the God of Israel, Add your burnt offerings on to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. I did not speak with your fathers and I did not command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt on the matters of burnt offering and sacrifice. But this matter I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God. Jeremiah 7:21-23.

In David,

O Jehovah, sacrifice and offering You have not desired; burnt offering and sin-sacrifices You have not sought. I have delighted to do Your will, O my God. Psalms 40:6, 8.

In the same author,

You do not delight in sacrifice that I should give it; burnt offering You do not accept. The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit. Psalms 51:16-17.

In the same author,

I will not take any young bull from your house, nor he-goats from your folds. Sacrifice to God confession. Psalms 50:9, 14; 107:21-22; 116:17; Deuteronomy 23:18.

In Hosea,

I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6.

Samuel said to Saul,

Has Jehovah great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices? Behold, to be submissive is better than sacrifice, to be obedient than the fat of rams. - 1 Samuel 15:22.

In Micah,

With what shall I come before Jehovah and bow myself to God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, with tens of thousands of rivers of oil? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does Jehovah require of you but to carry out judgement, and to love mercy, and to humble yourself by walking with your God? Micah 6:6-8.

[7] From these quotations it is now evident that sacrifices were not commanded but permitted, and also that in sacrifices nothing else was regarded except that which was internal, and that it was that which was internal that was pleasing, not that which was external. For this reason also the Lord abolished them, as was also foretold through Daniel in the following words when he was speaking about the Lord's Coming,

In the middle of the week He will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. Daniel 9:27.

See what has been stated about sacrifices in Volume One, in 922, 923, 1128, 1823. As for 'the young bull' which Abraham made ready or prepared for the three men, the meaning is similar to that of the same animals when used in sacrifices. That it had a similar meaning becomes clear also from the fact that he told Sarah to take three measures of fine flour. Regarding the fine flour that went with the offering of a young bull the following is said in Moses - referring to when they were to come into the land,

When you make ready a young bull for a burnt offering or a sacrifice in the declaring of a vow, or for peace offerings to Jehovah, you shall bring with the young bull a minchah of three tenths of fine flour mixed with oil. Numbers 15:8-9.

Here similarly the number 'three' appears, though three 'tenths' here but three 'measures' in Abraham's instruction to Sarah. But only two tenths went with the offering of a ram, one tenth with that of a lamb, Numbers 15:4-6.