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).

4444. As they heard it, and the men were grieved, and they were very angry. That this signifies that they were in evil against the truth of the Church among the Ancients, is evident from the signification of being “grieved and very angry,” as being to be in evil. That this was against the truth of the Church among the Ancients, follows, because it was against Shechem the son of Hamor, by whom is signified the truth among the ancients, as before said (n. 4430, 4431). That they were in evil is evident from what follows, in that they spoke with fraud (verse 13), and then, after Shechem and Hamor had complied with their demands, they slew them (verses 26-29). Thus by being “grieved and very angry” is here signified that they were in evil. It appears as if these words signify zeal because he lay with their sister, according to the words which presently follow: “Because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter, and so it ought not to be done;” and at the end of the chapter: “They said, Shall he make our sister as a harlot?” (verse 31); but it was not zeal, for zeal is impossible with anyone who is in evil, being possible only with him who is in good, because zeal has good within it (n. 4164).

[2] It is true that the religiosity which existed with their posterity had good within it, for each and all things of it represented the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom; but as regards those who were in that religiosity it had no good within it, for they were in mere externals without internals, as shown above. The case herein is the same as it is with the religiosity of that nation as now prevalent among them: they acknowledge Moses and the prophets, thus the Word, which in itself is holy, but as regards them it is not holy, for in everything therein they regard themselves, and thus make the Word worldly, nay, earthly, for that there is anything heavenly in it they do not know and neither do they care. They who are in such a state cannot be in good when in their religiosity, but in evil, for nothing heavenly flows in, because they extinguish it in themselves.

[3] Moreover, it was according to a law known in the Ancient Church that he who forced a virgin should give a dowry and take her for his wife, as thus stated in Moses:

If a man persuade a virgin who is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall endow her with a dowry to be his wife. If refusing her father refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay silver, as much as is the dowry of virgins (Exodus 27:15-16).

And elsewhere:

If a man find a damsel who is a virgin, who has not been betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be caught, the man who lay with her shall give the damsel’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he forced her, and he may not put her away all his days (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

That this same law was known to the ancients is very evident from the words of Shechem to the damsel’s father and brothers: “Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye say unto me I will give. Multiply upon me exceedingly dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me, and give me the damsel for a woman” (verses 11-12). And as Shechem desired to fulfill this law, and Dinah’s brothers gave their consent provided that be would become as they were by circumcising every male, according to the words which follow: “Nevertheless in this will we consent unto you, if ye will be as we are, that every male with you be circumcised, we will both give our daughters to you, and will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will be one people” (verses 15-16), it is evident that Dinah’s brothers did not act from the law (thus not from good), but contrary to the law, and consequently from evil.

[4] It was indeed according to their law that they should not enter into marriages with the nations, as stated in Moses: “Lest thou take of their daughters for thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods” (Exodus 34:16); and again: “Thou shalt not contract kinship with the nations, thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, and his daughter thou shalt not take unto thy son, because he will turn aside thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4); but this law was given in regard to idolatrous nations, lest by marriages with them the sons of Israel should turn aside from truly representative worship to idolatrous worship; for when they became idolaters they could no longer represent the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord’s kingdom, but the opposites, which are infernal, for they then called forth from hell a certain devil whom they worshiped, and to whom they applied the Divine representatives, and therefore it is said, “Lest they go a whoring after their gods.” This law was given for the additional reason that by the “nations” were signified the evils and falsities with which the goods and truths represented by the sons of Israel were not to be commingled, consequently not diabolical and infernal things with heavenly and spiritual things (see n. 3024 at the end).

[5] But they were never forbidden to intermarry with the nations who accepted their worship, and who after being circumcised acknowledged Jehovah. These they called “sojourners sojourning with them,” who are thus spoken of in Moses:

If a sojourner shall sojourn with thee, and be willing to keep the passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as an inhabitant of the land; there shall be one law for the inhabitant and for the sojourner that sojourneth in the midst of you (Exodus 12:48-49).

And again:

When a sojourner shall sojourn with you, he shall keep the passover unto Jehovah; according to the statute of the passover, and according to the statutes thereof, so shall he do; one statute shall there be for you, both for the sojourner and for the native of the land (Numbers 9:14).

The reason why they were called “sojourners sojourning in the midst of them” and “with them” was that “to sojourn” signified to be instructed; and therefore a “sojourner” signified those who suffered themselves to be instructed in the statutes and doctrinal things. (That “to sojourn” and a “sojourner” have this signification may be seen above, n. 1463, 2025, 3672) In the same:

If a sojourner shall sojourn with you who shall have made a fire-offering of an odor of rest unto Jehovah, as ye do, so he shall do: as to the assembly, there is one statute for you and for the sojourner that sojourneth, a statute of eternity for your generations; as ye are, so is the sojourner before Jehovah; one law and one judgment shall be for you and for the sojourner that sojourneth with you (Numbers 15:14-16).

As the native of you shall be the sojourner that sojourneth with you (Leviticus 19:34).

One judgment shall there be for you, such as is for the sojourner, such shall be for the native (Leviticus 24:22).

[6] That this statute was known not only to Jacob and his sons, but also to Shechem and Hamor, is evident from their words; for the statutes, judgments, and laws that were given to the Israelitish and Jewish nation were not new, but such as had previously existed in the Ancient Church and in the second Ancient Church which was called Hebrew from Eber, as has been shown. That consequently this law was known is evident from the words, “The sons of Jacob said to Hamor and Shechem, We cannot do this word, to give our sister to a man who has a foreskin, for this is a reproach to us; nevertheless in this will we consent to you, if ye will be as we, to circumcise for you every male, we will both give our daughters to you, and will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you and will be for one people” (verses); and the same is evident from the words of Hamor and Shechem, in that they not only consented, but also caused themselves and every male of their city to be circumcised (verses 18-24).

[7] Hence it is evident that Shechem became a sojourner such as is spoken of in the law, and thus could take the daughter of Jacob for a woman; so that to kill them was a wicked deed, as Jacob also testified before his death (Genesis 49:5-7). That not only Judah, but also Moses, and also the kings of the Jews and of the Israelites, and also many of the people, took wives from the nations, is evident from the historicals of the Word; and that these wives received their statutes, judgments, and laws, and were acknowledged as sojourners, is not to be doubted.

3021. 'Put now your hand under my thigh' means being bound, as regards its power, to the good of conjugial love. This is clear from the meaning of 'the hand' as power, dealt with in 878, and from the meaning of 'the thigh' as the good of conjugial love, dealt with in what follows. A binding of this good to that power is indeed the meaning, as is clear from the consideration that those who were bound by an obligation to carry out some matter connected with conjugial love put their hand, according to ancient custom, under the thigh of the one to whom they were so bound, and in so doing swore by him. This was done because 'the thigh' meant conjugial love, and 'the hand' power, or the full extent of whatever one's capability might be. For all parts of the human body correspond to spiritual and celestial things in the Grand Man, which is heaven, as shown in 2996, 2998, and will in the Lord's Divine mercy be shown more extensively later on. The thighs themselves, together with the loins, correspond to conjugial love. Those things were well known to the most ancient people, and for that reason so many customs came down from them, including that of putting their hands under the thigh when being bound by an obligation to carry out something connected with the good of conjugial love. Their knowledge of such things, which was valued most highly by the ancients, and belonged among the chief things that constituted their knowledge and intelligence, is totally lost today, so much so that not even the existence of any such correspondence is known, and for this reason people will probably be astounded that such things are meant by that custom. Here, because the subject is the betrothal of Isaac his son to another member of Abraham's family, and the oldest servant was called on to perform that task, this custom was therefore followed.

[2] It has been stated that 'the thigh', because of its correspondence, means conjugial love, and this may also be seen from other places in the Word, for example, from the procedure to be followed when a woman was accused by her husband of adultery, in Moses,

The priest shall make the woman take the oath of a curse, and the priest shall say to the woman, Jehovah will make you a curse and an oath in the midst of your people, when Jehovah makes your thigh fall away and your belly swell. When he has made her drink the water, then it will happen, if she has defiled herself and committed a trespass against her husband, that the water causing the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, and her thigh will fall away; and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people. Numbers 5:21, 27.

'The falling away of the thigh' means the evil of conjugial love, which is adultery. Every other detail in the same procedure had some specific meaning, so that not even the smallest detail fails to embody something, though anyone reading the Word who has no concept of its sacredness will wonder why such things are included there. It is because 'the thigh' means the good of conjugial love that the expression 'those coming out of the thigh' is used frequently, as in a reference to Jacob,

Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations will be from you, and kings will go out from your thighs. Genesis 35:11.

And elsewhere in the same author,

Every soul coming with Jacob to Egypt, who came out of his thigh. Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5.

And in a reference to Gideon, Gideon had seventy sons, who came out of his thigh. Judges 8:30.

[3] Since 'the thigh' and 'the loins' mean the things that belong to conjugial love they also mean those that belong to love and charity, the reason being that conjugial love underlies every other kind of love, see 686, 2733, 2737-2739. These all have the same source - the heavenly marriage - which is a marriage of good and truth, regarding which see 2727-2759. For 'the thigh' means the good of celestial love and the good of spiritual love, as may be seen from the following places: In John,

He who sat on the white horse had on His robe and on His thigh the name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Revelation 19:16.

'He who sat on the white horse' is the Word, and so the Lord, who is the Word, see 2760-2762. 'Robe' means Divine Truth, 2576, and for that reason He is called 'King of kings', 3009. From this it is evident what 'the thigh' means, namely the Divine Good which flows from His love, on account of which He is also named 'Lord of lords', 3004-3011. And this being the Lord's essential nature, it is said that He had a name written on His robe and on His thigh, for 'name' means essential nature, 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006.

[4] In David,

Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Mighty One, in Your glory and honour! Psalms 45:3.

This refers to the Lord. 'Sword' stands for truth engaged in conflict, 2799, 'thigh' for the good of love. 'Girding the sword on the thigh' means that the truth which He was to use in the fight was allied to the good of love. In Isaiah,

Righteousness will be the girdle of His loins, and truth the girdle of His thighs. Isaiah 11:5.

This too refers to the Lord. Because 'righteousness' has reference to the good that flows from love, 2235, it is called 'the girdle of His loins', while 'truth' because it comes from good, is called 'the girdle of His thighs'. Thus 'loins' is used in reference to the love within good, and 'thighs' to the love within truth.

[5] In the same prophet'

None will be weary, and none will stumble in Him. He will not slumber nor sleep. Nor has the girdle of His thighs been loosed, nor the thong of His shoes torn away. Isaiah 5:27.

This refers to the Lord. 'The girdle of His thighs' stands, as above, for the love within truth. In Jeremiah Jehovah told the prophet to buy a linen girdle and put it over his loins but not dip it in water. He was then told to go away to the Euphrates and hide it in a cleft of the rock. When he went back at a later time to retrieve it from that place it was spoiled, Jeremiah 13:1-7. 'A linen girdle' stands for truth, but the placing of it over his loins was representative of the fact that truth was the outward expression of good. Anyone may see that these actions are representative. Their meaning however cannot be known except from correspondences, which will in the Lord's Divine mercy be dealt with at the ends of certain chapters further on.

[6] It is similar with the meaning of the things seen by Ezekiel, Daniel, and Nebuchadnezzar: Ezekiel saw,

Above the firmament that was above the heads of the cherubim, in appearance like a sapphire stone, there was the likeness of a throne, and above the likeness of a throne, there was a likeness, as the appearance of a Man (Homo) upon it above. And I saw as it were the shape of fiery coals, as the shape of fire, within it round about. From the appearance of His loins and upwards, and from the appearance of His loins and downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, whose brightness was round about it like the appearance of the rainbow which is in the cloud on the day of rain; so was the appearance of the brightness round about, thus was the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of Jehovah. Ezekiel 1:26-28.

This scene was clearly representative of the Lord and His kingdom. 'The appearance of His loins upwards and the appearance, of His loins downwards' is descriptive of His love, as is evident from the meaning of 'fire' as love, 934, and from the meaning of 'brightness' and of 'the rainbow' as wisdom and intelligence from that love, 1042, 1043, 1053.

[7] Daniel saw,

A man clothed in linen whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz, and whose body was like tarshish, ¹ and whose face was like the appearance of lightning and whose eyes were like fiery torches, and whose arms and feet were like the shine of burnished bronze. Daniel 10:5-6.

What each of these expressions means - the loins, the body, the face, the eyes, the arms, and the feet - does not become clear to anyone except from representations and correspondences involved in these. From these it is evident that in what Daniel saw the Lord's heavenly kingdom was represented, in which Divine Love constitutes the loins, and 'the gold of Uphaz' with which He was girded, the good resulting from wisdom that is grounded in love, 113, 1551, 1552.

[8] In Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar saw a statue whose head was fine gold, breast and arms silver, belly and thighs bronze, feet partly iron, partly clay, Daniel 2:32-33. This statue represented consecutive states of the Church. The head of gold represented the first state, which was celestial because it was a state of love to the Lord; the breast and arms of silver represented the second state, which was spiritual because it was a state of charity towards the neighbour; the belly and thighs of bronze represented the third state, which was a state of natural good meant by 'bronze', 425, 1551 - natural good being love or charity towards the neighbour as this exists on a lower level than spiritual good - while the feet of iron and clay were the fourth state, which was a state of natural truth meant by 'iron', 425, 426, and also a state involving complete lack of cohesion with good, which is meant by 'clay'.

From all this one may see what is meant by the thighs and loins, namely conjugial love primarily, and from this love every genuine kind of love, as is evident from the places quoted and also from Genesis 32:25, 31-32; Isaiah 20:2-4; Nahum 2:1; Psalms 69:23; Exodus 12:11; Luke 12:35-36. The thighs and loins also mean in the contrary sense those loves that are the reverse of conjugial love and all genuine loves, namely self-love and love of the world, 1 Kings 2:5-6; Isaiah 32:10-11; Jeremiah 30:6; 48:37; Ezekiel 29:7; Amos 8:10.

Footnotes: