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).

5248. And changed his garments. That this signifies as to what is of the interior natural, by putting on what is suitable, is evident from the signification of “changing,” as being to remove and reject; and from the signification of “garments,” as being what is of the interior natural (of which presently); hence it follows that what was suitable (signified by the new “garments”) was put on. “Garments” are often mentioned in the Word, and thereby are meant things beneath or without, and that cover things above or within; and therefore by “garments” are signified man’s external, consequently his natural, because this covers his internal and spiritual. Specifically by “garments” are signified truths that are of faith, because these cover the goods that are of charity. This signification has its origin from the garments in which spirits and angels appear clothed. Spirits appear in garments devoid of brightness, but angels in garments that are bright and are as it were made of brightness, for the very brightness around them appears as a garment, as appeared the raiment of the Lord when He was transfigured, which was “as the light” (Matthew 17:2), and was “white and flashing” (Luke 9:29). From their garments also the quality of spirits and angels can be known in respect to the truths of faith, because these are represented by garments, but truths of faith such as they are in the natural; for such as they are in the rational appears from the face and its beauty. The brightness of their garments comes from the good of love and of charity, which by shining through causes the brightness. From all this it is evident what is represented in the spiritual world by the garments, and consequently what is meant by “garments” in the spiritual sense. But the garments that Joseph changed, that is, put off, were the garments of the pit or prison, and by these are signified things fallacious and false, which in a state of temptations are excited by evil genii and spirits; and therefore by his “changing his garments” is signified rejection and change in respect to what is of the interior natural, and the garments he put on denoted such things as would be suitable, and therefore the putting on of things suitable is signified. See what has before been said and shown concerning garments: that what is celestial is not clothed, but what is spiritual and natural (n. 297); that “garments” denote truths relatively lower (n. 1073, 2576); that changing the garments was a representative of holy truths being put on, whence also came the changes of garments (n. 4545); that rending the garments was representative of mourning over truth lost and destroyed (see n. 4763 and what is signified by him that came in, not having on a wedding garment (n. 2132).

3322. 'Therefore he called his name Edom' means the resulting nature of the good, to which matters of doctrine regarding truth were allied. This is clear from the meaning of 'calling the name' or calling by name as the essential nature, dealt with in 144, 145, 1754, 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006, and from the representation of 'Edom'. In the Word Esau is mentioned in various places, as also is Edom. In those places 'Esau' means the good of the natural before matters of doctrine regarding truth have been joined to it, and also before the good of life brought by an influx from the rational has been joined to it - to natural good; while 'Edom' means the good of the natural to which matters of doctrine regarding truth have been allied. But in the contrary sense 'Esau' means the evil stemming from self-love before falsities have been allied to it, that is to say, to self-love, while 'Edom' means the evil stemming from that love once they have been allied to it. The majority of names in the Word, as shown quite often, also have the contrary sense. The reason why is that in course of time the self-same things which in the Churches were forms of good and truth deteriorated into forms of evil and falsity through various kinds of adulterations.

[2] That 'Esau' and 'Edom' mean these things becomes clear from the following places: In Isaiah,

Who is this who is coming from Edom, with spattered clothes from Bozrah glorious in his apparel, marching in the vast numbers of his strength? Why are you red as to your clothing, and your clothes like his that treads in the winepress? I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no man was with me. I looked around but there was none helping, and I wondered, and there was nobody to uphold, and my own arm saved me. Isaiah 63:1-3, 5.

Here it is quite clear that 'Edom' is the Lord, and the fact that it is the Lord as regards the Divine Good of the Divine Natural is evident because the subject is the joining together of good and truth in the Lord's Human, and the conflicts brought about by temptations through which He joined the two together. 'Clothes' here means the truths of the natural man, or truths that are lower compared with other truths, see 2576, while 'red' is the good of the natural man, 3300. The Lord's work in which - by His own power, and through the conflicts brought about by temptations - He joined truths present there to good is described by the words 'I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no man was with me. I looked around but there was none helping; I wondered, and there was nobody to uphold, and my own arm saved me' - 'arm' meaning power, 878.

[3] In the Book of Judges,

O Jehovah. when You went forth from Seir, when You set out from the field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens also dropped, the clouds indeed dropped [water], the mountains flowed down. Judges 5:4-5.

'Setting out from the field of Edom' is almost the same in meaning as 'coming from Edom' in Isaiah. Likewise in Moses,

Jehovah came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon them. Deuteronomy 33:2.

In the same author,

I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near. A star will arise out of Jacob, and a sceptre will rise up out of Israel. And Edom will be an inheritance, and Seir will be an inheritance, of his enemies - with Israel doing valiantly - and will have dominion in regard to Jacob, and will destroy what is left of the city. Numbers 24:17-19.

This refers to the Lord's Coming into the world, His Human Essence being called 'a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre out of Israel'. 'Edom' and 'Seir' which are to be 'an inheritance' stand for the Divine Good of the Lord's Divine Natural. Their becoming 'an inheritance of his enemies' stands for the fact that it would take the place of those things that existed previously in the Natural. Dominion at that time over the truths there is meant by 'he will have dominion over Jacob, and he will destroy what is left of the city' - 'Jacob' being the truth of the natural, 3305, and 'a city' doctrine, 402, 2268, 2449, 2712, 2943, 3216. Dominion is said to be had over those truths when they are subsidiary to and subject to good. Before this comes about they are called enemies because they constantly offer resistance, as shown above in 3321.

[4] In Amos,

On that day I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen down, and I will close up their breaches, and I will restore its destroyed places, and I will build it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnants of Edom, and all the nations which have been called by My name. Amos 9:11-12.

'The tent of David' stands for the Church and worship of the Lord; 'the remnants of Edom' for those within the Church who are governed by good, 'the nations which have been called by His name' for those outside the Church who are governed by good - 'the nations' being those who are governed by good, 1259, 1260, 1416, 1849. In David,

Upon Edom I will cast my shoe. Who will bring me to the fortified city? Who will lead me even to Edom? Will not You, O God? Psalms 60:8-10.

'Edom' stands for the good of the natural. Its being the good of the natural is evident from the meaning of 'shoe' as the lowest part of the natural, 1748.

[5] In Daniel,

At the time of the end the king of the south will clash with him; therefore the king of the north will rush upon him like a whirlwind with chariots, and will overflow and penetrate; and when he comes into the glorious land many will fall These however will be delivered out of his hand, Edom and Moab, and the firstfruits of the children of Ammon. Daniel 11:40-41.

This refers to the final state of the Church. 'The king of the north' stands for falsities, or what amounts to the same, for people in possession of falsities. 'Edom' stands for those in whom simple good is present, the type of good that exists with those who constitute the Lord's external Church. The same applies to 'Moab' and 'the children of Ammon', 2468; and as the two of them, that is to say, Edom and Moab, mean those in whom natural good exists, both are therefore mentioned together in many places. But the difference between them is that 'Edom' is the good of the natural to which matters of doctrine concerning truth have been allied, whereas 'Moab' is natural good such as also exists with those with whom the two have not been joined together. Both sets of people seem to outward appearance to be alike, but they are not so inwardly.

[6] From this it is now evident why it was said that they were not to abhor an Edomite since he was a brother, nor an Egyptian since they had been strangers in his land, Deuteronomy 23:7. Because 'an Edomite' means the good of the natural, and 'an Egyptian' means the truths of the same, which are facts, 1164, 1165, 1186, 1462, therefore the two are mentioned in the good sense. It is also evident why Jehovah told Moses that they were not to quarrel ¹ with the children of Esau, for none of their territory would be given to the children of Jacob, not even enough to leave a footprint, Deuteronomy 2:4-6.

[7] In the contrary sense however Esau and Edom represent those who turn away from good by utterly despising truth and who are unwilling to associate any truth of faith at all with it, which happens chiefly for reasons of self-love. Consequently Esau and Edom in the contrary sense mean those people The same was also represented by the king of Edom coming out with many people and a strong force and refusing to let Israel pass across his frontier, Numbers 20:14-22. This evil, that is to say, the evil of self-love, which is such as does not accept the truths of faith, nor thus matters of doctrine concerning truth, is described in various places in the Word as Esau and Edom, the state of the Church when it comes to be such also being described at the same time; as in Jeremiah,

Against Edom. Is there no wisdom any longer in Teman? Has counsel perished from those who have intelligence? Has their wisdom become rotten? Flee! They have turned themselves away, they have gone down to dwell in the deep, O inhabitants of Dedan, for I will bring the calamity of Esau upon him. I will strip Esau bare, I will uncover his secret places, and he is not able to be concealed. His seed have been laid waste, and his brothers, and his neighbours. Leave your orphans, I will keep them alive, and let your widows trust in Me. Edom will become a waste; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss at all its plagues. Jeremiah 49:7-8, 10-11, 17, and following verses.

[8] In David,

They say, Let not the name of Israel be remembered any more, for they consult together with one accord; against You they make a covenant - the tents of Edom, and the Ishmaelites, and Moab, and the Hagrites. Psalms 83:4-6.

In Obadiah,

Thus said the Lord Jehovih to Edom, Behold, I have made you small among the nations; you are utterly despised. The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who dwell in the clefts of the rock, whose seat is on high, who say in your heart, Who will bring me down to the ground? Though you exalt yourself like the eagle, and though you set your nest among the stars, from there will I bring you down. How are the men of Esau searched out, their hidden treasures sought out! Will I not on that day destroy the wise men out of Edom, and those who have intelligence out of Mount Esau, so that your mighty men may be dismayed, O Teman, and every man from Mount Esau cut off by slaughter? For the violence done to Jacob your brother shame will cover you, and you will be cut off for ever. The house of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau turned into stubble; and they will burn them and consume them, and there will be nothing left over to the house of Esau. And the people of the south will inherit the mountain of Esau. Obad. verses 1-4, 6, 8-10, 18, 19, 21.

'Edom' and 'Esau' here stand for the evil of the natural man, which evil, arising out of self-love, despises and rejects all truth - which leads to its devastation.

[9] In Ezekiel,

Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir, and prophesy against it, and say to it, Thus said the Lord Jehovih, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out My hand against you, and I will make you a waste and a desolation. Because you possess eternal enmity, and give over the children of Israel to the power of the sword ² in the time of their disaster and in the time of the iniquity of the end. Because you said concerning the two nations and the two lands, They are mine and we will inherit them - and Jehovah is there. And you will know that I Jehovah have heard all your insults which you have uttered against the mountains of Israel. You will be a waste, Mount Seir, and all Edom. the whole of it. Ezekiel 35:2-5, 8-10, 12, 15.

Here it is quite clear that 'Edom' in the contrary sense is those who despise, reject, and insult spiritual goods and truths, meant by 'the mountains of Israel'.

[10] In the same prophet,

Thus said the Lord Jehovih, Surely in the fire of My jealousy have I spoken against the remnants of the nations, and against the whole of Edom, who have given My land to themselves as an inheritance with the joy of all [their] heart, with utter contempt. ³ Ezekiel 36:5.

Here similarly 'giving the land to themselves as an inheritance' stands for laying waste the Church, that is, good and truth that are the Church's.

[11] In Malachi,

The Word of Jehovah against Israel; I have loved you, said Jehovah, and you say, How have You loved us? Is not Esau Jacob's brother? And I love Jacob, and I hate Esau and am making his mountain into a waste. Malachi 1:1-3.

Here 'Esau' stands for the evil of the natural which does not accept spiritual truth, meant by 'Israel', 3305, or the doctrine of truth, meant by 'Jacob', 3305, and is for that reason 'laid waste', meant by 'hating'. For 'hating' has no other meaning, as is evident from what has been introduced above from the Word regarding Esau and Edom in the good sense. But when truth does not allow itself to be allied to good, Jacob is referred to in a contrary way, as in Hosea,

He will make a visitation on Jacob over his ways and requite him according to his deeds; in the womb he supplanted his brother. Hosea 12:2-3.

Footnotes: