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).

4776. 'An evil wild animal has devoured him' means that desires for evil annihilated it. This is clear from the meaning of 'an evil wild animal' as a lie invented out of a life of evil desires, dealt with in 4729, and therefore as such desires; and from the meaning of 'devouring' as annihilating, because it has reference to the truth of the Church. The one great Truth the Church possesses is that love to the Lord and love towards the neighbour are first and foremost, Mark 12:29-31, a truth that evil desires annihilate. For those who lead a life of evil desires cannot lead a life of love and charity since these two kinds of life are complete opposites. A life of evil desires is one in which a person loves only himself and not his neighbour except out of self-interest or for his own sake. People like this therefore annihilate charity among themselves, and those who annihilate charity also annihilate love to the Lord; for charity is the only means through which anyone loves the Lord, and the Lord dwells within charity. An affection that belongs to charity is a genuine heavenly affection, which comes from the Lord alone. From this it may be seen that desires for evil annihilate the one great truth the Church possesses; and once it has been annihilated some other means is invented which is called the way to salvation; and this is faith. When faith moreover is separated from charity actual truths are defiled, for in that case no knowledge exists any longer of what charity is, or even of what the neighbour is. Nor as a consequence does any knowledge exist about the inner essence of a human being, nor indeed of what heaven is. For the essence of a human being, or heaven within him, is charity, which consists in goodwill to others, to his community, to his country, to the Church, to the Lord's kingdom, and so to the Lord Himself. From this one may deduce what truth possessed by the Church must be like when there is no knowledge of the essential truths and when evil desires reign, standing opposed to these essential truths. When a life of evil desires speaks about them, are not truths defiled to such an extent that they cease to be recognizable?

[2] The truth that no one can be saved unless he has led a good charitable life, and so has acquired affections for that life, which exist in him as goodwill shown to others and as good deeds done to them which are motivated by that goodwill; also, the truth that no one can possibly accept the truths of faith - that is to say, take them in and make them his own - except him who leads a charitable life, have been made perfectly plain to me from those in heaven to whom I have been allowed to speak. Everyone there is a form of charity, the beauty and goodness of that form depending on the nature of the charity. The pleasure, bliss, and happiness of those there flow from their being able - because they are motivated by goodwill - to do good to others. Anyone who has not been leading a charitable life cannot possibly know that heaven and heavenly joy consist in goodwill and in good deeds motivated by that goodwill. To one of his kind heaven consists in goodwill shown to himself, with any good deeds done to others being motivated by this selfish goodwill. But this is in fact hell; for as has been stated, heaven is distinguished from hell in that heaven consists in doing good because one is motivated by goodwill, and hell in doing ill because one is motivated by ill will. Those governed by love towards the neighbour are motivated by goodwill to do good deeds, but those governed by self-love are motivated to do ill ones by ill will. The reason the latter are like this is that they love no one but themselves, and others only insofar as they see themselves in others, and others in themselves. They also hate these others, that hatred revealing itself the moment these go away from them and are no longer part of them. They are like robbers who love one another while they are in league with one another; but at heart they long to kill one another if any spoils can be gained by doing so.

[3] From all this one may see what heaven is, namely love towards the neighbour, and what hell is, namely self-love. Those governed by love towards the neighbour are able to accept all truths of faith, to take them in and make them their own; for love towards the neighbour holds every truth of faith within it since it has heaven within it and the Lord within it. But those governed by self-love cannot possibly accept the truths of faith since hell lies within that love. In no way can they accept the truths of faith apart from doing so for the sake of improving their own positions and for the sake of material gain; thus they cannot possibly take them in and make them their own. What they do take in and make their own are denials of the truth. For in their hearts they do not believe in the existence of hell and heaven, or in the life after death. Nor therefore do they believe anything that is said about hell and heaven, or about the life after death, and so nothing whatever from the Word and from doctrine regarding faith and charity. They seem to themselves to be believers when they take part in worship, but they do so because that state has been instilled into them since early childhood. But as soon as they leave that worship behind them they also leave that state of belief behind them. At this point, now left to think for themselves, they do not have any belief at all; and what is more, the life that their love fires them to lead causes them to think up ideas to justify it. These ideas they call truths, and also back them up from the literal sense of the Word; but they are in fact falsities. This is what all are like who in life and doctrine are adherents to faith separated from charity.

[4] In addition it should be recognized that a person's love includes everything, for his love determines the life he leads, and therefore only into a person's love does the Lord enter with His life. As is people's love therefore, so is their life because so is their reception of it. Love towards the neighbour receives the life of heaven, while self-love receives the life of hell. Thus everything of heaven lies within love towards the neighbour, and everything of hell within self-love. The fact that love includes everything may be illustrated by many observations of nature. All living creatures, not only those that walk on dry land but also those which fly in the air or swim in water, move in response to their own love. Into their love comes whatever is of use to them in the life they lead, that is, to their feeding, housing, and reproducing themselves. Therefore every genus knows its own food, dwelling-places, and mating habits such as pairing off, building nests, laying eggs, and rearing chicks.

[5] Bees likewise know how to build cells, extract honey from flowers, fill honeycombs with it, and make provision for the winter. Indeed they know how to establish a system of government under a single ruler, besides many other remarkable activities. All this is a product of what is entering their love, it being merely the different forms their affections take that lead to the different results their life produces. Their love includes all this. So what would heavenly love include if the human being was governed by heavenly love? Would not the whole of wisdom and intelligence as these exist in heaven be included? From this too it is evident that those who have led charitable lives, these and no others, are accepted into heaven, and that because they have charity they have the ability to accept and take in all truths, that is, every truth of faith. The reverse however takes place with adherents to faith separated from charity, that is, to those who know some truths but have no charity. Their love accepts ideas such as are suited to itself; that is to say, self-love and love of the world accept ideas that are the reverse of truths, the kind that exist in hell.