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).

665. That to “set up a covenant” signifies that he would be regenerated, is very evident from the fact that there can be no covenant between the Lord and man other than conjunction by love and faith, and therefore a “covenant” signifies conjunction. For it is the heavenly marriage that is the veriest covenant; and the heavenly marriage, or conjunction, does not exist except with those who are being regenerated; so that in the widest sense regeneration itself is signified by a “covenant.” The Lord enters into a covenant with man when He regenerates him; and therefore among the ancients a covenant represented nothing else. Nothing can be gathered from the sense of the letter but that the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so many times with their descendants, was concerned with them personally, whereas they were such that they could not be regenerated; for they made worship consist in external things, and supposed the externals of worship to be holy, without internal things being adjoined to them. And therefore the covenants made with them were only representatives of regeneration. It was the same with their rites, and with Abraham himself, and with Isaac, and Jacob, who represented the things of love and faith. Likewise the high priests and priests, whatever their character, even those that were wicked, could represent the heavenly and most holy priesthood. In representatives the person is not regarded, but the thing that is represented. Thus all the kings of Israel and of Judah, even the worst, represented the royalty of the Lord; and even Pharaoh too, who set Joseph over the land of Egypt. From these and many other considerations-concerning which, of the Lord’s Divine mercy hereafter-it is evident that the covenants so often entered into with the sons of Jacob were only religious rites that were representative.

3519. 'And take for me from there two good kids of the she-goats' means truths born from that good. This is clear from the meaning of 'kids of the she-goats' as truths born from good, dealt with below. The reason for having 'two' was that as in the rational so in the natural there are things of the will and those of the understanding. Things in the natural that belong to the will are delights, while those that belong to the understanding are facts. These two have to be joined together if they are to be anything at all.

[2] As regards 'kids of the she-goats' meaning truths born from good, this becomes clear from those places in the Word where kids and she-goats are mentioned. It should be recognized that all gentle and useful beasts mentioned in the Word mean in the genuine sense celestial things, which are forms of good, and spiritual things, which are forms of truth, see 45, 46, 142, 143, 246, 714, 715, 776, 2179, 2180, 2781, 3218. And since there are various genera of celestial things or forms of good, and consequently there are various genera of spiritual things or forms of truth, one beast has a different meaning from another; that is to say, a lamb has one meaning, a kid another, and a sheep, she-goat, ram, he-goat, young bull, or ox another, while a horse or a camel has yet another meaning. Birds have a different meaning again, as also do beasts of the sea, such as sea monsters, and fish. The genera of celestial and spiritual things, and consequently of forms of good and truth, are more than anyone can number, even though when that which is celestial or good is mentioned, and also when that which is spiritual or truth, this is not envisaged as being anything complex, consisting of many parts, but as a single entity. Yet how complex both of these are, that is, how countless the genera are of which they consist, may be seen from what has been stated about heaven in 3241, to the effect that it is distinguished into countless separate communities, according to the genera of celestial and spiritual things, that is, of goods of love and of derivative truths of faith. Furthermore each genus of good and each genus of truth has countless species into which the communities of each genus are separated. And each species in a similar way has separate sub-species.

[3] The commonest genera of good and truth are what the living creatures offered as burnt offerings and sacrifices represented. And because the genera are quite distinct and separate, people were explicitly commanded to use those living creatures and no others, that is to say, in some sacrifices lambs and ewe-lambs, and also kids and female kids of she-goats were to be used, in other sacrifices rams and sheep, and also he-goats, were to be used, while in other sacrifices again, calves, young bulls, and oxen, or else pigeons and doves, were to be used, see 992, 1823, 2180, 2805, 2807, 2830, 3218. What kids and she-goats meant however becomes clear both from the sacrifices in which they used to be offered and from other places in the Word. These show that lambs and ewe-lambs meant innocence belonging to the internal or rational man, and kids and she-goats innocence belonging to the external or natural man, and so the truth and the good of the latter.

[4] The fact that truth and good present in the innocence that belongs to the external or natural man is meant by a kid and a she-goat is clear from the following places in the Word: In Isaiah,

The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, the calf also and the young lion and the sheep together; and a little child will lead them. Isaiah 11:6.

This refers to the Lord's kingdom and to the state there in which people have no fear of evil, that is, no dread of hell, because they are with the Lord. 'The lamb' and 'the kid' stand for people who have innocence within them, and who, being the most secure of all, are mentioned first.

[5] When all the firstborn of Egypt were smitten the people were commanded to kill from among the lambs or among the kids a male without blemish, and to put some of the blood on the doorposts and on the lintel of their houses; and so the destroyer would not strike them with the plague, Exodus 12:5, 7, 13. 'The firstborn of Egypt' means the good of love and charity that was wiped out, 3325. 'The lambs' and 'the kids' are states of innocence, in which those with whom these exist are secure from evil. Indeed all in heaven are kept secure by the Lord through states of innocence. That security was represented by the killing of the lamb or kid, and putting the blood on the doorposts and on the lintel of the houses. .

[6] To avert his own death when a person saw Jehovah manifested as an angel he would sacrifice 'a kid of the she-goats', as Gideon did when he saw Him, Judges 6:19, and also Manoah, Judges 13:15-16, 19. The reason they offered a kid was that Jehovah or the Lord cannot appear to anybody, not even to an angel, unless the one to whom He appears is in a state of innocence. Therefore as soon as the Lord is present people are brought into a state of innocence, for the Lord enters in by way of innocence, even with angels in heaven. Consequently no one is able to enter heaven unless he has a measure of innocence, according to the Lord's words recorded in Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17. Regarding people's belief that they would die when Jehovah appeared to them if they did not offer such a burnt offering, see Judges 13:22-23.

[7] Since genuine conjugial love is innocence itself, 2736, it was customary in the representative Church for a man to go to his wife with the gift of a kid of the she-goats, as one reads of Samson in Judges 15:1, and also of Judah when he visited Tamar, Genesis 38:17, 20, 23. The fact that 'a kid' and 'a she-goat' meant innocence is also evident from the sacrifices made as guilt offerings that a person would offer if he had sinned through error, Leviticus 1:10; 4:28; 5:6. Sinning through error is sinning through ignorance that has innocence within it. The same is evident from the following Divine command in Moses,

You shall bring the first of the firstfruits of your land to the house of Jehovah your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk. Exodus 23:19; 34:26.

Here the requirement 'to bring the firstfruits of the land to the house of Jehovah' means the state of innocence which exists in early childhood; and 'not boiling a kid in its mother's milk' means that they were not to destroy the innocence of early childhood. This being their meaning, the one command, in both places referred to, follows directly after the other. In the literal sense there seems to be no connection at all between them as there is in the internal sense.

[8] Because kids and she-goats, as has been stated, meant innocence it was also required that the curtains over the tabernacle should be made from she-goat hair, Exodus 25:4; 26:7; 35:5-6, 23, 26; 36:14, as a sign that all the holy things represented in it depended for their very being on innocence. 'She-goat hair' means the last or outermost degree of innocence present in ignorance, such as exists with gentiles who in the internal sense are meant by the curtains of the tabernacle. These considerations now show what truths born of good are, and what the nature of these is, meant by the two good kids of the she-goats which Rebekah his mother spoke about to Jacob. That is to say, they are truths belonging to innocence or early childhood, meant also by the things which Esau was to bring to Isaac his father, dealt with in 3501, 3508. They were not in fact such truths, but initially they appeared to be. Thus it was that Jacob pretended by means of them to be Esau.