From Swedenborg's Works

 

Arcana Coelestia #9372

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

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).

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Arcana Coelestia #7891

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

7891. And there shall be to you in the first day a holy convocation. That this signifies that in the beginning all shall be together, is evident from the signification of “the first day,” as being the beginning, namely, of liberation from those who have infested, and thus from damnation; and from the signification of “a holy convocation,” as being that all shall be together. Convocations took place in order that the whole assemblage of Israel might be together, and might thus represent heaven; for they were then all distinguished into tribes, and the tribes into families, and the families into houses. (That heaven along with the societies there was represented by the tribes, the families, and the houses of the sons of Israel, see n. 7836.) Therefore those convocations were called holy, and took place at every feast (Leviticus 23:27, 36; Numbers 28:26; 29:1, 7, 12). From this the feasts themselves were called “holy convocations,” for it was commanded that all the males should be present at them. That the feasts were called “holy convocations” is evident in Moses:

These are the set feasts of Jehovah, which ye shall call holy convocations, to offer a fire-offering unto Jehovah (Leviticus 23:37).

That at such times all males were to be present, in the same:

Three times in a year shall every male of thine appear together before Jehovah thy God, in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened things, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16:16).

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Apocalypse Explained #114

Study this Passage

  
/ 1232  
  

114. Who was dead and is alive, signifies that He has been rejected, and yet eternal life is from Him. This is evident from the signification of being "dead," as being, in reference to the Lord, to have been rejected (of which see above, n. 83; also from the signification of "being alive," as being that eternal life is from Him (of which also above, n. 84. The Lord is said to have been rejected when He is not approached and worshiped; and also when He is approached and worshiped in respect to His Human only, and not at the same time in respect to the Divine; therefore He is rejected at the present time within the church by those who do not approach and worship Him, but pray to the Father to have compassion for the sake of the Son, when yet neither man nor angel can ever approach the Father and worship Him immediately; for the Divine is invisible, and with it no one can be conjoined by faith and love; since what is invisible does not come into the idea of thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and what does not fall into the idea of thought does not fall within the faith; for the things that are to be of faith must be thought of. So also what does not enter into the affection of the will does not enter into love, for what is to be of the love must affect man's will, for all the love that man has resides in the will (See The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem 28-35).

[2] But the Divine Human of the Lord does come into the idea of the thought and thus into faith, and from that into the affection of the will, that is, into love. From this it is clear that there is no conjunction with the Father except from the Lord, and in the Lord. This the Lord Himself teaches with the utmost clearness in the Evangelists, as in John:

No one hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath brought Him forth to view (John 1:18).

In the same:

Ye have neither heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen His shape (John 5:37).

In Matthew:

No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him (Matthew 11:27).

In John:

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me (John 14:6).

In the same :

If ye know Me ye know My Father also; he that seeth Me seeth the Father. Philip, believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (John 14:7-11).

And that the Father and the Lord are one (John 10:30, 38).

I am the vine, ye are the branches; apart from Me ye can do nothing (John 15:5).

[3] From this it can be seen that the Lord has been rejected by those within the church who approach the Father immediately and pray to Him to have compassion for the sake of the Son; for these cannot do otherwise than think of the Lord's Human as they think of the human of another man, thus they cannot think at the same time of His Divine as being in the Human, still less of His Divine as conjoined with His Human as the soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine received throughout the universal Christian world (See above, n. 10, 26). Who is there in the Christian world, acknowledging the Divinity of the Lord, that is willing to be one who would place the Lord's Divine outside of His Human? When yet to think of the Human only, and not at the same time of His Divine in the Human, is to view the two as separated, which is not to view the Lord, nor the two as one person; and yet the doctrine received throughout Christendom is, that the Divine and the Human of the Lord are not two persons but a single person.

[4] It is true that men of the church at this day, when they speak from the doctrine of the church think of the Divine of the Lord in His Human; but when they think and speak by themselves aside from doctrine, it is altogether otherwise. But be it known, that man is in one state when he is thinking and speaking from doctrine, and in another when he is thinking and speaking aside from doctrine. When man is thinking and speaking from doctrine, his thought and speech are from the memory of his natural man; but when he is thinking and speaking aside from doctrine, his thought and speech are from his spirit; for to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from the interiors of one's mind, from which is his real faith. Moreover, man's state after death becomes such as were the thought and speech of his spirit by himself aside from doctrine, and not such as they were from doctrine, if the latter was not one with the former.

[5] Man does not know that he has two states in respect to faith and love; one when in doctrine and another aside from doctrine; but that the state of his faith and love aside from doctrine is what saves him, and not the state of his speech respecting faith and love from doctrine, unless the latter state makes one with the former. Yet to think and speak from doctrine respecting faith and love is to speak from the natural man and its memory, as is evident merely from this, that the evil, when with others, can think and speak thus equally with the good. For the same reason also evil preachers equally with good, or preachers that have no faith equally with those that have faith, can preach the Gospel, and, to appearance, with similar zeal and affection. This is because the man, as has been said, then thinks and speaks from his natural man and its memory. But to think from one's spirit is not to think from the natural man and its memory, but from the spiritual man, and from its faith and affection. Merely from this it is clear that man has two states, and that it is the latter state, not the former, that saves him; for man after death is a spirit; therefore such as he was in the world in respect to his spirit, such he remains after his departure out of the world.

[6] Moreover, it has been given me to know from much experience that the man of the church has these two states. For after death, man can be let into either state, and is also actually let into both. Many of these, when they have been let into the former state, have spoken like Christians, and from such speech have been believed by others to be Christians; but as soon as they were remitted into the latter state, which was the real state of their spirit, they spoke like devilish spirits, and altogether in opposition to what they had spoken before (See the work onHeaven and Hell 491-498, 499-511).

[7] From this it can be seen how the statement is to be understood that the Lord has been at this day rejected by those within the church; namely, that although it is held from doctrine that the Divine of the Lord must be acknowledged and believed in the same degree as the Divine of the Father, for the doctrine of the church teaches that "As is the Father so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, and neither of them greater or less, before or after the other" (See the Creed of Athanasius); yet they do not approach and worship the Lord and His Divine, but the Divine of the Father; this they do when they pray to the Father to have mercy for the sake of the Son; and when they say this they do not think at all of the Divine of the Lord, but they think of His Human as separated from the Divine, thus of His Human as similar to the human of any other man; and then they also think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think in this way of the Lord is to reject Him; for by not thinking of His Divine at the same time that they think of His Human, by the separation they thrust out the Divine. Yet these are not two, but one person, and make one as soul and body do.

[8] I once spoke with spirits who when they lived in the world were of the popish religion, and I asked whether in the world they ever thought about the Divine of the Lord? They said that they thought about it whenever they saw from doctrine, and that they then acknowledged His Divine to be equal with the Divine of the Father, but that apart from doctrine, they thought of His Human only, and not of His Divine. They were asked why they say that the power which His Human had was given to it by the Father and not by Himself, since they acknowledged His Divine to be equal with that of the Father? At this they turned away, making no answer. But it was said to them, that it was because they transferred to themselves all His Divine power, and that they could not have done this unless they had separated the Divine from the Human. That with them the Lord has been rejected, everyone may conclude from this, that they worship the pope instead of the Lord, and that they no longer attribute any power to the Lord.

[9] I will here also mention a great scandal heard from the pope called Benedict XIV. He openly declared that when he lived in the world he believed that the Lord had no power, because He had transferred it all to Peter, and after him to his successors; adding his belief that their saints have more power than the Lord, because they hold it from God the Father, while the Lord resigned it all and gave it to the popes; yet that He is still to be worshiped, because otherwise the pope is not worshiped with sanctity. But because this pope even after death claimed the Divine for himself, after a few days he was cast into hell.

  
/ 1232  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for their permission to use this translation.