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).

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).

5828. And I said, Surely, tearing he is torn in pieces. That this signifies perception that it has perished by evils and falsities, is evident from the signification of “saying,” as being perception (of which frequently above); and from the signification of “being torn in pieces,” as being to perish by evils and falsities (that is, the internal good which is represented by Joseph, n. 5805). That “to be torn in pieces” has this signification, is because in the spiritual world there is no other tearing in pieces than that of good by evils and falsities. The case herein is like death and what relates to death. In the spiritual sense these do not signify natural death, but spiritual death, which is damnation, for there is no other death in the spiritual world. So likewise “tearing” does not signify in the spiritual sense such tearing as is done by wild beasts, but the tearing to pieces of good by evils and falsities. Moreover the wild beasts which tear, signify in the spiritual sense the evils of cupidities and the derivative falsities, which also are represented by wild beasts in the other life.

[2] The good which continually flows in from the Lord with man, does not perish except by evils and the derivative falsities, and by falsities and the derivative evils. For as soon as this good, continuous through the internal man, comes to the external or natural man, it is met by evil and falsity, by which the good is torn in pieces and extinguished in various ways as by wild beasts. By this the influx of good through the internal man is checked and stayed, and consequently the inner mind, through which is the influx, is closed, and only so much of the spiritual is admitted through it as to enable the natural man to reason and speak, but this only from earthly, bodily, and worldly things, and indeed contrary to good and truth, or in accordance with them from pretense or deceit.

[3] It is a universal law that influx adjusts itself according to efflux, and if efflux is checked influx is checked. Through the internal man there is an influx of good and truth from the Lord, and through the external there must be an efflux, namely into the life, that is, in the exercise of charity. When there is this efflux then there is continual influx from heaven, that is, through heaven from the Lord; whereas if there is no efflux, but resistance in the external or natural man (that is, evil and falsity which tear to pieces and extinguish the inflowing good), it follows from the universal law just mentioned that the influx adjusts itself to the efflux, consequently that the influx of good draws back, and thereby the internal through which is the influx is closed; and through this closing there comes stupidity in spiritual things, even until the man who is such neither knows nor is willing to know anything about eternal life, and at last becomes insane, so that he opposes falsities against truths, calling them truths and the truths falsities, and evils against goods, making them goods and the goods evil. Thus he tears good completely to pieces.

[4] That which is “torn” is occasionally mentioned in the Word, whereby in the proper sense is signified that which perishes through falsities from evils; but that which perishes through evils is called a “carcass.” When only what is “torn” is mentioned, both are signified, for the one involves the signification of the other; but it is otherwise when both are mentioned, for then a distinction is made. Because that which is “torn” signified in the spiritual sense that which had perished by falsities from evils, therefore it was forbidden in the representative church to eat anything torn, which by no means would have been thus forbidden unless that spiritual evil had been understood in heaven. Otherwise what harm would there have been in eating flesh torn by a wild beast?

[5] Of “torn” things, that they were not to be eaten, it is thus written in Moses:

The fat of a carcass and the fat of that which is torn may be for every use, provided in eating ye shall not eat it (Leviticus 7:24).

Again:

A carcass and that which is torn he shall not eat, to be defiled therewith: I am Jehovah (Leviticus 22:8).

And again:

Men of holiness ye shall be to Me; therefore ye shall not eat the flesh that is torn in the field; ye shall cast it forth to dogs (Exodus 22:31).

In Ezekiel:

The prophet saith, Ah Lord Jehovih! behold my soul hath not been defiled, and a carcass and that which is torn I have not eaten from my youth until now, so that the flesh of abomination hath not come into my mouth (Ezekiel 4:14).

From these passages it is plain that it was an abomination to eat that which was torn, not because it was torn, but because it signified the tearing of good to pieces by falsities which are from evils, whereas a “carcass” signified the death of good by evils.

[6] The tearing of good to pieces by falsities from evils is meant also in the following passages from David in the internal sense:

The likeness of the wicked is as a lion, he desireth to tear, and as a young lion that sitteth in hiding places (Psalms 17:12).

Again:

They opened their mouth against me, a tearing and a roaring lion (Psalms 22:13).

And yet again:

Lest they tear my soul as a lion, tearing but none rescuing (Psalms 7:2).

A “lion” denotes those who vastate the church. Where it is said above of Joseph, that he was sold by his brethren, and that his tunic stained with blood was sent to his father, then his father also said, “It is my son’s tunic, an evil wild beast hath devoured him, tearing, Joseph is torn in pieces” (Genesis 37:33). (That “to be torn in pieces” is to be dissipated by falsities from evil may be seen where this is explained, n. 4777)