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).

9092. Then they shall sell the living ox. That this signifies that the affection of the one which has injured the affection of the other shall be alienated, is evident from the signification of “selling,” as being to alienate (see n. 4098, 4752, 4758, 5886); and from the signification of “the living ox,” as being the affection of truth which had injured the affection of truth of another (of which above, n. 9090).

1175. Verse 19. And they cast dust upon their heads and cried out weeping, and mourning, signifies grief and confession that by a life according to that religious persuasion and its doctrine they were condemned. This is evident from the signification of "to cast dust upon the head," as being to mourn because they were condemned (it follows as a consequence that it was on account of life according to that religious persuasion and its doctrine); also from the signification of "to cry out weeping and mourning," as being grief that they were condemned by such a life, "to cry out" having reference to doctrine, and "to weep and mourn" signifying grief of soul and heart (as above, n. 1164. "To cast dust upon the heads" means mourning on account of condemnation, because "dust" signifies what is condemned, and "head" the man himself. "Dust" signifies what is condemned, because the hells are beneath and the heavens are above, and from the hells falsity from evil unceasingly breathes forth, consequently the dust over them signifies what is condemned (See also above, n. 742. Because of this signification of "dust" it was a custom in the representative churches to cast dust upon their heads when they had done evil and had repented of it, thus giving proof of their repentance.

[2] That this was so can be seen from the following passages. In Ezekiel:

They shall cry bitterly and shall cast up dust upon their heads, they shall roll themselves in ashes (Ezekiel 27:30).

"To cast up dust upon their heads" signifies mourning because of condemnation, and "to roll themselves in ashes" signifies still deeper mourning, for "ashes" signify what is condemned, because the fire from which they come signifies infernal love. In Lamentations:

The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the earth, they keep silence, they have cast up dust upon their heads; the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the earth (Lamentations 2:10).

By such things grief and mourning because of evils and falsities of which they repented, and thus confession that they were condemned, were represented. "Daughter of Zion" signifies the church, and "virgins of Jerusalem" signify truths of doctrine; "to sit upon the earth and keep silence" signifies grief of mind; "to cast dust upon the head" signifies confession that they were condemned, and "to hang down the head to the earth" signifies confession that they were in hell. In Job:

The friends of Job rent everyone his mantle, and sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven (Job 2:12).

"To sprinkle dust upon the head towards heaven" signifies mourning on account of Job, who seemed to be condemned. Mourning on account of condemnation of evil is signified by "dust upon the head," and "rending the mantle" signifies mourning on account of condemnation of falsity. The same is signified by:

Rolling themselves in the dust (Micah 1:10).

That repentance was thus represented is evident in Job:

I repent upon dust and upon ashes (Job 42:6).

Because "dust" signifies condemnation, it was said to the serpent:

Upon the belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life (Genesis 3:14).

The "serpent" signifies infernal evil with those who pervert the truths of the Word, and thereby deceive artfully and craftily. So in Isaiah:

Dust shall be the serpent's bread (Isaiah 65:25).

From all this it is clear that "dust" signifies what is condemned, and that "to cast dust upon the head" is a testification of condemnation.

(Continuation)

[3] All this having been premised it shall now be told what affection is, and afterwards why man is led by the Lord by means of affections and not by means of thoughts, and lastly that man can be saved in no other way.

What affection is. The same is meant by affection as by love. But love is like a fountain and affections are like the streams therefrom, thus affections are continuations of love. Love as a fountain is in the will of man; affections, which are streams from it, flow by continuity into the understanding, and there by means of light from truths produce thoughts, just as the influences of heat in a garden produce germinations by means of rays of light. Moreover, love in its origin is the heat of heaven, and truths in their origin are the rays of light of heaven, and thoughts are germinations from their marriage.

From such a marriage are all the societies of heaven, which are innumerable, which in their essence are affections; for they are from the heat that is love and from the wisdom that is light from the Lord as a sun. Therefore these societies, as heat in them is united to light, and light is united to heat, are affections of good and truth. From this are the thoughts of all in these societies. This makes clear that the societies of heaven are not thoughts but affections, consequently to be led by means of these societies is to be led by means of affections, that is, to be led by means of affections is to be led by means of societies; and for this reason in what now follows the term affections will be used in place of societies.

[4] Why man is led by the Lord by means of affections and not by means of thoughts shall now be told. When man is led by the Lord by means of affections he can be led according to all the laws of His Divine providence, but not if he should be led by means of thoughts. Affections do not become evident to man, but thoughts do; also affections produce thoughts, but thoughts do not produce affections; there is an appearance that they do, but it is a fallacy. And when affections produce thoughts they produce all things of man, because these constitute his life. Moreover, this is known in the world. If you hold a man in his affection you hold him bound, and lead him wherever you please, and a single reason is then stronger than a thousand. But if you do not hold man in his affection reasons are of no avail, for his affection, when not in harmony with them, either perverts them or rejects them or extinguishes them. It would be similar if the Lord should lead man by means of thoughts immediately, and not by means of affections.

Again, when a man is led by the Lord by means of affections, it seems to him as if he thought freely as if of himself, and spoke freely and acted freely as if of himself. And this is why the Lord does not teach man immediately, but mediately by means of the Word, and by means of doctrines and preachings from the Word, and by means of conversations and interaction with others; for from these things man thinks freely as if of himself.

[5] In no other way can man be saved. This follows both from what has been said about the laws of the Divine providence and also from this, that thoughts do not produce affections in man. For if man knew all things of the Word, and all things of doctrine, even to the arcana of wisdom that the angels possess, and thought and spoke about them, so long as his affections were lusts of evil he could not be brought out of hell by the Lord. Evidently, then, if man were to be taught from heaven by an influx into his thoughts it would be like casting seed upon the way, or into water, or into snow, or into fire.