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).

9213. Even at the going in of the sun thou shalt restore it to him. That this signifies that it must be restored before there is a state of shade from the delights of external loves, is evident from the signification of the “going in,” or setting, “of the sun,” as being a state of shade from the delights of external loves. The case herein is this. In heaven there are alternations of heat in respect to those things which are of the good of love; and there are alternations of light in respect to those things which are of the truth of faith; thus there are alternations of love and of faith. In hell also there are alternations, but such as are opposite to those in heaven, because there they are alternations of the love of evil and of the faith of falsity. These alternations correspond to the changes of the seasons on the earth, which are spring, summer, autumn, and winter, and again spring; and so on. But in the spiritual world instead of times there are states; for there are no changes of heat and light there, but of love and faith. But be it known that these alternations are not the same with one as with another, but differ with each person according to the state of life acquired by him in the world. Sunset in heaven corresponds to a state of shade as to the truths of faith, and to a state of cold as to the good of love to the Lord and toward the neighbor; for those who are there then come into the delights of external loves, which are attended with shade as to faith. For when an angel or spirit is in external things, he is also in shade; but when he is in internal things, he is in the delights and blessednesses of heavenly loves, and at the same time is in the pleasant things of faith, that is, in the light of truth. These are the states to which correspond the spring and summer seasons on the earth. From all this then it can now be seen why the “going in,” or setting, “of the sun,” signifies a state of shade from the delights of external loves. (Concerning these alternations see (5097) what has been shown above, n. 5097, 5672, 5962, 6110, 7083, 8426, 8615, 8644, 8812.)

[2] From what has been said above it can be seen what is meant by saying that the memory-truths which have been separated through fallacies derived from the things of sense must be restored before there is a state of shade from the delights of external loves, which is signified by the words, “if thou take thy companion’s garment in pledge, even at the going in of the sun thou shalt restore it to him.” For hereby is meant that truths taken away through fallacies must be restored while the man is still in the light of truth; for he is then able to recover them, and also to dispel the falsities induced by fallacies; but this he cannot do when he is in a state of shade arising from the delights of external loves, because these delights reject those truths; and the shade does not receive them; and thus the fallacies cling to the man, and are appropriated by him. The reason why external delights, that is, those of the external man, are of such a nature, is that they are closely connected with the world, and are also excited and as it were vivified by its heat. It is otherwise with internal delights and blessednesses, or those of the internal man. These are closely connected with heaven, and are also excited and vivified by its heat, which is love from the Lord.

[3] This judgment, or law, is thus delivered in another passage in Moses:

Thou shalt not take in pledge the mill or millstone; for he taketh the soul in pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6);

by “a mill” are signified such things as serve for procuring faith, and afterward charity (n. 7780); and by “the soul” is signified the life of faith from charity (n. 9050). From this it is evident what is meant by “not taking in pledge a mill, for he taketh the soul in pledge.” Again:

Thou shalt not turn back the right of the sojourner and the orphan; nor shalt thou take a widow’s garment in pledge (Deuteronomy 24:17);

“to take a widow’s garment in pledge” denotes to take away in any manner the truths that long for good; for a “garment” denotes truth (see n. 9212); and “a widow,” one who is in good and longs for truths, or in the abstract sense, good longing for truths (n. 9198); for if truth is taken away, good perishes together with its longing.

[4] And again:

If thou lend thy companion anything, thou shalt not enter into his house to take a pledge. Thou shalt stand outside, and the man to whom thou hast lent shall bring forth the pledge outside. And if he be a needy man, thou shalt not lie down in his pledge; restoring thou shalt restore to him the pledge at the setting of the sun, that he may lie in his garment, and may bless thee; and it shall be righteousness before thy God (Deuteronomy 24:10-13).

That the creditor should “stand outside, and the pledge be brought forth to him,” signifies how the communicated truths are to be responded to; for by “lending” is signified the communication of truth, and by “taking a pledge,” the response. No one can know that these things are signified except from what happens in the other life; thus unless he knows what is meant by “entering into the house,” and what by “standing outside,” thus what is meant by “bringing forth outside.”

[5] In the other life those who enter the house of another, and converse together in one room, so communicate their thoughts with all who are there, that the latter absolutely know no otherwise than that they themselves are thinking these thoughts from themselves. But if they stand outside, the thoughts are indeed perceived, but as coming from another, and not from themselves. This happens every day in the other life; and therefore those who are of one opinion, or of one sentiment, appear together in one house; and this is still more the case if they appear in one room of the house; and when these same persons disagree, those who do so disappear. In the other life such appearances are everywhere, and are continually happening. The reason is that parity of thoughts conjoins and causes presence, for thought is internal sight, and distances of places there, are not as in the world.

[6] From this it is plain what is meant by “not entering into the house, but standing outside and taking a pledge,” namely, that one should not bind or incite another to confirm one’s own truths, but should hear him and take his answers as they are in himself. For he who binds and incites another to confirm his own truths, causes the other not to think and speak from himself, but from him. And when anyone thinks and speaks from another, the truths he has are thrown into disorder, and yet he is not amended, except in the case of one who is as yet ignorant of these truths. From all this it is again clear that in every detail of the Word there are things which correspond to such as are in the spiritual world.

2184. That “butter” is the celestial of the rational; that “milk” is the derivative spiritual; and that a “son of an ox” is the corresponding natural, is evident from the signification of “butter,” of “milk,” and of a “son of an ox.” As regards butter, it signifies in the Word what is celestial, and this from its fatness. (That fat denotes what is celestial was shown in Part First,n. 353; and that “oil,” because fat, is the celestial itself, n. 886) That “butter” also is the celestial, is evident in Isaiah:

Behold, a virgin beareth a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, Butter and honey shall He eat, that He may know to refuse what is evil, and choose what is good (Isaiah 7:14-15),

where the Lord (who is “Immanuel”) is treated of; and anyone can see that butter is not signified by “butter,” nor honey by “honey;” but that by “butter” is signified His celestial, and by “honey” that which is from the celestial.

[2] In the same:

And it shall come to pass, for the multitude of the making of milk He shall eat butter; for butter and honey shall everyone eat that is left in the midst of the land (Isaiah 7:22),

where the Lord’s kingdom is treated of, and those on earth who are in the Lord’s kingdom. “Milk” here denotes spiritual good, “butter” celestial good, and “honey” the derivative happiness.

[3] In Moses:

Jehovah alone leadeth him, and there is no strange god with him. He maketh him to ride upon the high places of the earth, and to eat the produce of the fields, and He maketh him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flint of the rock; butter of the herd, and milk of the flock, with the fat of lambs, and of rams the sons of Bashan, and of he-goats, with the fat of the kidneys of wheat; and of the blood of the grape shalt thou drink unmixed wine [merum] (Deuteronomy 32:12-14).

No one can understand what these things denote unless he knows the internal sense of each one. It appears like a heap of expressions such as are used by the eloquent among the wise ones of the world, and yet every expression signifies the celestial and its spiritual, and also the derivative blessedness and happiness, and all these in a well-ordered series. “Butter of the herd” is the celestial natural, “milk of the flock” is the celestial-spiritual of the rational.

[4] But as regards milk, as before said, this signifies the spiritual from the celestial, that is, the celestial-spiritual. (What the celestial-spiritual is may be seen in Part First,n. 1577, 1824, and occasionally elsewhere.) That “milk” is the spiritual which is from the celestial, comes from the fact that “water” signifies what is spiritual (n. 680, 739); but “milk,” as there is fat in it, signifies the celestial-spiritual, or what is the same, the truth of good; or what is the same, the faith of love or of charity; or what is also the same, the intellectual of the good of the will; and again the same, the affection of truth in which there is inwardly the affection of good; and yet again the same, the affection of knowledges [cognitiones et scientiae] from the affection of charity toward the neighbor, such as exists with those who love the neighbor, and confirm themselves in this love from the knowledges of faith, and also from memory-knowledges, which they love on this account. All these things are the same as the celestial-spiritual, and are predicated according to the subject treated of.

[5] That this is signified, is evident also from the Word, as in Isaiah:

Everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no silver, come ye, buy, and eat; yea come, buy wine and milk without silver, and without price. Wherefore do ye weigh silver for that which is not bread? (Isaiah 55:1-2),

where “wine” denotes the spiritual which is of faith, and “milk” the spiritual which is of love.

In Moses:

He hath washed his garment in wine, and his clothing in the blood of grapes; his eyes are redder than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk (Genesis 49:11-12),

which is the prophecy of Jacob, then Israel, concerning Judah; and by Judah the Lord is here described, and by his “teeth being whiter than milk,” is signified the celestial-spiritual that pertained to His natural.

[6] In Joel:

It shall be in that day that the mountains shall drop new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk; and all the brooks of Judah shall flow with waters (Joel 3:18),

speaking of the Lord’s kingdom; “milk” denotes the celestial-spiritual. In the Word the land of Canaan also (by which the Lord’s kingdom is represented and signified) is called a “land flowing with milk and honey” (as in Numbers 13:27; 14:8; Deuteronomy 26:9, 15; 27:3; Jeremiah 11:5; 32:22; Ezekiel 20:6, 15), and in these passages nothing else is meant by “milk” than an abundance of celestial-spiritual things, and by “honey” an abundance of the derivative happinesses; the “land” is the celestial itself of the kingdom, from which those things come.

[7] As regards the “son of an ox,” it was shown just above that thereby is signified the celestial natural (n. 2180), the celestial natural being the same as natural good, or good in the natural. The natural of man, like his rational, has its good and its truth; for there is everywhere the marriage of good and truth (as said above, n. 2173). The good of the natural is the delight which is perceived from charity, or from the friendship which is of charity; from which delight there comes forth a pleasure which is properly of the body. The truth of the natural is the memory-knowledge [scientificum] which favors that delight. Hence it is evident what the celestial natural is.