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).

41. CHAPTER III. BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED GOD'S TRINITY DID NOT EXIST

1. That God is one, the Sacred Scripture teaches, and reason enlightened by the Lord sees this in Scripture and from it. But that God was triune before the world was created, Sacred Scripture does not teach, and reason enlightened from it does not see. What is said in David concerning the Son, "this day have I begotten Thee" [Ps. 2:7.], does not mean "from eternity" but "in the fullness of time", for in God what is to come is present, thus it is "this day", in the same way as this passage in Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and His name God, Hero, Father of eternity" [Isa. 9:6].

2. What rational mind, hearing that before the world was created there were three Divine Persons named Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has not said within himself when he thinks about them, What does it mean-a Son born from God the Father from eternity? And how could He be born? And then, what is a Holy Spirit proceeding from God the Father through the Son from eternity? And how could it proceed and become a God by itself? Or how could a person beget a person from eternity, and both produce a person? Isn't a person a person? How can three Persons, each one of whom is a God, be conjoined into One God, in any other way than by being conjoined into One Person? Yet this latter is contrary to Theology, though being conjoined into One God is in agreement with it. How can the Godhead be distinguished into three Persons, yet not into three Gods, when nevertheless each Person is God? How can the Divine Essence which is One, and the Same, and Indivisible, come under numerical consideration, consequently be either divided or multiplied? And how could three Divine Persons have been together and have held consultations with one another in the absence of extended space, as the case was before the world was created? How could three equal to Himself have been produced by Jehovah God, who is One, and consequently the Only, Infinite, Immeasurable, Eternal, Omnipotent? How is it possible to conceive of a trinity of persons in God's unity, or of God's unity in a trinity of persons? Apart from the fact that the idea of plurality destroys the idea of unity, and conversely. Perhaps too one might suppose that, if this were feasible, it would have been feasible for the Greeks and Romans also to combine all their Gods, many as they were, together into one God, merely by means of "identity of essence".

3. A rational mind, turning over in the thought and pondering upon a Trinity of Persons from eternity in the Godhead, could have considered, too, what was the use of a Son being born, and of a Holy Spirit going forth from the Father through the Son, before the world was created! Was there any need for the three to hold consultations as to how the universe should be created, and so, for the three to create it? When in fact the universe was created by the One God. Nor was there any need for the Son to redeem, when in fact redemption was effected in the fullness of time after the world was created. Nor for the Holy Spirit to sanctify, because as yet there was no man to be sanctified. So then, if those uses were in God's design (idea), still it was not before the world but after it that the design came forth into actual existence. From which it follows that a Trinity from eternity would not be a Trinity in reality but only in idea; and still more so, a Trinity of Persons.

4. Who is there in the Church able to understand the following, when he reads the Athanasian Creed, "it is according to Christian verity that each Person by Himself is God, nevertheless according to the Catholic religion it is not lawful to make mention of three Gods"? Is not "religion" to him thus something different from "verity"? And is it not according to verity that three Persons are three Gods, but according to religion they are one God?

5. A trinity of persons in the Godhead before the world was created did not enter the mind of anyone from the time of Adam to the Lord's Advent, as appears plainly from the Word of the Old Testament and from the accounts of the religion of the people of old. Nor did it enter the minds of the Apostles, as is evident from their writings in the Word. Nor did it enter the mind of anyone in the Apostolic Church which existed prior to the Nicene Council, as appears plainly from the Apostles' Creed, in which there is no mention of any Son from eternity, but of a Son born of the virgin Mary. A Trinity of Persons from eternity is not only beyond reason, it is contrary to reason.

It is contrary to reason that three Persons have created the universe; that there were three Persons, each one of them God, and yet not three Gods but one; and again, that there were three Persons and not one Person.

Will not the New Church that is to be pronounce the age of the Old Church a dark or barbarian age when people worshipped three Gods? Similarly irrational are the things that have come out of that Trinity.

6. A Trinity of Persons from eternity in the Godhead was first propounded by the Nicene Council, as is evident from two creeds, the Nicene and the Athanasian. After that, it was accepted as the chief dogma and as the fountain-head of their doctrines by the Churches that have existed since up to the present day.

There were two reasons for that Trinity being propounded by the Nicene Council; one was that they knew no other way of dispelling the scandals of Arius, who denied the Divinity of the Lord; the other was that they did not understand what was written by John the Evangelist. [John 1:1-2, 10, 14; 16:28; 17:5.] How these statements are to be understood may be seen above.

7. This belief of the Nicene Council and of the Churches since, that the Godhead before the world was created was made up of three Persons, each one of whom was God, and that from the first Person was born the second, and from these two went forth the third, is not only beyond one's understanding, it is contrary to it as well, and is faith in a paradox, which is contrary to the understanding's reason; it is a faith that has in it nothing of the Church, but instead a persuasion of what is false, such as that which exists with those suffering from religious mania. Not that this-suffering from religious mania-is said as applying to those who, without seeing things to be contradictory or contrary to Sacred Scripture, put belief in them; and so it does not apply to the Nicene Council nor to the Churches derived from it since that time, inasmuch as they did not see.