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).

4292. In the internal historical sense by “he said, Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,” is signified that they could not represent as Jacob, but as from a new quality given them. This may be seen from the meaning of “Jacob” in the Word, as being his posterity (see n. 4281); and from the signification of a “name,” as being quality (s ee just above, n. 4291). The new quality itself is “Israel” in the internal sense; for “Israel” is the celestial spiritual, thus the internal man (n. 4286). And because “Israel” is the celestial spiritual and thus the internal man, “Israel” is also the internal spiritual church; for whether you speak of the spiritual man or the spiritual church, it is the same thing; because the spiritual man is a church in particular, and a number are a church in general. If a man were not a church in particular, there would not be any church in general. A congregation in general is what in common speech is called a church, but in order that there may be any church, everyone in this congregation must be such as is the church in general, because every general involves parts similar to itself.

[2] As regards the matter itself (that they could not represent as Jacob, but as from a new quality given them, which is “Israel”) the case is this. It was specifically Jacob’s posterity who represented the church, but not Isaac’s specifically; for Isaac’s posterity were not from Jacob only, but also from Esau. Still less was it Abraham’s posterity specifically; for Abraham’s posterity were not from Jacob only, but also from Esau, and likewise from Ishmael, as also from his sons by his second wife Keturah—thus from Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah, and their sons (see Genesis 25:1-4). Now as Jacob’s posterity insisted on being representative (as shown just above n. 4290), they could not represent as Jacob, nor as Isaac, nor as Abraham. That they could not as Jacob was because Jacob represented the external of the church, but not its internal; and they could not as Isaac at the same time, nor as Abraham at the same time, for the reason just adduced.

[3] There was therefore no other way by which they could represent the church than by a new name being given to Jacob, and thereby a new quality; which new quality should signify the internal spiritual man, or what is the same, the internal spiritual church. This new quality is “Israel.” Every church of the Lord is internal and external, as has been repeatedly shown. The internal church is what is represented, and the external is what represents. Moreover the internal church is either spiritual or celestial. The internal spiritual church was represented by Israel, and the internal celestial church was afterwards represented by Judah. Therefore also a division was made, and the Israelites were a kingdom by themselves, and the Jews were a kingdom by themselves; but on this subject of the Lord’s Divine mercy hereafter. Hence it is evident that Jacob (that is, the posterity of Jacob) could not represent a church as Jacob, for this would be to represent only the external of a church; but must also do so as Israel, because “Israel” is the internal.

[4] That the internal is what is represented, and the external what represents, has been shown before, and may likewise be seen from man himself. Man’s speech represents his thought, and his action represents his will. Speech and action are man’s externals, and thought and will are his internals. Furthermore, man’s face itself, by its varying looks, represents both his thought and his will. That the face by its looks represents, is known to everyone; for with the sincere their interior states may be seen from the looks of the face. In a word, all things of the body represent what is of the animus and of the mind.

[5] The case is similar with the externals of the church, for these are like a body, and the internals are like a soul—as the altars and the sacrifices upon them, which as is known were external things; in like manner the showbreads; also the lampstand with its lights; and likewise the perpetual fire: that these represented internal things may be known to everyone; and it is the same with the rest of the rites. That these external things could not represent external but internal things, is evident from what has been adduced. Thus Jacob could not represent as Jacob, because “Jacob” is the external of the church; but Jacob could represent as Israel, because “Israel” is its internal. This is what is meant by the new quality given in order that the posterity of Jacob might represent.

6306. Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite. That this signifies by victory over evil, is evident from the representation of the Amorite, as being evil (see n. 1857); and from the signification of “taking out of the hand,” as being to acquire through victory. As regards the Amorites, be it known that by them is signified evil, and also by the Canaanites; and by the rest of the nations in that land which are mentioned in the Word are signified various kinds of evil and also of falsity. Such things were represented by the nations when the sons of Israel came into possession of the land of Canaan, for the reason that, while the sons of Israel represented heavenly things, those nations represented infernal things, and in this way the land of Canaan represented every state of the other life; and because the nations represented infernal things, they were given to the curse, and it was forbidden to enter into a covenant with those which remained.

[2] That the sons of Israel seized and inhabited the land of those who represented the hells was a representative that about the time of the Lord’s coming the infernals would have occupied a large part of heaven; and that by coming into the world and making the Human in Himself Divine the Lord would expel them and cast them down into the hells, and thus deliver heaven from them, and give it for an inheritance to those who would be of His spiritual kingdom.

[3] That by the Amorite nation was represented evil in general, is plain from the passages where it is mentioned, as in Ezekiel:

Jerusalem, thy tradings and thy generations were from the land of the Canaanite; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite (Ezekiel 16:3, 45);

as in the internal sense “father” signifies the good of the church, but in the opposite sense evil; and “mother” signifies the truth of the church, but in the opposite sense falsity, therefore it is said “thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite.”

[4] And in Amos:

I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was sturdy as the oak. I led you in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite (Amos 2:9-10);

here also the “Amorite” denotes evil, for the evil of the love of self is described by the “height of the cedars and the sturdiness of the oak.” That the “Amorite” is evil in general, is because the whole land of Canaan was called “the land of the Amorite;” for it is said, “I led you in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.” Again in the second book of Kings:

Manasseh king of Judah hath done evil above all the evil that the Amorites did, who were before him (2 Kings 21:11).

[5] That “with my sword” signifies by means of truth combating, is evident from the signification of “sword,” as being truth combating (see n. 2799, 4499). And that “with my bow” signifies by means of doctrine, is evident from the signification of “bow,” as being doctrine (n. 2686, 2709).

[6] That the words “the portion which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow” were spoken by Israel on account of the internal sense, is very manifest, because Jacob did not take that portion from the Amorite with his sword nor with his bow, but bought it of the sons of Hamor, as is plain from the words in Genesis:

Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came thither from Paddan-aram; and encamped before the city. And he bought the portion of the field, where he had spread his tent, from the hand of the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred kesitah (Genesis 33:18-19).

That this field was the portion which he gave to Joseph, is evident from these words in Joshua:

The bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in the portion of the field which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred kesitah; and they were for an inheritance to the sons of Joseph (Josh. 24:32).

From this it is plain that that portion was bought, and that it was what was given to Joseph.

[7] That the city of Shechem was not meant, which was near there, where Simeon and Leviticus slew every male, and which they took with the sword (Genesis 34), may be seen from the fact that Jacob abhorred that deed, and on that account cursed Simeon and Levi, and utterly put away from himself that deed, saying:

Let not my soul come into their secret; in their assembly let not my glory be united; for in their anger they slew a man, and in their good pleasure they unstrung an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it was vehement; and their wrath, for it was hard: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel” (Genesis 49:5-7).

From all this it is now evident that these words, “one portion which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow,” were said by him when he was in the prophetic spirit, for the sake of the internal sense.