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).

3720. This is none other than the house of God. That this signifies the Lord’s kingdom in the ultimate of order, is evident from the signification of the “house of God.” Mention is made of the “house of God” in many passages of the Word, and in the external sense, or according to the letter, it signifies a consecrated building where there is holy worship; but in the internal sense it signifies the church; and in a more universal sense, heaven; and in the most universal sense, the Lord’s universal kingdom; in the supreme sense, however, it signifies the Lord Himself as to the Divine Human. In the Word we sometimes read of the “house of God,” sometimes of the “temple,” both having the same signification, but with this difference-that the “house of God” is mentioned where good is treated of; but the “temple” where truth is treated of. From this it is manifest that by the “house of God” is signified the Lord’s celestial church, and in a more universal sense the heaven of the celestial angels, and in the most universal sense the Lord’s celestial kingdom, and in the supreme sense the Lord as to Divine good; and that by the “temple” is signified the Lord’s spiritual church, and in a more universal sense the heaven of the spiritual angels, in the most universal sense the Lord’s spiritual kingdom, and in the supreme sense the Lord as to Divine truth (see n. 2048). The reason why the “house of God” signifies the celestial which is of good, and the “temple” the spiritual which is of truth, is that in the Word a “house” signifies good (n. 710, 2233, 2234, 2559, 3128, 3652), and also because among the most ancient people the houses were constructed of wood, for the reason that “wood” signifies good (n. 643, 1110, 2784, 2812); whereas “temple” signifies truth, because the temples were constructed of stones; and that “stones” signify truths, may be seen above (n. 643, 1296, 1298).

[2] That “wood” and “stone” have such a signification, is not only evident from the Word where they are mentioned, but also from the representatives in the other life; for they who place merit in good works, appear to themselves to cut wood; and they who place merit in truths, in that they have believed themselves to have been better acquainted with truth than others, and yet have lived evilly, appear to themselves to cut stones; which things have often been seen by me. From this I was assured what is the signification of wood and stone, namely that “wood” signifies good, and “stone” truth; and also from the experience that when a wooden house was seen, there was instantly presented an idea of good; but when a house of stone was seen, there was presented an idea of truth; concerning which I was instructed by angels. For this reason, when mention is made in the Word of the “house of God,” there is presented to the angels the idea of good, and good of such a quality as is treated of in that connection; and when mention is made of a “temple,” there is presented to them the idea of truth, and truth of such a quality as is treated of in that connection. From this again we can infer how deep and utterly hidden are the heavenly arcana in the Word.

[3] The reason why by the “house of God” is here signified the Lord’s kingdom in the ultimate of order, is that Jacob is treated of, by whom is represented the Lord’s Divine natural, as frequently shown above. The natural is in the ultimate of order, for in this all the interior things are terminated and are together; and because they are together, and thus things innumerable are viewed together as a one, there is relative obscurity there. This relative obscurity has been spoken of several times before.

9300. 'The first of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of [Jehovah] your God' means that every truth of good and every good of truth is holy because it comes from the Lord alone. This is clear from the meaning of 'the firstfruits of the ground' as the truth that the Church's forms of good and its truths must be attributed to the Lord alone (for these are meant by 'the firstfruits', see 9223, and the Church by 'the ground', 566, 1068), the expression 'the first of the firstfruits' being used because that truth must be paramount, since forms of good and truths receive their life from the Lord, that is, they receive it from the Lord when they are attributed to Him; and from the meaning of 'bringing into the house of God' as bringing them to the Lord, in order that they may be holy (for 'the house of God' is the Lord, see 3720, and everything holy comes from the Lord, 9229). From all this it is evident that 'the first of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of your God' means that every truth of good and every good of truth is holy because it comes from the Lord alone.

[2] The terms 'truth of good' and 'good of truth' are used because in the case of a person who is being regenerated, and especially of one who has been regenerated, truths emanate from good, and forms of good emanate from truth. For the truths compose the life of his understanding, and the good the life of his will. And with the person who has been regenerated understanding and will form a mind that is one, communicating reciprocally with each other; the truths which belong to the understanding communicate with the good which belongs to the will, and the good belonging to the will with the truths belonging to the understanding. There is a mutual flow from one to the other, scarcely any different from the flow of the blood from the heart into the lungs, and from them into the heart again, then from the left side of the heart into the arteries, and from these back again through veins into the heart. One can form an idea similar to this regarding the reciprocal flow of the good and truth with a person from his understanding into his will and from his will into his understanding. The reason why the heart and lungs can give us an idea especially of the reciprocal activity of the truth of faith and the good of charity in the understanding and the will is that the lungs correspond to the truths belonging to faith and the heart to the good belonging to love, 3635, 3883-3896. So it is also that 'the heart' in the Word means the life of the will, and 'the soul' ¹ the life of faith, 9050.

[3] The reason why those two organs can help us to form an idea regarding truths belonging to the understanding and good belonging to the will is that all things which are aspects of faith and of love are accompanied by ideas formed from such things as a person knows. For without ideas formed from things that can be known and things that can be perceived by the senses a person has no ability to think. And a person thinks properly, even about aspects of faith and love, when he does so from objects that correspond; for correspondences are natural truths in which spiritual truths are reflected as in a mirror. Therefore to the extent that ideas in the mind regarding spiritual realities are conceived of but not by means of those correspondences, they are formed either from the illusions of the senses or from absurdities. What a person's ideas are like regarding aspects of faith and of love is transparently evident in the next life, for people's ideas there are plainly perceptible.

[4] The statement that the truths of faith belong to a person's understanding and the good of charity to his will may seem to be nonsensical to people who say and are convinced that having a belief in matters of faith is all that is necessary. This is because the natural man and his power of understanding has no grasp whatever of things of that nature, and because faith comes not from a person himself but from the Lord. But those same people nevertheless acknowledge and believe that a person is enlightened by truths and inspired by good when he reads the Word, and that when he is enlightened he perceives what is or is not the truth. They also speak of those who excel others in uncovering truths from the Word as the enlightened. From this it is evident that those who are enlightened see and perceive within themselves whether something is the truth or not; what is then enlightened within them is their understanding, and what is then inspired within them is their will. But if that which enlightens them is the authentic truth of faith and that which inspires them is the authentic good of charity, it is the internal man's understanding that is enlightened and the internal man's will that is inspired. The situation is different if the truth of faith, or the good of charity, is unauthentic.

[5] People governed by these, and even those ruled by falsities and evils are indeed able to give their assent to the Church's truths; yet they have no inner ability to see and perceive whether they really are truths. So it is that most people keep to the teachings of the Church in which they were born but go no further than giving their assent to them. They would assent even to extremely heretical beliefs such as those of Socinianism or Judaism if they had been born from parents holding such beliefs. From all this it is evident that the understanding is enlightened in the case of those with an affection for truth arising from good but not in the case of those with an affection for truth arising from evil. In the case of those with an affection for truth arising from good the internal man's understanding is enlightened and the internal man's will is inspired, whereas in the case of those with an affection for truth arising from evil the internal man's understanding is not enlightened nor is the internal man's will inspired, for the reason that they are natural men and women. As a consequence of this they maintain that the natural man has no ability to grasp any thing which is a matter of faith.

[6] The fact that the understanding is what is enlightened by the truths of faith and the will is what is inspired by the good of charity in the case of those with an affection for truth arising from good, who are therefore more internal or spiritual men and women, is evident from the same kind of people in the next life. Those who are there are able to understand all matters of faith and to will all that constitutes charity, as they themselves also clearly perceive. Consequently intelligence and wisdom beyond description are theirs; for after they have cast aside the body they enjoy that more internal understanding which was being enlightened in the world and that more internal will which was being inspired in the world. But they could not perceive during that time how they were being enlightened and inspired because during that time their thinking took place within the body and was founded on such things as belong to the world. From all this it is now clear that the truths of faith compose the life of the understanding and the good of charity composes the life of the will, that is, that the understanding ought to be present in those things which are matters of faith and the will in those which are aspects of charity. Or what amounts to the same thing, those two powers of mind are what faith and charity from the Lord flow into; and these are received according to the state of those powers. Thus the Lord's dwelling-place with a person is nowhere else than within those powers.

[7] An idea of what more there is to all this may be gained from what has been stated about the internal man and the external man in 6057, 9279, namely this: The internal man has been created so as to conform to an image of heaven, but the external man so as to conform to an image of the world; and those whose internal man has not been opened up see nothing from a heavenly point of view. And what they see from a worldly point of view regarding heaven is thick darkness, as a consequence of which they cannot have any spiritual idea about such things as are matters of faith and charity. As a result of this furthermore they fail so completely even to see what Christian good is, that is, what charity is, that they entirely suppose that the life of heaven consists solely in truths, which they call the truths of faith, and also that this life can be imparted to anyone at all with whom the assurance of faith exists though not the life of faith.

[8] How blind these people are regarding the life of faith, which is charity, is plainly evident from the consideration that they pay no attention whatever to thousands of things taught by the Lord Himself regarding goodness of life, and that when they read the Word they instantly toss them away behind the back of faith, thereby concealing them from themselves and from others. So it is also that anything which has to do with good, that is, with charity and its works, is banished by them from the teachings of the Church to that lower body of teachings which they call moral theology, and which they regard as natural, not spiritual. But in reality the life of charity remains after death, and faith only in the measure that it accords with that life, that is, thought regarding the truths of faith remains in the measure that there is a will to do good in accordance with them. Those who have faith that arises out of good are able to use any factual knowledge whatever to corroborate things for themselves and thereby make their faith stronger, see 2454, 2568, 2588, 4156, 4293, 4760, 5201, 6047, 8629.

Сноски: