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).

9002. If he shall take him another. That this signifies conjunction with the affection of truth from another stock, is evident from the signification of “taking” or “betrothing” another, as being to be conjoined (see n. 8996); for in the spiritual sense, matrimony, which is here meant by “betrothing,” denotes the conjunction of the life of the one with that of the other. According to Divine order there is a conjunction of the life from the truths of faith with the life from the good of charity. From this comes all spiritual conjunction, from which as from its origin comes forth natural conjunction. By “taking another” is signified conjunction with the affection of truth from another stock, for the “maidservant” before spoken of denotes the affection of truth from natural delight (n. 8993); consequently “another” denotes the affection of truth from another stock.

[2] What is meant by “affection from another stock” may be known from the fact that all affection which is of love is of the widest extension, so wide indeed as to surpass all human understanding. The human understanding does not even go so far as to know the genera of the varieties of this affection, still less the species of these genera, and less still the particulars, and singulars of the particulars. For whatsoever is in man, especially that which is of affection or love, is of infinite variety, as can plainly be seen from the fact that the affection of good and truth, which is of love to the Lord and of love toward the neighbor, constitutes the universal heaven, and that nevertheless all who are in the heavens, where there are myriads, differ from one another as to good, and will differ even if they should be multiplied to countless myriads of myriads. For there cannot be in the universe one thing that is exactly like another, and that subsists in a distinct way; it must be various, that is, different from all others, in order that it may be anything by itself (see n. 684, 690, 3241, 3744, 3745, 3986, 4005, 4149, 5598, 7236, 7833, 7836, 8003). From all this it can in some measure be known what is meant by “an affection from another stock,” namely, an affection which differs from the other, but which can nevertheless be conjoined with the same spiritual truth. Such affections as are represented by maidservants betrothed to one man, are of one genus; but there is a difference among them as to species, which is called a “specific” difference. These things might be illustrated by various examples; but the general idea derived from what has been already said will suffice.

[3] In order that there might be represented the conjunctions and subordinations of such affections under one spiritual truth, it was permitted the Israelitish and Jewish nation to have a number of concubines-as to Abraham (Genesis 25:6), also to David, Solomon, and others. For whatever was permitted that nation was for the sake of the representation; namely, that by things external they might represent the internal things of the church (n. 3246). But when the internal things of the church had been opened by the Lord, the representations of internal things by external ceased, because it was then internal things, which are those of faith and love, with which the man of the church was to be imbued, and by means of which he was to worship the Lord; and therefore it was then no longer permissible to have more wives than one, nor to have concubines for wives (n. 865, 2727-2759, 3246, 4837).

4837. And it came to pass, when he came to his brother’s wife, and he destroyed it to the earth. That this signifies what is contrary to conjugial love, is evident from what now follows. By Er, Judah’s firstborn, is described the falsity of evil in which the Jewish nation was at first; by Onan the second son is described the evil which is from the falsity of evil, in which that nation was afterwards; and by Shelah the third son is described the idolatry thence derived, in which they were thereafter continually (n. 4826). Evil from the falsity of evil is described by what Onan did - that he was not willing to give seed to his brother, but that he destroyed it to the earth. That by this is signified what is contrary to conjugial love, is because in the internal sense by the conjugial is meant what is of the church; for the church is the marriage of good and truth, and to this marriage, evil from the falsity of evil is altogether contrary, that is, those who are in such evil are contrary to this marriage.

[2] That this nation had not anything conjugial, whether understood in a spiritual or in a natural sense, is very evident from the fact that they were permitted to have more wives than one; for where there is the conjugial as understood in a spiritual sense, that is, where the good and truth of the church are, consequently where the church is, this is by no means permitted, for the genuine conjugial is never possible except among those with whom the church or kingdom of the Lord is, and not with these except between two (n. 1907, 2740, 3246). Marriage between two persons who are in genuine conjugial love corresponds to the heavenly marriage, that is, to the conjunction of good and truth, the husband corresponding to good, and the wife to the truth of this good; moreover, when they are in genuine conjugial love, they are in this heavenly marriage. Therefore wherever the church is, it is never permitted to have more wives than one; but because there was no church among the posterity of Jacob, but only a representative of a church, or the external of a church without its internal (n. 4311, 4500), it was therefore permitted among them. Further, the marriage of one husband with several wives would present in heaven an idea or image as if one good were conjoined with several truths which do not agree together, and thus as if there was no good; for a good from truths which do not agree together becomes none at all, since good has its quality from truths and their agreement.

[3] It would also present an image as if the church were not one, but several, and these distinct from one another according to the truths of faith, or according to doctrinals; when yet it is one when good is the essential in it and this is qualified and as it were modified by truths. The church is an image of heaven; for it is the kingdom of the Lord on earth. Heaven is distinguished into many general societies, and into lesser ones subordinate to these; but still they are one through good; for the truths of faith there are in agreement according to good; for they have regard to good, and are from it. If heaven were distinguished according to the truths of faith, and not according to good, there would be no heaven, for there would be no unanimity; for the angels could not have from the Lord a oneness of life, or one soul. This is possible only in good, that is in love to the Lord, and in love toward the neighbor. For love conjoins all; and when everyone has love for good and truth, they have a common life, which is from the Lord, and thus have the Lord, who conjoins all. The love of good and truth is what is called love toward the neighbor; for the neighbor is he who is in good and thence in truth, and in the abstract sense is good itself and its truth. From these things it may be seen why within the church marriage must be between one husband and one wife; and why it was permitted the descendants of Jacob to take a number of wives; and that the reason for this was that there was no church among them, and consequently a representative of a church could not be instituted among them by marriages, because they were in what is contrary to conjugial love.