1409、所描述的历史事件具有代表性，但每一个词都具有一个灵义，这一点从前面关于代表和象征或具有灵义的事物的阐述和说明（665，920，1361节）清楚看出来。既然代表从这里开始，那么就让我对这个问题作进一步的简要解释。属天的上古教会视一切尘世和世俗事物，以及肉体事物（无论从哪个方面说，它们都是感官对象）为死物。但由于世上的每一个事物都呈现出主的国度、因而属天和属灵事物的某种观念或形象，所以每当看见它们，或以某种感官遇见它们时，他们就会思想属天和属灵事物，而不是思想它们。事实上，他们不是从这些世俗事物来思考，而是借助它们来思考。对他们来说，死物以这种方式活了。
那些具有灵义的事物由这些人的后代从他们的口中搜集起来，并被这些后代变成教义，这就是大洪水后古教会的圣言。在古教会，这些教义是具有灵义的事物，因为他们通过教义认识内在事物，并从它们思想属灵和属天事物。但在这种知识开始消亡，以致他们不再知道所表示的是这类事物，并开始视地上和世俗的事物为神圣，敬拜它们，却不去思想它们的灵义之后，这些事物就成了代表。由此产生了代表性教会，该教会始于亚伯兰，后来在雅各的后代当中建立。由此可知，代表起源于古教会中具有灵义的事物，而这些事物则起源于上古教会的属天观念。
代表的性质从圣言的历史清楚看出来，其中那些祖先的一切行为，也就是说，亚伯兰、以撒和雅各的行为，以及后来摩西、士师或审判官、犹大和以色列的列王的行为都只是代表。如前所述（1402节），在圣言中，“亚伯兰”代表主，并因代表主，也代表属天人；“以撒”同样代表主，并由此代表属灵人；“雅各”也代表主，并由此代表对应于属灵人的属世人。
但代表具有这种性质：代表的这个人是何品性，根本不用考虑，只要考虑他所代表的事物。犹大和以色列的所有王，无论他们是哪种人，都代表主的王权；所有祭司，无论他们是哪种人，都代表主的祭司职分。因此，无论坏人、好人，都能代表主，以及主国度的属天和属灵事物，因为如前面所阐述和证明的（665，1361节），代表与这个人完全分离了。这就是为何圣言的所有历史都具有代表性；由于它们具有代表性，所以可推知，它们在内义上所表示的事物不同于它们在字义上所表示的。
New Century Edition
Cooper(2008,2013)
[NCE]1409. The idea that the historical facts are representative but the words are each symbolic can be seen from previous remarks and illustrations in 搂搂665, 920, and 1361 concerning representation and symbolism. Since the representative narrative begins here, let me give a further, brief explanation.
The people of the earliest church, which had a heavenly character, regarded every earthly, worldly, or bodily thing that ever presented itself to their senses as a dead object only. But each and every item in the world presents some image of the Lord's kingdom and so of heavenly and spiritual attributes. As a result, when they observed those objects, or encountered them by some other sense, their thoughts centered not on the objects but on aspects of heaven and of the spirit and came not from the objects but through them. So for them, dead objects were alive.
[2] The symbolic meanings of these items were received from their lips by the next generation, which gathered such meanings together and made doctrinal precepts out of them. Collectively, these formed the Word of the ancient church, after the Flood. Such precepts taught the people of the ancient church in a symbolic way, because they were both a means by which those people learned inward lessons, and the source of their thoughts about heavenly and spiritual matters.
This knowledge started to die out, however, so that people had no idea what such objects symbolized, and they began to make them sacred 钬?though they were worldly and temporal things 钬?and to worship them, without any thought of their symbolism. Then those same objects became representative. Such was the origin of the representative church, which commenced with Abram and was later established among Jacob's descendants.
From all this you can see that representation rose out of the symbolism of the ancient church and that the symbolism of the ancient church rose out of the heavenly ideas of the earliest church.
[3] The nature of representation can be seen from the Word's histories. There, all the deeds of these patriarchs 钬?Abram, Isaac, and Jacob 钬?and later of Moses, the Judges, and the monarchs of Judah and Israel, are nothing if not representative.
In the Word, as noted [搂1402], Abram represents the Lord, and because he represents the Lord, he also represents the heavenly self; Isaac too represents the Lord, and therefore the spiritual self; and Jacob as well represents the Lord, and therefore an earthly self corresponding to the spiritual self.
[4] The situation with regard to representation, though, is that it implies nothing about the character of the person but only about the phenomenon that the person represents. All the monarchs of Judah and Israel represented the Lord's sovereignty, no matter what they were like, and all the priests represented the Lord's priesthood, no matter what they in turn were like. So bad ones and good ones alike were able to represent the Lord and the heavenly and spiritual qualities of his realm. As stated and proved already [搂搂665, 1361], the representative meaning is completely separate from the person.
This, then, is why all the historical sections of the Word are representative. Since they are representative, it follows that all the words there are symbolic. That is, they mean something different in an inner sense than in the literal sense.
Potts(1905-1910) 1409
1409. That the historicals are representative, but all the words significative, is evident from what has already been said and shown concerning representatives and significatives (n. 665, 920, 1361); nevertheless, since representatives begin here, it is well to give briefly a further explanation of the subject. The Most Ancient Church, which was celestial, looked upon all earthly and worldly, and also bodily things, which were in any wise objects of the senses, as being dead things; but as each and all things in the world present some idea of the Lord's kingdom, consequently of things celestial and spiritual, when they saw them or apprehended them by any sense, they thought not of them, but of the celestial and spiritual things; indeed they thought not from the worldly things, but by means of them; and thus with them things that were dead became living. [2] The things thus signified were collected from their lips by their posterity and were formed by them into doctrinals, which were the Word of the Ancient Church, after the flood. With the Ancient Church these were significative; for through them they learned internal things, and from them they thought of spiritual and celestial things. But when this knowledge began to perish, so that they did not know that such things were signified, and began to regard the terrestrial and worldly things as holy, and to worship them, with no thought of their signification, the same things were then made representative. Thus arose the Representative Church, which had its beginning in Abram and was afterwards instituted with the posterity of Jacob. From this it may be known that representatives had their rise from the significatives of the Ancient Church, and these from the celestial ideas of the Most Ancient Church. [3] The nature of representatives may be manifest from the historicals of the Word, in which all the acts of the fathers, Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, and afterwards those of Moses, and of the judges and kings of Judah and Israel, were nothing but representatives. Abram in the Word, as has been said, represents the Lord; and because he represents the Lord, he represents also the celestial man; Isaac likewise represents the Lord, and thence the spiritual man; Jacob in like manner represents the Lord, and thence the natural man corresponding to the spiritual. [4] But with representatives the character of the person is not considered at all, but the thing which he represents; for all the kings of Judah and of Israel, of whatever character, represented the Lord's kingly function; and all the priests, of whatever character, represented His priestly function. Thus the evil as well as the good could represent the Lord and the celestial and spiritual things of His kingdom; for, as has been said and shown above, the representatives were altogether separated from the person. Hence then it is that all the historicals of the Word are representative; and because they are representative, it follows that all the words of the Word are significative, that is, that they have a different signification in the internal sense from that which they bear in the sense of the letter.
Elliott(1983-1999) 1409
1409. That the historical events as described are representative, but every word carries a spiritual meaning, becomes clear from what has been stated and shown already about representatives and about things that carry a spiritual meaning in 665, 920, 1361. Since representatives begin at this point, let a further brief explanation be given. The Most Ancient Church, which was celestial, regarded all earthly and worldly things, and also bodily things, which were in any way the objects of their senses, as nothing else than things that were dead. But because every single thing in the world presents some idea of the Lord's kingdom and therefore of celestial and spiritual things, they did not think about those objects whenever they saw them or became aware of them with some sensory power, but about celestial and spiritual things. And indeed they did not think from those worldly objects but by means of them. In this way things with them that were dead became living.
[2] Those things that carried a spiritual meaning were gathered from the lips of those people by their descendants, and these turned them into doctrinal teachings which constituted the Word of the Ancient Church after the Flood. These doctrinal teachings in the Ancient Church were things that carried a spiritual meaning, for through them they came to know internal things, and from them thought about spiritual and celestial things. But after this knowledge began to perish, so that they ceased to know that such things were meant and they started to regard those earthly and worldly things as holy and to worship them without any thought as to their spiritual meaning, those same things at that point became representative. From this arose the representative Church which began in Abram and was subsequently established among the descendants of Jacob. From this it may be known that representatives had their origin in the things in the Ancient Church which carried a spiritual meaning, and that these had their origin in the heavenly ideas present in the Most Ancient Church.
[3] The nature of representatives becomes clear from the historical parts of the Word, where all the acts of those forefathers, that is to say, the acts of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, and later on of Moses, the judges, and the kings of Judah and Israel, are nothing other than representatives. As has been stated, 'Abram' in the Word represents the Lord, and because he represents the Lord, he also represents the celestial man. 'Isaac' too represents the Lord, and from that the spiritual man, while 'Jacob' likewise represents the Lord, and from that the natural man corresponding to the spiritual.
[4] But the nature of representatives is such that no attention at all is paid to the character of the representative person, only to the thing which he represents For all the kings of Judah and Israel, no matter what kind of men they were, represented the Lord's Royalty, and all the priests, no matter what kind of men these were, His Priesthood. Thus bad men as well as good were able to represent the Lord, and the celestial and spiritual things of His kingdom, for, as stated and shown already, representatives were entirely separate from the person involved. So then all the historical narratives of the Word are representative, and as this is so it follows that all the words of the Word carry a spiritual meaning, that is, they mean something different in the internal sense from what they do in the sense of the letter.
Latin(1748-1756) 1409
1409. Quod historica sint repraesentativa sed omnia verba sint significativa, constare potest ex illis quae de repraesentativis et significativis prius dicta et ostensa sunt n. 665, 920, 1361; hic quia repraesentativa incohant, breviter adhuc rem licet exponere: Antiquissima Ecclesia quae fuit caelestis, omnia terrestria et mundana, tum corporea, quae usquam objecta fuerunt eorum sensuum, non aliter spectabant ac res mortuas; sed quia omnia et singula quae in mundo sunt, sistunt aliquam ideam regni Domini, proinde rerum caelestium et spiritualium, cum illa viderent aut caperent aliquo sensu, non cogitabant de iis sed de caelestibus et spiritualibus, et quidem non ab illis sed per illa; ita res mortuae apud eos vivebant. Haec quae significabant, ab ore illorum collegerunt posteri, et inde fecerunt doctrinalia quae fuerunt Verbum Ecclesiae Antiquae post diluvium; haec apud Ecclesiam Antiquam fuerunt significativa, nam per illa didicerunt interna et ex illis cogitarunt de spiritualibus et caelestibus. At postquam perire coepit cognitio illa, ut nescirent quod talia significarentur, atque inciperent terrestria illa et mundana sancta facere et colere, absque cogitatione de significatione eorum, tunc eadem facta sunt repraesentativa; inde Ecclesia repraesentativa quae incohat in Abramo, et postea instituta apud Jacobi posteros: inde sciri potest quod ortus repraesentativorum sit a significativis Ecclesiae Antiquae, et significativa Ecclesiae Antiquae a caelestibus ideis Antiquissimae Ecclesiae. Repraesentativa quomodo se habent, constare potest ab historicis Verbi ubi omnia acta patrum horum, nempe Abrami, Isaci et Jacobi, tum postea Mosis, judicum, regum Jehudae et Israelis, nihil aliud sunt quam repraesentativa: 'Abramus,' ut dictum, in Verbo repraesentat Dominum, et quia Dominum, etiam caelestem hominem, 'Isacus' quoque Dominum et inde spiritualem hominem, 'Jacobus' similiter Dominum et inde naturalem hominem correspondentem spirituali: sed ita se habet cum repraesentativis quod nihil reflectatur super personam qualis est, sed super rem quam repraesentat; omnes enim reges Jehudae et Israelis repraesentabant Regium Domini, qualescumque essent, et omnes sacerdotes Sacerdotale Domini, qualescumque essent; ita potuerunt tam mali quam boni repraesentare Dominum, et Ipsius regni caelestia et spiritualia; nam, ut dictum et ostensum prius, repraesentativa prorsus separata sunt a persona. Inde nunc est quod omnia historica Verbi sint repraesentativa et quia illa sunt repraesentativa, sequitur quod omnia verba Verbi sint significativa, hoc est, quod aliud significent in sensu interno quam in sensu litterae.