4859. And covered herself in a veil. That this signifies truth obscured, is evident from the signification of “covering herself” or her face “with her veil,” as being to conceal, and thus to obscure the truth which pretended to be from good, as just above (n. 4858); and this for the purpose of conjunction with Judah. For when a bride first approached the bridegroom she covered herself with a veil-as we read of Rebekah when she came to Isaac (Genesis 24:65); and by this were signified appearances of truth (n. 3207). For a wife signifies truth, and a husband good; and as truth does not appear in its quality until it is being conjoined with its good, therefore for the sake of representing this the bride covered herself with a veil on first seeing her husband. The case is similar here with Tamar, for she regarded Shelah Judah’s son as her husband, but because she was not given to him, she regarded his father in his stead as one to perform the duty of a husband’s brother. Therefore she covered herself with a veil as a bride, and not as a harlot, though Judah believed the latter because harlots also were wont at that time to cover their faces, as is evident from verse 15. The reason why Judah so regarded her was that the Jewish nation, which is there signified by “Judah,” regarded the internal truths of the representative church no otherwise than as a harlot; and therefore Judah was conjoined with her as with a harlot, but not so Tamar with him. Because internal truths could not appear otherwise to that nation, therefore truth obscured is here signified by Tamar’s covering herself in a veil. That the truth of the church is obscured to them, is represented also at this day by their covering themselves with veils in their synagogues.

[2] There was a similar representation with Moses when the skin of his face shone as he came down from Mount Sinai, so that he covered himself with a veil whenever he spoke to the people (Exodus 34:28 to the end). Moses represented the Word which is called the Law (see the preface to Genesis 18); for which reason it is sometimes said the “Law and the Prophets” (as in Matthew 5:17, 11:13; 22:36, 40); and sometimes “Moses and the Prophets” (as in Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44). By the shining of the skin of his face was represented the internal of the Word, for the “face” is the internal (n. 358, 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796, 4797), which being spiritual is in the light of heaven. His veiling his face whenever he spoke to the people represented that internal truth was covered to them, and thus obscured so that they should not have to endure any light from it.

2209. And I am become old. That this signifies after it should no longer be of such a nature, namely, not Divine but human, and that this latter should be put off, is evident from the signification of “becoming old,” as being to put off the human (spoken of above, n. 2198, 2203). As regards the rational in general, when it thinks about Divine things, especially from its own truth, it cannot possibly believe that there are such things; both because it does not apprehend them, and because there adhere to it the appearances born from the fallacies of the senses by which and from which it thinks; as is evident from the examples adduced above (n. 2196); to which the following may be added for the sake of illustration.

[2] If the rational be consulted, can it believe that the Word has an internal sense, and this so remote from the literal sense as has been shown? And thus that the Word is that which conjoins heaven with earth, that is, the Lord’s kingdom in the heavens with the Lord’s kingdom on earth? Can the rational believe that souls after death speak with each other most distinctly, without the speech of words, and yet so fully as to express more in a minute than a man does by his speech in an hour? And that the angels do the same, but in a speech still more perfect, and one that is not perceivable by spirits? Also, that on coming into the other life all souls know how to speak in this way, although they receive no instruction in so speaking? Can the rational believe that in one affection of man, nay, in one sigh, there are such numberless things as can never be described, and yet are perceived by angels? And that every affection of man, nay, every idea of his thought, is an image of him, being such as to contain within it in a wonderful manner all the things of his life? Not to mention thousands upon thousands of such things.

[3] The rational, which is wise from sensuous things, and is imbued with their fallacies, when thinking of such things, does not believe that they can be so, because it is unable to form to itself any idea except from such things as it perceives by some sense either external or internal; and what then must be the case when it thinks about Divine celestial and spiritual things, which are still higher? For there must always be some appearances from sensuous things, upon which the thought must lean, and when these appearances are withdrawn, the idea perishes, as has also been evident to me from novitiate spirits, who take the greatest delight in the appearances which they have brought with them from the world, saying that if these should be taken away from them, they did not know whether they could think. Such is the rational as regarded in itself.