4835. Come to thy brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. That this signifies that he should continue it, namely, the representative of the church, is evident from the signification of “to come” or “enter to a brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her,” as being to preserve and continue that which is of the church. The commandment in the Mosaic law that if any man died childless, his brother should take the widow to wife and raise up seed to his brother, and that the firstborn should be called by the name of the deceased brother, but the rest of the sons should be his own, was called “the duty of the husband’s brother.” That this statute was not a new thing originating in the Jewish Church, but had been in use before, is evident from this history, and the same is true of many other statutes that were commanded the Israelites by Moses-as that they should not take wives of the daughters of the Canaanites, and that they should marry within their families (Genesis 24:3-4; 28:1-2). From these and many other instances it is evident that there had been a church before, in which such things had been instituted as were afterwards promulgated and enjoined upon the sons of Jacob. That altars and sacrifices had been in use from ancient times is plain from Genesis 8:20-21; 22:3, 7-8, 13. From this it is clear that the Jewish Church was not a new church, but that it was a resuscitation of the Ancient Church which had perished.

[2] What the law in regard to the husband’s brother had been is evident in Moses:

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the deceased shall not marry without, to a strange man; her husband’s brother shall enter to her, and take her to him to wife, and thus perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. Then it shall be that the first-born whom she beareth shall stand upon the name of his deceased brother, that his name be not blotted out of Israel. But if the man will not marry his brother’s wife, his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuses to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand and say, I desire not to take her; then shall his brother’s wife come near unto him in the sight of the elders, and shall draw his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house; whence his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe taken off (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

[3] One who does not know what the duty of a husband’s brother represents, can have no other belief than that it was merely for the sake of preserving the name, and hence the inheritance; but the preservation of a name and of an inheritance was not of so much importance that for the sake of it a brother should enter into marriage with his brother’s wife; but this was enjoined that thereby might be represented the preservation and continuation of the church. For marriage represented the marriage of good and truth, that is, the heavenly marriage, and consequently the church also, for the church is a church from the marriage of good and truth; and when the church is in this marriage it makes one with heaven, which is the heavenly marriage itself. As marriage has this representation, therefore sons and daughters represented and also signified truths and goods; wherefore to be childless signified a deprivation of good and truth, thus that there was no longer any representative of the church in that house, consequently that it was out of communion. Moreover, the brother represented kindred good, with which might be conjoined the truth which was represented by the widowed wife; for in order that truth may be the truth which has life and produces fruit, and so continue that which is of the church, it cannot be conjoined with any other than its own and kindred good. This is what is perceived in heaven by the duty prescribed to the husband’s brother.

[4] That if the man would not perform the duty of a husband’s brother, his brother’s wife should take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, signified that, as one who was devoid of external and internal good and truth, he would destroy the things of the church; for a “shoe” is what is external (n. 1748), and the “face” is what is internal (n. 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796). From this it is evident that by the duty of the husband’s brother was represented the preservation and continuation of the church. But when the representatives of internal things ceased by the coming of the Lord, then this law was abolished. This is circumstanced as are the soul or spirit of man and his body. The soul or spirit of man is his internal, and the body is his external; or what is the same, the soul or spirit is the very form of man, but the body is his representative image; and when a man rises again, his representative image, or his external, which is the body, is put off; for he is then in his internal, or in his form itself. It is circumstanced also as is one who is in darkness, and from it sees the things which are of the light; or what is the same as is one who is in the light of the world, and from this sees the things which are of the light of heaven; for the light of the world in comparison with the light of heaven is as darkness. In darkness, or in the light of the world, the things which are of the light of heaven do not appear such as they are in themselves, but as in a representative image, as the mind of man appears in his face; and therefore when the light of heaven appears in its clearness, the darkness or representative image is dissipated. This was effected by the coming of the Lord.

4835a. And raise up seed to thy brother. That this signifies lest the church should perish, is evident from the signification of “seed,” as being truth from good, or the faith of charity (n. 1025, 1447, 1610, 1940, 2848, 3310, 3373, 3671). The like is also signified by the “firstborn who was to stand upon the name of the deceased brother” (n. 352[1], 367, 2435, 3325, 3494). To “raise up the seed to a brother” is to continue that which is of the church, according to what was said just above (see n. 4834), thus lest the church should perish.

1850. Will I judge. That this signifies visitation and judgment, may be seen without explication. By “judging,” or “judgment,” there is not signified any last judgment, as people in general suppose, that is, that the heaven and the earth are to perish, and that so a new heaven and a new earth will be created, as spoken of in the Prophets and in Revelation; and thus that all things are to perish, which opinion has spread itself so widely that it has even taken possession of the minds of those who are best instructed; and this to such a degree that they do not believe that the dead are to rise except at that time. And therefore because this time was foretold, and still, after so many centuries have since passed by, they see that it has not come and is not at hand, feeling safe they confirm themselves in their assurance that there is no such thing, and therefore that they will not rise again. But it is to be known that by the last judgment, or by the destruction of heaven and earth, no such thing is meant. According to the sense of the letter it is so; but not at all according to the internal sense: in this sense the last judgment means the last time of the church; the heaven and earth that will perish, mean the church as to internal and external worship, which becomes no church when there is no charity.

[2] There was a last judgment of the Most Ancient Church when all charity and faith had failed, and when there was no perception, as was the case just before the flood. The flood itself, treated of above, was the last judgment of that church; heaven and earth, that is, the church, then perished; and a new heaven and a new earth, that is, a new church, were created, which was called the Ancient Church, and which also has been treated of. This church likewise had its last time, namely, when all charity grew cold and all faith was darkened, which was about the time of Eber. This time was the last judgment of that church; which was the heaven and earth that had perished.

[3] The Hebrew Church was a new heaven and a new earth, and this too had its last time, or last judgment, when it became idolatrous; and then a new church was raised up among the descendants of Jacob, which was called the Jewish Church, and which was a church that was merely representative of charity and faith. In this church, that is, among the descendants of Jacob, there was neither charity nor faith, and therefore no church, but only the representative of a church, for the reason that it had become impossible for there to be immediate communication of the Lord’s kingdom in the heavens with any true church on earth, and therefore a mediate communication was effected by means of representatives. The last time of this so-called church, or its last judgment, was when the Lord came into the world; for the representatives then ceased, that is, the sacrifices and similar rites; and in order that these might cease, the Jews were cast out of the land of Canaan.

[4] After this a new heaven and a new earth were created, that is, a new church, which is to be called the Primitive Church, which was commenced by the Lord, and afterwards gradually became stronger, and which at first was in charity and faith. The destruction of this church is foretold by the Lord in the Gospels, and by John in Revelation; and this destruction is what is called the Last Judgment. Not that heaven and earth are now to perish, but that in some quarter of the globe a new church will be raised up, the present one remaining in its external worship, as the Jews do in theirs, in whose worship it is well known that there is nothing of charity and faith, that is, nothing of the church. So far as regards the last judgment in general.

[5] In particular, there is a last judgment for everyone immediately after he dies; for he then passes into the other life, in which, when he comes into the life that he had had in the body, he is adjudged either to death or to life. There is also a last judgment in the singular, for with a man who is adjudged to death, every single thing condemns him, for there is nothing in his thought and will, not even the least thing, that does not resemble his last judgment, and that does not drag him to death. In like manner with the man who is adjudged to life: in him every single thing of his thought and of his will presents an image of his last judgment, and all carry him on to life. For such as is man in general, such is he in the singulars of his thought and of his affection. These are the things that are signified by the last judgment.