9090. 'And when a man's ox inflicts a blow on [his] companion's ox' means two truths with dissimilar affections, and the affection with one injures that with the other. This is clear from the meaning of 'inflicting a blow' as injuring truth, dealt with above in 9057; from the meaning of 'an ox' as an affection for good, and in the contrary sense an affection for evil in the natural, also dealt with above, in 9065; and from the meaning of 'a man' as truth, dealt with in 9034, so that 'man' and 'companion' mean two truths. The reason why dissimilar affections are what are meant is that they are oxen, by which affections are meant, that injure each other. For things which are dissimilar injure each other, but not those which are not dissimilar.

[2] Those unacquainted with the nature of representatives and correspondences may be astonished to learn that 'an ox', being a beast, can mean an affection for good or an affection for evil present with a person But let them know that all beasts mean such things as belong to some affection or inclination. This is very well known in the spiritual world, for various kinds of beasts frequently make their appearance there, such as oxen' young bulls, cows, horses, mules, asses, sheep, she-goats, kids, and lambs; also evil beasts, such as tigers, panthers, bears, dogs, pigs, and serpents, as well as beasts seen nowhere on our planet; and in addition various kinds of birds.

[3] The idea that such creatures make their appearance there lies far beyond the belief of those who suppose that nothing exists apart from what they see with their bodily eyes. But these same people also refuse to believe in the existence of spirits or angels, even more so in the idea that they appear to themselves as persons, see one another, talk to one another, and touch one another. Their incredulity is due to their thinking so much on the level of the senses and the body that they suppose their bodies alone are living. This is why, as has been stated, the idea of such creatures lies far beyond their belief. But I have not only seen such sights thousands of times; I have also been told where the creatures I have seen come from, and what they are signs of. I have also accordingly been told that, when presented visually in animal forms, affections for good in the natural appear as harmless oxen, and affections for evil as harmful oxen, and that all other affections are presented in the forms of other animals. So it is that different kinds of beasts are the signs of the various kinds of affections in a person to which they correspond. But regarding these matters see what has been shown already in 142, 143, 246, 714-716, 719, 1823, 2179, 2180, 2781, 2805, 2807, 2830, 3218, 3519, 5198, 7523.

4823. 'And she conceived again and bore a son' means evil. This is clear from the meaning of 'a son' as truth and also good, dealt with in 264, and so in the contrary sense as falsity and also evil, though evil that arises out of falsity. Essentially this kind of evil is falsity, because it has its origin in this. For anyone who does what is evil arising out of false teaching does what is false; but because this falsity is realized in action it is called evil. The meaning which the firstborn carries of falsity and consequent evil is evident from the statement made here regarding this [second] son, to the effect that in action he did what was evil. The actual words are 'he spilled his seed on the ground, so that he should not provide seed for his brother; and what he had done was evil in the eyes of Jehovah; and He caused him to die also', verses 9-10. The fact that this evil arose out of falsity is also evident at that point. What is more, in the ancient Churches the secondborn meant the truth of faith realized in action; therefore the second son here means falsity realized in action, which is evil. It may also be recognized that evil is meant by this son from the fact that the firstborn was named Er by his father or Judah, but this son, Onan, by his mother, the daughter of Shua, as may be seen in the original language. For 'man' in the Word means falsity and his wife (mulier) evil, see 915, 2517, 4510; and so also does 'the daughter of Shua' mean evil, 4818, 4819. Therefore because he was given his name by his father, 'Er' means falsity; and because Onan was given his name by his mother, evil is meant by him. Thus the first was so to speak the father's son, the second so to speak the mother's son.

[2] In the Word the expression 'man and wife' (vir et uxor) is used many times, as also is 'husband and wife' (maritus et uxor). When 'man and wife' is used, 'man' means truth and 'wife' good; or in the contrary sense 'men' means falsity and 'wife' evil. But when 'husband and wife' is used, 'husband' means good and 'wife' truth; or in the contrary sense 'husband' means evil and 'wife' falsity. The reason underlying this arcanum is this In the celestial Church good resided with the husband and the truth of that good with the wife; but in the spiritual Church truth resided with the man and the good of that truth with the wife: Such is and was the actual relationship between the two, for in human beings interior things have undergone this reversal. This is the reason why in the Word, when celestial good and celestial truth from this are the subject, they are called 'husband and wife', but when spiritual good and spiritual truth from this are dealt with, these are called 'man and wife', or rather 'man and woman' (vir et mulier). From this, as well as from the actual expressions used, one can come to know which kind of good and which kind of truth are being dealt with in the internal sense of the Word.

[3] Here also is the reason why it has been stated already in various places that marriages represent the joining of good to truth, and of truth to good. Furthermore conjugial love has its origin in these two joined together. Among celestial people conjugial love has its origin in good joined to truth, but among spiritual people in truth joined to good. Marriages also correspond in actual fact to these joinings together. From all this one may see what is implied by the father giving the first son his name, but the mother giving the second and also the third sons theirs, as is clear from the original language. The father named the first son because the first son meant falsity, while the mother named the second son because the second son meant evil.