3803. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother. That this signifies the affinity of the good which is “Jacob” and of the good which is “Laban,” is evident from the signification of “telling,” as being to make known; and from the representation of Jacob, as being good (concerning which see above); and from the representation of Rachel to whom this was made known, as being the affection of interior truth (n. 3793); and from the signification of “brother,” who here is Jacob, as being good (n. 367, 2360, 3303, 3459); and from the signification of “father,” who here is Laban, as also being good (n. 3703). From all this and also from the series it is evident that by “Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother,” is signified the affinity of the good which is “Jacob” and of the good which is “Laban.” But to set forth this affinity itself, and the consequent conjunction of the two through the affection of interior truth (which is “Rachel”) would be to make the subject more obscure, because few know what the good of the natural is, and that this is distinct from the good of the rational; or what is the collateral good of a common stock; or again what is the affection of interior truth. He who by his own investigation has not acquired for himself some idea concerning these things, receives but a faint idea, if any, from description; for a man receives only so much from others as he either has of his own, or acquires for himself by looking into the matter in himself; all the rest passes away. Suffice it to know that there are innumerable affinities of good and truth, and that the heavenly societies are in accordance therewith (seen. 685, 917, 2739, 3612).

[2] The reason why Jacob calls himself the “brother” of Laban, when yet he was his sister’s son, is that all are brethren from good; and for the same reason Laban in his turn calls Jacob “brother” (verse 15). It is good which makes blood relationship, and which conjoins; for good is of love, and love is spiritual conjunction. This is the reason why in the ancient churches all those who were in good were called brethren, and even in the Jewish Church; but inasmuch as this church esteemed all others vile, and supposed themselves alone to be the chosen, they called only those brethren who were born Jews, and all others they called either companions or strangers. The primitive Christian Church also called all brethren who were in good, but afterwards only those who were within their own congregation. But the name “brother” vanished away from among Christians, together with good, and when truth succeeded in the place of good, or faith in the place of charity, then they could no longer from good call one another brethren, but neighbors. This also is the effect of the doctrine of faith without the life of charity, in that brotherhood with one of lower station than themselves seems to be beneath them; for with such persons brotherhood does not derive its origin from the Lord, and consequently from good; but from self, and consequently from honor and gain.3803a. And that he was Rebekah’s son. That this signifies the conjunction of these affinities, is evident without explication; for Rebekah, who was the mother of Jacob and the sister of Laban, was she from whom was the conjunction.

1876. The names of men, of kingdoms, and of cities, that occur in the Word, like the words of human speech, perish at the very threshold of the ascent; for these are earthly, corporeal, and material; and the souls that come into the other life successively put these things off, and those who come into heaven do so altogether. The angels retain not even the least of an idea of any person, nor consequently of his name. What Abram is, what Isaac, and Jacob, they no longer know. They form an idea for themselves from the things which are represented and signified by them in the Word. Names and words are to them like dust, or like scales, which fall off when they enter heaven. Hence it may be seen that by the names in the Word nothing is signified except actual things. I have frequently spoken with angels about these matters, and have been fully instructed by them concerning the truth. The speech of spirits with one another is not a speech of words, but of ideas, such as are those of human thought without words, on which account it is the universal of all languages. But when they speak with a man, their speech falls into the words of the man’s language (as before said, n. 1635, 1637, 1639).

[2] When I have spoken with spirits about this, it has been given me to say that when they are conversing with one another, they cannot utter even one single word of human language, still less any name. Some of them, wondering at this, retired and tried; but returning they said that they were not able to pronounce them because the words were so grossly material that they were below their sphere, as they were formed from the sound of air, made articulate by the bodily organs, or by influx into such organs by an internal way leading to the organ of hearing. From this it may likewise be clearly seen that no part of a word that is in the Word can pass to spirits, still less to angelic spirits, whose speech is still more universal (see n. 1642), and least of all to the angels (see n. 1643), with whom remains nothing of the first ideas of spirits, but in place of them spiritual truths and celestial goods, which are varied in an ineffable manner in the least forms, continued and connected in a unanimous series, with the originaries of representatives that are most pleasant and beautiful from the happiness of mutual love, and that are happy from pleasantnesses and beauties, because they are inspired with the life of the Lord.