4835. 'Come [in] to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her' means that this - that representative of the Church - might be continued. This is clear from the meaning of 'coming (or going in) to a brother's wife and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her' as preserving and continuing that which constitutes the Church. The requirement laid down in the Mosaic Law, that if a man died without issue his brother was to marry his widow and raise up seed for his brother, and that the firstborn was to receive his dead brother's name, whereas all other sons were to be his own, was called the duty of a brother-in-law. The fact that this directive was nothing new in the Jewish Church but a practice already in existence is clear from the words used here; and the same goes for many other directives given to the Israelites through Moses, such as the law forbidding them to take wives from the daughters of the Canaanites and requiring them to marry within their own families, Genesis 24:3-4; 28:1-2. From these and many other examples it is evident that a Church had existed previously in which the same kind of practices were followed as those at a later time which were declared to and demanded of the sons of Jacob. Altars and sacrifices likewise had been in use since ancient times, as is evident from Genesis 8:20-21; 22:3, 7-8. From this it is plain that the Jewish Church was not a new Church but a revival of the Ancient Church which had perished.

[2] What the law regarding the duty of a brother-in-law had been is clear in Moses,

If brothers dwell together but one of them dies, and has no son, the wife of the dead one shall not marry a stranger outside [the family]; her brother-in-law shall go in to her, and take her to himself as his wife, and so perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her. Then it will happen, that the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, so that his name is not wiped out from Israel. But if the man is unwilling to take his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law shall go up to the gate to the elders, and she shall say, My brother-in-law refuses to raise up for his brother a name in Israel; he is unwilling to perform the duty of a brother-in-law for me. Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him; and if he stands and says, I do not desire to take her, his sister-in-law shall go up to him in the sight of the elders, and she shall remove his shoe from upon his foot and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So will it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house. Therefore his name will be called in Israel, The house of him who has his shoe taken off. Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

[3] Anyone who does not know what the duty of a brother-in-law represents inevitably believes that the practice existed solely for the sake of preserving a name and consequently an inheritance. But the preservation of a name and an inheritance was not in itself a great enough reason why a brother should have been required to enter into a marriage with his sister-in-law. Rather, the practice was ordained so that the preservation and continuation of the Church might be represented through it. For a marriage represented the marriage of good and truth, which is the heavenly marriage. It therefore represented the Church too, for the Church is a Church by virtue of the marriage of good and truth, and when this marriage exists within it the Church makes one with heaven, which is the true heavenly marriage. And because a marriage represented these things, 'sons and daughters' were therefore representations and also meaningful signs of truths and goods. This being so, 'being without issue' meant a lack of good and truth, and so meant that no representative of the Church existed in that house any longer, and that as a consequence it was not in communion with the Church. In addition 'brother' represented a kindred good to which the truth represented by a widow might be joined. For to be the kind of truth that has life, produces fruit, and thereby continues that which constitutes the Church, truth cannot be joined to any other good but that which is its own and a kindred one. This was how those in heaven perceived the duty of a brother-in-law.

[4] The meaning of this practice - of a sister-in-law removing the shoe from upon the foot of the man who refused to do the duty of a brother-in-law, and of her spitting in his face - was this: Anyone devoid of good and truth, external and internal, would destroy those things that constitute the Church; for 'the shoe' means that which is external, 1748, and 'the face' that which is internal, 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796. From this it is evident that 'the duty of a brother-in-law' represented the preservation and continuation of the Church. But when through the Lord's Coming representatives of internal things came to an end, that particular law was done away with. It is like a person's soul or spirit in relation to his body. A person's soul or spirit is the internal part of him and his body the external; or what amounts to the same, the soul or spirit is the true likeness of the person, whereas the body is merely a representative image of him. When a person rises again his representative image or that which is external, namely his body, is cast aside, for he is now conscious in that which is internal, namely the true likeness of him. It is also like a person who is in darkness and from there looks at things belonging to light; or what amounts to the same, like one who is in the light of the world and from there looks at things belonging to the light of heaven. For the light of the world in comparison with the light of heaven is as darkness. Within that darkness, that is, within the light of the world, things belonging to the light of heaven as they exist essentially cannot be seen, but are seen so to speak within a representative image, even as the human mind is seen in a person's face. Therefore when the light of heaven is seen in its own essential brightness, the darkness of representative images is dispelled. This was effected through the Lord's Coming.

[4835a] 'And raise up seed for your brother' means so that the Church does not perish. This is clear from the meaning of 'seed' as truth derived from good, or faith grounded in charity, dealt with in 1025, 1447, 16110, 1940, 2848, 3310, 3373, 3671. The same is also meant by the firstborn who was to succeed to the name of the dead brother, 352, 367, 2435, 3325, 3494. 'Raising up seed for a brother' means continuing that which constitutes the Church, in line with what has been stated just above in 4834, and thus means so that the Church does not perish.

8882. 'You shall not take the name of your God in vain' means instances in which the truth or the good of faith is profaned or blasphemed. This is clear from the meaning of 'the name of God' as everything in its entirety with which the Lord is worshipped, thus every truth or good of faith, dealt with in 2724, 3006, 6674; and from the meaning of 'taking in vain' as profaning and blaspheming. To be precise 'taking God's name in vain' means turning what is true into what is bad, that is, believing it to be true and yet living a bad life. It is also turning what is good into what is false, that is, living in a holy manner and yet not believing. Both are forms of profanation, 4601. Belief belongs to the understanding and life to the will; consequently thought and will in people whose belief is out of keeping with their life are divided. But the will is entering constantly into the understanding, for the understanding is the outward form assumed by the will, that is, the will brings itself to light there. This being so, when a person thinks in one way and lives in another, truth and evil or goodness and falsity are combined with each other; that is, things of heaven with a person are combined with those of hell. This combination cannot be dissolved, and so the person cannot be healed, except by a tearing apart which takes away with it everything of spiritual life. Therefore people who are like this are sent to the most horrible hell of all, where they suffer dreadful torments.

[2] This is how the Lord's words in Matthew should be understood,

Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven people. If anyone speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Matthew 12:31-32.

Also by these words in Luke,

When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person he passes through dry places seeking rest - and if he does not find any he says, I will return to my house out of which I came. And if when he comes he finds it swept and decorated, he goes away and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there. And the last things of the person become worse than the first. Luke 11:24-26.

[3] By these words the Lord is describing the profanation of truth. 'When the unclean spirit goes out' is used to mean acknowledgement of and real belief in truth, 'the house which has been swept' to mean a life contrary to truths, and 'his coming back with seven others' to mean a state of profanation. These are the things which are meant by 'taking God's name in vain'. The fact that the person cannot be healed from such a condition and so receive forgiveness is also meant by the words following immediately after - 'Jehovah will not render him innocent who takes His name in vain' - which are used to mean that this thing cannot be forgiven. For more about what profanation is and with whom it exists, see 593, 1003, 1008, 1010, 1059, 1327, 1328, 2051, 2426, 3398, 3399, 3402, 3489, 6348, 6595, 6960, 6963, 6971, 8394

[4] 'Taking God's name in vain' also means blasphemy, which takes place when fun is poked at those things which belong to the Word or to religious teachings and belief, thus which are holy, and they are dragged through the mud and thereby defiled, dealt with in 4050, 5390. But in respect of the Israelite nation, which did not acknowledge any good or truth of faith meant by 'God's name', their use of Jehovah's name, and also of the commandments and statutes they were commanded, in the worship of idols is meant by 'taking God's name in vain'. It was what they did in the wilderness when they worshipped the golden calf; they not only presented it burnt offerings and sacrifices, and ate of consecrated elements from them, but also called the day of that celebration 'a feast to Jehovah'. This is recorded in Moses as follows,

Aaron made out of the gold a molded calf, and they said, These are your gods, O Israel. who caused you to come up out of the land of Egypt. When Aaron saw it he built an altar in front of it, and made a proclamation and said, Tomorrow there will be a feast to Jehovah. Therefore they rose up in the morning of the next day and presented burnt offerings and brought eucharistic offerings. Exodus 32:4-6.

Jehovah's words at the time, concerning those who had taken the name of Jehovah God in vain by doing all this, make it clear that they could not be forgiven, meant by their not being rendered innocent. Those words spoken to Moses are,

Him who has sinned against Me I will blot out of My book. All the same, go, lead this people to the place of which I have spoken to you. But on the day of My visitation, I will visit them for their sin. Exodus 32:33-34.