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.

6963. 'And behold, his hand was leprous, like snow' means the profanation of truth. This is clear from the meaning of 'hand' as power, as above in 6947, and as truth since spiritual power consists in truth, 6948, 6960; and from the meaning of 'leprosy' as profanation, in particular the profanation of truth, dealt with below. In the historical part of the Word a great deal is said about leprosy - about the various manifestations of it in the skin, about determining the nature of it from those manifestations, and about whether a leper should be shut away, leave the community, or be set at liberty; and about leprosy in garments, vessels, and actual houses. So much is said about leprosy not on account of leprosy as a disease but because it was a sign of the profanation of truth, thus on account of its spiritual meaning and because the Jews and Israelites more than any others were capable of rendering truth profane.

[2] For if those people had known the inner contents of the Word and the actual truths which the religious observances of the Church among them represented, and if they had believed those truths and yet led the lives they were predisposed to lead - namely lives ruled by self-love and love of the world, involving acts of hatred and vengeance on one another, and involving cruelty to gentiles - they could not have avoided profaning the truths they had once believed. For believing truths and leading a life that goes against them is profaning them. It was for this reason too that they were withheld as far as was possible from any recognition of internal truth, 3398, 3489, withheld from it so completely that they did not even know that they would be alive after death. Nor did they believe that the Messiah was coming to save their souls for evermore, only that He would exalt that nation above all throughout the world. And because that nation was like this, and is also like it today, they are still withheld from faith, even though they live amid Christianity. This then is the reason why the nature of leprosy has been described so extensively.

[3] The meaning of 'leprosy' as the profanation of truth is evident from the regulations regarding leprosy in Moses, Leviticus 13:1-end. That description contains in the internal sense the whole nature of the profanation of truth - what profanation is like if recent, what it is like if long-established, what it is like if it exists inwardly in a person, what it is like if it also exists outwardly, what it is like if it can be cured, what it is like if it cannot, what means can be used, and a number of other details. No one can ever come to know about any of this without the help of the internal sense of the Word. But since profane things are what 'leprosy' describes, a detailed explanation of the contents of that description must not be given; heaven has a feeling of horror at the very mention of what is profane.

[4] So let just the following be quoted from those regulations,

If leprosy has broken out severely in the skin and the leprosy has covered the entire skin of [him who has] the plague, from his head to his heels, wherever the priest looks, ¹ and the priest sees that, behold, the leprosy has covered the person's entire flesh, then he shall pronounce [him] clean [who has] the plague. It has all turned white; he is clean. But on the day living flesh appears on him he shall be unclean. Leviticus 17:12-14.

Unless one knew from the internal sense how it could be that one who is leprous all over from his head to his heels was clean it would seem to be an absurdity. But one who is leprous from head to heels means a person who has a knowledge of internal truths but does not acknowledge them, that is, has no belief in them. Profanation does not exist with him inwardly, only outwardly, and is being removed. Therefore he is clean. But if he knows the truths of faith and believes them, and yet leads a life that goes against them, profanation does exist with him inwardly, as it also does with someone who has had a belief in them but subsequently denies them. This explains why it says, 'on the day living flesh appears in him he shall be unclean'; 'living flesh' is used to mean acknowledgement and faith. See also the paragraphs referred to above in 6959.

Poznámky pod čarou: