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.

7439. 'Send My people away and let them serve Me' means that they should leave those who belong to the spiritual Church, in order that these may worship their God in freedom. This is clear from the meaning of 'sending away' as leaving; from the representation of the children of Israel, to whom 'My people' refers here, as those who belong to the spiritual Church, dealt with in 6426, 6637, 6862, 6868, 7075, 7062, 7198, 7201, 7215, 7223; and from the meaning of 'serving Jehovah' as worshipping. That they should worship in freedom is evident from what follows in verses 21-23, and also from the consideration that all worship which is truly worship must take place in freedom.

[2] The children of Israel are called Jehovah's people not because they were any better than other nations but because they represented Jehovah's people, that is, those who belonged to the Lord's spiritual kingdom. The fact that they were no better than other nations is evident from their life in the wilderness, where they did not believe at all in Jehovah. Instead they believed in their hearts in the gods of the Egyptians, as is clear from the golden calf which they made for themselves and which they called their gods who had led them out of the land of Egypt, Exodus 32:8. The same fact is also evident from their life subsequently in the land of Canaan, dealt with in the historical sections of the Word; and the things said about them in the prophetical parts and finally by the Lord make it evident too.

[3] This also explains why few of them are in heaven; for the destiny they have met in the next life has been determined by the way they lived. Refuse to believe therefore that they have been chosen for heaven ahead of others. Those who believe that these people have been chosen for heaven ahead of others do not believe that each one's life remains with him. Nor do they believe that a person has to be made ready for heaven throughout his entire life in the world, and that although this is accomplished by the Lord's mercy, people are not admitted into heaven by mercy alone regardless of the life they have led in the world. The kind of notion they have of heaven and the Lord's mercy is the result of teachings about faith alone and salvation by it without good works; for such people are unconcerned about life. Hence they also believe that evils can be purged away like dirt with water, and so believe that a person can be brought in an instant into leading a life of goodness and consequently be admitted into heaven. Such people do not know that if the evil were deprived of their life of evil they would have no life whatever, and also that if those who lead an evil life were admitted into heaven it would feel like hell to them, and the further they went into heaven the worse would that feeling become.

[4] All this now makes it clear that the Israelites and Jews had not by any means been chosen; they were simply accepted in order that they might represent the things of heaven. And this they had to do in the land of Canaan because the Lord's Church had existed there since most ancient times and all places there had consequently become representative of heavenly and Divine realities. Then also the Word could be written, in which the names would serve to mean such things as belong to the Lord and His kingdom.