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.

4292. In the internal historical sense 'he said, Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel' means that they could not as [the descendants of] Jacob play the representative part, except by virtue of the new nature that was imparted to them. This becomes clear from the meaning of 'Jacob' in the Word as his descendants, dealt with above in 4281, and from the meaning of 'name' as the essential nature, dealt with immediately above in 4291. The new nature itself is meant by 'Israel' in the internal sense, for 'Israel' is the celestial-spiritual man and consequently the internal man, 4286. And since 'Israel' means the celestial-spiritual man, and so the internal man, 'Israel' also means the internal spiritual Church. For whether you use the expression spiritual man or spiritual Church, it amounts to the same thing because any spiritual person in particular is the Church, even as many are in general. If the individual person in particular were not the Church, no Church in general could exist. The expression Church is used in everyday language to describe a congregation in general; but each member of the congregation must be a Church if that greater Church is to exist. Every general whole incorporates parts that are like that whole.

[2] The implications of this particular matter - the inability of [the descendants on Jacob to play the representative part, except by virtue of the new nature imparted to them, meant by 'Israel' - are as follows: It was specifically Jacob's descendants who were to represent the Church but not specifically Isaac's since Isaac's descended not only through Jacob but also through Esau. Still less was it specifically Abraham's, for Abraham's descended not only through Jacob but also through Esau, and likewise through Ishmael, as well as through his sons by his second wife Keturah, who were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah, and the sons of these, see Genesis 25:1-4. Now because Jacob's descendants insisted that they should be representative, as shown just above in 4290, they could not represent as Jacob, or as Isaac, or as Abraham. The reason why they could not do so as Jacob was that 'Jacob' represented the external aspect of the Church, but not the internal. And they could not do so as Isaac at the same time or as Abraham at the same time for the reason advanced immediately above.

[3] So that they could represent the Church therefore, a new name had inevitably to be given to Jacob, and through that name a new nature, which new nature was to be a sign of the internal spiritual man, or what amounts to the same, of the internal spiritual Church. That new nature is meant by 'Israel'. Every Church of the Lord is internal and external, as has been shown several times already, the internal Church being that which is represented, the external that which represents. The internal Church is also either spiritual or else celestial, the internal spiritual Church being represented by 'Israel', but the internal celestial Church at a later time by 'Judah'. Therefore a division also took place, and the Israelites became a kingdom on their own and the Jews another on their own. But these matters will in the Lord's Divine mercy be discussed later on. From this it is evident that 'Jacob', that is, Jacob's descendants, could not represent the Church as Jacob, for that would have been to represent solely the external aspect of the Church. They had to do so as Israel as well because 'Israel' is the internal aspect.

[4] It has been shown in various places already that it is the internal which is represented and the external which represents, as may also be seen in the human being. A person's speech represents his thought, and a person's action represents his will. Speech and action are the external aspects of the person, thought and will the internal. In addition the various looks seen on a person's face represent both, that is to say, both his thought and his will. It is well known to everyone that the looks on a person's face are representative, for the looks on the faces of people who are sincere enable their interior states to be seen. In short, every part of the body represents some facet of a person's inclination (animus) and mind (mens).

[5] It is similar with the external aspects of the Church, for these are like the body, while its internal aspects are like the soul. There were, for example, the altars and the sacrifices on them, which, as is well known, were external things. There was likewise the bread of the presence, also the lampstand with its lamps, as well as the fire that was kept burning all the time. Anyone can recognize that these external things represented internal ones, as likewise did everything else of a ritual nature. The fact that these external things could not represent anything external, only what was internal, becomes clear from the considerations introduced already. So 'Jacob' could not represent as Jacob, because 'Jacob' means the external aspect of the Church, but he could do so as Israel because 'Israel' means its internal aspect. This is what is meant by a new nature being imparted to enable the descendants of Jacob to play the representative part.