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.

1999. That 'Abram fell on his face' ¹ means adoration is clear without explanation. Falling on one's face' was the reverent way in which the Most Ancient Church, and as a consequence the ancients, expressed adoration. The reason they expressed it in this way was that 'the face' meant the inward parts, and 'falling on one's face' ¹ represented a state of humiliation of those inward parts; and from this it became in the Jewish representative Church an act of reverence. True adoration or humility of heart entails prostration before the Lord face-downwards on the ground as the natural action resulting from it. Indeed humiliation of heart entails the acknowledgement of oneself as being nothing but uncleanness, and at the same time the acknowledgement of the Lord's infinite mercy towards such. When these acknowledgements are fixed in the mind, the mind itself casts itself down towards hell and prostrates the body. Nor does it raise itself until raised up by the Lord, as happens in all true humiliation, accompanied by a perception that such raising up is of the Lord's mercy. Such was the humiliation of members of the Most Ancient Church. It is different however with adoration which does not flow from humiliation of heart, see 1153.

[2] It is well known from the Word, in the Gospels, that the Lord adored and prayed to Jehovah, His Father, and that He did so as though to Someone other than Himself, even though Jehovah was within Him. But the state that the Lord experienced at such times was the state of His humiliation, the nature of which has been discussed in Volume One, namely this, that at such times as these He was in the infirm human derived from the mother. But to the extent He cast this off and took on the Divine His state was different, which state is called the state of His glorification. In the first state He adored Jehovah as Someone other than Himself, even though He was within Him, for, as has been stated, His Internal was Jehovah. In the latter state however, that is to say, the state of glorification, He spoke to Jehovah as to Himself, since He was Jehovah Himself.

[3] The truth of all this however cannot be grasped unless one knows what the internal is and how the internal operates into the external, and furthermore how the internal and external are distinct and separate and yet joined together. The matter may be illustrated however by means of something similar, namely by means of the internal with man and of its influx and operation into the external with him. For the fact that man has an internal, an interior or rational, and an external, see what has appeared already in 1889, 1940. Man's internal is that which makes him human and distinguishes him from animals. It is by means of this internal that man lives on after death and for ever, and by means of it the Lord can raise him up among angels. It is the prior or primary form from which anyone becomes and is a human being, and it is by means of this internal that the Lord is united to man. The heaven itself that is nearest to the Lord consists of these human internals, but being above even the inmost angelic heaven these internals therefore belong to the Lord Himself. In this way the entire human race is directly present beneath the eyes of the Lord. Distance, a visible feature of this sublunary world, does not exist in heaven, still less above heaven - see what has been mentioned from experience in 1275, 1277.

[4] These inward aspects of men possess no life in themselves but are recipient forms of the Lord's life. To the extent then that anyone is under the influence of evil, both that of his own doing and that which is hereditary, he has been so to speak separated from this internal which is the Lord's and resides with the Lord, and so has been separated from the Lord. For although that human internal is joined to the person and cannot be separated from him, yet to the extent he moves away from the Lord he does in a way separate himself from it, see 1594. But such separation is not a complete severance from that human internal - for if it were, man would no longer be able to live after death; but it is a lack of harmony and agreement with it on the part of his capacities which are beneath it, that is, of his rational and external man. Insofar as disharmony and disagreement are present there is no conjunction, but insofar as they are absent man is joined to the Lord by means of the internal, which is achieved in the measure that he is moved by love and charity, for love and charity effect conjunction. Such is the situation with man.

[5] But the Lord's Internal was Jehovah Himself, since He was conceived from Jehovah, who cannot be divided or become the relative of another, like a son who has been conceived from a human father. For unlike the human, the Divine is not capable of being divided but is and remains one and the same. To this Internal the Lord united the Human Essence. Moreover because the Lord's Internal was Jehovah it was not, like man's internal, a recipient form of life, but life itself. Through that union His Human Essence as well became life itself. Hence the Lord's frequent declaration that He is Life, as in John,

As the Father has Life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have Life in Himself. John 5:26.

And elsewhere besides this in the same gospel, 1:4; 5:21; 6:33, 35, 48; 11:25. 'The Son' is used to mean the Lord's Human Essence. To the extent therefore that the Lord was in the human which He received by heredity from the mother, He appeared to be distinct and separate from Jehovah, and worshipped Jehovah as Someone other than Himself. But to the extent He cast off this human, the Lord was not distinct and separate from Jehovah but one with Him. The first state, as has been mentioned, was the state of the Lord's humiliation, but the second the state of His glorification.

Poznámky pod čarou: