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.

2803. As regards Divine Truth being meant by 'son' and Divine Good by 'father', this becomes clear from the meaning of 'son' as truth, dealt with in 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2623, and of 'father' as good, and also from the conception and birth of truth as taking place from good. As has been shown many times, truth cannot have being or manifest itself except from good. The reason 'son' here means Divine Truth, and 'father' Divine Good, is that the union of the Divine Essence with the Human Essence, and of the Human Essence with the Divine Essence, is the Divine Marriage of Divine Good to Truth, and of Truth to Good; and from that marriage comes the heavenly marriage. For within Jehovah or the Lord there is nothing but that which is infinite, and this being so, no other idea can be conceived of Him than that He is the Being and Manifestation (Esse et Existere) of all good and truth, that is, He is Good itself and Truth itself. Good itself is the Father, and Truth itself the Son. Now because the Divine Marriage, as has been stated, is a marriage of Good and Truth, and of Truth and Good, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as the Lord Himself teaches in John,

Jesus said to Philip, Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. John 14:10-11.

And elsewhere in the same evangelist,

Jesus said to the Jews, Even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. John 10:36, 38.

And elsewhere,

I pray for them - for all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine - that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You John 17:9-10, 21.

And elsewhere,

Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself. Father, glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You. John 13:31-32; 17:1.

[2] From these places one may see the nature of the union of the Divine and of the Human within the Lord - that each is linked mutually to the other and responds to the other - that is, it is a reciprocal union. This is the Union which is called the Divine Marriage, from which the heavenly marriage comes down, which is the Lord's kingdom itself in heaven and is referred to in John as follows,

On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. John 14:20.

And elsewhere,

I pray for these, that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, I in them and You in Me, that the love with which You have loved Me may be in them, and I in them. John 17:21-23, 26.

[3] As regards this heavenly marriage being a marriage of good and truth, and of truth and good, see 2508, 2618, 2728, 2729 and following paragraphs. And since Divine Good cannot possibly have being or manifest itself without Divine Truth, and Divine Truth cannot possibly do so without Divine Good, but one is always reaching out to and responding to the other, it is therefore plain that the Divine Marriage has existed from eternity, that is, the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, as the Lord Himself teaches in John,

Now, Father, glorify Me in Your Own Self with the glory I had with You before the world was. John 17:5, 24.

But the Divine Human that had been born from eternity was also born in time, and what was born in time is the same as that which was glorified. This is what accounts for the Lord's saying many times that He was going to the Father who sent Him, that is, He was returning to the Father. And in John,

In the beginning was the Word (the Word being Divine Truth itself), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. Furthermore the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-3, 14.

See also John 3:13; 6:62.