4835. Come to thy brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. That this signifies that he should continue it, namely, the representative of the church, is evident from the signification of “to come” or “enter to a brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her,” as being to preserve and continue that which is of the church. The commandment in the Mosaic law that if any man died childless, his brother should take the widow to wife and raise up seed to his brother, and that the firstborn should be called by the name of the deceased brother, but the rest of the sons should be his own, was called “the duty of the husband’s brother.” That this statute was not a new thing originating in the Jewish Church, but had been in use before, is evident from this history, and the same is true of many other statutes that were commanded the Israelites by Moses-as that they should not take wives of the daughters of the Canaanites, and that they should marry within their families (Genesis 24:3-4; 28:1-2). From these and many other instances it is evident that there had been a church before, in which such things had been instituted as were afterwards promulgated and enjoined upon the sons of Jacob. That altars and sacrifices had been in use from ancient times is plain from Genesis 8:20-21; 22:3, 7-8, 13. From this it is clear that the Jewish Church was not a new church, but that it was a resuscitation of the Ancient Church which had perished.

[2] What the law in regard to the husband’s brother had been is evident in Moses:

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the deceased shall not marry without, to a strange man; her husband’s brother shall enter to her, and take her to him to wife, and thus perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. Then it shall be that the first-born whom she beareth shall stand upon the name of his deceased brother, that his name be not blotted out of Israel. But if the man will not marry his brother’s wife, his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuses to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand and say, I desire not to take her; then shall his brother’s wife come near unto him in the sight of the elders, and shall draw his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house; whence his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe taken off (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

[3] One who does not know what the duty of a husband’s brother represents, can have no other belief than that it was merely for the sake of preserving the name, and hence the inheritance; but the preservation of a name and of an inheritance was not of so much importance that for the sake of it a brother should enter into marriage with his brother’s wife; but this was enjoined that thereby might be represented the preservation and continuation of the church. For marriage represented the marriage of good and truth, that is, the heavenly marriage, and consequently the church also, for the church is a church from the marriage of good and truth; and when the church is in this marriage it makes one with heaven, which is the heavenly marriage itself. As marriage has this representation, therefore sons and daughters represented and also signified truths and goods; wherefore to be childless signified a deprivation of good and truth, thus that there was no longer any representative of the church in that house, consequently that it was out of communion. Moreover, the brother represented kindred good, with which might be conjoined the truth which was represented by the widowed wife; for in order that truth may be the truth which has life and produces fruit, and so continue that which is of the church, it cannot be conjoined with any other than its own and kindred good. This is what is perceived in heaven by the duty prescribed to the husband’s brother.

[4] That if the man would not perform the duty of a husband’s brother, his brother’s wife should take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, signified that, as one who was devoid of external and internal good and truth, he would destroy the things of the church; for a “shoe” is what is external (n. 1748), and the “face” is what is internal (n. 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796). From this it is evident that by the duty of the husband’s brother was represented the preservation and continuation of the church. But when the representatives of internal things ceased by the coming of the Lord, then this law was abolished. This is circumstanced as are the soul or spirit of man and his body. The soul or spirit of man is his internal, and the body is his external; or what is the same, the soul or spirit is the very form of man, but the body is his representative image; and when a man rises again, his representative image, or his external, which is the body, is put off; for he is then in his internal, or in his form itself. It is circumstanced also as is one who is in darkness, and from it sees the things which are of the light; or what is the same as is one who is in the light of the world, and from this sees the things which are of the light of heaven; for the light of the world in comparison with the light of heaven is as darkness. In darkness, or in the light of the world, the things which are of the light of heaven do not appear such as they are in themselves, but as in a representative image, as the mind of man appears in his face; and therefore when the light of heaven appears in its clearness, the darkness or representative image is dissipated. This was effected by the coming of the Lord.

4835a. And raise up seed to thy brother. That this signifies lest the church should perish, is evident from the signification of “seed,” as being truth from good, or the faith of charity (n. 1025, 1447, 1610, 1940, 2848, 3310, 3373, 3671). The like is also signified by the “firstborn who was to stand upon the name of the deceased brother” (n. 352[1], 367, 2435, 3325, 3494). To “raise up the seed to a brother” is to continue that which is of the church, according to what was said just above (see n. 4834), thus lest the church should perish.

3573. And kiss me my son. That this signifies whether it can be united, is evident from the signification of “kissing;” as being unition and conjunction from affection. “Kissing,” which is an outward thing, signifies nothing else than the affection of conjunction, which is an inward thing; they also correspond. As is evident from what has been said above, the subject here treated of in the supreme sense is the glorification of the natural in the Lord, that is, how the Lord made the natural in Himself Divine; but in the representative sense the subject is the regeneration of the natural in man, thus the conjunction of the natural with the rational; for the natural is not regenerated until it has been conjoined with the rational. This conjunction is effected by the immediate and mediate influx of the rational into the good and truth of the natural; that is to say, from the good of the rational immediately into the good of the natural, and through this into the truth of the natural; and mediately through the truth of the rational into the truth of the natural, and thence into the good of the natural-which conjunctions are here treated of.

[2] These conjunctions are impossible except by means provided by the Divine, and indeed by such as are utterly unknown to man, and of which he can scarcely have any idea by means of the things of the world’s light, that is, which are of the natural lumen with him; but only by means of the things which are of the light of heaven, that is, which are of rational light. Nevertheless all these means have been disclosed in the internal sense of the Word, and are manifest before those who are in that sense, thus before the angels, who see and perceive innumerable things on this subject, of which scarcely one can be unfolded and explained in a manner suited to the apprehension of man.

[3] But from effects and the signs thereof it is in some measure manifest to man how the case is with this conjunction; for the rational mind (that is, man’s interior will and understanding) ought to represent itself in the natural mind just as this mind represents itself in the face and its expressions, insomuch that as the face is the countenance of the natural man, so the natural mind should be the countenance of the rational mind. When the conjunction has been effected, as is the case with those who have been regenerated, then whatever man interiorly wills and thinks in his rational presents itself conspicuously in his natural, and this latter presents itself conspicuously in his face. Such a face have the angels; and such a face had the most ancient people who were celestial men, for they were not at all afraid that others should know their ends and intentions, inasmuch as they willed nothing but good; for he who suffers himself to be led by the Lord never intends or thinks anything else. When the state is of this character, then the rational as to good conjoins itself immediately with the good of the natural, and through this with its truths; and also mediately through the truth that is conjoined with itself in the rational with the truth of the natural, and through this with the good therein; and in this way the conjunction becomes indissoluble.

[4] But how far man is at this day removed from this state, thus from the heavenly state, may be seen from the fact that it is believed to be of civil prudence to speak, to act, and also to express by the countenance, something else than what one thinks and intends, and even to dispose the natural mind in such a manner that together with its face it may act contrary to the things which it interiorly thinks and wills from an end of evil. To the most ancient people this was an enormous wickedness, and such persons were cast out from their society as devils. From these things, as from effects and their signs, it is evident in what consists the conjunction of the rational or internal of man as to good and truth with his natural or external man; and thus what is the quality of a man-angel, and what the quality of a man-devil.