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.

4818. 'And there Judah saw the daughter of a man, a Canaanite' means the affection for evil begotten by falsity springing from evil. This is clear from the meaning of 'the daughter' as the affection for good, dealt with in 2362, and in the contrary sense as the affection for evil, 3024; from the meaning of 'a man' as one who has intelligence and, in the abstract sense, as truth, but in the contrary sense as one who has no intelligence and as falsity, dealt with just above in 4816; and from the meaning of 'a Canaanite' as evil, dealt with in 1573, 1574. From these meanings it is evident that 'the daughter of a man, a Canaanite' means evil begotten by falsity springing from evil. What evil begotten by falsity springing from evil is will be stated below.

[2] Here the origins of the tribe of Judah must be stated first, since these are the subject in this chapter. That tribe, or the Jewish nation, has three origins, the first being Shelah, Judah's son by his Canaanite wife, the second and third being Perez and Zerah, Judah's sons by his daughter-in-law. The descent of the whole Jewish nation from these three sons of Judah is evident from the list of Jacob's sons and grandsons who accompanied him into Egypt, Genesis 46:12, and also from the grouping of them into families, referred to in Moses,

The sons of Judah according to their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Parzites; of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites. Numbers 26:20; 1 Chronicles 4:21.

From this the nature of that nation's origin is evident; that is to say, a third of them were descended from a Canaanite mother and two thirds from a daughter-in-law. They were all therefore the product of an illicit union, because marriages to daughters of the Canaanites were strictly forbidden - as may be seen in Genesis 24:3; Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3; 1 Kings 11:2; and Chapters 9, 10 of Ezra - while lying with a daughter-in-law was a capital offence, as is evident in Moses,

As regards a man who has lain with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be killed; they have committed perversion; ¹ their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12.

What Judah and his daughter-in-law had done together was linked by him to the law regarding leviratical marriages, which lays down the duty of a brother but never of a father, as is evident from verse 26 of the present chapter. Judah's linking of their deed together to this law implies that the sons of Tamar were to be recognized as the sons of Er the firstborn, who was born from the Canaanite mother, and who was evil in Jehovah's eyes and was therefore made to die, verse 7. For initially those born in a leviratical marriage did not belong to the one from whom they had been conceived but to him whose seed was being raised up, as is clear from Deuteronomy 25:5-6, and also from verses 8 and 9 of the present chapter. Furthermore, the sons whom Tamar bore were the result of whoredom, for when Judah went in to her he thought she was a prostitute, verses 15-16, 21. From all this one can see the origin of the Jewish nation and what kind of origin this was; and one can see that their words in John were founded on a lie,

The Jews said to Him, We were not born of whoredom. John 8:41.

[3] As regards what that origin implies and what it represents, this is evident from what follows. That is to say, those people's interiors were the same or had the same origin. Judah's marriage to a Canaanite implies and represents an origin that consisted in evil begotten by falsity springing from evil, for this is what is meant in the internal sense by 'the daughter of a man, a Canaanite'. And his lying through whoredom with his daughter-in-law implies and represents condemnation due to truth falsified by evil, for throughout the Word 'whoredom' means the falsification of truth, see 3703. ² Evil begotten by falsity springing from evil is an evil life resulting from a false teaching hatched by the evil of self-love - that is, by those governed by this evil - and backed up by a use of the sense of the letter of the Word. This is what the origin of the evil in the Jewish nation is like, and what the origin of the evil is like in the Christian world, especially among those meant in the Word by Babel. The nature of that evil is such that it closes every path leading into the internal man, closing every path so completely that no conscience at all can be formed there. For if any evil done by a person is due to a false teaching, he believes that this is good because he believes that it is true. He accordingly does it, because he has warrant to do so, with a sense of freedom and delight. All this being so, heaven is closed so completely against him that it cannot be opened.

[4] As an example to explain what this evil is like, take those who from the evil of self-love believe the following: One nation alone is Jehovah's chosen people, in comparison with whom all the rest of mankind are slaves. The rest, they believe, are so base that they may be killed at will and may be treated in a cruel fashion. Such ideas, likewise backed up by a use of the sense of the letter of the Word, were the beliefs of the Jewish nation, as they are also of the Babylonish ³ nation at the present day. Whatever kind of evil done by the latter that is the result of that false teaching, and of any other false teachings built on that one as their foundation, is evil begotten by falsity springing from evil. It destroys the internal man and shuts out even the possibility of any conscience being formed there. These people are referred to in the Word as those immersed in bloodshed; for they treat in savage ways the entire human race because it does not venerate what they believe and so themselves too, and because it does not present its gifts on their altars.

[5] Take another example - those who from the evil of self-love and love of the world believe in the necessity for someone to act as the Lord's vicar on earth. They believe that this person has power to open and close heaven, and so to control everyone's mind and conscience, and they back up this falsity by a use of the sense of the letter of the Word. In their case whatever kind of evil they perform as a result of these ideas is evil begotten by falsity springing from evil, which similarly destroys the internal man in those who are led by that evil to lay claim to that power and so control others. That evil destroys the internal man so completely that people cease to know any longer what the internal man is, or to know of the existence of conscience in anyone, with the result that they cease to believe any longer in a life after death, or in the existence of hell and of heaven, however much they talk about these.

[6] The nature of this evil is such that people in the world cannot tell it apart from other evils; but in the next life angels recognize it quite clearly. For in the next life the countless differences in the essential nature and the origin of evils and falsities are in full view; and it is also the genera and species to which these evils and falsities belong that mark off the hells from one another. Of these countless differences man knows scarcely anything. He believes in the existence of evil but has no knowledge of its essential nature, for the simple reason that he does not know what good is, and does not know what good is because he does not know what charity is. If he knew what the good of charity was he would also know its opposites, which are evils, and also their differences.

Fußnoten: