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.

5057. I once saw a mortar, standing by which there was a man who had an instrument made of iron. In his delusion the man thought he was pounding human beings in the mortar, tormenting them dreadfully. He took great delight in what he was doing, and that delight was communicated to me to enable me to know the nature of it and how strong it was in people of his kind. It was a hellish delight, and angels told me that it was the kind that reigned among the descendants of Jacob. These never felt more delighted than when they could treat gentile nations in a cruel fashion, exposing those they had slain to be devoured by wild animals and by birds, cutting up with saws and axes those who were still alive, and making them pass through the brickkiln, 2 Samuel 12:31, also striking little children and hurling them to the ground. No one has ever been commanded to behave in these ways, nor has anyone ever been permitted to do so other than the kind of people in whom the nerve in the thigh has been put out of joint, 5051. Such spirits live beneath the right heel, where the adulterers who are also cruel dwell.

[2] In view of this it is astonishing that anyone should ever believe that that nation was chosen or elected in preference to any other one. Believing that they were so elected many people go on to convince themselves of the idea that one's life is of no consequence at all but that election and consequent acceptance into heaven is attributable to mercy alone, irrespective of the life one has led. Yet anyone of sound reason can see that to think in that way is to think contrary to the Divine. The Divine is mercy itself, and therefore if the attainment of heaven were attributable to mercy alone irrespective of the life one leads, all would be accepted, no matter how many these might be. To thrust anyone down into hell to suffer torment there, when it was possible for him to be received into heaven, would not be mercy but the opposite of mercy, and to elect one in preference to another would not be righteousness but the opposite of righteousness.

[3] Consequently those who have believed and convinced themselves of the idea that some have been elected and the rest have not been elected, also of the idea that admittance into heaven is attributable solely to mercy regardless of the life they have led, have been for the most part the kind of people who have led evil lives. These are told, as I have also heard and seen on several occasions, that the Lord never refuses anyone entrance into heaven, and that if they like they can find this out from experience. They are therefore raised up into some community of heaven whose inhabitants have led their lives under the influence of an affection for good, that is, they have led charitable lives. But when those raised up arrive there they begin, being evil, to suffer pain and inner torment because their life is contrary to that of heaven. And when heavenly light shines on them they look in that light like devils that are almost wholly devoid of human appearance. Some have sunken faces; some are all teeth, looking like crates; and some, who are different again, look like monsters. Thus they are horrified at themselves and hurl themselves headfirst into hell; and the deeper they can go, the better it is for them.