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.

1594. And they were separated, a man from his brother. That this signifies that those things cause the separation, follows from what has been said. What “a man, a brother” signifies was stated above at verse 8, namely, union; and therefore “to be separated, a man from his brother,” signifies disunion. What disunites the external man from the internal, man knows not, and this for many reasons. It is partly owing to his not knowing, or if told, to his not believing, that there is any internal man; and partly to his not knowing, or if told, to his not believing, that the love of self and its cupidities are what cause the disunion; and also the love of the world and its cupidities, but not so much as the love of self.

[2] The reason why man does not know, and if told, does not believe, that there is an internal man, is that he lives in corporeal and sensuous things, which cannot possibly see what is interior. Interior things can see what is exterior, but never exterior things what is interior. Take the case of sight: the internal sight can see what the external sight is; but the external sight cannot see what the internal sight is; or again, the intellectual and the rational can perceive what the faculty of memory-knowledge is, but not the reverse. A further cause is that man does not believe that there is a spirit which is separated from the body at death; and scarcely that there is an internal life which is called the soul; for when the sensuous and corporeal man thinks about the separation of the spirit from the body, it strikes him as an impossible thing, because he places life in the body, and confirms himself in this idea from the fact that brute animals also live, but still do not live after death; besides many other things. All this is a consequence of his living in corporeal and sensuous things; which kind of life, viewed in itself, scarcely differs from the life of brute animals, with the single exception that a man has ability to think and reason about the things he meets with; but upon this faculty, which brute animals have not, he does not then reflect.

[3] This cause, however, is not what most disunites the external man from the internal, for a very great part of mankind are in such unbelief, and the most learned more than the simple. But what disunites is principally the love of self; the love of the world, also, but not so much as the love of self. The reason why man does not know this is that he lives in no charity, and when he is living in no charity it cannot be apparent to him that a life of the love of self and its cupidities is so contrary to heavenly love. There is also in the love of self and its cupidities something glowing, and consequently delightful, which so affects the life that the man hardly knows otherwise than that therein consists eternal happiness itself; and therefore many place eternal happiness in becoming great after the life of the body, and in being served by others, even by angels; while they themselves desire to serve no one, except for the sake of self, with a hidden view to being served themselves. Their saying that they desire to serve the Lord alone is false, for they who are in the love of self desire to have even the Lord serve them, and so far as this is not done they fall back. Thus they carry in their heart the desire to become lords themselves, and to reign over the universe. It is easy to conceive what kind of government this would be, when many, nay, when all, were like this. Is not that government infernal in which everyone loves himself more than any other? This lies hidden in the love of self. From this we can see the nature of the love of self, and we can see it also from the fact that there is concealed within it hatred against all who do not subject themselves to it as slaves; and because there is hatred, there are also revenge, cruelties, deceits, and many other wicked things.

[4] But mutual love, which alone is heavenly, consists in a man’s not only saying of himself, but acknowledging and believing, that he is utterly unworthy, and that he is something vile and filthy, which the Lord from His infinite mercy continually withdraws and holds back from hell, into which the man continually strives, nay longs, to precipitate himself. His acknowledging and believing this, is because it is true; not that the Lord, or any angel, desires him to acknowledge and believe it for the sake of his submission; but that he may not exalt himself, seeing that he is even such; for this would be as if excrement should call itself pure gold, or a fly of the dunghill should say that it is a bird of paradise. So far therefore as a man acknowledges and believes himself to be such as he really is, he recedes from the love of self and its cupidities, and abhors himself. So far as he does this, he receives heavenly love from the Lord, that is, mutual love, which consists in the desire to serve all. These are they who are meant by “the least,” who become in the Lord’s kingdom the greatest (see Matthew 20:26-28; Luke 9:46-48).

[5] From what has been said we can see that what principally disjoins the external man from the internal is the love of self; and that what principally unites them is mutual love, which love is never possible until the love of self recedes, for these are altogether contrary to each other. The internal man is nothing else than mutual love. Man’s very spirit or soul is the interior man that lives after death; and it is organic, for it is adjoined to the body while the man is living in this world. This interior man, that is, the soul or spirit, is not the internal man; but the internal man is in it when mutual love is in it. The things that are of the internal man are the Lord’s; so that it may be said that the internal man is the Lord. But because to an angel or a man while he lives in mutual love, the Lord gives a heavenly Own, so that it appears no otherwise than that he does what is good of himself, the internal man is predicated of man, as if it were his. But he who is in mutual love acknowledges and believes that all that is good and true is not his, but the Lord’s; and his ability to love another as himself-and what is more, if he is like the angels, his ability to love another more than himself-he acknowledges and believes to be the Lord’s gift; from which gift and its happiness he recedes, so far as he recedes from the acknowledgment that it is the Lord’s.