5317. And Pharaoh took off his ring from upon his hand. That this signifies a confirming of the power the natural previously had, is evident from the representation of Pharaoh, as being the natural (of which above); and from the signification of a “ring,” as being that which confirms (of which hereafter); and from the signification of the “hand,” as being power (see n. 878, 3091, 3387, 4931-4937, 5296). From this it is plain that by his “taking off his ring from upon his hand” is signified that the natural gave up the power it had before; and that by his “putting it upon Joseph’s hand,” as below, is signified that the natural yielded all the power to the celestial of the spiritual. That a ring upon the hand denotes confirmation of power, cannot be so well established from parallel passages in the Word; because rings upon the hand are nowhere else mentioned, save only in Luke, where the father of the son who had wasted all his substance said to the servants:

Bring forth the chief robe, and put it on him; and put a ring upon his hand, and shoes upon his feet (Luke 15:22); where also a “ring” signifies confirmation of his power in the household as a son, just as above. Nevertheless this signification of a ring upon the hand is evident from the rites that have come down to us from ancient times, as from the rites of betrothals and unions, and also of inaugurations, in which rings are put upon the hand, and by them is signified confirmation of power. Moreover, that signets, which also were worn on the hand (Jeremiah 22:24), signify consent and confirmation, see n. 4874.

4874. And she said, Thy signet. That this signifies a token of consent, is evident from the signification of a “signet,” as being a token of consent. That a “signet” is a token of consent, is because in ancient times decrees were confirmed by a signet, and therefore by a signet is properly signified confirmation itself and testification that it is so. Tamar’s asking for his signet, kerchief, and staff, as a pledge that a kid of the goats would be sent, which afterwards she did not accept, involves a mystery which without the internal sense cannot possibly be known. The mystery is this: as a kid of the goats signified the genuine conjugial, consequently what is internal-for everything genuine is at the same time internal-and as there was not this on the part of Judah, Tamar therefore did not accept a kid of the goats, as appears from what follows; but instead of it took an external with which the internal of the church, signified by “Tamar,” might be conjoined. The external of the church is signified by the signet, kerchief, and staff; by the “signet” consent itself, by the “kerchief” external truth, and by the “staff” the power of this truth; moreover, these things are pledges of the conjunction of the external or natural man.

[2] The conjunction of internal truth with the external or with the religiosity of the Jewish nation, is represented by the conjunction of Tamar with Judah as a daughter-in-law with her father-in-law under the pretext of the duty of a husband’s brother; and the conjunction of the religiosity of the Jewish nation with the internal of the church is represented by the conjunction of Judah with Tamar as with a harlot. Moreover, the conjunctions are precisely of this nature; but their quality cannot be so well explained to the apprehension. To angels and good spirits, however, their quality is very manifest, for it is presented to them in the light of heaven, in which the arcana of the Word lie open as in clear day-quite otherwise than as in the light of the world, which exists with man. In brief: the representatives instituted with the posterity of Jacob were not precisely like those in the Ancient Church; but were for the most part like those in the church instituted by Heber, which was called the Hebrew Church. In this church were many new kinds of worship, such as burnt-offerings, sacrifices, and other things, which were unknown in the Ancient Church; but the internal of the church was not conjoined with these representatives in the same way as with those of the Ancient Church. But the way in which the internal of the church was conjoined with the representatives among the Jewish nation, and the converse, is described in the internal sense by the conjunction of Tamar with Judah as a daughter-in-law with her father-in-law under the pretext of the duty of a husband’s brother; and by the conjunction of Judah with Tamar as with a harlot. In regard to the Hebrew Church see above (n. 1238, 1241, 1327, 1343, 3031, 4516, 4517); and in regard to the sacrifices in this church not existing in the Ancient (see n. 923, 1128, 1343, 2180, 2818).