3021. 'Put now your hand under my thigh' means being bound, as regards its power, to the good of conjugial love. This is clear from the meaning of 'the hand' as power, dealt with in 878, and from the meaning of 'the thigh' as the good of conjugial love, dealt with in what follows. A binding of this good to that power is indeed the meaning, as is clear from the consideration that those who were bound by an obligation to carry out some matter connected with conjugial love put their hand, according to ancient custom, under the thigh of the one to whom they were so bound, and in so doing swore by him. This was done because 'the thigh' meant conjugial love, and 'the hand' power, or the full extent of whatever one's capability might be. For all parts of the human body correspond to spiritual and celestial things in the Grand Man, which is heaven, as shown in 2996, 2998, and will in the Lord's Divine mercy be shown more extensively later on. The thighs themselves, together with the loins, correspond to conjugial love. Those things were well known to the most ancient people, and for that reason so many customs came down from them, including that of putting their hands under the thigh when being bound by an obligation to carry out something connected with the good of conjugial love. Their knowledge of such things, which was valued most highly by the ancients, and belonged among the chief things that constituted their knowledge and intelligence, is totally lost today, so much so that not even the existence of any such correspondence is known, and for this reason people will probably be astounded that such things are meant by that custom. Here, because the subject is the betrothal of Isaac his son to another member of Abraham's family, and the oldest servant was called on to perform that task, this custom was therefore followed.

[2] It has been stated that 'the thigh', because of its correspondence, means conjugial love, and this may also be seen from other places in the Word, for example, from the procedure to be followed when a woman was accused by her husband of adultery, in Moses,

The priest shall make the woman take the oath of a curse, and the priest shall say to the woman, Jehovah will make you a curse and an oath in the midst of your people, when Jehovah makes your thigh fall away and your belly swell. When he has made her drink the water, then it will happen, if she has defiled herself and committed a trespass against her husband, that the water causing the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, and her thigh will fall away; and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people. Numbers 5:21, 27.

'The falling away of the thigh' means the evil of conjugial love, which is adultery. Every other detail in the same procedure had some specific meaning, so that not even the smallest detail fails to embody something, though anyone reading the Word who has no concept of its sacredness will wonder why such things are included there. It is because 'the thigh' means the good of conjugial love that the expression 'those coming out of the thigh' is used frequently, as in a reference to Jacob,

Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations will be from you, and kings will go out from your thighs. Genesis 35:11.

And elsewhere in the same author,

Every soul coming with Jacob to Egypt, who came out of his thigh. Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5.

And in a reference to Gideon, Gideon had seventy sons, who came out of his thigh. Judges 8:30.

[3] Since 'the thigh' and 'the loins' mean the things that belong to conjugial love they also mean those that belong to love and charity, the reason being that conjugial love underlies every other kind of love, see 686, 2733, 2737-2739. These all have the same source - the heavenly marriage - which is a marriage of good and truth, regarding which see 2727-2759. For 'the thigh' means the good of celestial love and the good of spiritual love, as may be seen from the following places: In John,

He who sat on the white horse had on His robe and on His thigh the name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Revelation 19:16.

'He who sat on the white horse' is the Word, and so the Lord, who is the Word, see 2760-2762. 'Robe' means Divine Truth, 2576, and for that reason He is called 'King of kings', 3009. From this it is evident what 'the thigh' means, namely the Divine Good which flows from His love, on account of which He is also named 'Lord of lords', 3004-3011. And this being the Lord's essential nature, it is said that He had a name written on His robe and on His thigh, for 'name' means essential nature, 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006.

[4] In David,

Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Mighty One, in Your glory and honour! Psalms 45:3.

This refers to the Lord. 'Sword' stands for truth engaged in conflict, 2799, 'thigh' for the good of love. 'Girding the sword on the thigh' means that the truth which He was to use in the fight was allied to the good of love. In Isaiah,

Righteousness will be the girdle of His loins, and truth the girdle of His thighs. Isaiah 11:5.

This too refers to the Lord. Because 'righteousness' has reference to the good that flows from love, 2235, it is called 'the girdle of His loins', while 'truth' because it comes from good, is called 'the girdle of His thighs'. Thus 'loins' is used in reference to the love within good, and 'thighs' to the love within truth.

[5] In the same prophet'

None will be weary, and none will stumble in Him. He will not slumber nor sleep. Nor has the girdle of His thighs been loosed, nor the thong of His shoes torn away. Isaiah 5:27.

This refers to the Lord. 'The girdle of His thighs' stands, as above, for the love within truth. In Jeremiah Jehovah told the prophet to buy a linen girdle and put it over his loins but not dip it in water. He was then told to go away to the Euphrates and hide it in a cleft of the rock. When he went back at a later time to retrieve it from that place it was spoiled, Jeremiah 13:1-7. 'A linen girdle' stands for truth, but the placing of it over his loins was representative of the fact that truth was the outward expression of good. Anyone may see that these actions are representative. Their meaning however cannot be known except from correspondences, which will in the Lord's Divine mercy be dealt with at the ends of certain chapters further on.

[6] It is similar with the meaning of the things seen by Ezekiel, Daniel, and Nebuchadnezzar: Ezekiel saw,

Above the firmament that was above the heads of the cherubim, in appearance like a sapphire stone, there was the likeness of a throne, and above the likeness of a throne, there was a likeness, as the appearance of a Man (Homo) upon it above. And I saw as it were the shape of fiery coals, as the shape of fire, within it round about. From the appearance of His loins and upwards, and from the appearance of His loins and downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, whose brightness was round about it like the appearance of the rainbow which is in the cloud on the day of rain; so was the appearance of the brightness round about, thus was the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of Jehovah. Ezekiel 1:26-28.

This scene was clearly representative of the Lord and His kingdom. 'The appearance of His loins upwards and the appearance, of His loins downwards' is descriptive of His love, as is evident from the meaning of 'fire' as love, 934, and from the meaning of 'brightness' and of 'the rainbow' as wisdom and intelligence from that love, 1042, 1043, 1053.

[7] Daniel saw,

A man clothed in linen whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz, and whose body was like tarshish, ¹ and whose face was like the appearance of lightning and whose eyes were like fiery torches, and whose arms and feet were like the shine of burnished bronze. Daniel 10:5-6.

What each of these expressions means - the loins, the body, the face, the eyes, the arms, and the feet - does not become clear to anyone except from representations and correspondences involved in these. From these it is evident that in what Daniel saw the Lord's heavenly kingdom was represented, in which Divine Love constitutes the loins, and 'the gold of Uphaz' with which He was girded, the good resulting from wisdom that is grounded in love, 113, 1551, 1552.

[8] In Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar saw a statue whose head was fine gold, breast and arms silver, belly and thighs bronze, feet partly iron, partly clay, Daniel 2:32-33. This statue represented consecutive states of the Church. The head of gold represented the first state, which was celestial because it was a state of love to the Lord; the breast and arms of silver represented the second state, which was spiritual because it was a state of charity towards the neighbour; the belly and thighs of bronze represented the third state, which was a state of natural good meant by 'bronze', 425, 1551 - natural good being love or charity towards the neighbour as this exists on a lower level than spiritual good - while the feet of iron and clay were the fourth state, which was a state of natural truth meant by 'iron', 425, 426, and also a state involving complete lack of cohesion with good, which is meant by 'clay'.

From all this one may see what is meant by the thighs and loins, namely conjugial love primarily, and from this love every genuine kind of love, as is evident from the places quoted and also from Genesis 32:25, 31-32; Isaiah 20:2-4; Nahum 2:1; Psalms 69:23; Exodus 12:11; Luke 12:35-36. The thighs and loins also mean in the contrary sense those loves that are the reverse of conjugial love and all genuine loves, namely self-love and love of the world, 1 Kings 2:5-6; Isaiah 32:10-11; Jeremiah 30:6; 48:37; Ezekiel 29:7; Amos 8:10.

Footnotes:

2733. There were certain spirits who, from a practice followed by them during their lifetime, were molesting me with particular skill. They did so by means of a rather gentle wave-like influx, resembling the ordinary influx from upright spirits. But I perceived that within that influx trickery and the like were present, to entice and to deceive. At length I spoke to one of them who, I was told, had during his lifetime been the commander of an army. And because I perceived that licentiousness was present in the ideas comprising his thought, I talked to him about marriage in the language used by spirits, which is illustrated with representatives and which expresses one's sentiments completely and many things in an instant.

[2] He said that during his lifetime he had thought nothing of adulterous behaviour. But I was given to tell him that all adultery is quite unspeakable, even though to those who are guilty of it it does not seem - because of the delight they take in it and the persuasive beliefs that result from it - to be unspeakable, but even allowable. I said that he might also know this from the fact that marriages are the seminaries of the human race and therefore the seminaries of the heavenly kingdom as well, and for that reason must not on any account be violated but be held sacred. He might also know, I continued, that adultery is unspeakable from the fact, which he ought to know because he was now in the next life and in a state of perception, that conjugial love comes down from the Lord by way of heaven, and that from that love, as from a parent, mutual love is derived, which is the foundation on which heaven rests. And he might know it also from the fact that when they merely move towards heavenly communities adulterers become aware of their own stench and cast themselves away from there down towards hell. He might at least have known that violence done to marriages was contrary to Divine laws, and contrary to the civil laws of all people, as well as contrary to the genuine light of reason, since it is contrary to order, both Divine and human, not to mention many considerations besides these.

[3] But he replied that he had never known such things during his lifetime, nor had he thought about them. He wished to reason whether what he had heard was so, but he was told that in the next life truth leaves no room for reasonings, for reasonings lend support to a person's delights, and so to his evils and falsities. I went on to tell him that he ought first to think about the things he had been told, because they were true; or at least he ought to think from the principle very widely known in the world that nobody ought to do to another what he does not wish that other to do to him. If some other man, I asked, had in a similar way seduced the wife whom he loved - as men love their wives at the beginning of every marriage - would he not also, when feeling irate about what had occurred, have expressed, if he spoke from that feeling, a loathing for all adultery? Also, being a man with mental ability, would he not have confirmed himself more than others against all adultery, even condemning it to hell? Thus he might have judged himself from what he possessed within himself.