4859. And covered herself in a veil. That this signifies truth obscured, is evident from the signification of “covering herself” or her face “with her veil,” as being to conceal, and thus to obscure the truth which pretended to be from good, as just above (n. 4858); and this for the purpose of conjunction with Judah. For when a bride first approached the bridegroom she covered herself with a veil-as we read of Rebekah when she came to Isaac (Genesis 24:65); and by this were signified appearances of truth (n. 3207). For a wife signifies truth, and a husband good; and as truth does not appear in its quality until it is being conjoined with its good, therefore for the sake of representing this the bride covered herself with a veil on first seeing her husband. The case is similar here with Tamar, for she regarded Shelah Judah’s son as her husband, but because she was not given to him, she regarded his father in his stead as one to perform the duty of a husband’s brother. Therefore she covered herself with a veil as a bride, and not as a harlot, though Judah believed the latter because harlots also were wont at that time to cover their faces, as is evident from verse 15. The reason why Judah so regarded her was that the Jewish nation, which is there signified by “Judah,” regarded the internal truths of the representative church no otherwise than as a harlot; and therefore Judah was conjoined with her as with a harlot, but not so Tamar with him. Because internal truths could not appear otherwise to that nation, therefore truth obscured is here signified by Tamar’s covering herself in a veil. That the truth of the church is obscured to them, is represented also at this day by their covering themselves with veils in their synagogues.

[2] There was a similar representation with Moses when the skin of his face shone as he came down from Mount Sinai, so that he covered himself with a veil whenever he spoke to the people (Exodus 34:28 to the end). Moses represented the Word which is called the Law (see the preface to Genesis 18); for which reason it is sometimes said the “Law and the Prophets” (as in Matthew 5:17, 11:13; 22:36, 40); and sometimes “Moses and the Prophets” (as in Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44). By the shining of the skin of his face was represented the internal of the Word, for the “face” is the internal (n. 358, 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796, 4797), which being spiritual is in the light of heaven. His veiling his face whenever he spoke to the people represented that internal truth was covered to them, and thus obscured so that they should not have to endure any light from it.

2516. Behold, thou wilt die because of the woman. That this signifies that the doctrine of faith would become null and void if the rational were consulted as to its contents, is evident from the signification of “Abimelech,” who is here addressed, as being the doctrine of faith; from the signification of “dying,” as being to become null and void; and from the signification of a “sister,” who is here called “the woman,” as being the rational (see n. 2508). Hence now by “Abimelech dying because of the woman” is signified that the doctrine of faith would become null and void if the rational were consulted.

[2] The reason why there is no doctrine of faith from the rational, is that the rational is in appearances of good and truth, which appearances are not in themselves truths (as before shown, n. 2053, 2196, 2203, 2209). Moreover the rational has under it fallacies which are from external sensuous things confirmed by memory-knowledges, which induce obscurity in these appearances of truth. The rational for the most part is merely human, as also is evident from its birth; and this is why nothing doctrinal of faith can begin from it, and still less be constructed from it; but must be from the Lord’s Divine Itself and Divine Human. This is its origin, and indeed so entirely that the Lord is doctrine itself; on which account also in the Word He is called the Word, the Truth, the Light, the Way, the Door; and (what is an arcanum) all doctrine is from the Divine good and the Divine truth, and has in itself the heavenly marriage. Doctrine that has not this in it is not the genuine doctrine of faith. Hence it is that in all the particulars of the Word (the source of doctrine) there is an image of a marriage (see n. 683, 793, 801).

[3] In the literal or external sense of the Word the doctrine of faith does indeed appear as if it possessed much from the rational, and even from the natural; but this is because the Word is for man, and has been in this manner accommodated to him; but still in itself it is spiritual from a celestial origin, that is, from Divine truth conjoined with Divine good. That doctrine would become null and void if as to its contents the rational were consulted, will be illustrated by examples in what follows.