9002. 'If he takes another one for himself' means being joined to an affection for truth stemming from some other source. This is clear from the meaning of 'taking (or betrothing) another' as being joined to, as in 8996; for in the spiritual sense marriage, which is implied here by betrothal, is the joining of the life of one to that of another. Divine order decrees that the life of the truths of faith and the life of the good of charity should be joined together; this is where all spiritual joining together begins, from which, as its origin, natural joining springs. 'Taking another one' means being joined to an affection for truth stemming from some other source, because 'a female slave', dealt with before, is an affection for truth springing from natural delight, 8993, and therefore 'another one' is an affection for truth stemming from some other source

[2] An idea of what an affection from some other source is may be gained from the consideration that every affection belonging to love is very broad and wide indeed, so broad that it extends far beyond all human understanding. Human understanding cannot go so far as to know even the genera of the varieties of such affection, still less the species making up the genera, and least of all the particular aspects and individual details of those aspects. For all that exists within the human being, especially that which belongs to affection or love there, is infinitely varied. This becomes perfectly clear from the consideration that the affection for what is good and true, an affection that belongs to love to the Lord and love towards the neighbour, constitutes the whole of heaven, and yet in respect of good those in the heavens, where millions live, are all different from one another. And they would still all be different even if multiplied into countless millions of millions. For it is not possible in the universe for one thing to be exactly like another and have separate existence. It must vary, that is, be different from another, if it is to be something by itself, see 684, 690, 3241, 3744, 3745, 3986, 4005, 4149, 5598, 7236, 7833, 7836, 8003. All this gives some idea of what one should understand by an affection from some other source, namely an affection which is different from another but can nevertheless be joined to the same spiritual truth. Such affections, which are represented by female slaves betrothed to the same man, belong to the same genus but different species, the difference between them being called a specific difference. Various examples could be used to illustrate these matters; but the general idea conveyed by the things that have just been said is better.

[3] So that the joining of such affections to the same spiritual truth, and their subordination to it, might be represented, it was permissible within the Israelite and Jewish nation for men to have a number of concubines. Abraham had them, Genesis 25:6, and so did David, Solomon, and others. For anything permitted among that nation existed because of what that thing represented; or to be more precise, it existed so that by means of outward things that nation might represent the inner realities of the Church, 3246. But when the inner realities of the Church were disclosed by the Lord, representations of inner realities through outward things came to an end; for now it was the inner realities - forms of faith and love - that were to be apprehended by a member of the Church and to be the means by which he worshipped the Lord. For this reason they were no longer permitted to have a number of wives, or concubines as well as wives, see 865, 2727-2759, 3246, 4837.

4837. 'And so it was, when he came [in] to his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground' means the reverse of conjugial love. [This is clear from the following considerations:] 'Er, Judah's firstborn' is used to describe falsity springing from evil which reigned in the Jewish nation at first, and 'Onan the secondborn' to describe evil begotten by falsity springing from evil which reigned in that nation later on. And 'Shelah the third son' is used to describe the idolatry which followed on from this and reigned in that nation at a still later time, 4826. Evil begotten by falsity springing from evil is described by the action Onan took, which was this: Being unwilling to provide seed for his brother, he spilled it on the ground. The reason this means that which is the reverse of conjugial love is that the conjugial relationship is used to mean in the internal sense that which is the essential element of the Church. Essentially the Church is a marriage of goodness and truth; and evil begotten by falsity springing from evil is the complete reverse of that marriage, that is, those with whom that kind of evil exists are the reverse of it.

[2] Nothing of true marriage meant both in a spiritual sense and in a natural one existed with that nation. This is quite evident from the fact that men were permitted to marry more than one wife; for where a marriage meant in a spiritual sense exists - that is, where the good and truth of the Church exist, consequently where the Church exists - that practice is not at all permitted. Genuine marriage cannot possibly exist except among those with whom the Lord's Church or kingdom exists, yet not with these except between pairs, 1907, 2740, 3246. The marriage of a pair in whom genuine conjugial love is present corresponds to the heavenly marriage, that is, to good and truth joined together. That is to say, the husband corresponds to good and the wife to the truth of that good. Also, when genuine conjugial love is present in them, that heavenly marriage is present too. Therefore where the Church exists men are never permitted to marry more than one wife. But because no Church existed among those descended from Jacob, only that which was a representative of the Church - that is, the external shell of the Church without its internal substance, 4307, 4500 - they were therefore permitted to have more than one. Furthermore the marriage of one husband to a number of wives would present in heaven an idea or image in which so to speak one good was joined to a number of truths which do not agree with one another, and so an image in which there was no good at all. For when its truths do not agree with one another good ceases to be good, since good receives its particular nature from truths and their agreement with one another.

[3] It would also present an image in which so to speak the Church was not one Church but many, set apart from one another along the lines of the truths of faith, that is, along doctrinal lines, when in fact the Church is one if good is the essential element there and this receives its particular nature from truths and is so to speak moderated by these. The Church is an image of heaven, because it is the Lord's kingdom on earth. Heaven consists of many distinct and separate general communities, and of smaller ones subordinate to these general ones; nevertheless good makes them a united whole. Good there enables the truths of faith to stand in agreement with one another; for these look to good and are grounded in it. If the truths of faith and not good were the lines along which parts of heaven were separated from one another, heaven would cease to be heaven, because there would not be any unanimity at all. For their oneness of life or unity in soul could not come to them from the Lord and exist among them. That oneness dwells solely within good, that is, within love to the Lord and love towards the neighbour. Love binds everyone together, and when the love of what is good and true is present in each individual, everyone shares that which comes from the Lord, so that the Lord is the One who binds everyone together. The love of what is good and true is called love towards the neighbour, for the neighbour is one with whom good and accompanying truth are present, and in the abstract sense good itself and its truth. From these considerations one may see why within the Church marriage must be a relationship involving one husband and one wife, and why the descendants of Jacob were permitted to marry more than one wife. They were permitted to do so for the reason that no Church existed among them, and therefore a representative of the Church could not be established among them by means of marriages, because the reverse of conjugial love reigned among them.