3921. 'Rachel said, God has judged me, and also has heard my voice' in the highest sense means righteousness and mercy, in the internal sense the holiness of faith, in the external sense the good of life. This is clear from the meaning of 'God's judging me', and from the meaning of 'hearing my voice'. 'God's judging me' means the Lord's righteousness, as may be seen without explanation, while 'hearing my voice' means mercy, as may likewise be seen; for the Lord judges everyone from righteousness, and hears everyone from mercy. He judges from righteousness in that He does so from Divine Truth, and hears from mercy in that He does so from Divine Good. He judges from righteousness those who do not receive Divine Good, and hears from mercy those who do. Yet when He judges from righteousness He does so at the same time from mercy since all Divine righteousness includes mercy within itself, even as Divine Truth includes Divine Good within it. But as these arcana are too deep for brief comment, they will in the Lord's Divine mercy be explained more fully elsewhere.

[2] The reason why 'God has judged me, and also has heard my voice' in the internal sense means the holiness of faith is that faith, which is associated with truth, corresponds to Divine righteousness, and holiness, which is goodness, corresponds to the Lord's Divine mercy; and in addition to this, judging or judgement is associated with the truth of faith, 2235. And since it is God who is said to have judged, that which is good or holy is meant. From this it is evident that the holiness of faith, at the same time as righteousness and mercy, is meant by these two expressions - 'God has judged me' and 'has heard my voice'. And because the two together mean a single entity they are joined by the words 'and also'. The reason the good of life is meant in the external sense is also rooted in correspondence, for the good of life corresponds to the holiness of faith. Without the internal sense no one can know what 'God has judged me, and also has heard me' means, and this is evident from the consideration that in the sense of the letter the two phrases do not fit together very easily to present one complete and intelligible idea.

[3] The reason why in this verse and in those that follow as far as 'Joseph' the name God is used and why in the verses immediately before these Jehovah is used is that in this and the following verses the regeneration of the spiritual man is the subject, whereas in those before them the regeneration of the celestial man was the subject. For God is used when the good of faith which is an attribute of the spiritual man is the subject, but Jehovah when the good of love which is an attribute of the celestial man is the subject, see 2586, 2769, 2807, 2822. For Judah, down to whom the births of sons went in the previous chapter, represented the celestial man, see 3881, whereas Joseph, down to whom those births go in the present chapter, represents the spiritual man, dealt with below in verses 23-24. The name Jehovah is used down to Judah, see Genesis 29:32-33, 35, but God down to Joseph, see verses 6, 8, 17-18, 20, 22-23 of the present chapter, after which Jehovah occurs again because the subject moves on from the spiritual man to the celestial. This is the arcanum which lies concealed in these words and which no one can know except from the internal sense, and also unless he knows what the celestial man is and what the spiritual.

1919. That 'Abram said to Sarai' means perception is clear from what has been stated above in 1898. The perception which the Lord had was represented and is here meant by 'Abram said to Sarai', but thought which sprang from that perception is meant by 'Sarai said to Abram' - perception being the source of thought. The thought possessed by those who have perception comes from no other source. Yet perception is not the same as thought. To see that it is not the same, let conscience serve to 'illustrate this consideration.

[2] Conscience is a kind of general and thus obscure dictate which presents those things that flow in from the Lord by way of the heavens. Those things that flow in manifest themselves in the interior rational man where they are enveloped so to speak in cloud. This cloud is the product of appearances and illusions concerning the goods and truths of faith. Thought is, in truth, distinct and separate from conscience; yet it flows from conscience, for people who have conscience think and speak according to it. Indeed thought is scarcely anything more than a loosening of the various strands that make up conscience, and a converting of these into separate ideas which pass into words. Hence it is that the Lord holds those who have conscience in good thoughts regarding the neighbour and withholds them from evil thoughts. For this reason conscience can never exist except with people who love the neighbour as themselves and have good thoughts regarding the truths of faith. These considerations brought forward here show how conscience differs from thought, and from this one may recognize how perception differs from thought.

[3] The Lord's perception came directly from Jehovah, and so from Divine Good, whereas His thought came from intellectual truth and the affection for it, as stated above in 1904, 1914. No idea, not even an angelic one, is adequate as a means to apprehend the Lord's Divine perception, and thus this lies beyond description. The perception which angels have - described in 1384 and following paragraphs, 1394, 1395 - adds up to scarcely anything at all when contrasted with the perception that was the Lord's. Because the Lord's perception was Divine, it was a perception of everything in heaven; and being a perception of everything in heaven it was also a perception of everything on earth. For such is the order, interconnection, and influx that anyone who has a perception of heavenly things has a perception of earthly as well.

[4] But after the Lord's Human Essence had become united to His Divine Essence, and had become at the same time Jehovah, the Lord was then above what is called perception, for He was above the order which exists in the heavens and from there upon earth. It is Jehovah who is the source of order, and therefore one may say that Jehovah is Order itself, for from Himself He governs order, not merely, as is supposed, in the universal but also in its most specific singulars, for it is these singulars that make up the universal. To speak of the universal and then separate such singulars from it would be no different from speaking of a whole that has no parts within it and so no different from speaking of something consisting of nothing. Thus it is sheer falsity - a figment of the imagination, as it is called - to speak of the Lord's Providence as belonging to the universal but not to its specific singulars; for to provide and govern universally but not specifically is to provide and govern absolutely nothing. This is true philosophically, yet, strange to say, philosophers themselves, including the more eminent, understand this matter in a different way and think in a different way.