3796. 'And so it was, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother' means an acknowledgement of the affection for that truth as to its origin. This is clear from the meaning of 'seeing' here as acknowledging, as is evident from the train of thought, and from the representation of 'Rachel' as the affection for interior truth, dealt with above in 3793. The expression 'the daughter of Laban his mother's brother' embodies the origin of that affection; that is to say, it came from a parallel good which had been joined in a brotherly relationship to rational truth represented by 'Rebekah, Jacob's mother'.

[2] As regards affections for truth and good, genuine affections for truth and good which are perceived by a person all have a Divine origin since they come from the Lord. But as they come down they branch off into various and different streams where they form new origins for themselves. For as they flow into affections which are not genuine but spurious, and into affections for evil and falsity present with a person, so they become varied. Affections which often have a similar outward appearance to genuine ones present themselves, but these are nevertheless not genuine inwardly. The only way to establish their true identity is to discover the end they have in view. If that end is selfish or worldly those affections are not genuine. But if the end is the good of the neighbour, the good of the community, the good of the country, and more still if it is the good of the Church and the good of the Lord's kingdom, they are genuine, for in that case the Lord is their end, since the Lord is within those varieties of good.

[3] But it is the mark of someone wise to be aware of which ends are present in himself. Sometimes it does seem as though his ends are selfish when in fact they are not, for the human being is such that in everything he considers how it affects himself. This he does regularly and habitually. But if anyone wishes to know the ends he himself has in view he has merely to take note of his feeling of delight - whether it is on account of his receiving praise and glory, or whether it is on account of his performing some unselfish service. If it is the latter delight which he feels, genuine affection is present in him. He ought also to take note of the varying states he passes through, for those states cause his feelings to vary considerably. A person is able to find these things out in himself, but not in others, for the ends in view to anyone's affection are known to the Lord alone. This is why the Lord said,

Do not judge, lest you are judged; do not condemn, lest you are condemned. Luke 6:37.

For a thousand people may apparently share the same affection for truth and goodness, and yet the affection in each of them may have a different origin, that is, each may have a different end in view.

[4] The reason the end makes the affection what it is - that is to say, genuine, spurious, or false - is that the end is the person's actual life. Indeed a person has as his end in view that which constitutes his life, or what amounts to the same, his love. When the good of the neighbour, the common good, the good of the Church and of the Lord's kingdom is the end in view, a person's soul is in the Lord's kingdom and so abides with the Lord. For the Lord's kingdom is nothing else than a kingdom of ends and purposes directed towards the good of the human race, 3645. Angels themselves present with a person are nowhere else than within his ends in view. To the extent that someone's end in view is such as that which exists in the Lord's kingdom, angels take delight in him and join themselves to him as a brother. But to the extent a person's end is himself, angels depart and evil spirits from hell draw near, for in hell no other end in view reigns. From these considerations one may see how important it is to find out and to know where one's affections originate; these can be known from nothing else than one's end in view.

4059. Each individual phrase in these verses is clear evidence of the existence of an internal sense, and of the fact that unless that sense is understood no one can possibly know what is implied in any of the following descriptions: The sun will be darkened, and the moon also; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; the Lord will appear in the clouds of heaven; and the angels will sound a trumpet and in so doing will gather together the elect. Anyone who is not acquainted with the internal sense of these words will believe in a literal fulfilment of such events - that the world really is going to perish, together with everything visible in the universe. It is not the destruction of the world that is meant however by a last judgement but the coming to an end or the ruination of the Church as regards charity and faith; see 3353. The same is also quite evident from the words which come later on in this same chapter in Matthew,

At that time two will be in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Two women grinding; one will be taken, the other left. Matthew 24:40-41.

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.