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.

2203. Saying, After I am grown old, shall I have pleasure? That this signifies that it was not of the affection of that truth that it should change its state, is evident from the signification of “growing old,” as being to put off the human, and thus to change the state (as explained above, n. 2198); and from the signification of “shall I have pleasure?” as being not to desire; thus that this was not its affection. How the case is with these things is evident from what was said of Sarah above (n. 2196), that she stood at the door of the tent, and it was behind him; that is, that the human rational as to truth is of such a nature that it cannot understand what the Divine is, for the reason that that truth is in appearances; and therefore that which it cannot understand, it does not believe; and by that which it does not believe it is not affected.

The appearances in which the rational is, are such as to affect it, for there is delight in the appearances themselves; and therefore if it is deprived of appearances, it supposes that there is nothing of delight left; whereas heavenly affection is not in appearances, but in good and truth itself. As rational truth is of this nature, this is pardoned, and it is permitted to be in appearances, and to have delight in them. Such truth as was in appearances is represented by Sarah, when the Lord had conjoined Himself with the Divine, and therefore it is said that she “stood at the door,” and that she “laughed and said, After I am grown old, shall I have pleasure?” By this is signified that it was not of its affection that it should change its state.