2868. His concubine, whose name was Reumah. That this signifies Gentiles who are in idolatrous worship and in good, is evident from the things which precede; for in the former place are the Gentiles who are signified by the sons who were born to Nahor from his wife, and in this place are the Gentiles signified by those born from his concubine. By those from the wife were signified (as before shown) the Gentiles out of the church who are in brotherhood from good (n. 2863); those now signified are those out of the church who are in idolatrous worship and in good; thus these are not from so legitimate a stock as the former. Nevertheless they are as if legitimate; for at that time children who were born of maidservants were adopted as legitimate (as is evident from the sons of Jacob who were born of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Genesis 30:4-12; from whom tribes were derived equally as from those who were born of Leah and Rachel, and indeed without any difference). But that still there was a difference is evident from Genesis 33:1-2, 6-7. The maidservants who were at that time given to the husband by the wife for the sake of procreating children were called concubines; as is manifest from Bilhah, Rachel’s maidservant, who is also called Jacob’s concubine (Genesis 35:22).

That men should procreate children from maidservants or concubines was tolerated at that time, in order that those who are out of the church might thus be represented, and also those who are in a lower degree within the church. The name of this concubine being said to be “Reumah” involves her quality (n. 1896, 2009); which here is exaltation, this being the meaning of the word “Reumah.” (Concerning the state and lot of the nations and peoples who are out of the church, see above, n. 593, 932, 1032, 1059, 1327, 1328, 1366, 2049, 2051, 2284, 2589-2604)

1895. And she had a handmaid, an Egyptian. That this signifies the affection of memory-knowledges [scientiae], is evident from the signification of a “handmaid,” and from the signification of “Egypt.” Sarai, who was the mistress or lady, represents and signifies truth adjoined to good, as already said. Truth adjoined to good is intellectual truth in the genuine sense, but rational truth is beneath this and therefore is lower; and this rational truth is born from knowledges [scientiae et cognitiones] vivified by the affection that corresponds to them, and this affection, being of the exterior man, ought to serve the intellectual truth that appertains to the inmost man, as a handmaid serves her lady, or a household servant her mistress; and therefore this affection is what is represented and signified by the “handmaid Hagar.”

[2] How these things stand cannot well be stated to the apprehension, for it must first be known what intellectual truth in the genuine sense is, and also how the rational is born, namely, from the internal man as a father, and from the exterior or natural man as a mother, for without the conjunction of these two nothing rational can possibly come forth. The rational is not born (as is supposed) of knowledges [scientiae et cognitiones], but of the affection of these knowledges, as may be seen from the mere fact that no one can ever become rational unless some delight or affection of these knowledges aspires thereto. The affection is the maternal life itself; and the celestial and spiritual itself, in the affection, is the paternal life; therefore in proportion to the affection, and in accordance with the quality of the affection, in the same proportion, and in the same quality, does the man become rational. In themselves these knowledges are nothing but dead things, or instrumental causes, which are vivified by the life of affection; and such is the conception of the rational man in everyone. The reason why the handmaid was an Egyptian, and the reason why this fact is stated, is that “Egypt” signifies memory-knowledges [scientiae], as before shown (n. 1164, 1165, 1186, 1462).