3300. And the first came forth red all over like a hairy garment [tunica]. That this signifies the natural good of the life of truth, is evident from the signification of “coming forth,” as being to be born; from the signification of “red,” as being the good of life, as will be shown presently; and from the signification of a “hairy garment,” as being the truth of the natural, which also will be shown presently. This being the “first” signifies that as to essence good is prior, as before said (n. 3299); and it is said “like a hairy garment” in order to signify that good is clothed with truth, as with a tender vessel or body, as also before said (n. 3299). In the internal sense of the Word a “garment” [tunica] signifies merely that which invests something else, wherefore also truths are compared to garments (n. 1073, 2576).

[2] That “red,” or “ruddy,” signifies the good of life, is because all good is of love, and love itself is celestial and spiritual fire, and is also compared to fire and likewise is called “fire” (n. 933-936). So also is love compared to blood, and is called “blood” (n. 1001); and because they are both red, the good which is of love is signified by “red” or “ruddy,” as may also be seen from the following passages in the Word. In the prophecy of Jacob, then Israel:

He shall wash his raiment in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes; his eyes are redder than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk (Genesis 49:11-12); where Judah is treated of, by whom is there signified the Lord, as must be evident to everyone. “Raiment” and “vesture” in this passage signify the Lord’s Divine natural; “wine” and “the blood of grapes” signify the Divine good and Divine truth of the natural. Of the former it is said that “his eyes are redder than wine;” of the latter that “his teeth are whiter than milk;” it is the conjunction of good and truth in the natural which is thus described.

[3] In Isaiah:

Who is this that cometh from Edom? Wherefore art Thou red in Thine apparel? and Thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat? (Isaiah 63:1-2);

here “Edom” denotes the Divine good of the Lord’s Divine natural, as will appear from what follows; “red in Thine apparel” denotes the good of truth; “garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat,” the truth of good.

In Jeremiah:

Her Nazirites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in bone than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire (Lam. 4:7).

By the “Nazirites” was represented the Lord as to the Divine Human, especially as to the Divine natural; thus the good therein by their being “more ruddy in bone than rubies.”

[4] As “red” signified good, especially the good of the natural, therefore in the Jewish Church, in which each and all things were representative of the Lord, and thence of His kingdom (consequently of good and truth, because the Lord’s kingdom is from these), it was commanded that the covering of the tent should be of the skins of red rams (Exodus 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19); and also that the water of expiation should be made of the ashes of a red heifer burned (Numbers 19:2, 9). Unless the color red had signified something celestial in the Lord’s kingdom, it would never have been commanded that the rams should be red, and the heifer red. That holy things were thereby represented, everyone acknowledges who holds the Word to be holy. Inasmuch as the color red had such a signification, the coverings of the tent were interwoven and coupled together with threads of scarlet, crimson, and blue (Exodus 35:6).

[5] As almost all things have also an opposite sense, as has before been frequently stated, “red” in like manner then signifies the evil which is of the love of self; and this because the cupidities of the love of self are compared to fire and are called “fire” (n. 934, 1297, 1527, 1528, 1861, 2446); and in like manner they are compared to blood and are called “blood” (n. 374, 954, 1005). Hence in the opposite sense “red” has this signification; as in Isaiah:

Jehovah said, Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Isaiah 1:18).

In Nahum:

The shield of the mighty men (of Belial) is made red, the valiant men are made crimson, in the fire of torches are the chariots in the day (Nahum 2:3).

In John:

And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems (Revelation 12:3).

Again:

And I saw and behold a white horse, and he that sat thereon had a bow; and there was given unto him a crown; and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And another horse came forth that was red; and to him that sat thereon it was given to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another; and there was given unto him a great sword. Afterwards there came forth a black horse; and at last a pale horse, whose name was death (Revelation 6:2, 4-5, 8).

3246. And to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts. That this signifies the spiritual adopted by the Lord’s Divine Human, that they have allotted places in His spiritual kingdom, is evident from the signification of the “sons of the concubines,” as denoting those who are spiritual (concerning whom in what follows); from the representation here of Abraham, as being the Lord’s Divine Human; so that by the words “which Abraham had,” is signified that they (namely, the spiritual) were adopted by the Lord’s Divine Human; and from the signification of the “gifts” which Abraham gave them, as being allotted places in the Lord’s spiritual kingdom.

[2] From what has already been shown in several places (as n. 3235, and elsewhere) concerning those who constitute the Lord’s spiritual kingdom and are called the spiritual, it can be seen that they are not sons born of the marriage itself of good and truth, but of a certain covenant not so conjugial; they are indeed from the same father, but not from the same mother; that is, they are from the same Divine good, but not from the same Divine truth. For as the celestial are from the very marriage of good and truth, they have good and thence truth; wherefore they never inquire what is true, but perceive it from good; and they discourse not about truth beyond affirming that it is so-according to what the Lord teaches in Matthew:

Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, Nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matthew 5:37); whereas the spiritual, because they are from a covenant not so conjugial, do not know from any perception what truth is, but call that true which they have been told to be so by parents and masters; and therefore in them there is not the marriage of good and truth; but still the truth which they thus believe is adopted by the Lord for truth when they are in the good of life (concerning this see n. 1832). Therefore it is that those who are spiritual are here called the “sons of the concubines,” and by these are meant all the sons of Keturah hitherto enumerated, and also the sons of Hagar, who will be named immediately below, from the twelfth to the eighteenth verse.

[3] In former times, in order that both the celestial and the spiritual might be represented in marriages, it was permissible for a man to have a concubine in addition to a wife; such concubine being given to the husband by the wife, and she was then called his “woman,” or was said to be “given to him for a woman,” as when Hagar the Egyptian was given to Abraham by Sarah (Genesis 16:3); when Bilhah the handmaid was given by Rachel to Jacob (Genesis 30:4), and the handmaid Zilpah to Jacob by Leah (Genesis 30:9). They are there called “women,” but elsewhere they are called “concubines,” as Hagar the Egyptian in this verse, and Bilhah in Genesis 35:22, also Keturah herself in 1 Chronicles 1:32.

[4] That those ancients had concubines besides a wife, as was the case not only with Abraham and Jacob, but also with their descendants, as Gideon (Judges 8:31), Saul (2 Samuel 3:7), David (2 Samuel 5:13; 15:16), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), was of permission, for the sake of the representation, namely, of the celestial church by a wife, and of the spiritual church by a concubine: this was of permission because they were such that they had no conjugial love, neither was marriage to them marriage, but only a carnal coupling for the sake of procreating offspring. To such there might be permissions without injury to conjugial love, and consequently to its covenant; but never to those who are in good and truth, and who are or can become internal men; for as soon as man is in good and truth, and in things internal, such things cease. For this reason it is not allowable for Christians, as it was for the Jews, to take to themselves a concubine together with a wife, for this is adultery. That the spiritual were adopted by the Lord’s Divine Human, may be seen from what has been stated and shown before on the same subject (n. 2661, 2716, 2833, 2834).