3921. And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and also hath heard my voice. That this signifies in the supreme sense justice and mercy; in the internal sense, the holy of faith; and in the external sense, the good of life, is evident from the signification of “God judging me,” and from that of “hearing my voice.” That “God judging me” signifies the Lord’s justice, is evident without explication, as also that His “hearing my voice” is mercy; for the Lord judges all from justice, and hears all from mercy. He judges from justice because from Divine truth, and He hears from mercy because from Divine good; from justice He judges those who do not receive the Divine good; and from mercy He hears those who do. But still when He judges from justice, it is also at the same time from mercy; for in all Divine justice there is mercy, as in Divine truth there is Divine good. But as these are arcana too deep to be told in a few words, they will of the Lord’s Divine mercy be more fully explained elsewhere.

[2] That by “God hath judged me, and also hath heard my voice” is meant in the internal sense the holy of faith, is because faith, which is predicated of truth, corresponds to the Divine justice; and the holy, which is good, to the Divine mercy of the Lord; and further, “to judge” or “judgment” is predicated of the truth of faith (n. 2235); and because it is said of God that He “judged,” it denotes what is good or holy. Thus it is evident that the holy of faith is what is signified by both these expressions together; and as this one whole is signified by both of them together, the two expressions are joined together by “and also.” That in the external sense the good of life is signified, is also from correspondence, for the good of life corresponds to the holy of faith. That without the internal sense it cannot be known what is signified by “God hath judged me and also hath heard,” is evident from the fact that the expressions do not so cohere in the sense of the letter as to present one idea to the understanding.

[3] The reason why in this verse, and in the following down to “Joseph,” “God” is named, and in the preceding verses, “Jehovah,” is that in these verses the regeneration of the spiritual man is treated of, but in the preceding ones the regeneration of the celestial man; for “God” is named when the subject is the good of faith, which is of the spiritual man; but “Jehovah” when the subject is the good of love, which is of the celestial man (see n. 2586, 2769, 2807, 2822). For by Judah, to whom the narrative was brought down in the preceding chapter, there was represented the celestial man (see n. 3881); but by Joseph, to whom it is continued in this chapter, the spiritual man, who is treated of in the verses that follow (23-24). That “Jehovah” was named when the narrative was brought down to Judah, may be seen in verses 32-33, 35 in the preceding chapter; that “God” is named where it is continued to Joseph, may be seen in verses 6, 8, 17-18, 20, 22-23 of the present chapter; and “Jehovah” is again named afterwards, because the subject proceeds from the spiritual man to the celestial. This is the secret which lies hidden in these words, and which no one can know except from the internal sense, and unless also he knows what the celestial man is, and what the spiritual.