4988. 'That his lord's wife lifted up her eyes towards Joseph' means unspiritual natural truth wedded to natural good, and its perception. This is clear from the meaning of 'wife' as truth wedded to good, dealt with in 1468, 2517, 3236, 4510, 4823, and in this case as unspiritual natural truth wedded to natural good since that kind of truth and this kind of good are described - the good to which that truth is joined being meant here by 'lord', 4973; and from the meaning of 'lifting up the eyes' as thought, attention, and also perception, dealt with in 2789, 2829, 3198, 3202, 4339.

[2] 'Wife' in this instance means natural truth, but not natural truth that is spiritual, while her husband, to whom 'lord' refers here, means natural good, but not natural good that is spiritual. But some explanation is needed to show what is meant by natural good and truth that are not spiritual and what is meant by natural good and truth that are spiritual. With the human being, good has two different origins - one being heredity and consequently that which is adventitious, the other being the doctrine of faith and charity or, in the case of gentiles, their religious belief. Good arising from the first origin is unspiritual natural good, whereas good arising from the second is spiritual natural good. Truth too comes from a like origin, for all good has its own truth wedded to it.

[3] Natural good arising from the first origin, which is hereditary and consequently adventitious, bears many similarities to natural good arising from the second origin, which is the doctrine of faith and charity or some other set of religious beliefs. But those similarities are confined to outward appearances; inwardly the two are completely different. Natural good arising from the first origin may be compared to the good that is also present among living creatures of a gentle nature, whereas natural good arising from the second is peculiar to the human being who uses his reason when he acts, and who consequently knows how to administer what is good in different ways, in keeping with useful purposes that need to be served. These different ways in which good has to be administered are what the doctrine regarding what is right and fair teaches, and in a higher degree what the doctrine regarding faith and charity teaches; and in the case of people who are truly rational, reason also serves in many instances to corroborate what doctrine teaches.

[4] Those whose performance of good arises from the first origin are moved as if by blind instinct in their exercise of charity, whereas those whose performance of good arises from the second origin are moved by an inner sense of duty and so with their eyes so to speak fully open to what they are doing. In short, those whose performance of good arises from the first origin are not led by any conscientious regard for what is right and fair, still less by any such regard for spiritual truth and good; but those whose performance of good arises from the second origin are led by conscience. See what has been stated already on these matters in 3040, 3470, 3471, 3518, and what is said below in 4992. But what is involved in all this cannot possibly be explained intelligibly; for anyone who is not spiritual, that is, not regenerate, sees good from the point of view of the outward form it takes. He does this because he does not know what is meant by charity or by the neighbour; and the reason why he does not know this is that no doctrinal teachings regarding charity exist. Such matters can be seen very clearly in the light of heaven, and they can consequently be seen clearly by spiritual or regenerate persons because they dwell in the light of heaven.

4823. 'And she conceived again and bore a son' means evil. This is clear from the meaning of 'a son' as truth and also good, dealt with in 264, and so in the contrary sense as falsity and also evil, though evil that arises out of falsity. Essentially this kind of evil is falsity, because it has its origin in this. For anyone who does what is evil arising out of false teaching does what is false; but because this falsity is realized in action it is called evil. The meaning which the firstborn carries of falsity and consequent evil is evident from the statement made here regarding this [second] son, to the effect that in action he did what was evil. The actual words are 'he spilled his seed on the ground, so that he should not provide seed for his brother; and what he had done was evil in the eyes of Jehovah; and He caused him to die also', verses 9-10. The fact that this evil arose out of falsity is also evident at that point. What is more, in the ancient Churches the secondborn meant the truth of faith realized in action; therefore the second son here means falsity realized in action, which is evil. It may also be recognized that evil is meant by this son from the fact that the firstborn was named Er by his father or Judah, but this son, Onan, by his mother, the daughter of Shua, as may be seen in the original language. For 'man' in the Word means falsity and his wife (mulier) evil, see 915, 2517, 4510; and so also does 'the daughter of Shua' mean evil, 4818, 4819. Therefore because he was given his name by his father, 'Er' means falsity; and because Onan was given his name by his mother, evil is meant by him. Thus the first was so to speak the father's son, the second so to speak the mother's son.

[2] In the Word the expression 'man and wife' (vir et uxor) is used many times, as also is 'husband and wife' (maritus et uxor). When 'man and wife' is used, 'man' means truth and 'wife' good; or in the contrary sense 'men' means falsity and 'wife' evil. But when 'husband and wife' is used, 'husband' means good and 'wife' truth; or in the contrary sense 'husband' means evil and 'wife' falsity. The reason underlying this arcanum is this In the celestial Church good resided with the husband and the truth of that good with the wife; but in the spiritual Church truth resided with the man and the good of that truth with the wife: Such is and was the actual relationship between the two, for in human beings interior things have undergone this reversal. This is the reason why in the Word, when celestial good and celestial truth from this are the subject, they are called 'husband and wife', but when spiritual good and spiritual truth from this are dealt with, these are called 'man and wife', or rather 'man and woman' (vir et mulier). From this, as well as from the actual expressions used, one can come to know which kind of good and which kind of truth are being dealt with in the internal sense of the Word.

[3] Here also is the reason why it has been stated already in various places that marriages represent the joining of good to truth, and of truth to good. Furthermore conjugial love has its origin in these two joined together. Among celestial people conjugial love has its origin in good joined to truth, but among spiritual people in truth joined to good. Marriages also correspond in actual fact to these joinings together. From all this one may see what is implied by the father giving the first son his name, but the mother giving the second and also the third sons theirs, as is clear from the original language. The father named the first son because the first son meant falsity, while the mother named the second son because the second son meant evil.