3819. 'The name of the elder was Leah' means the nature of the affection for external truth; 'and the name of the younger Rachel' means the nature of the affection for internal truth. This is clear from the representation of 'Leah' as the affection for external truth, and of 'Rachel' as the affection for internal truth, both dealt with in 3793; and from the meaning of 'the name' as the nature of, dealt with in 144, 145, 1754, 1896, 2009, 2724, 3006. Leah is called 'the elder' because external truth is learned first, and Rachel 'the younger' because internal truth is learned from then on after that; or what amounts to the same, a person first of all feels an affection for external truths, and from then on after that an affection for internal truths. external truths provide the basic outline for internal truths, for they are the general outlines into which particular details are added. Unless a person has a general outline of the idea of a thing he does not make sense of any particular aspect of it. This explains why the literal sense of the Word contains general truths but the internal sense particular truths. General truths are called external, but particular truths internal. And because truths devoid of affection are not truths because there is no life to them, the affections for them are therefore meant when external and internal truths are referred to.

1914. That 'may the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant-girl into your bosom' means its unwillingness to take any blame is clear without explanation. In the internal sense these words embody within themselves the truth that the Lord perceived this first rational to be such as despised intellectual truth, and for that reason He reproached it. The Lord did indeed think from intellectual truth, as stated above in 1904; and because that truth was superior to the rational, He was able to perceive and see the nature of the rational, that is to say, that it held that truth in contempt.

[2] The Lord's being able from the interior man to perceive and see the nature of the new rational within Himself becomes clear from the fact that what is interior is able to perceive that which occurs in the exterior, or what amounts to the same, what is higher is able to see that which occurs in that which is lower, but not the reverse. Moreover, those who have conscience are able and are accustomed to do the same, for when anything contrary to the truth constituting conscience enters their thought or the intentions of their will, they not only recognize it for what it is but also pour blame upon it; indeed it grieves them that their own nature is such. This is all the more true of those who have perception, for perception is more interior within the rational. What then could the Lord not do who had Divine celestial perception and whose thought sprang from the affection for intellectual truth which is above the rational? Therefore He could not be anything else but righteously angry since He knew that no evil or falsity at all stemmed from Himself and that from the affection for truth He strove anxiously with all His might so that the rational might be pure. From this it becomes clear that the Lord did not despise intellectual truth, yet perceived that the first rational with Him did so.

[3] What thinking from intellectual truth is cannot be explained intelligibly, all the less so because nobody except the Lord has ever thought from that affection and that kind of truth. Anyone who thinks from them is above the angelic heaven, for the angels of the third heaven do not think from intellectual truth but from the interior part of the rational. But to the extent that the Lord united the Human Essence to the Divine Essence, He thought from Divine Good itself, that is, from Jehovah.

[4] The early fathers of the Most Ancient Church, who had perception, thought from the interior rational. The fathers of the Ancient Church, who did not have perception but conscience, thought from the exterior or natural rational. But all who do not have conscience never think from the rational at all, since they have no rational however much they appear to do so. Instead they think from the sensory and the bodily experience of the natural. People who do not have conscience are unable to think from the rational for the reason, as has been stated, that they have no rational. The rational man is one in whom the good and truth of faith are the substance of his thought and never one who thinks in opposition to these. Those in whom evil and falsity are the substance of their thought are insane as to their thought and therefore the rational cannot be attributed to them.