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.

2586. For closing Jehovah had therefore closed every womb of the house of Abimelech. That this signifies barrenness, namely, of doctrine, is evident from the signification of “closing to close up the womb,” as being to prevent conception itself; and from the signification of “the house of Abimelech,” as being the good of the doctrine of faith, which shows that barrenness is signified. That up to this point in this chapter “God” is mentioned, but here for the first time “Jehovah,” is because “God” is mentioned where the subject is truth, but “Jehovah” where the subject is good. All the conception of doctrine is from good as a father, but its birth is by means of truth as a mother, as occasionally stated before. Here the conception of doctrine is treated of, and as this is from good, “Jehovah” is mentioned; whereas above its birth is treated of, and as this takes place by means of truth, “God” is mentioned, as in the verse preceding: “God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants, and they brought forth.”

[2] The case is the same elsewhere in the Word where conception is treated of, as in Isaiah:

Jehovah hath called me from the womb. Thus saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb; then shall I be precious to Jehovah; and my God shall be my strength (Isaiah 49:1, 5);

“strength” is predicated of truth, and therefore “God” is mentioned. In the same:

Thus saith Jehovah thy Maker, and thy Former from the womb (Isaiah 44:2, 24, and elsewhere).

For the same reason it is said “the house of Abimelech,” by which is signified the good of the doctrine of faith (that a “house” denotes good may be seen above, n. 2048, 2233, 2234; and that “Abimelech” denotes the doctrine of faith, n. 2509, 2510). That there is a Divine arcanum in the fact that they brought forth, and that the wombs of the house of Abimelech were shut on account of Sarah, is manifest; and this arcanum cannot possibly be disclosed except by the internal sense.