1914. My wrong be upon thee; I gave my handmaid into thy bosom. That this signifies unwillingness to take blame upon itself, is evident without explication. In the internal sense there is involved in these words that the Lord perceived this first rational to be such as to lightly esteem intellectual truth, on which account He rebuked it. For the Lord thought from intellectual truth, as before said (n. 1904); and because this truth is above the rational, it could perceive and see the quality of this rational, namely, that it held that truth in low esteem.

[2] That the Lord could perceive and see from the interior man what was the quality of the new rational in Himself, may be seen from the fact that the interior can perceive what takes place in the exterior, or what is the same, that the higher can see what is in the lower; but not the reverse. Moreover they who have conscience can do this and are accustomed to do it, for when anything contrary to the truth of conscience flows into the thought, or into the endeavor of the will, they not only perceive it, but also find fault with it; and it even grieves them to be of such a character. Still more can those do this who have perception, as perception is more interior in the rational. What then could not the Lord do, who had Divine celestial perception, and thought from the affection of intellectual truth, which is above the rational! Therefore He could not but be indignant, knowing that nothing of evil and falsity was from Himself, and that from the affection of truth He took the greatest pains that His rational should be pure. This shows that the Lord did not lightly esteem intellectual truth, but that He perceived the first rational in Himself to be thinking lightly of it.

[3] What it is to think from intellectual truth cannot be explained to the apprehension, and the less so because no one but the Lord ever thought from this affection and from this truth. He who thinks therefrom is above the angelic heaven, for even the angels of the third heaven do not think from intellectual truth, but from the interior of the rational. But so far as the Lord united His Human Essence to His Divine Essence, He thought from the Divine good itself, that is, from Jehovah.

[4] The fathers of the Most Ancient Church who had perception, thought from the interior rational. The fathers of the Ancient Church, who had not perception but conscience, thought from the exterior or natural rational. But all who are without conscience do not think at all from the rational, since they have not the rational, although they appear to have it; but they think from the sensuous and corporeal natural. The reason why they who have no conscience cannot think from the rational, is that they have no rational, as just said. The rational man is he who thinks the good and truth of faith, and by no means he who thinks contrary thereto. They who think evil and falsity are insane in their thought, and therefore the rational can by no means be predicated of them.

1904. Sarai, Abram’s wife, took. That this signifies the affection of truth, which in the genuine sense is “Sarai the wife,” is evident from the signification of “Sarai,” as being truth adjoined to good, and from the signification of a “wife,” as being affection (explained above, n. 915, 1468). There are two affections distinct from each other,—affection of good, and affection of truth. When a man is being regenerated the affection of truth has the lead, for he is affected with truth for the sake of good; but when he has been regenerated the affection of good has the lead, and from good he is affected with truth. The affection of good is of the will; the affection of truth is of the understanding. Between these two affections the most ancient people instituted as it were a marriage. Good, or the love of good, they called man as a husband; truth, or the love of truth, they called man as a wife. The comparison of good and truth with marriage has its origin in the heavenly marriage.

[2] Regarded in themselves, good and truth have no life, but they derive their life from love or affection. They are only instrumentalities of life; and such as is the love that affects the good and truth, such is the life; for the whole of life is of love, or affection. Hence it is that “Sarai the wife,” in the genuine sense, signifies the affection of truth. And because in the case before us the intellectual desired the rational as an offspring, and because that which she speaks is of this desire or affection, it is therefore expressly said in this verse, “Sarai, Abram’s wife, gave to Abram, her man,” which there would have been no need of repeating if it did not involve such things in the internal sense, for in themselves these words would be superfluous.

[3] Intellectual truth is distinguished from rational truth, and this from truth in the form of memory-knowledge, as are what is internal, what is intermediate, and what is external. Intellectual truth is internal, rational truth is intermediate, truth of memory-knowledge is external. These are most distinct from each other, because one is more internal than another. With any man whatever, intellectual truth, which is internal, or in his inmost, is not the man’s, but is the Lord’s with the man. From this the Lord flows into the rational, where truth first appears as belonging to man; and through the rational into the memory-knowledge; from which it is evident that man cannot possibly think as of himself from intellectual truth, but only from rational truth and truth of memory-knowledge, because these appear as if they were his.

[4] The Lord alone, when He lived in the world, thought from intellectual truth, for this was His Divine truth in conjunction with Good, or the Divine spiritual in conjunction with the Divine celestial, and herein was the Lord distinguished from every other man. To think from what is Divine as from himself is never possible to man, nor in man, but only in Him who was conceived of Jehovah. Because He thought from intellectual truth, that is, from the love or affection of intellectual truth, from it also He desired the rational, and this is why it is here said that “Sarai, Abram’s wife” (by whom is meant the affection of intellectual truth) “took Hagar the Egyptian, and gave her to Abram her husband, for a woman to him.”

[5] The rest of the arcana that are herein cannot be unfolded and explained to the apprehension, because man is in the greatest obscurity, and in fact has no idea at all of the internal things within him, for he makes both the rational and the intellectual to consist in memory-knowledge, and is not aware that these are distinct from each other, so distinct indeed that the intellectual can exist apart from the rational, and also the rational that is derived from the intellectual, apart from the memory-knowledge. This cannot but seem a paradox to those who are in memory-knowledges, but still it is the truth. It is however impossible for anyone to be in the truth that is in the form of memory-knowledge (that is, in the affection of this and the belief in it), unless he is in rational truth, into which and through which the Lord inflows from the intellectual. These arcana do not open to man except in the other life.