4859. And covered herself in a veil. That this signifies truth obscured, is evident from the signification of “covering herself” or her face “with her veil,” as being to conceal, and thus to obscure the truth which pretended to be from good, as just above (n. 4858); and this for the purpose of conjunction with Judah. For when a bride first approached the bridegroom she covered herself with a veil-as we read of Rebekah when she came to Isaac (Genesis 24:65); and by this were signified appearances of truth (n. 3207). For a wife signifies truth, and a husband good; and as truth does not appear in its quality until it is being conjoined with its good, therefore for the sake of representing this the bride covered herself with a veil on first seeing her husband. The case is similar here with Tamar, for she regarded Shelah Judah’s son as her husband, but because she was not given to him, she regarded his father in his stead as one to perform the duty of a husband’s brother. Therefore she covered herself with a veil as a bride, and not as a harlot, though Judah believed the latter because harlots also were wont at that time to cover their faces, as is evident from verse 15. The reason why Judah so regarded her was that the Jewish nation, which is there signified by “Judah,” regarded the internal truths of the representative church no otherwise than as a harlot; and therefore Judah was conjoined with her as with a harlot, but not so Tamar with him. Because internal truths could not appear otherwise to that nation, therefore truth obscured is here signified by Tamar’s covering herself in a veil. That the truth of the church is obscured to them, is represented also at this day by their covering themselves with veils in their synagogues.

[2] There was a similar representation with Moses when the skin of his face shone as he came down from Mount Sinai, so that he covered himself with a veil whenever he spoke to the people (Exodus 34:28 to the end). Moses represented the Word which is called the Law (see the preface to Genesis 18); for which reason it is sometimes said the “Law and the Prophets” (as in Matthew 5:17, 11:13; 22:36, 40); and sometimes “Moses and the Prophets” (as in Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44). By the shining of the skin of his face was represented the internal of the Word, for the “face” is the internal (n. 358, 1999, 2434, 3527, 4066, 4796, 4797), which being spiritual is in the light of heaven. His veiling his face whenever he spoke to the people represented that internal truth was covered to them, and thus obscured so that they should not have to endure any light from it.

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.