3623. 'What would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. This is clear from the meaning of 'life' as conjunction by means of truths and goods. For when it was not possible for any truth from a common stem or genuine source to be joined to natural truth, there could not be any alliance of the natural to the truth of the rational, in which case it seemed to the rational as though its own life were no life, 3493, 3620. This is why here 'what would life hold for me?' means, and so there would not be any conjunction. Here and in other places the word 'life' in the original language is plural, and the reason for this is that in man there are two powers of life. The first is called the understanding and is the receptacle of truth, the second is called the will and is the receptacle of good. These two forms or powers of life make one when the understanding is rooted in the will, or what amounts to the same, when truth is grounded in good. This explains why in Hebrew the noun 'life' is sometimes singular, sometimes plural. The plural form of that noun is used in all the following places, Jehovah God formed the man, dust from the ground; and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7. Jehovah God caused to spring up out of the ground every tree desirable to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden. Genesis 2:9. Behold, I am bringing a flood of waters over the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 6:17.

They went in to Noah into the ark, two by two from all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. Genesis 7:15 (in 780).

Everything which had the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils breathed its last. Genesis 7:12.

In David,

I believe [I am going] to see the goodness of Jehovah in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

In the same author,

Who is the man who desires life, who loves [many] days, that he may see good? Psalms 34:12

In the same author,

With You, O Jehovah, is the fountain of life; in Your light do we see light. Psalms 36:9.

In Malachi,

My covenant with Levi was [a covenant] of life and peace. Malachi 2:5.

In Jeremiah,

Thus said Jehovah, Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. Jeremiah 21:8.

In Moses,

To love Jehovah your God, to obey His voice, and to cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days, so that you may dwell in the land. Deuteronomy 30:20.

In the same author,

It is not an empty word from you; for it is your life, and through this word you will prolong your days in the land. Deuteronomy 32:47.

And in other places too the plural form of the noun 'life' is used in the original language because, as has been stated, there are two kinds of life which yet make one. It is similar with the word 'heavens' in the Hebrew language, in that the heavens are many and yet make one, or like the expression 'waters' above and below, in Genesis 1:7-9 , by which spiritual things in the rational and in the natural are meant which ought to be one through being joined together. As for the plural form of 'life', when this is used both the life of the will and that of the understanding are meant, and therefore both the life of good and that of truth are meant. For man's life consists in nothing else than good and truth which hold life from the Lord within them. Devoid of good and truth, and of the life which these hold within them, no one is human. For devoid of these no one would ever have been able to will or to think anything. Everything that a person wills originates in good or in that which is not good, and everything he thinks originates in truth or in that which is not truth. Consequently man possesses two kinds of life and these make one when his thinking flows from his willing, that is, when truth which is the truth of faith flows from good which is the good of love.

3463. 'That Isaac's servants came' means rational concepts. This is clear from the meaning of 'servants' as rational concepts, and also as facts, dealt with in 2567, and from the representation of 'Isaac' as the Lord's Divine Rational, dealt with in 1893, 2066, 2072, 2083, 2630, 3012, 3194, 3210. From what has gone before it is clear what aspect of the Lord is represented here by Isaac, namely the Word as regards its internal sense. For by 'Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol' are meant matters of doctrine concerning faith which are drawn from the literal sense of the Word, like those matters of doctrine possessed by people who are called 'Philistines' in the good sense. That is, they are people who have no other matters of doctrine than those concerning faith, and yet so far as life is concerned they do what is good, though it is the good of truth. And these matters of doctrine do have a certain link with the internal sense, and so with the Lord.

[2] For people who have no other matters of doctrine than those concerning faith and yet who live according to them are linked in some way to Him, though in a remote way. It is remote for the reason that they do not know from any affection what charity towards the neighbour is, let alone love to the Lord, but only from some concept that belongs to faith. Thus they do not possess any perception of good, only a type of persuasion that that is true and accordingly good which their matters of doctrine tell them to be so. And when they are confirmed in those matters of doctrine they are just as likely to be subject to falsity as to truth, for nothing else than good can confirm a person as to what the truth is.

[3] Truth does indeed teach what good is, but it does so without perception, whereas good teaches what truth is from perception. Anyone may recognize this difference, and also the nature of it, simply from the following general command concerning charity,

All things whatever you would wish people to do to you, do so to them. Matthew 7:12.

The person who acts from this commandment does indeed do what is good to others; but he does it because it is so commanded rather than from any affection in the heart. And as often as he does that good deed he begins from a selfish motive, and also in doing such good his thoughts are of merit. But when he does not act from the commandment but from charity, that is, from affection, his actions begin in the heart, and so in freedom. And as often as he performs that act he begins from the desire itself for what is good, and so that which is a delight to him; and because in this delight he finds reward he has no thought of merit.

[4] From this one may now see what the difference is between doing good from faith and doing it from charity, and that people who do it from faith are more remote from good itself, which is the Lord, than those who do it from charity. The former cannot be easily brought to the good that flows from charity so that they may perceive it because truths are not present in them to any great extent. For no one can be brought to that good unless untruths have been rooted out first, which cannot be effected as long as untruths are so deeply rooted that a person is persuaded that they are truths.