251. The reason why the “serpent” means all evil in general, and specifically the love of self, is that all evil has had its rise from that sensuous part of the mind, and also from that memory-knowledge [scientifico], which at first were signified by the “serpent;” and therefore it here denotes evil of every kind, and specifically the love of self, or hatred against the neighbor and the Lord, which is the same thing. As this evil or hatred was various, consisting of numerous genera and still more numerous species, it is described in the Word by various kinds of serpents, as “snakes” “cockatrices” “asps” “adders” “fiery serpents” “serpents that fly” and “that creep” and “vipers” according to the differences of the poison, which is hatred. Thus we read in Isaiah:

Rejoice not thou, whole Philistia, because the rod which smiteth thee is broken, for out of the serpent’s root shall go forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a flying fire-serpent (Isaiah 14:29).The “serpent’s root” denotes that part of the mind, or that principle, which is connected with the senses and with memory-knowledge [est sensuale et scientificum]; the “cockatrice” denotes evil originating in the falsity thence derived; and the “flying fire-serpent” the cupidity that comes from the love of self. By the same Prophet also similar things are elsewhere thus described:

They hatch cockatrice’s eggs, and weave the spider’s web; he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and when it is crushed there cometh out a viper (Isaiah 59:5).

The serpent described here in Genesis is called in the Revelation the “great and red dragon” and the “old serpent” and also the “devil and satan” that “deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:3, 9; 20:2), where, and also in other places, by the “devil” is not meant any particular devil who is prince over the others, but the whole crew of evil spirits, and evil itself.

2643. 'Who would have said to Abraham, Sarah will suckle sons?' means that by His own power the Lord implanted the Human within the Divine. This is clear from the representation of 'Abraham' and also of 'Sarah', and from the meaning of 'suckling', and of 'sons'. It has been shown already that 'Abraham' represents Divine Good and 'Sarah' Divine Truth. 'Milk' means that which is spiritual from a celestial origin, that is, truth deriving from good, see 2184, so that 'suckling' means implanting that truth; And 'sons' means truths, here truths that exist in the Rational, as is clear from the meaning of 'sons', 489-491, 533. The reason why in the internal sense the words under consideration mean that the Lord by His own power implanted the Human within the Divine is that Divine Truth is one and the same as the Divine Human, and when in reference to this it is said 'to suckle sons for Abraham' the meaning is that He implanted the Human within the Divine; and as it was the Human He implanted, He did so by His own power. But scarcely any clearer and more intelligible explanation of these matters is possible. To say more would obscure still further what is meant; for these are Divine matters, which can be presented to angels alone by means of celestial and spiritual things. If presented to men in some more exalted manner those matters would fall into the material and bodily ideas which men possess.

[2] What is more, it should be recognized that it is the nature of the Lord's Divine Rational when it was first born that is being described by these words, 'God has made laughter for me; everyone that hears will laugh for me; and she said, Who would have said to Abraham, Sarah will suckle sons?' For this was in keeping with an ancient custom that when an infant was born it was given a name which served to mean the state; and at the same time a description of that state was added, as when Cain was born to Eve and Adam, Genesis 4:1, and when Seth was born to the same, Genesis 4:25; and as when Noah was born to Lamech, Genesis 5:29, Esau and Jacob to Isaac, Genesis 25:25-26, the twelve sons to Jacob, Genesis 29:32-35; 30:6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20, 24; 35:18, Perez and Zerah to Tamar, Genesis 38:29-30, Manasseh and Ephraim to Joseph, Genesis 41:51-52, and Gershom and Eliezer to Moses, Exodus 2:22; 18:4. What all these represent, and what they mean in the internal sense, was embodied in the descriptions added to the names that were given. The same is the case here with what Isaac represents and means. What this name embodies is evident to some small extent from this brief explanation that has been given, but deeper arcana are nevertheless concealed there since they are Divine matters, which no sentences or phrases can be formed to express.