3246# "至于亚伯拉罕的妾的儿子们，亚伯拉罕把礼物给他们"象征主的神性之人所收养的属灵之人，他们在主的属灵王国中有份。这一含义可从以下几点得知：
"妾的儿子们"象征属灵之人，关于这点将在后面详细讨论。"亚伯拉罕"在此代表主的神性之人，因此"亚伯拉罕的"这个表述意味着那些属灵之人被主的神性之人所收养。亚伯拉罕给他们的"礼物"象征着他们在主的属灵王国中有份。
【2】从先前多次讨论中，特别是在第3235节和其它章节中，我们了解到那些构成主的属灵王国并被称为属灵之人的特点。这些人并非直接源于良善与真理的完美结合，而是来自一种不太完美的盟约。他们虽然有共同的父亲（同一个神性良善），但母亲（神性真理）却不同。
属天的人直接来自良善与真理的完美结合，因此他们天生就拥有良善和由此而来的真理。他们不需要询问什么是真理，因为他们能从良善中直接领受真理。他们谈论真理时，只会简单地说"是这样的"，正如主教导的：
你们的话，是就说是，不是就说不是；若再多说，就是出于那恶者。（马太福音5:37）
相比之下，属灵的人因来自不那么完美的盟约，无法直接领受什么是真。他们认为真的，是父母和老师告诉他们的。因此，在他们那里，良善和真理并不完全结合。然而，当他们生活在良善中时，他们所相信的真理会被主接纳为真理（参1832节）。
基于这些原因，属灵的人在这里被称为"妾的儿子们"。这个称呼包括了前面提到的所有基土拉的儿子，以及夏甲的儿子，关于这些将在第12节中进一步讨论。
【3】在古代，为了象征性地表现属天的和属灵的人在婚姻中的关系，允许男子除了妻子之外还可以有一个妾。这个妾通常是由妻子亲自给丈夫的，之后她就被称为丈夫的"女人"，或说是被给予丈夫作为"女人"。我们可以在圣经中看到几个例子：撒拉把埃及婢女夏甲给了亚伯拉罕（创世记16:3）；拉结把使女辟拉给了雅各（创世记30:4）；利亚把使女悉帕给了雅各（创世记30:9）。在这些记载中，这些女子被称为"女人"。但在其它地方，她们又被称为"妾"。例如：本章中提到的埃及人夏甲；《创世记》35章22节中的辟拉；甚至在《历代志》上1章32节中，基土拉也被称为妾。
【4】在古代，一些人除了妻子还有妾，这种做法不仅存在于亚伯拉罕和雅各身上，也延续到他们的后代，如基甸（士师记8:31）、扫罗（撒母耳记下3:7）、大卫（撒母耳记下5:13; 15:16）和所罗门（列王纪上11:3）。这种做法是被允许的，主要是出于象征的目的：妻子代表属天的教会，而妾则代表属灵的教会。之所以允许这种做法，是因为这些人缺乏真正的契合之爱，他们的婚姻实际上并非真正的婚姻，而只是为了生育后代的肉体结合。对于这样的人来说，拥有妾侍并不会损害契合之爱或婚姻盟约，因此可以被允许。
然而，对于那些在良善和真理中的人，或那些已经是或有潜力成为内在人的人来说，这种做法是绝对不允许的。因为一旦一个人在良善和真理中，并开始关注内在事物，这种多重关系的做法就应该停止。这就是为什么基督徒不被允许像古代犹太人那样在妻子之外再添一个妾，这种行为在基督教中被视为通奸。
关于属灵的人如何被主的神性之人所收养的详细讨论，可以参考先前在2661， 2716，2833，2834节中所阐述和展示的内容。
3246、“亚伯拉罕把礼物给了亚伯拉罕所拥有的众妾的儿子们”表示被主的神性人身或人性接纳的属灵人在主的属灵国度有份，或说有分配的地方。这从“众妾的儿子们”和“礼物”的含义，以及“亚伯拉罕”的代表清楚可知：“众妾的儿子们”是指下文所论述的属灵人；“亚伯拉罕”在此是指主的神性人身或人性，所以“亚伯拉罕所拥有的”表示他们，即属灵人，被主的神性人身或人性接纳；亚伯拉罕给他们的“礼物”是指在主的属灵国度中的份，或分配的地方。
前面几个地方（如3235节等）关于那些构成主的属灵国度，被称为属灵的人的描述表明，他们不是良善与真理的婚姻本身所生的儿子，而是来自一个不完全是婚约的约。他们的确是从同一个父亲生的，却不是同一个母亲生的。换句话说，他们是从同样的神性良善生的，却不是从同样的神性真理生的。事实上，属天人因来自良善与真理的婚姻本身，或说是该婚姻的后代，故拥有良善和植根于这良善的真理。因此，他们从来不问什么是真理，而是出于良善感知它。论到真理，他们只说“是的，是这样”，正如主在马太福音所教导的：
你们的话，是就是是，不是就是不是；若再多说，就是出于邪恶。（马太福音5:37）
而属灵人因来自一个不完全是婚约的约，或说是该约的后代，故无法出于任何感知知道什么是真理。相反，他们视父母和教师告诉他们是真理的东西为真理。因此，他们里面没有良善与真理的婚姻。即便如此，如果他们处于生活的良善，或说过着良善的生活，他们因上述原因信以为真理的真理仍被主当作真理来接纳（对此，参看1832节）。这解释了为何属灵人在此被称为“妾的儿子”，这些儿子是指已经提到的基土拉的所有子孙，以及稍后（25:12-18）提到的夏甲的子孙。
在以前的年代，为了能以婚姻代表属天人和属灵人，一个男人除了妻子之外，还可以纳一个小妾。妻子会把这妾送给丈夫；在这种情况下，这妾被称为他的“女人”，或被说成是送给男人作他的女人。例如，撒拉把埃及人夏甲送给亚伯拉罕（创世记16:3），拉结把使女辟拉送给雅各（创世记30:4），利亚把使女悉帕送给雅各（创世记30:9）。她们在这些地方被称为“女人”，但在别处被称为“妾”。埃及人夏甲在本节经文中被称为妾，辟拉在创世记35:22被称为妾，基土拉本人在历代志上1:32被称为妾。
这些古人除了妻子之外也有妾室，不仅亚伯拉罕和雅各是这样，而且他们的后代，如基甸（士师记8:31）、扫罗（撒母耳记下3:7）、大卫（撒母耳记下5:13；15:16）和所罗门（列王纪上11:3）也是这样。他们被允许这样做，是为了代表的缘故；也就是说，是为了妻子代表属天教会，妾代表属灵教会。他们被允许这样做，是因为他们具有这种性质：他们没有婚姻之爱；因此，对他们来说，婚姻不是婚姻，仅仅是为了繁衍后代的一种肉体交合。纳妾的许可能给予这种人而又不伤害他们的婚姻之爱，因而不伤害他们的婚约；但这些许可在那些处于良善和真理，成为或能成为内在人的人当中是永远不可能的。因为一旦人处于良善和真理，并处于内在事物，这些许可或活动就被断绝了。这就是为何基督徒不像犹太人那样可以在妻子之外纳妾，又为何这样做就是通奸。属灵人被主的神性人身或人性接纳，这一点从前面关于该主题的阐述和说明可以看出来（2661， 2716， 2833， 2834节）。
Potts(1905-1910) 3246
3246. And to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts. That this signifies the spiritual adopted by the Lord's Divine Human, that they have allotted places in His spiritual kingdom, is evident from the signification of the "sons of the concubines," as denoting those who are spiritual (concerning whom in what follows); from the representation here of Abraham, as being the Lord's Divine Human; so that by the words "which Abraham had," is signified that they (namely, the spiritual) were adopted by the Lord's Divine Human; and from the signification of the "gifts" which Abraham gave them, as being allotted places in the Lord's spiritual kingdom. [2] From what has already been shown in several places (as n. 3235, and elsewhere) concerning those who constitute the Lord's spiritual kingdom and are called the spiritual, it can be seen that they are not sons born of the marriage itself of good and truth, but of a certain covenant not so conjugial; they are indeed from the same father, but not from the same mother; that is, they are from the same Divine good, but not from the same Divine truth. For as the celestial are from the very marriage of good and truth, they have good and thence truth; wherefore they never inquire what is true, but perceive it from good; and they discourse not about truth beyond affirming that it is so-according to what the Lord teaches in Matthew:
Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, Nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matt. 5:37);
whereas the spiritual, because they are from a covenant not so conjugial, do not know from any perception what truth is, but call that true which they have been told to be so by parents and masters; and therefore in them there is not the marriage of good and truth; but still the truth which they thus believe is adopted by the Lord for truth when they are in the good of life (concerning this see n. 1832). Therefore it is that those who are spiritual are here called the "sons of the concubines," and by these are meant all the sons of Keturah hitherto enumerated, and also the sons of Hagar, who will be named immediately below, from the twelfth to the eighteenth verse. [3] In former times, in order that both the celestial and the spiritual might be represented in marriages, it was permissible for a man to have a concubine in addition to a wife; such concubine being given to the husband by the wife, and she was then called his "woman," or was said to be "given to him for a woman," as when Hagar the Egyptian was given to Abraham by Sarah (Gen. 16:3); when Bilhah the handmaid was given by Rachel to Jacob (Gen. 30:4), and the handmaid Zilpah to Jacob by Leah (Gen. 30:9). They are there called "women," but elsewhere they are called "concubines," as Hagar the Egyptian in this verse, and Bilhah in Genesis 35:22, also Keturah herself in 1 Chronicles 1:32. [4] That those ancients had concubines besides a wife, as was the case not only with Abraham and Jacob, but also with their descendants, as Gideon (Judges 8:31), Saul (2 Sam. 3:7), David (2 Sam. 5:13; 15:16), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), was of permission, for the sake of the representation, namely, of the celestial church by a wife, and of the spiritual church by a concubine: this was of permission because they were such that they had no conjugial love, neither was marriage to them marriage, but only a carnal coupling for the sake of procreating offspring. To such there might be permissions without injury to conjugial love, and consequently to its covenant; but never to those who are in good and truth, and who are or can become internal men; for as soon as man is in good and truth, and in things internal, such things cease. For this reason it is not allowable for Christians, as it was for the Jews, to take to themselves a concubine together with a wife, for this is adultery. That the spiritual were adopted by the Lord's Divine Human, may be seen from what has been stated and shown before on the same subject (n. 2661, 2716, 2833, 2834).
Elliott(1983-1999) 3246
3246. 'And to the concubines' sons, whom Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts' means that places in the Lord's spiritual kingdom were allotted to spiritual people adopted by the Lord's Divine Human. This is clear from the meaning of 'the concubines' sons' as those who are spiritual, to be dealt with below; from the representation of 'Abraham' here as the Lord's Divine Human (so that the words 'whom Abraham had' mean that they - those who were spiritual - were adopted by the Lord's Divine Human); and from the meaning of 'the gifts which Abraham gave them' as allotted places in the Lord's spiritual kingdom.
[2] From what has been shown several times already about those who constitute the Lord's spiritual kingdom and who are called the spiritual, as in 3235 and elsewhere, it becomes clear that they are not sons of the marriage itself of good and truth, but of a certain covenant not so conjugial. They are indeed descended from the same father but not from the same mother, that is, from the same Divine Good but not from the same Divine Truth. Indeed with those who are celestial, since they are the product of the marriage itself of good and truth, good exists and truth rooted in that good. They never make investigations into what the truth may be but have a perception of it from good. Nor in conversation do they say more than this regarding what is true, 'Yes, that is so', in keeping with the Lord's teaching in Matthew,
Let your words be Yes, yes; No, no; anything beyond this is from evil.a Matt 5:37.
But those who are spiritual, since they are the product of a covenant not so conjugial, do not have any perception from which they can know what is true. Instead they call that the truth which parents and teachers have told them to be the truth. Consequently with them there is no marriage of good and truth. Nevertheless that which they believe to be the truth for the reason just given is adopted by the Lord as truth when goodness of life exists with them; see 1832. This now explains why the spiritual are here called 'the concubines' sons', which is used to mean all the sons of Keturah mentioned already, and also those descended from Hagar, dealt with shortly below in verses 12-18.
[3] In former times- to enable both those who are celestial and those who are spiritual to be represented in marriages - a man was allowed to have a concubine in addition to a wife. That concubine was given to the husband by his wife (uxor), in which case the concubine was called his wife (mulier), or was said to have been given to him as a wife (mulier), as when Hagar the Egyptian was given to Abraham by Sarah, Gen 16:3, when the servant-girl Bilhah was given to Jacob by Rachel, Gen 30:4, and when the servant-girl Zilpah was given to Jacob by Leah, Gen 30:9. In those cases they are called 'wives' (mulier), but elsewhere concubines, as is Hagar the Egyptian in the present verse, Bilhah in Gen 35:22, and even Keturah herself in 1 Chron 1:32.
[4] The reason why those men of old had concubines in addition to a wife, as not only Abraham and Jacob did, but also their descendants, such as Gideon, Judg 8:31; Saul, 2 Sam 3:7; David, 2 Sam 5:13; 15:16; Solomon, 1 Kings 11:3, was that they were permitted to do so for the sake of the representation. That is to say, the celestial Church was represented by the wife, and the spiritual Church by the concubine. They were permitted to do so because they were the kind of men with whom conjugial love did not exist; so that to them marriage was not marriage but merely copulation for the sake of begetting off-spring. With such persons those permissions were possible without any harm being done to love or consequently to the conjugial covenant. But such permissions are never possible among people with whom good and truth are present and who are internal people, or potentially so. For as soon as good and truth, and internal things, exist with the human being, such permissions come to an end. This is why Christians are not allowed, as the Jews were, to take a concubine in addition to a wife, and why such is adultery. Regarding the adoption of those who are spiritual by the Lord's Divine Human, see what has been stated and shown already on the same subject in 2661, 2716, 2833, 2834.
Latin(1748-1756) 3246
3246. `Et filiis concubinarum, {1}qui Abrahamo, dedit Abraham dona: quod significet spirituales adoptatos a Divino Humano Domini, quod illis sortes in regno spirituali Domini, constat ex significatione `filiorum concubinarum' quod sint spirituales de quibus sequitur: ex repraesentatione `Abrahami' hic, quod sit Divinum Humanum Domini, ita per verba `qui Abrahamo' significatur quod illi, nempe spirituales, adoptati sint a Divino Humano Domini: et ex significatione `donorum' quae Abraham illis dedit, quod sint sortes in regno spirituali Domini. [2] Ex illis quae prius aliquoties de illis qui spirituale Domini regnum constituunt et spirituales vocantur, ostensa sunt, ut n. 3235 et alibi, constare potest quod illi non filii ex ipso conjugio boni et veri sint, sed {2}ex foedere quodam non ita conjugiali; ex eodem quidem patre sunt, sed non ex eadem matre, hoc est, ex eodem Divino Bono, sed non ex eodem Divino Vero: caelestibus enim quia ex ipso conjugio boni et veri sunt, est bonum et inde verum, quare nusquam inquirunt quid verum, sed ex bono percipiunt illud; nec de vero ulterior illis sermo est quam quod ita sit, secundum illa quae Dominus docet apud Matthaeum, Esto sermo vester, Ita ita, non non; quod ultra haec est, ex malo est, v (x)37;spirituales autem, {3}quia ex foedere non ita conjugiali, non sciunt quid verum ex aliqua perceptione, sed verum dicunt id quod a parentibus et magistris illis verum esse dictum est, quare apud illos non est conjugium boni et veri; sed usque verum quod ita credunt, a Domino adoptatur pro vero, quando in bono vitae sunt; videantur de his n. 1832. Inde nunc est quod spirituales hic dicantur `filii concubinarum' et per illos intelligantur omnes filii Keturae hactenus nominati, tum quoque filii ex Hagare, de quibus mox infra vers. 12-18, [3] Ut repraesentarentur et caelestes et spirituales in conjugiis olim, concessum fuit praeter uxorem etiam concubinam habere; concubina illa dabatur marito ab uxore, et tunc dicebatur ejus mulier, seu quod data sit ei in mulierem, sicut cum Hagar Aegyptia Abrahamo a Sarah, Gen. xvi 3, cum ancilla Bilhah Jacobo ex Rachele, Gen. xxx 4, et cum ancilla Zilpah Jacobo ex Lea, Gen. xxx 9; ibi dicuntur `mulieres,' sed alibi `concubinae,' {4}ut Hagar Aegyptia in hoc versu; Bilhah, Gen. xxxv 22, etiam ipsa Keturah I Paral. i 32. [4] Quod antiqui illi concubinas habuerint praeter uxorem, sicut non modo Abraham et Jacob, sed etiam posteri illorum, ut Gideon, Jud. viii 31; Saul, 2 Sam. iii 7; David, 2 Sam. v 13; xv 16; Salomo, 1 Reg. xi 3, erat ex permissione, repraesentationis causa, nempe Ecclesiae caelestis per uxorem, et Ecclesiae spiritualis per concubinam; ex permissione quia tales fuerunt ut illis nullus amor conjugialis, ita nec conjugium illis conjugium, sed modo copulatio carnalis sobolis procreandae causa; talibus absque laesione amoris et inde foederis conjugialis permissiones esse potuerunt, nusquam autem illis qui in bono et vero sunt, et qui interni homines sunt vel fieri possunt; ut primum enim homo in bono et vero est, ac in internis, cessant talia; inde est quod Christianis non liceat, sicut Judaeis, ad uxorem sibi aliquam concubinam adjungere, et quod hoc adulterium sit. Quod spirituales adoptati sint a Divino Humano Domini, videantur quae de eadem re prius n. 2661, 2716, 2833, 2834 dicta et ostensa sunt. @1 quae I$ @2 A had ex conjunctione quadam extra conjugium but alters as above.$ @3 A had quia ex alia conjunctione extra conjugium.$ @4 sicut$