1914、“我因你受屈，我将我的婢女送到你怀中”表示对真理的情感不愿承受指责。这是显而易见的，无需解释。就内义而言，这些话包含以下真理在里面：主感知到这第一理性是这样：它轻视直觉真理，主为此斥责它。因为主基于直觉真理思考，如前所述（1904节）；由于直觉真理在理性之上，所以祂能感知并看到第一理性的性质，也就是说，它小看直觉真理。
主能从内层人感知并看到祂自己里面的新理性是何性质，这一点从以下事实清楚看出来：内层能感知到发生在外层中的一切，或也可说，高层能看到发生在低层中的一切，但反过来不行。此外，那些有良心的人能够做到这一点，并习惯这样做，因为当有违背构成良心的真理的东西流入思维或意愿的努力时，他们不仅感知到它，还判断它是错的。事实上，知道自己具有这种性质会令他们悲伤、难过。那些拥有感知的人更是如此，因为感知在理性里面是更内层的。那么主又有什么做不到呢？要考虑到，祂拥有神性属天的感知，祂的思维源于对直觉真理的情感，而直觉真理在理性之上。因此，主不能不感到愤慨，因为祂知道没有一丁点邪恶或虚假来自祂自己；出于对真理的情感，祂焦急地竭尽全力使祂的理性变得纯洁。这表明主并不轻视直觉真理，而是感知到祂里面的第一理性轻视它。
要理性解释清楚什么叫基于直觉真理思考是不可能的，尤其是因为除了主以外，没有人出于这情感和这种真理来思考。凡出于它们思考的人都在天使天堂之上，因为就连第三层天堂的天使也不是基于直觉真理，而是基于理性的内层思考。但主将人身或人性本质与神性本质合一到何等程度，就在何等程度上出于神性良善本身，也就是耶和华思考。
拥有感知的上古教会的列祖基于内层理性思考。没有感知，但有良心的古教会的列祖基于外层理性或属世理性思考。然而，凡没有良心的人根本不理性思考，因为他们没有理性，尽管看似有理性。相反，他们基于属世层的感官和肉体经验思考。没有良心的人之所以不能理性思考，是因为就像刚才说的，他们没有理性。理性人是指那些思想信之良善和真理的人，绝不是指那些思想反对良善和真理的人。那些思想邪恶和虚假的人在思维上是疯狂的，所以理性决不会归于他们，或说决不能说他们有任何理性可言。
Potts(1905-1910) 1914
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.
Elliott(1983-1999) 1914
1914. That 'may the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant-girl into your bosom' means its unwillingness to take any blame is clear without explanation. In the internal sense these words embody within themselves the truth that the Lord perceived this first rational to be such as despised intellectual truth, and for that reason }{e reproached it. The Lord did indeed think from intellectual truth, as stated above in 1904; and because that truth was superior to the rational, He was able to perceive and see the nature of the rational, that is to say, that it held that truth in contempt.
[2] The Lord's being able from the interior man to perceive and see the nature of the new rational within Himself becomes clear from the fact that what is interior is able to perceive that which occurs in the exterior, or what amounts to the same, what is higher is able to see that which occurs in that which is lower, but not the reverse Moreover, those who have conscience are able and are accustomed to do the same, for when anything contrary to the truth constituting conscience enters their thought or the intentions of their will, they not only recognize it for what it is but also pour blame upon it; indeed it grieves them that their own nature is such. This is all the more true of those who have perception, for perception is more interior within the rational. What then could the Lord not do who had Divine celestial perception and whose thought sprang from the affection for intellectual truth which is above the rational? Therefore He could not be anything else but righteously angry since He knew that no evil or falsity at all stemmed from Himself and that from the affection for truth He strove anxiously with all His might so that the rational might be pure. From this it becomes clear that the Lord did not despise intellectual truth, yet perceived that the first rational with Him did so.
[3] What thinking from intellectual truth is cannot be explained intelligibly, all the less so because nobody except the Lord has ever thought from that affection and that kind of truth. Anyone who thinks from them is above the angelic heaven, for the angels of the third heaven do not think from intellectual truth but from the interior part of the rational. But to the extent that the Lord united the Human Essence to the Divine Essence, He thought from Divine Good itself, that is, from Jehovah.
[4] The early fathers of the Most Ancient Church, who had perception, thought from the interior rational. The fathers of the Ancient Church, who did not have perception but conscience, thought from the exterior or natural rational. But all who do not have conscience never think from the rational at all, since they have no rational however much they appear to do so. Instead they think from the sensory and the bodily experience of the natural. People who do not have conscience are unable to think from the rational for the reason, as has been stated, that they have no rational. The rational man is one in whom the good and truth of faith are the substance of his thought and never one who thinks in opposition to these. Those in whom evil and falsity are the substance of their thought are insane as to their thought and therefore the rational cannot be attributed to them.
Latin(1748-1756) 1914
1914. Quod `injuria mea super te, ego dedi ancillam meam in sinum tuum' significet quod illa non culpam in se accipere vellet, constat absque explicatione: haec in sensu interno involvunt quod Dominus perceperit hoc primum rationale tale esse ut vilipenderet verum intellectuale, quare illud redarguit; cogitavit enim Dominus ex vero intellectuali, ut dictum (o)supra n. 1904, quod quia supra rationale, percipere et videre potuit quale rationale esset, nempe quod vile haberet verum illud. [2] Quod Dominus ab interiore percipere et videre potuerit quale esset novum rationale apud Se, constare potest inde quod interius percipere queat quid existit in exteriore, seu quod idem, quod superius possit videre quid in inferiore, sed non vicissim; etiam qui conscientiam habent, hoc possunt et solent facere, dum enim aliquid influit contra verum conscientiae in cogitationem aut {1} in conatum voluntatis, non solum id appercipiunt, sed etiam incusant, immo indolet illis quod tales; magis qui perceptionem, nam perceptio est interior in rationali; quid non Dominus, Qui habuit perceptionem caelestem Divinam, et ex affectione veri intellectualis quod supra rationale est, cogitationem; quare non potuit non quam indignari, sciens quod nihil mali et falsi ex Semet, et quod ex affectione veri summa opera sollicitus fuerit ut rationale esset purum: (m)inde constare potest quod Dominus non vilipenderet {2} verum intellectuale, sed quod perceperit quod primum rationale apud `illum, illud vilipenderet.(n) [3] Quid sit cogitare ex vero intellectuali {3}, non explicari `potest ad captum,' et eo minus, quia nemo ex illa affectione et ex illo vero cogitavit quam Dominus; qui inde cogitat, is supra caelum angelicum, nam angeli tertii caeli non cogitant ex vero intellectuali, sed ex `interiore rationalis; (m)at quantum (t)Dominus univit Essentiam Humanam Divinae, cogitavit ex Ipso Divino Bono, hoc est, ex Jehovah(n): [4] Antiquissimae Ecclesiae patres, qui perceptionem habuerunt, cogitarunt ex interiore rationali; Ecclesiae Antiquae patres, qui non perceptionem sed conscientiam habuerunt, cogitarunt ex rationali exteriore seu naturali {5}; omnes autem qui absque conscientia sunt, nusquam cogitant ex rationali, nam non rationale habent tametsi apparet sicut haberent: sed cogitant ex naturali sensuali et corporeo {6}; quod illi qui non conscientiam, non ex rationali cogitare possint, causa est, ut dictum quia rationale non habent; rationalis homo est qui cogitat bonum ei verum fidei, nusquam qui contra illud; qui cogitant malum et falsum. insaniunt cogitatione, quare de illis nusquam rationale praedicari potest. @1 et.$ @2 vilipenderit.$ @3 A had quid sit cogitare ex intellectuali vero, d last two words and substitutes affectione veri intellectualis. In copying S seems to have preferred the former, but omitted to delete the ex illa affectione et in next line.$ @4 interno.$ @5 i ejus.$ @6 i ex.$