2654、“戏笑”表示与神性理性不一致，或不支持它。这从“戏笑”的含义清楚可知，“戏笑”是由反对与人的自我不一致，或不支持它的东西的一种情感产生的。前一节说，“孩子渐渐长大，就断了奶；给以撒断奶的那天，亚伯拉罕设摆盛大的筵席”，意思是：当主的理性变成神性时，最初理性就被分离出去。因此，关注点立刻就转向埃及人夏甲的儿子，他表示最初理性，这在前面解释创世记16章论述以实玛利和夏甲的经文时已经说明。由此也明显可知，内义的内容按照一个连续不断的系列接连而至。
至于主的最初理性，它和其他人的一样出生，也就是说，通过知识和认知出生，所以不可避免地沉浸于真理的表象；而真理的表象本身并不是真理，这可从前面的说明清楚看出来（1911，1936，2196，2203，2209，2519节）。由于它沉浸于真理的表象，所以如神性真理那样的没有表象的真理不能与它一致，或支持它，既因最初理性无法理解它们，也因它们反对最初理性。下面举例说明。
人类理性就是从经由感官所获得的世俗事物的形像，以及后来从经由知识和认知所获得的类似实际世俗事物之物的形像中形成的理性。如果你说，这种理性不是靠自己活着，只是看似靠自己活着，那么该理性就准备大笑或嘲笑。如果你说，人越不相信他靠自己活着，就越真正地活着，即越有智慧和聪明，也越幸福和快乐，它也会嘲笑。如果你说，这种生活就是天使，尤其属天和至内在的，或离主最近的天使所拥有的生活，因为这些天使知道，没有人能靠自己活着，唯独耶和华，就是主除外，它同样会嘲笑。
如果你说，这种理性没有自己的任何东西，它拥有自己的东西是一个错觉或表象，它还是会嘲笑。如果你说，它越接受它拥有自己东西的错觉，它真正拥有的就越少，反之亦然，它更会嘲笑。如果你说，凡它凭自己所思所行的，都是恶的，即便看上去是善的，并说它没有任何智慧，除非它相信并感知到一切邪恶皆来自地狱，一切良善皆来自主，它同样会嘲笑。所有天使都相信，甚至感知到这一点；然而，他们却拥有比其他所有人都更充分的自我感；但他们意识并感知到，他们的自我来自主，尽管它完全看似他们自己的。
如果你说，在天堂，最大的就是最小的；最有智慧的，是那些相信并发觉他们自己最没有智慧的人；最幸福的，是那些最希望别人幸福，最不关心自己是否幸福的人；天堂就在于想在所有人之下，而地狱则在于想在所有人之上；因此，天堂的荣耀绝不包含世上的荣耀所包含的任何东西，这理性又会嘲笑。
如果你说，来世根本没有空间和时间，只有产生空间和时间表象的状态；生命越属天堂，离属于时空的事物就越远，并越接近永恒之物，因为永恒之物决不包含涉及时间概念，或类似时间的任何东西，这理性照样会嘲笑。人类理性在无数其它事上也是如此。
主发现，纯人类理性就含有这些东西，所以会嘲笑神性事物。事实上，主是从祂的属灵神性发现这一点的，这由“撒拉看见埃及人夏甲的儿子”来表示（2651，2652节）。人能从里面洞察下面自己里面的东西，如那些拥有感知的人，甚至那些拥有良心的人从经验中所熟知的，因为他们看得如此清楚，以至于会谴责自己的想法。因此，重生之人能看到他们的理性在重生之前是什么样。对人来说，这种感知来自主，但主的感知来自祂自己。
Potts(1905-1910) 2654
2654. Mocking. That this signifies not in agreement with or favoring the Divine rational, is evident from the signification of "mocking," as being that which comes of an affection contrary to what does not agree with and favor one's self. In the preceding verse it was said that the child grew, and was weaned, and that Abraham made a great feast when he weaned Isaac; by which is signified that when the Lord's rational was made Divine, the former rational was separated. Therefore there now immediately follows that which concerns the son of Hagar the Egyptian, by whom this rational is meant, as was shown in the explication at the sixteenth chapter, where Ishmael and Hagar are treated of. From this it is likewise manifest that the things which are in the internal sense follow together in a continuous series. [2] But in regard to the Lord's first rational, seeing that it was born as with another man, namely, by means of knowledges [per scientias et cognitiones], it could not but be in appearances of truth which are not truths in themselves, as is evident from what has been shown before (n. 1911, 1936, 2196, 2203, 2209, 2519); and as it was in appearances of truth, truths without appearances, such as Divine truths are, could not agree with it or favor it, both because this rational does not comprehend them, and because they oppose it. But take examples for illustration. [3] The human rational-that namely which has its birth* from worldly things through impressions of sense, and afterwards from analogies of worldly things by means of knowledges [per scientifica et cognitiones] - is ready to laugh and mock if told that it does not live of itself, but only appears to live so; and that one lives the more, that is, the more wisely and intelligently, and the more blissfully and happily, the less he believes that he lives of himself; and that this is the life of angels, especially of those who are celestial, and inmost, or nearest to the Lord; for they know that no one lives of himself except Jehovah alone, that is, the Lord. [4] This rational would mock also if it were told that it has nothing of its own, and that its having anything of its own is a fallacy or an appearance; and still more would it mock if told that the more it is in the fallacy that it has anything of its own, the less it has; and the converse. So too would it mock if told that whatever it thinks and does from what is its own is evil, although it were good; and that it is not wise until it believes and perceives that all evil is from hell, and all good from the Lord. In this belief, and even in this perception, are all the angels; who nevertheless have what is their own more abundantly than all others; but they know and perceive that this is from the Lord, although it altogether appears as theirs. [5] Again: this rational would mock if it were said that in heaven the greatest are they who are least, the wisest they who believe and perceive themselves to be the least wise, and the happiest they who desire others to be the most happy, and themselves the least so; that it is heaven to wish to be below all, but hell to wish to be above all; consequently that in the glory of heaven there is absolutely nothing the same as in the glory of the world. [6] In the same way would that rational mock, if it were said that in the other life there is nothing of space and time, but that there are states, according to which there are appearances of space and time; and that life is the more heavenly the further it is from what is of space and time, and the nearer it is to what is eternal; in which, namely, in what is eternal, there is nothing at all from the idea of time, nor from anything analogous to it: and so with numberless other things. [7] That there were such things in the merely human rational, and that therefore this rational mocked at Divine things, the Lord saw, and indeed from the Divine spiritual (which is signified by Sarah's seeing the son of Hagar the Egyptian, n. 2651, 2652). That man is able to look from within into the things in himself which are below, is known by experience to those who are in perception, and even to those who are in conscience; for they see so far as to reprove their very thoughts. Hence the regenerate can see what is the quality of the rational which they had before regeneration. With man such perception is from the Lord; but the Lord's was from Himself. * Natura, probably a misprint for natum. [Rotch ed.]
Elliott(1983-1999) 2654
2654. 'Mocking' means not in agreement with or favourably disposed towards the Divine Rational. This becomes clear from the meaning of 'mocking' as the product of an affection contrary to that which is not in agreement with or favourably disposed towards oneself. In the previous verse it was said that 'the boy grew and was weaned' and that 'Abraham made a great feast when he weaned Isaac', the meaning of which was that when the Lord's rational was made Divine the rational that existed first was separated. There now follows immediately therefore a reference to the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who is used to mean that first rational, as has been shown in the explanation of Chapter 16 where Ishmael and Hagar are the subject. From this it is also evident that the details in the internal sense follow, linked together in a continuous chain.
[2] But as regards the Lord's first rational, because it was born as with any other, that is to say, by means of knowledge and cognitions, it was inevitably immersed in appearances of truth, which are not in themselves truths, as may become clear from what has been presented in 1911, 1936, 2196, 2203, 2209, 2519. And because it was immersed in appearances of truth, truths devoid of appearances, as Divine truths are, were not able to agree with it nor to be favourably disposed towards it, not only because that rational can have no grasp of them but also because they are opposed to it. Let the following examples illustrate the matter:
[3] The human rational - that is to say, the rational formed from images of worldly things received through the senses, and later on from images of things analogous to actual worldly ones, such as are received from factual knowledge and from cognitions - virtually laughs or mocks if it is told that it does not live of itself but only appears to itself to do so. It likewise laughs if it is told that the less anyone believes that he lives of himself, the more he is truly living, that is, the more wise and intelligent he is, and the more blessed and happy. And it also laughs if it is told that that life is the life which angels possess, especially those who are celestial and are inmost or nearest to the Lord; for these know that nobody except Jehovah alone, that is, the Lord, lives of himself.
[4] This rational would also mock if it were told that it has nothing of its own, and that its possessing anything of its own is an illusion or an appearance. Still more would it mock if it were told that the more it is subject to the illusion that it possesses anything of its own the less it in fact possesses, and vice versa. It would likewise mock if it were told that whatever it thinks and does from what is its own is evil, even though it was good [in its effect], and if it were told that it has no wisdom until it believes and perceives that all evil comes from hell and all good from the Lord. This is a conviction, indeed a perception, that exists in all angels, yet they possess selfhood or a proprium in fuller measure than all others. But they realize and perceive that their selfhood comes from the Lord, even though it seems to be completely their own.
[5] This rational would again mock if it were told that in heaven the greatest are those who are least; that the wisest are those who believe and perceive that they themselves are the least wise; that the happiest are those who wish the greatest happiness to others and the least to themselves; that heaven consists in wishing to be below everyone else, but hell in wishing to be above everyone else; and that consequently the glory of heaven does not hold within it anything at all of that which the glory of the world holds.
[6] This rational would similarly mock if it were told that in the next life space and time do not exist at all but states in accordance with which there are appearances of space and time, and that life becomes more heavenly the further removed it is from the things that belong to space and time and the closer it comes to that which is eternal - for that which is eternal has absolutely nothing within it that is received from the notion of time or anything analogous to it. In the same way would the rational mock at countless other things it could be told.
[7] The Lord saw that such things were present in the merely human rational and that this rational therefore mocked Divine things. He did so from the Divine spiritual, which is meant by the words 'Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian', 2651, 2652. The fact that a person is able from within to have insight into the things residing with him that are below is well known from experience to those who have perception, and also to those who have conscience, for they see clearly enough to reproach themselves for what they think. This exemplifies how regenerate persons are able to see what their rational prior to regeneration is like. In man's case however such perception is received from the Lord, but in the Lord's case it was Self-derived.
Latin(1748-1756) 2654
2654. `Illudentem': quod significet non congruum et favens Divino Rationali, constare potest a significatione `illudere' quod affectionis contra id quod non sibi congruit et favet. In versu praecedente dictum quod `crevit natus, et ablactatus' et quod `Abraham fecerit convivium magnum cum ablactavit Jishakum,' per quae significatum quod cum Rationale Domini Divinum fieret, rationale quod prius, separaretur: ideo nunc immediate sequitur de filio Hagaris Aegyptiae, per quem quod illud rationale intelligatur, in explicatione ad cap. xvi Gen. ubi de Ismaele et Hagare agitur, ostensum est; inde quoque patet quod illa quae in sensu interno, continua serie consequantur. [2] Quod autem rationale primum Domini attinet, hoc quia natum sicut apud alium hominem, nempe per scientias et cognitiones, non potuit quin in veri apparentiis esset, quae non vera sunt in ut constare potest ab illis quae n. 1911, 1936, 2196, 2203, 2209, 2519 allata sunt; et quia in veri apparentiis, non potuerunt ei congruere nec favere vera absque apparentiis, qualia sunt Divina, tam quia illa non capit, quam quia ei adversantur: [3] sed illustrationi sint exempla. Rationale humanum, quod scilicet natum {1} a mundanis per sensualia et dein ab analogis mundanorum per scientifica et cognitiones, paene irridet hoc seu illudit, si ei diceretur quod non viveret ex se, sed quod ei appareat sicut viveret ex se; et quod plus vivat, hoc est, sapientius et intelligentius, beatius et felicius, qui minus credit quod {2} vivat (c)ex se, et quod haec vita sit angelorum, imprimis illorum qui caelestes sunt, ac intimi seu proximi Domino; sciunt enim quod nullus vivat a se, quam solus Jehovah, hoc est, Dominus. [4] Rationale illud illuderet quoque, si ei diceretur quod nullum ei proprium sit, sed quod fallacia aut apparentia sit quod habeat; et adhuc magis, si (o)ei diceretur quod quo plus in fallacia sit quod proprium ei, eo minus habeat, ac vicissim; pariter quicquid ex proprio cogitat et agit, quod sit malum tametsi {3} esset bonum; et quod non prius sapiat quam cum credit et percipit quod omne malum ab inferno, et omne bonum a Domino; in illa fide, immo perceptione, sunt omnes angeli, qui tamen proprium abundantius quam omnes habent, sed sciunt et percipiunt quod illud a Domino, at quod prorsus appareat sicut eorum. [5] Adhuc rationale illud illuderet, si diceretur quod in caelo maximi sint qui minimi; quod sapientissimi, qui se minime sapientes esse credunt et percipiunt; quod felicissimi, qui alios maxime felices, se autem minime, esse volunt; quod caelum sit infra omnes velle esse, at infernum supra omnes; consequenter quod in gloria caeli sit prorsus nihil quod est in gloria mundi. [6] (m)Similiter illuderet rationale illud, si diceretur quod in altera vita nihil spatii et temporis sit, sed quod sint status secundum quos sunt apparentiae; et quod vita eo caelestior sit, quo longius ab illis quae sunt spatii et temporis abest, et (o)quo propius est ad illa quae sunt aeternum, in quo, nempe aeterno, nihil prorsus (c)ab idea temporis, nec ab analogo ejus, inest(n): ita in innumerabilibus aliis. [7] Quod talia in rationali mere humano essent, et quod ideo hoc rationale Divina illuderet, vidit Dominus, et quidem ex Divino spirituali, quod significatur per quod `vidit Sarah filium Hagaris Aegyptiae,' n. 2651, 2652: quod homo ex interiore possit intueri in illa apud se quae infra sunt, ab experientia notum est illis qui in perceptione sunt, etiam illis qui in conscientia, nam vident eousque, ut ipsas suas cogitationes redarguant; inde possunt regenerati videre quoque eorum rationale quod iis ante regenerationem, sit; sed talis perceptio apud hominem est a Domino; verum Domini fuit ex Se Ipso. @1 natura I.$ @2 A had quo minus credit et sic quo minus ei apparet quod but alters first quo to qui.$ @3 A had tametsi esset bonum quod faceret but d quod faceret. The meaning is evidently that `what was done' may be good but that `the man's action' is bad.$