3043、“我叫你起的誓就与你无干了”表示属于属世人的自由。这从“仆人”和“倘若那女人不肯跟来，就无干了”的含义清楚可知：“仆人”是指属世人（3019节），亚伯拉罕的话是对他说的；“倘若那女人不肯跟来，就与你无干了”在最近似或最直接相关的意义上是指如果对真理的情感不分离，他就没有任何义务了。显然，这些话暗指属于属世人的自由，因为此处所论述的对真理的情感，以及它的分离在内义上都归于属世人。这些话在历史意义上的确还有其它含义，但在内义上的含义就是这样。
至于人的自由，可参看前面的阐述和说明（892， 905， 1937， 1947， 2744， 2870-2893节），因为这些章节表明自由是什么情况。自由归于属世人，不怎么归于理性人，因为良善在来自主的天上自由中通过理性人流入属世人。属世人才是这良善的接受者；为使它能接受这良善，并因此与通过理性人流入的天上自由结合，属世人被留在自由中。因为自由属于爱或情感。属世人若不从所流入的对良善的情感中接受对真理的情感，就决不能与理性人结合。这就是人的情况，主通过自由改造人（参看1937， 1947， 2876-2878， 2881节）。
就主而言，当主将其理性中的真理变成神性，也就是将神性真理附在理性的神性良善上时，祂同样使属世人留在自由中，因为祂愿意以通常的方式将祂的人身或人性变成神性。通常的方式就是当人正在被改造和重生时发生在他身上的方式。因此，人的改造和重生本身就是（主荣耀的）一种形像。一个人也通过改造和重生变成一个新人，并因此被称为新生者和新造者。他越被改造，似乎就越拥有神性在里面。但不同之处在于，主凭自己的能力把自己变成神性，而人凭自己的能力做不了任何事，哪怕最小的事，只能靠主。之所以说“似乎拥有神性”，是因为人只是生命的接受者，而主在两个本质上（即神性本质和人身或人性本质）都是生命本身（参看1954， 2021， 2658， 2706， 3001节）。
Potts(1905-1910) 3043
3043. Then thou shalt be clear from this mine oath. That this signifies the freedom belonging to the natural man, is evident from the signification of the "servant" of whom these things are said, as being the natural man (n. 3019); and from the signification of "being clear if the woman is not willing to follow," as being in the proximate sense, that he would be under no pledge if the affection of truth should not be separated. That these words involve the freedom belonging to the natural man, is evident; for the affection of truth here treated of, and the separation also, are predicated in the internal sense of the natural man; in the historical sense there is another connection, but in the internal sense it is such as has been stated. [2] Concerning man's freedom, see what was said and shown above (n. 892, 905, 1937, 1947, 2744, 2870-2893) from which it is evident how the case is with freedom. Freedom is predicated of the natural man, but not in the same way of the rational; for good flows through the rational into the natural in heavenly freedom from the Lord. The natural man is that which is to receive this good; and in order that it may receive it, and may thus be conjoined with the heavenly freedom which flows in through the rational, the natural is left in freedom. For freedom is of love or affection; and unless the natural man receives the affection of truth from the inflowing affection of good, it cannot possibly be conjoined with the rational. Such is the case with man; and that he is reformed of the Lord through freedom may be seen (n. 1937, 1947, 2876-2878, 2881). [3] In regard to the Lord, He likewise left the natural in freedom when He made His rational Divine as to truth; that is, when He adjoined Divine truth to the Divine good of the rational; for it was His will to make His Human Divine in the usual manner, that is, in the way in which man is reformed and regenerated. The reformation and regeneration of man is therefore itself a kind of image; by reformation and regeneration also a man is made new, and hence is said to be born anew and created new; and insofar as he is reformed, insofar he has as it were what is Divine in him. But there is this difference, that the Lord made Himself Divine from His own power, while man cannot do the least thing from his own power, but only from the Lord. It is said "as it were what is Divine," because man is but a recipient of life; whereas the Lord as to each essence is life itself (see n. 1954, 2021, 2658, 2706, 3001).
Elliott(1983-1999) 3043
3043. 'You are clear from my oath' means the freedom that the natural man has. This is clear from the meaning of 'the servant', to whom Abraham's words are addressed, as the natural man, 3019, and from the meaning of 'being clear if the woman is unwilling to follow' in the proximate sense as not being bound if the affection for truth were not separated. These words, it is evident, imply the freedom that the natural man has; for the affection for truth, which is the subject here, and also its separation, is in the internal sense attributed to the natural man. In the historical sense these words do indeed have other connotations, but in the internal sense their implications are such.
[2] Regarding human freedom, see what has been stated and shown already in 892, 905, 1937, 1947, 2744, 2870-2893, for these paragraphs show what is implied by freedom. Freedom is attributed to the natural man, but not so much to the rational man, because it is by way of the rational man and into the natural man that good flows in, in heavenly freedom, from the Lord. It is the natural man that is the recipient of that good, and in order that it may receive it and so be joined to the heavenly freedom flowing in by way of the rational man, the natural man is left in freedom. For freedom goes with love or affection. If the natural man does not receive an affection for truth from an inflowing affection for good, that man is in no sense joined to the rational. This is how it is with man, whom the Lord reforms by means of freedom, see 1937, 1947, 2876-2878, 2881.
[3] In the Lord's case He too left the Natural in freedom when He made His Rational Divine as regards truth, that is, when He allied Divine Truth to the Divine Good of the Rational, for He was willing to make His Human Divine in the ordinary way. The ordinary way is that which occurs in anyone who is being reformed and regenerated. The actual reformation and regeneration of man is therefore a replica of what took place in the Lord. For by reformation and regeneration he becomes a new person, and is consequently called one begotten anew, and one created anew; and to the extent that he has been reformed he seems to have the Divine within him. But there is this difference, that the Lord made Himself Divine by His own power, whereas man is not able to effect the slightest reformation by his own power, only from the Lord. The expression 'seems to have the Divine' is used because man is solely a recipient of life, whereas the Lord is Life itself as to both Essences, see 1954, 2021, 2658, 2706, 3001.
Latin(1748-1756) 3043
3043. `Et immunis es ab adjuratione mea': quod significet liberum quod naturali homini, constat a significatione `servi' de quo haec dicuntur, quod sit naturalis homo, n. 3019, et ex significatione `immunis esse si mulier non sequi velit' quod sit in sensu proximo, quod in nulla obstrictione foret si affectio veri non separaretur; quod haec involvant liberum quod naturali homini, patet; affectio enim veri, de qua hic agitur, tum separatio, praedicatur in sensu interno de naturali homine; in sensu historico quidem est alia cohaerentia, sed in sensu interno est talis. [2] De libero hominis videantur quae prius n. 892, 905, 1937, 1947, 2744, 2870-2893 dicta et ostensa sunt, ex quibus patet quomodo se res habet cum libero; liberum praedicatur de naturali homine, non autem ita de rationali, nam per rationalem in naturalem influit bonum in libero caelesti a Domino; naturalis homo est qui recipiet illud, utque recipiat et sic conjungatur caelesti libero quod influit per rationalem, relinquitur naturalis in libero; liberum enim est amoris seu affectionis; si non affectionem veri ex influente affectione boni recipit, nusquam naturalis homo conjungitur rationali; ita se habet apud hominem, qui quod per liberam a Domino reformetur, videatur n. 1937, 1947, 2876-2878, 2881. [3] Quod Dominum attinet, Ipse quoque in libero reliquit Naturale cum Divinum fecit Rationale Suum quoad verum, hoc est, cum Divinum Verum adjunxit Divino Bono Rationalis, nam per viam communem voluit Humanum Suum Divinum facere; via communis est qualis est apud hominem qui reformatur et regeneratur; ipsa reformatio et regeneratio hominis est ideo imago quaedam; fit etiam homo per reformationem et regenerationem novus, inde vocatur ille e novo genitus, et e novo creatus, et quantum reformatus est, tantum in se quasi Divinum habet; sed illa est differentia quod Dominus Se Ipsum ex propria potentia Divinum fecerit; at homo ne hilum potest ex propria potentia sed ex Domino; quasi Divinum dicitur quia homo est solum recipiens vitae, Dominus autem quoad utramque Essentiam est ipsa vita, videatur n. 1954, 2021, 2658, 2706, 3001.