3679. And Esau saw that Isaac blessed Jacob. That this signifies the thought of natural good concerning conjunction through the good of truth which is “Jacob,” is evident from the signification of “seeing,” as being to think; for thinking is nothing else than seeing inwardly, or internal sight; and from the representation of Esau, as being the good of the natural (see n. 3300, 3302, 3322, 3494, 3504, 3576, 3599); from the signification of being “blessed,” as being conjunction (n. 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565, 3584); from the representation of Isaac, as being the Lord’s Divine rational as to Divine good (treated of above); and from the representation of Jacob, as being the good of truth (n. 3669, 3677). From all this it is evident that by “Esau saw that Isaac blessed Jacob,” is signified the thought of natural good concerning conjunction through the good of truth.

[2] What is meant by the thought of natural good concerning conjunction through the good of truth cannot be fully explained to the apprehension, but yet must be briefly explained. The thought of natural good is the thought of the rational or internal man within the natural or external man, and indeed from the good of the latter; for it is the rational or internal man which thinks, and not the natural or external man; the former, or internal man, is in the light of heaven, in which light there is intelligence and wisdom from the the Lord, (n. 3195, 3339, 3636, 3643); but the external man is in the light of the world, in which there is no intelligence, and not even life; and therefore unless the internal man were to think within the external, it would not be possible to think at all. And yet thought appears to man to be in his external man, inasmuch as he thinks from those things which have entered in by the senses and are of the world.

[3] The case is the same as with the sight of the eye. The sensuous man supposes that the eye sees of itself, when yet the eye is merely an organ of the body by which the internal man sees those things which are out of the body, or which are in the world. It is also the same as with speech. The sensuous man would suppose that the mouth and tongue speak of themselves; and they who think somewhat more deeply, that the larynx and interior organs speak by breath from the lungs; when yet it is the thought which speaks by means of these organs, for speech is nothing but thought speaking. There are many such fallacies of the senses. The case is the same in regard to all apparent life in the external man in that it is the life of the internal man therein as in its material and corporeal organ.

[4] With respect to thought, the case is this: So long as man lives in the body he thinks from the rational in the natural, but with a difference accordingly as the natural corresponds to the rational, or does not so correspond. When the natural corresponds, the man is rational, and thinks spiritually; but when the natural does not correspond, the man is not rational, nor can he think spiritually; for with the man whose natural corresponds to his rational the communication is opened, so that the light of heaven from the Lord can flow in through the rational into the natural, and enlighten it with intelligence and wisdom; hence the man becomes rational and thinks spiritually. But with the man whose natural does not correspond to the rational the communication is closed, and there only flows in somewhat of light in general round about, and through chinks through the rational into the natural; and the result is that the man is not rational, and does not think spiritually; for a man thinks according to the influx of the light of heaven that he enjoys. This shows that every man thinks according to the state of correspondence in respect to good and truth of the natural with the rational.

[5] But spirits and angels do not think in the same way as man; their thought is indeed also terminated in a natural, for they have with them all the natural memory and its affections, but are not allowed to use this memory (see n. 2475-2479); yet although they are not allowed to use it, it nevertheless serves them as a plane, or as a foundation, in order that the ideas of their thought may be terminated therein. Hence it is that the ideas of their thought are more interior, and their speech is not as with man from forms of words, but from forms of actual things; showing that their thought also is such as is the correspondence of their natural with their rational; and that there are spirits who are rational, who think spiritually, and also those who are not rational, who do not think spiritually; and this exactly in accordance with their affections and consequent thoughts of things in the life of the body; that is, with the state of life they had acquired in the world.

[6] From this it may in some measure appear what the thought of natural good is, namely, that it is thought in the good of the natural. According to the idea of spirits that is called the thought of natural good which according to the idea of men is called thought in the good of the natural. In this latter, that is, in the good of the natural, the rational thinks when it has regard to good as the end. Thus the thought of natural good concerning conjunction through the good of truth, is thought in the natural concerning the end, namely, how truth can be conjoined therewith; and this according to Divine order by the common way; which, as has often been said above, is from such things as are external, and thus which are the ultimate or last in order; for all the regeneration of the natural commences from these. These last or ultimate things are the first knowledges, such as are those of infants and children, concerning which see above (n. 3665).

[7] In the beginning the truth of good, which is “Esau,” is not conjoined in the external form with the good of truth, which is “Jacob;” for the good of truth is inverse in respect to the truth of good (n. 3669); but still they are inmostly conjoined, that is, in respect to ends. For the end of the truth which is from good is that truths may be adjoined to it according to order; and this also is the end of the good which is from truth; and inasmuch as the end conjoins, therefore they are conjoined (n. 3562, 3565). The inverse of order is at first only a means that has respect to the end.

3425. And the shepherds of Gerar strove with Isaac’s shepherds. That this signifies that they who taught did not see any such thing therein because the senses appeared opposed, is evident from the signification of “disputing,” when the internal sense of the Word is concerned, as being to deny it to be such by saying that they do not see it; and from the signification of “shepherds,” as being those who teach (n. 343); and from the signification of “Gerar,” as being faith (n. 1209, 2504, 3365, 3384); thus “the shepherds of the valley of Gerar” denote those who acknowledge only the literal sense of the Word. The reason why they see no such thing, that is, no interior sense, is that the two appear opposite, namely, what is in the internal sense, and what is in the literal sense. But their appearing to be opposite does not prove that they are so, for they wholly correspond; and the reason they appear opposite is that they who see the Word so are in what is opposite.

[2] It is the same in the case of a man who is in opposition within himself, that is, whose external or natural man is in entire disagreement with his internal or spiritual man. Such a man sees that which is of the internal or spiritual man as opposed to himself, when yet in respect to the external or natural man, he himself is in that which is opposed; and if he were not in this, so that his external or natural man yielded obedience to the internal or spiritual man, the two would wholly correspond. For example: the man who is in what is opposed believes that in order for him to receive eternal life riches are to be renounced, as well as all the pleasures of the body and of the world, thus the delights of life; such things being supposed to be opposed to spiritual life, whereas in themselves they are not so, but correspond, because they are means to an end, namely, that the internal or spiritual man may enjoy them so as to be able to perform the goods of charity, and also may live content in a healthful body. The ends alone are what cause the internal man and the external either to be opposed or to correspond; they are opposed when the riches, pleasures, and delights here spoken of become the ends, for in this case the spiritual and celestial things which are of the internal man are despised and derided, nay, are rejected; but they correspond when such things are not made ends, but means to higher ends, namely, to those things which belong to the life after death, thus to the heavenly kingdom and the Lord Himself. In this case bodily and worldly things appear to the man as scarcely anything in comparison; and when he thinks about them, he values them only as means to ends.

[3] From this it is evident that the things which appear opposed are not opposed in themselves; but they appear so because men are in what is opposed. They who are not in what is opposed, act, speak, and acquire riches, and also enjoy pleasures, similarly as do those who are in what is opposed, insomuch that in the outward appearance they can scarcely be distinguished from each other. The reason is that their ends alone are what distinguish them; or what is the same, their loves; for loves are ends. But although in the outward form, or as to the body, they appear alike, yet in the inward form, or as to the spirit, they are utterly unlike. The spirit of one who is in correspondence-that is, with whom the external man corresponds to the internal-is fair and beautiful, such as is heavenly love in form; but the spirit of one who is in what is opposed-that is, with whom the external man is opposed to the internal-however great may be the outward resemblance to the other, is black and ugly, such as is the love of self and of the world, that is, such as is contempt of others and hatred in form.

[4] The case is the same with a host of things in the Word; that is to say, the things in the literal sense appear opposed to those in the internal sense; when yet they are by no means opposed, but wholly correspond. For example: it is frequently said in the Word that Jehovah or the Lord is angry, is wroth, destroys, and casts into hell; when yet He is never angry, and still less does He cast anyone into hell. The former is of the sense of the letter, but the latter is of the internal sense; and these appear opposed, but this is because the man is in what is opposed. In the same way the Lord appears as a sun to the angels who are in heaven, and thence as vernal warmth, and as light at dawn; but to the infernals He appears as something quite opaque, and thence as wintry cold, and as midnight darkness. Consequently to the angels He appears in love and charity, but to the infernals in hatred and enmity; thus to the latter according to the sense of the letter-that He is angry, is wroth, destroys, and casts into hell; but to the former according to the internal sense-that He is never angry and wroth, and still less destroys and casts into hell; so that when things are being treated of in the Word that are contrary to the Divine, it is inevitable that they should be presented in accordance with the appearance. Moreover it is the Divine which the wicked change into what is diabolical that works in this way; and therefore insofar as they approach the Divine, so far they cast themselves into infernal torments.

[5] The case is the same with the Lord’s words in the prayer: “Lead us not into temptation.” The sense according to the letter is that He leads into temptation; but the internal sense is that He leads no one into temptation, as is well known (see n. 1875). The same is true of all other things that belong to the literal sense of the Word.