3605. 'Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him' means that natural good found the conjunction with truth - inverted as regards order - repugnant. This is clear from the meaning of 'hating' here in the internal sense as repugnance, dealt with below; from the representation of 'Esau' as natural good, and of 'Jacob' as natural truth, dealt with above; and from the meaning of 'a blessing' as conjunction, dealt with above in 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565, 3584. As regards its being a conjunction with truth - inverted as regards order - that is represented by Jacob, this is clear from what has been stated and shown above in 3539, 3548, 3556, 3563, 3570, 3576, 3603.

[2] The reason why 'hating' in the internal sense means repugnance is that it has reference to good, represented by 'Esau', and good does not even know what hatred is, since it is the complete opposite of it. Things that are opposites cannot possibly coexist in the same subject. But instead of hatred, good - or the person in whom good is present - feels a certain kind of repugnance, and this is why hatred here in the internal sense means repugnance. Actually the internal sense is intended primarily for those who are in heaven, and therefore when it comes down from there and passes into the literal sense, the feeling of repugnance enters into words that denote hatred when historical narratives refer to hatred. Yet at the same time no idea of hatred is present in the minds of those in heaven. This is similar to what has been told from experience in Volume One, in 1875, about the words in the Lord's Prayer, Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. The idea of temptation and evil is rejected until something purely angelic, that is to say, good, devoid of any idea of temptation or evil remains. And coupled with this purely angelic idea there is a kind of indignation and a repugnance to any thought of evil when thinking about the Lord.

[3] It is similar with those places in the Word where one reads about Jehovah or the Lord hating, as in Zechariah,

Let none of you in your hearts think evil of his companion, nor love any lying oath, for all these things I hate, says Jehovah. Zechariah 8:17.

In Moses,

You shall not erect for yourself a pillar, which Jehovah your God hates. Deuteronomy 16:22.

In Jeremiah,

My heritage has become to Me like a lion in the forest It has lifted up its voice against Me, therefore I hate it. Jeremiah 12:8.

In Hosea,

In Gilgal I hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house; I will love them no more. Hosea 9:15.

Here 'the hatred' that is attributed to Jehovah or the Lord is not in the internal sense hatred but mercy, for the Divine is mercy. But when that mercy flows down to someone who is under the influence of evil he is exposed to the punishment that goes with evil, in which case mercy looks like hatred. And because it looks like hatred it is also called such in the sense of the letter.

[4] The same applies when in the Word anger, wrath, or fury are attributed to Jehovah or the Lord, dealt with in 245, 592, 696, 1093, 1683, 1874, 2335, 2395, 2447. The Jewish and Israelitish people more than all others were such that as soon as they detected any enmity present even with allies they believed that they were entitled to treat them cruelly, not only killing them but also exposing their bodies to wild animals and birds. And because the Lord's inflowing mercy was converted in this way into such hatred with them, a hatred directed, as has been stated, not only against enemies but also against allies, they inevitably believed that Jehovah too was capable of hating, being angry, wrathful, and furious. This is the reason why the Word has spoken in this way according to the appearance. For what a person is in himself determines how he sees the Lord, 1838, 1861, 2706. But the nature of hatred in the case of these in whom love and charity, that is, good, are present, is clear from the Lord's words in Matthew,

You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who hurt and persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. Matthew 5:43-45.

1093. That 'cursed be Canaan' means that external worship separated from internal turned itself away from the Lord is clear from the meaning of 'Canaan' and from the meaning of 'being cursed'. That 'Canaan' is external worship separated from internal is clear from what has been stated already about Canaan, also from his being called 'cursed'; and from what follows about his being 'a slave of slaves'. And being a slave both to Shem and to Japheth cannot mean anything other than something separated from the Church itself, such as worship that is wholly external. This is clear from the meaning of 'being cursed' as turning oneself away, for the Lord in no way curses anybody, or is even angry. Instead it is man who brings the curse upon himself by turning himself away from the Lord. On these points see what has been shown already in 223, 245, 592. The Lord is as far from cursing or being angry with anyone as the sky is from the earth. Who can believe that the Lord, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, who with wisdom rules the universe, and so who is infinitely superior to all [human] weaknesses, is angry with such pitifully worthless dust, that is, with human beings who scarcely know anything of what they do and who of themselves are incapable of anything other than evil? With the Lord therefore anger is never present, only mercy.

[2] That arcana are contained here can be seen merely from the consideration that even though it was Ham who saw his father's nakedness and pointed it out to his brothers, he was not cursed but his son Canaan, who was not his only son nor even the firstborn but the fourth in line, as is clear from Chapter 10, verse 6 later on, where the sons of Ham are mentioned as being Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. It can in addition be seen from the Divine Law that no son was to bear his father's iniquity, as is clear in Ezekiel,

The soul that has sinned will die. The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, nor will the father bear the iniquity of the son. Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 14:16; 2 Kings 14:6.

And the same can also be seen from the consideration that this iniquity of merely seeing his father's nakedness and pointing it out to his brothers seems too slight for all of his descendants ever to have been cursed on that account. From these considerations it is clear that arcana are contained here.

[3] The reason Ham is not mentioned here but Canaan is that Ham means faith separated from charity in the spiritual Church, which cannot be cursed because in that Church faith has holiness present within it because truth is present there. And although there is no faith when there is no charity, it is still possible - since it is by means of the cognitions of faith that a person is regenerated - for separated faith to be allied to charity, and in this way to be in some sense 'a brother' or may become one. This was why Canaan was cursed and not Ham. Furthermore the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were for the most part people such as made all worship consist in external things, the Jews there as much as the gentiles. These are the arcana contained here, but for which Canaan would never have been substituted for Ham. That external worship separated from internal turns itself away and so brings a curse on itself is quite clear from the fact that people whose worship is external have no regard for anything other than worldly, bodily, and earthly things. Thus they look downwards, and immerse their minds (animus) and life in those things; such will be dealt with a little further on.