3469. And Esau was a son of forty years. That this signifies a state of temptation as to the natural good of truth, is evident from the representation of Esau, as being the natural good of truth (n. 3300, 3302, 3322); and from the signification of “forty years,” as being states of temptation. (That “forty” signifies temptations may be seen above, n. 730, 862, 2272; and that “years” signify states, n. 487, 488, 493, 893.) The reason why these things concerning Esau are joined to what has been related concerning Abimelech and Isaac, is that those are treated of who are in the good of truth, that is, who are in life according to things that are derived from the literal sense of the Word; for these are signified by “Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol,” as before repeatedly said.

[2] They therefore who are in the good of truth, or in a life according to doctrinal things, are regenerate as to the interiors, which are their rational, but not yet as to the exteriors, which are their natural things; for man is regenerated as to the rational before he is regenerated as to the natural (n. 3286, 3288); because the natural is altogether in the world, and in the natural as in a plane there are founded man’s thought and will. This is the reason why during regeneration man observes a combat between his rational or internal man and his natural or external man; and why his external man is regenerated much later, and likewise with much greater difficulty, than his internal man. For that which is nearer to the world and nearer to the body cannot be easily constrained to render obedience to the internal man; but only after considerable length of time and by means of many new states into which the man is introduced, which are states of self-acknowledgment, and of acknowledgment of the Lord, that is, of one’s own wretchedness, and of the Lord’s mercy; thus states of humiliation resulting from temptation combats. Because this is so, there is here next adjoined what is said of Esau and his two wives, whereby such things are signified in the internal sense.

[3] Everyone knows what natural good is, namely, that it is the good into which man is born; but what the natural good of truth is, is known to few, if any. There are four kinds of natural good, that is, of the good that is born with man, namely, natural good from the love of good, natural good from the love of truth, and also natural good from the love of evil, and natural good from the love of falsity. For the good into which man is born he derives from his parents, either father or mother; for all that which parents have contracted by frequent use and habit, or have become imbued with by actual life until it has become so familiar to them that it appears as if natural, is transmitted into their children, and becomes hereditary. If parents who have lived in the good of the love of good and in this life have perceived their delight and blessedness, conceive offspring in this state, the offspring receive therefrom an inclination to similar good; and if parents who have lived in the good of the love of truth (concerning which good see n. 3459, 3463) and in this life have perceived their delight, are in this state when they conceive offspring, the offspring receive therefrom an inclination to the like good.

[4] The case is similar with those who receive hereditarily the good of the love of evil and the good of the love of what is false. These latter are called goods by reason of their appearing in outward form as goods in those persons in whom they are, although they are the very reverse of goods. Very many in whom natural good appears have such good. They who are in the natural good of the love of evil are pliant and prone to evils of every kind; for they suffer themselves to be easily led astray, and from this good are compliant, especially to foul pleasures, to adulteries, and also to cruelties; and they who are in the natural good of falsity are prone to falsities of every kind, and from this good learn with avidity what is persuasive, especially from hypocrites and cunning persons, who know how to captivate the mind, to insinuate themselves into the affections, and to feign innocence. At the present day most people who in the Christian world are in natural good, are born into these so-called goods of evil and falsity, because their parents have by actual life contracted the delight of evil and of falsity, and thus have implanted it in their children, and thereby in their descendants.

3463. That the servants of Isaac came. That this signifies rational things, is evident from the signification of “servants,” as being rational things and memory-knowledges (n. 2567) and from the representation of Isaac, as being the Lord as to the Divine rational (n. 1893, 2066, 2072, 2083, 2630, 3012, 3194, 3210). From what goes before it is evident what of the Lord is here represented by Isaac, namely, the Word as to its internal sense; for by “Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol” are signified the doctrinal things of faith which are from the literal sense of the Word, such as are the doctrinal things of those who are called “Philistines” in a good sense, that is, those who are solely in the doctrinal things of faith, and as to life are in good, but in the good of truth, which doctrinal things have some conjunction with the internal sense, thus with the Lord.

[2] For they who are solely in the doctrinal things of faith, and in a life according to them, are in a certain conjunction, but a remote one, for the reason that they do not know from any affection what charity toward the neighbor is, and still less what love to the Lord is, but only from a certain idea of faith; thus neither are they in any perception of good, but in a species of persuasion that what their doctrinal things dictate is true and thus good, and when they are confirmed in these doctrinal things, they may be in what is false equally as in what is true; for nothing but good confirms a man in regard to what is truth. Truth indeed teaches what good is, but without perception; whereas good teaches what truth is from perception.

[3] Everyone may know how this is, and also what is the nature and quality of the difference, merely from this common precept of charity:

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them (Matthew 7:12).

He who acts from this precept does indeed do what is good to others, but because it is so commanded, thus not from the affection of the heart; and whenever he does it, he begins from himself, and also in doing good thinks of merit; whereas he who does not act from precept, but from charity, that is, from affection, acts from the heart, and thus from freedom; and whenever he acts, he begins from really willing what is good, thus for the reason that it is delightful to him; and as he has recompense in the delight, he does not think of merit.

[4] From this then can be seen what the difference is between doing good from faith, and doing good from charity; and that those who do good from faith are more remote from good itself which is the Lord than those who do it from charity; neither can the former be easily introduced into the good of charity so far as to have a perception of it, because they are but little in truths; for no one can be introduced into this good unless things not true are first eradicated, which is impossible while such things are inrooted even to persuasion.