3605. And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. That this signifies that natural good was averse to the inverted conjunction of truth is evident from the signification of “hating” as here in the internal sense being to be averse to, which is the subject treated of in what follows; and from the representation of Esau, as being natural good; and of Jacob as being natural truth (concerning which above); and from the signification of a “blessing” as being conjunction (see n. 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565, 3584); that here it is an inverted conjunction of truth which is represented by Jacob is evident from what was said and shown above (n. 3539, 3548, 3556, 3563, 3570, 3576, 3603).

[2] That in the internal sense “to hate” denotes to be averse to is because it is predicated of good, which is represented by Esau, and good does not even know what hatred is, being the direct opposite thereof, and opposites are never possible in the same subject; but instead of hatred, good, or they who are in good, feel a kind of aversion; hence it is that “hatred” here in the internal sense denotes to be averse to; for the internal sense is principally for those who are in heaven, wherefore when it descends thence, and is derived into the literal sense, then, the historicals being of this nature, the affection of aversion falls into the expression “hatred,” but yet in such a way that with those who are in heaven there is no idea of hatred. This case is like that which was related from experience in volume 1875 (see n. 1875), concerning the words in the Lord’s prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”; in that temptation and evil are rejected until what is purely angelic, that is, good, remains without any idea of temptation and of evil, and this with the adjunction of a species of indignation and aversion, in regard to evil being thought of when the Lord is thought of.

[3] The case is the same when we read in the Word concerning Jehovah or the Lord “hating.” As in Zechariah:

Let none of you think evil in your heart of his neighbor; and love no lying oath; for all these are things that I hate, saith Jehovah (Zech. 8:17).

In Moses:

Thou shalt not set thee up a pillar, which Jehovah thy God hateth (Deuteronomy 16:22).

In Jeremiah:

Mine heritage is become unto Me as a lion in the forest; she hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jeremiah 12:8).

In Hosea:

In Gilgal I hated them; because of the wickedness of their works I will drive them out of Mine house; I will love them no more (Hos. 9:15).

In these passages “hatred,” predicated of Jehovah or the Lord, in the internal sense is not hatred, but mercy, for the Divine is mercy; but when this flows in with a man who is in evil, and he runs into the penalty of evil, it then appears as hatred and because it so appears, in the sense of the letter it is likewise so called.

[4] It is in the same way that “anger,” “wrath,” and “fury” are in the Word predicated of Jehovah or the Lord (concerning which, n. 245, 592, 696, 1093, 1683, 1874, 2395, 2447, 3235). Above all other peoples the Jewish and Israelitish people were such that as soon as they observed anything unfriendly, even in their associates, they believed it lawful to treat them cruelly, and not only to kill them, but also to expose them to wild beasts and birds; and therefore because the inflowing mercy of the Lord was turned with them into such hatred, not only against their enemies, but also against their companions, they could not believe otherwise than that Jehovah also entertained hatred, was angry, wrathful, and furious, and for this reason it is so expressed in the Word according to the appearance; for such as is a man’s quality, such the Lord appears to him (see n. 1838, 1861, 2706). But what the quality of hatred is with those who are in love and charity, that is, who are in good, is evident from the words of the Lord in Matthew:

Ye have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that injure and persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in the heavens (Matthew 5:43-45).

1093. Cursed be Canaan. That this signifies that external worship separate from internal averts itself from the Lord, is evident from the signification of “Canaan” and from that of “being cursed.” That “Canaan” is external worship separate from internal, is evident from what has been said before about Canaan, and also from his being said to be “cursed” and from what follows about his being a servant of servants; moreover one who is a servant to both Shem and Japheth cannot signify anything else than something that is separated from the church itself, such as is worship in externals alone. This is evident from the signification of being “cursed” as being to avert oneself, because the Lord never curses anyone, nor is even angry; but it is man who curses himself by averting himself from the Lord. (See what was stated and shown above, n. 223, 245, 592.) The Lord is as far from cursing anyone and being angry with him as heaven is from earth. Who can believe that the Lord, who is omniscient and omnipotent, and by His wisdom rules the universe, and is thus infinitely above all infirmities, is angry with such wretched dust as men, who scarcely know anything of what they do, and can of themselves do nothing but evil? It is, therefore, never possible for the Lord to be angry, or be other than merciful.

[2] That arcana are here contained, may be seen merely from this, that Ham is not cursed, when yet it was he who saw the nakedness of his father and told it to his brethren, but his son Canaan, who was not his only son nor his firstborn, but the fourth in order, as is evident from the tenth chapter, sixth verse, where the sons of Ham are named: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. It was also of the Divine Law that a son should not bear the iniquity of his father, as is evident in Ezekiel:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son (Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6).

The same appears also from the consideration that this iniquity seems so light (that is to say, Ham’s seeing the nakedness of his father and telling it to his brethren), that a whole posterity could not be cursed for it. From all this it is evident that there are arcana contained here.

[3] That “Ham” is not now named, but “Canaan” is because “Ham” signifies faith separated from charity in the spiritual church; and this cannot be cursed, since in that church there is holiness in faith, because there is truth. Hence although there is no faith when there is no charity, still as man is regenerated by means of the knowledges of faith, this faith without charity may be joined to charity, and thus is in a certain sense a brother, or may become a brother; therefore not Ham but Canaan was cursed. Furthermore, the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were in great part of such a nature that they made all worship consist in externals, the Jews as well as the Gentiles. Such are the arcana here contained, and unless this were so, Canaan would never have been substituted in place of Ham. That external worship separated from internal averts itself and thus curses itself, is sufficiently evident from the consideration that those who are in external worship regard nothing but what is worldly, corporeal, and earthly; thus they look downward, and immerse their minds and their life in these things, of which we shall have more to say presently.