3599. And Isaac his father answered and said unto him. That this signifies perception concerning natural good, that it would be made Divine, is evident from the signification of Isaac, as being the Lord’s Divine rational as to the Divine good therein (n. 3012, 3194, 3210); and from the signification in the historicals of the Word of “saying,” as being to perceive, which has already been frequently treated of; and from the representation of Esau, to whom he spoke, as being natural good, concerning which also much has been already said. That it should be made Divine, is evident from the blessing, now to be considered. It was said above that Esau represents the Lord’s Divine natural as to Divine good, and Jacob His Divine natural as to Divine truth; but here, that Esau represents the natural good which was to be made Divine; and in what goes before, that Jacob represented the natural truth which also was to be made Divine. How the case herein is may be seen from what was said above (n. 3494, 3576); but that it may become still clearer, a few words shall be added.

[2] The natural good which Esau first represents is the natural good of the Lord’s infancy, which was Divine from the Father, but human from the mother; and insofar as it was from the mother it was imbued with hereditary evil; and being such, it could not be at once in an order capable of receiving the Divine that was inmostly within it; but had first to be reduced into order by the Lord. The case is the same with the truth represented by Jacob; for where there is good there must be truth in order for there to be anything; all that which is of thought, even with infants, is of truth, adjoined to the will part which is of good. Wherefore after the Lord had reduced the natural as to good and as to truth in Himself into order, so that it might receive the Divine, and that thus He Himself might inflow from His Divine, and after by successive steps He had expelled all the human that was from the mother; then Esau represents the Lord’s Divine natural as to good, and Jacob His Divine natural as to truth.

[3] But Esau and Jacob represent the Divine good and Divine truth of the Lord’s Divine natural as conjoined with each other like brothers, which Divine good and Divine truth considered in themselves are nothing else than one simultaneous power for the formation and reception of actual good and truth. This actual good and truth are treated of later. From all this it is evident what great arcana are contained in the internal sense of the Word, which arcana are such that not even their most general points fall into the understanding of man; as possibly may be the case with the things just stated; and how then can the innumerable particulars relating thereto do so? Yet are they well adapted to the understanding and apprehension of the angels, who concerning these and the like things receive from the Lord heavenly ideas illustrated by representatives of ineffable loveliness and bliss; from which some conception may be formed of the nature of angelic wisdom, yet remotely, because such things are in the shade of the human understanding.

3494. And he called Esau his elder son. That this signifies the affection of good of the natural, or the good of life, is evident from the representation of Esau, as being the Divine good of the natural (concerning which see n. 3300, 3302, 3322); and because the good of the natural is that which appears in the affection and life, therefore it is the affection of good of the natural, or the good of life, that is here represented by Esau. The affection of good in the natural, and the derivative good of life, is what is called the “elder son;” but the affection of truth, and the derivative doctrine of truth, is what is called the “younger son.” That the affection of good, and the derivative good of life, is the “elder son,” that is, the firstborn, is evident from the fact that infants are first of all in good, for they are in a state of innocence, and in a state of love toward their parents and nurse, and in a state of mutual charity toward their infant companions; so that good is the firstborn with every man. This good, into which man is thus initiated when an infant, remains; for whatever is imbibed from infancy enters into the life; and because it remains, it becomes the good of life; for if man should be without such good as that which he has derived from infancy, he would not be a man, but would be more of a wild beast than any in the forest. This good does not indeed appear to be present, because all that is imbibed in the infantile age does not appear otherwise than as something natural-as is sufficiently manifest from walking, and from the other motions of the body; from the manners and decorums of civil life; also from speech, and various other things. From this it may be seen that good is the “elder son,” that is, the firstborn, and consequently that truth is the “younger son,” or is born afterwards; for truth is not learned till the infant becomes a child, a youth, and an adult.

[2] Good as well as truth in the natural or external man is a “son,” that is to say, a son of the rational or internal man; for whatever comes forth in the natural or external man flows in from the rational or internal man, and from this also comes forth and is born; that which does not come forth and is not born therefrom is not a living human thing; it would be as you might say something sensuous corporeal without a soul. From this it is that both good and truth are called “sons,” and indeed sons of the rational. And yet it is not the rational which produces and brings forth the natural, but it is an influx through the rational into the natural, which influx is from the Lord. Therefore all infants who are born are His sons, and afterwards when they become wise, insofar as they are still infants, that is, in the innocence of infancy, in the love of infancy toward their parent, now the Lord, and in the mutual charity of infancy toward their infant companions, now their neighbor, so far they are adopted by the Lord as sons.