3686. And Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of Isaac his father. That this signifies the Lord’s foresight and providence, that the affections of that truth with which natural good had been heretofore conjoined would not conduce to conjunction, is evident from the signification here of “seeing,” as being foresight and providence (see n. 2837, 2839); and from the representation of Esau, as being the Lord in respect to the Divine good of the natural (concerning which see above); from the signification of the “daughters of Canaan,” here the daughters of Heth, as being the affections of truth from a ground not genuine (n. 3470, 3620-3621, 3622); and from the signification of “being evil in the eyes of Isaac his father,” as being not to conduce to conjunction, namely, through the good of the natural, which is “Esau,” with the good of the rational, which is “Isaac.” From all this it is evident that by these words is signified the Lord’s foresight and providence, that the affections of that truth, because not from a genuine ground, would not conduce to conjunction. How the case herein is, may be seen from the explication at chapter 26, verses 34-35, where the daughters of Heth are treated of whom Esau had taken to himself for women; and at chapter, 27 verse 46, where it is said of Jacob that he should not take to himself a woman of the daughters of Canaan [Heth]. That by the “daughters of Canaan” are here signified the affections of truth from a ground not genuine, and above by the “daughters of Canaan,” the affections of falsity and evil (n. 3662, 3683), is because the Hittites were of the Church of the Gentiles in the land of Canaan, and were not so much in falsity and evil as were the other nations there-the Canaanites, Amorites, and Perizzites. Hence also by the Hittites there was represented the Lord’s spiritual church among the Gentiles (n. 2913, 2986).

[2] That the Most Ancient Church, which was celestial and existed before the flood, was in the land of Canaan, may be seen above (n. 567); and that the Ancient Church, which was after the flood, was also in that land, and moreover in a number of other kingdoms, see above (n. 1238, 2385). From this it came to pass that all the nations in that land, and likewise all the regions and all the rivers thereof, became representative; for the most ancient people, who were celestial men, by means of all the objects which they saw, perceived such things as are of the Lord’s kingdom (n. 920, 1409, 2896, 2897, 2995); thus also by means of the regions and rivers of that land. After their times these representatives remained in the Ancient Church, thus also the representatives of the places in that land. The Word in the Ancient Church (n. 2897-2899), also had thence the names of places representative, as had also the Word after their time which is called “Moses and the Prophets;” and because this was so, Abraham was commanded to go thither, and a promise was made him that his posterity should possess that land; and this not because of their being better than other nations, for they were among the worst of all (n. 1167, 3373), but in order that by them a representative church might be instituted, in which no attention should be paid to person or to place, but to the things that were represented (n. 3670); and that thereby also the names used in the Most Ancient and the Ancient Church might be retained.

3670. And He will give thee the blessing of Abraham. That this signifies the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural, is evident from the signification of a “blessing,” as being conjunction (n. 3660, 3667); and from the representation of Abraham, as being the Lord’s Divine Itself which is called the “Father” (concerning which see n. 2011, 3251, 3439). And inasmuch as these words are spoken to Jacob, by whom there would be represented the Lord’s Divine natural as to the Divine good and truth therein, therefore the conjunction of the Divine Itself with the good and truth of the natural is what is signified, in the internal sense, by “He will give thee the blessing of Abraham.” In the sense of the letter, it is the possession of the land of Canaan that is meant by the “blessing of Abraham,” and also by the words which follow: “to cause thee to inherit the land of thy sojournings, which God gave unto Abraham;” and according to this sense do all apprehend the words who believe that the historicals of the Word do not contain within them things more heavenly and secret: and especially so do the Jewish nation, who on the strength of these words claim for themselves privileges above every other nation and people. Their fathers understood the words in the same manner, and especially were they so understood by Jacob, whose quality is evident from what was said just above (n. 3667), in that he would not have known Jehovah, nor have been willing to acknowledge Him, unless He had given him corporeal and worldly blessings. But that neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob was meant, and that by Jacob is represented the Lord as to the natural which He would make Divine, is abundantly manifest from the explications given above. That it is immaterial what is the quality of the man who represents, as to whether he is evil or good, and that evil men equally with good men can represent and have represented the Lord’s Divine, may be seen above (n. 665, 1097, 1361).

[2] The same may be seen from the representatives which exist even to this day; for all kings, whoever they may be, and of whatever quality, by the royalty itself that appertains to them represent the Lord; in like manner all priests, whoever and of whatever quality they may be, by the priestly office itself. The royal and the priestly office itself is holy, whatever be the quality of him who ministers therein; and this is the reason why the Word taught by an evil man is equally holy, and also the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper, and other such things. And from this it is also evident that no king can possibly claim for himself anything of the sanctity that belongs to his royalty; nor any priest anything of the sanctity that belongs to his priesthood. Insofar as either claims anything thereof to himself, or attributes it to himself, so far he brands himself with the character of a spiritual thief, or with the mark of spiritual theft; and also insofar as he does evil, that is, acts contrary to what is just and equitable, and contrary to what is good and true, so far a king puts off the representative of holy royalty, and a priest the representative of holy priesthood, and represents the opposite. For this reason in the representative Jewish Church there were so many laws enjoined concerning the holiness in which priests especially should be during their ministration-on which subject, of the Lord’s Divine mercy, more will be said in what follows.