4667. And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan. That this signifies that the Lord’s Divine natural was accordant under Divine rational good, is evident from the signification of “to dwell,” as being to live (see n. 1293, 3384, 3613, 4451); from the representation of Jacob, as being in the supreme sense the Lord’s Divine natural (n. 3305, 3509, 3525, 3546, 3576, 3599, 3775, 4009, 4234, 4286, 4538, 4570); from the representation of Isaac, who here is the “father,” as being the Lord’s Divine rational as to good (n. 1893, 2066, 2630, 3012, 3194, 3210); and from the signification of the “land of Canaan,” as being in the supreme sense the Lord’s Divine Human (n. 3038, 3705). From all this it follows that Jacob’s dwelling in the land of his father’s sojournings in the land of Canaan, denotes the Lord’s Divine natural living together or accordantly under Divine rational good, in the Divine Human. The Lord’s natural has been treated of above (Genesis 35:22-26), that all things in it were now Divine (see n. 4602-4610); Genesis 35:27-29(and in the following verses of the same chapter, Genesis 35) the conjunction of the Lord’s Divine natural with His Divine rational (n. 4611-4619). Here the conclusion follows: that the Divine natural lived an accordant life under Divine rational good.

[2] It is said “under Divine rational good,” because the natural lives under this; for the rational is higher or interior, or according to a customary form of speaking is prior, while the natural is lower or exterior, consequently posterior; thus the latter is subordinate to the former. Nay, when they are accordant, the natural is nothing else than the general of the rational; for whatever the natural has does not then belong to it, but to the rational. The difference is only such as exists between particulars and their general, or between singulars and their form, in which the singulars appear as a one. It is known to the learned that the end is the all in the cause, and that the cause is the all in the effect; thus that the cause is the end in form, and the effect the cause in form; and hence that the effect entirely perishes if you take away the cause, and the cause if you take away the end; and moreover that the cause is under the end, and the effect under the cause. It is similar with the natural and the rational.

3576. And he blessed him. That this signifies conjunction thus, is evident from the signification of “being blessed,” as being conjunction (n. 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565). From these particulars which are related concerning Esau and Jacob it is evident that the good of the rational conjoined itself inmostly with the good of the natural, and through the good therein with truth; for Isaac represents the rational as to good; Rebekah, the rational as to truth; Esau, the good of the natural; and Jacob, the truth of it. That the rational as to good, signified by “Isaac,” conjoined itself inmostly with the good of the natural, signified by “Esau,” and not with the truth of the natural, signified by “Jacob,” except mediately, is evident from the fact that Isaac had Esau in mind when he pronounced the blessing on Jacob; nor did he then think of Jacob, but of Esau. He who pronounces a blessing, blesses him of whom he is thinking, and not then him of whom he is not thinking. All the blessing that is uttered with the mouth goes forth from within, and has life in it from the will and thought of him who blesses, and therefore it essentially belongs to him for whom he wills, and of whom he thinks. He who takes it away and thus makes it his own is like one who steals something which should be restored to another. That when Isaac blessed he thought of Esau and not of Jacob, is evident from all that goes before, as from verses 18 and 19, where Isaac says to Jacob, “Who art thou my son?” and Jacob said unto his father, “I am Esau thy firstborn;” and from verses 21-22, and 23, where Isaac said to Jacob, “Come near I pray, and I will feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau, or not;” and after he had felt him, he said, “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau, and he recognized him not;” also from verse 24, “And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am;” and at last when he kissed him, “he smelled the smell of his garments,” namely, Esau’s; and when he then blessed him, he said, “See, the smell of my son;” from all which it is evident that by the son whom he blessed no other was meant than Esau; and therefore also when he heard from Esau that it was Jacob, “Isaac shuddered with exceeding great shuddering” (verse 33), “and said, Thy brother came with fraud” (verse 35); but the reason why Jacob retained the blessing, according to what is said in verses 33 and 37, is that the truth represented by Jacob was apparently to have the dominion for a time, as has been shown several times above.

[2] But after the time of reformation and regeneration has been completed, then the good itself which had lain inmostly concealed, and from within had disposed each and all things that had appeared to be of truth, or that truth had attributed to itself, comes forth and openly has the dominion. This is signified by what Isaac said to Esau: “By thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother, and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from upon thy neck” (verse 40), the internal sense of which words is that so long as truth is being conjoined with good, good is apparently made to take a lower place; but that it will be in the prior place, and then there will be a conjunction of the rational with the good of the natural, and thereby with the truth; and thus truth will come to be of good; consequently Esau will then represent the good itself of the natural, and Jacob the truth itself thereof, both conjoined with the rational; thus in the supreme sense the Lord’s Divine natural; Esau, as to the Divine good, and Jacob as to the Divine truth, therein.