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.

1849. And also that nation whom they shall serve. That this signifies the evil who oppress, is evident from the signification of a “nation” and of “serving.” In the genuine sense a “nation” signifies goods, or what is the same, good persons; for when goods are spoken of in the abstract, they are in a subject; and this is a man, a spirit, or an angel. But in the opposite sense a “nation” signifies evils, or what is the same, the evil (see n. 1159, 1258-1260). But to “serve,” or “servitude,” signifies oppression, as in the preceding verse.