3667. And God Shaddai will bless thee. That this signifies the temptations of that truth and good through which there is conjunction, is evident from the signification of “God Shaddai,” as being temptations (concerning which signification in what follows); and from the signification of being “blessed,” as being conjunction (see n. 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565, 3584). Inasmuch as by Jacob is now represented the good of truth, as before shown (n. 3659), therefore that good and truth are here meant by “thee.” The reason why “God Shaddai” signifies temptations, is that in ancient times they distinguished the Supreme God (that is, the Lord) by various names, and this in accordance with His attributes, and in accordance with the goods which are from Him, and also in accordance with the truths, the multiplicity of which is a fact that is known to everyone. They who were of the Ancient Church by all these appellations understood only one God, namely, the Lord, whom they called Jehovah; but after the church had declined from good and truth, and at the same time from this wisdom, they began to worship as many gods as there were appellations of the one God; insomuch that every nation, and at last every family, acknowledged one of them for its own god; hence came the many gods of which mention is often made in the Word.

[2] The same thing took place in the family of Terah the father of Abraham, and also in the house of Abraham himself, who worshiped other gods (as may be seen above, n. 1356, 2559), and especially the God Shaddai (n. 1992). That the worship of this God remained in that house, is evident also from these words in Moses:

I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, in God Shaddai, but by My name Jehovah I was not known to them (Exodus 6:3).

This is the reason why it was said to Abraham: “I am God Shaddai; walk before Me, and be perfect” (Genesis 17:1); and why it is here said by Isaac to Jacob, “God Shaddai will bless thee.” That this is the case is also clearly evident from what follows in this chapter, in that after the Lord had said to Jacob in a dream, “I am Jehovah the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac” (verse 13), still Jacob afterwards said, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way wherein I walk, and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, and I return in peace to my father’s house, then Jehovah shall be to me for God” (verses 20-21); from which it is evident that neither did the house of Jacob acknowledge Jehovah; but that Jacob would acknowledge Him as his God if He would be his benefactor-just as is the case at this day in Christian Gentilism.

[3] But as specifically regards God Shaddai, the Lord had been so called in the Ancient Church with respect to temptations and to blessings and benefits after temptations, as was shown in Second Part (n. 1992). This is the reason why by “God Shaddai” in the internal sense are signified temptations. That by temptations is effected a conjunction of good and truth, see what has already been stated and shown concerning temptations (n. 2819).

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.