4276. 'And he saw that he did not prevail against him' means that in temptations He conquered. This is clear without explanation.

6265. 'And Joseph brought them away from his thighs' means that the good belonging to the will and the truth belonging to the understanding were brought away from an affection originating in love on the part of spiritual good. This is clear from the representation of 'Joseph' as the internal celestial, dealt with in 5869, 5877; from the representation of Manasseh and Ephraim, the ones here whom 'Joseph brought away', as the good belonging to the will and the truth belonging to the understanding, dealt with in 5354, 6222; from the meaning of 'the thighs' as an affection originating in love, dealt with in 3021, 4277, 4280, 4575, 5050-5062; and on the part of spiritual good is meant because they were brought away from Israel, who represents spiritual good, 6253. The words used here mean that the internal celestial took good belonging to the will and truth belonging to the understanding away from spiritual good, that is, away from the affection arising from its love; they have this meaning because 'Israel', who represents spiritual good, had made that goodness and truth draw near him. Besides this they had to be brought to him by Joseph, who represents the internal celestial; for that reason they were brought away and after that, as described in what follows, were brought to him again by Joseph.

[2] The explanation for all this is that the inflow of love came to that goodness and truth from the internal celestial by way of spiritual good - in keeping with true order. That external procedure had therefore to be strictly adhered to when they were going to be blessed; for they were being presented to the Lord, the Source of the foretelling meant here by the blessing, 6254. This now explains why Joseph brought his sons away from his father's thighs, and why he himself after that brought them to him again.

3463. 'That Isaac's servants came' means rational concepts. This is clear from the meaning of 'servants' as rational concepts, and also as facts, dealt with in 2567, and from the representation of 'Isaac' as the Lord's Divine Rational, dealt with in 1893, 2066, 2072, 2083, 2630, 3012, 3194, 3210. From what has gone before it is clear what aspect of the Lord is represented here by Isaac, namely the Word as regards its internal sense. For by 'Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol' are meant matters of doctrine concerning faith which are drawn from the literal sense of the Word, like those matters of doctrine possessed by people who are called 'Philistines' in the good sense. That is, they are people who have no other matters of doctrine than those concerning faith, and yet so far as life is concerned they do what is good, though it is the good of truth. And these matters of doctrine do have a certain link with the internal sense, and so with the Lord.

[2] For people who have no other matters of doctrine than those concerning faith and yet who live according to them are linked in some way to Him, though in a remote way. It is remote for the reason that they do not know from any affection what charity towards the neighbour is, let alone love to the Lord, but only from some concept that belongs to faith. Thus they do not possess any perception of good, only a type of persuasion that that is true and accordingly good which their matters of doctrine tell them to be so. And when they are confirmed in those matters of doctrine they are just as likely to be subject to falsity as to truth, for nothing else than good can confirm a person as to what the truth is.

[3] Truth does indeed teach what good is, but it does so without perception, whereas good teaches what truth is from perception. Anyone may recognize this difference, and also the nature of it, simply from the following general command concerning charity,

All things whatever you would wish people to do to you, do so to them. Matthew 7:12.

The person who acts from this commandment does indeed do what is good to others; but he does it because it is so commanded rather than from any affection in the heart. And as often as he does that good deed he begins from a selfish motive, and also in doing such good his thoughts are of merit. But when he does not act from the commandment but from charity, that is, from affection, his actions begin in the heart, and so in freedom. And as often as he performs that act he begins from the desire itself for what is good, and so that which is a delight to him; and because in this delight he finds reward he has no thought of merit.

[4] From this one may now see what the difference is between doing good from faith and doing it from charity, and that people who do it from faith are more remote from good itself, which is the Lord, than those who do it from charity. The former cannot be easily brought to the good that flows from charity so that they may perceive it because truths are not present in them to any great extent. For no one can be brought to that good unless untruths have been rooted out first, which cannot be effected as long as untruths are so deeply rooted that a person is persuaded that they are truths.