3469. 'Esau was a son of forty years' means a state of temptation as regards the natural good of truth. This is clear from the representation of 'Esau' as natural good of truth, dealt with in 3300, 3302, 3322, and from the meaning of 'forty years' as a state of temptation - 'forty' meaning temptations, see 730, 862, 2272, and 'years' states, 487, 488, 493, 893. The reason why these details concerning Esau are added immediately after what has been told regarding Abimelech and Isaac is that the subject has been those who do the good of truth, that is, those who live in accordance with matters of doctrine drawn from the literal sense of the Word; for such people were meant by Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol, as stated above in various places.

[2] People therefore who do the good of truth, or who live in accordance with matters of doctrine, are regenerate as regards interior things, which are their rational concepts, but not yet as regards exterior, which are their natural things. For a person is regenerated as to the rational part of his mind before being regenerated as to the natural part, 3286, 3288. The natural exists wholly in this world, and it is on the natural as their foundation that the person's thought and will are based. This is the reason why, while being regenerated, a person is aware of conflict between his rational or internal man and his natural or external man, and why his external is regenerated much later and with far more difficulty than the internal. Indeed what is closer to the world and closer to the body cannot be easily rendered subservient to the internal man except over a considerable period of time and by means of very many new states into which it has to be brought. These states are states of self-recognition and of recognition of the Lord, that is to say, of his own miserable condition and of the Lord's mercy, and so of humiliation, through conflicts brought about by temptations. This being so, there is immediately added at this point the reference to Esau and his two wives, by which such things are meant in the internal sense.

[3] It is well known to anyone what natural good is, namely the good into which a person is born. But what the natural good of truth is, is known to few, if anyone. There are four types of natural good, or good that one is born with. These are, natural good that stems from the love of good; natural good that stems from the love of truth; also natural good that stems from the love of evil; and natural good that stems from the love of falsity. A person derives the good that he is born with from his parents, whether from father or from mother. For every characteristic which parents have acquired from frequent practice and conduct, that is, which they have taken into themselves by their own actions in life until with them they have become so habitual as to appear natural, is passed on to their children and becomes hereditary. If parents have led a good life from a love of good and have experienced delight and blessedness in that life, and if this is their state when they conceive an offspring, their offspring acquires from them an inclination towards this same form of good. If parents have led a good life from a love of truth - for which good, see 3459, 3463 - and have experienced delight in that life, and if this is their state when they conceive an offspring, their offspring acquires from them an inclination towards that same form of good. And the same applies to those who by heredity receive the good that stems from a love of evil and the good that stems from a love of falsity.

[4] The latter are called good because the kinds of good done by them seem in outward appearance to be good, despite the fact that there is nothing good at all about them. Very many with whom natural good is apparent possess this type of good. Those with whom natural good that stems from love of evil is present tend and incline towards evils of every kind, for they readily allow themselves to be led astray. That good is the source of their susceptibility especially towards foul delights, different kinds of adultery, and also of cruelty. Those with whom natural good stemming from a love of falsity is present incline towards falsities of every kind. Because of that good they seize on false persuasion, especially that used by hypocrites and deceivers, who know how to win people's attention, worm their way into affections, and feign innocence. Into these so-called forms of good - of good that stems from evil or from falsity - the majority are born at the present day in the Christian world, in whom natural good exists, the reason being that their parents have acquired a delight in evil and a delight in falsity through their own actions in life, and in this way have implanted it in their children, and so in their descendants.

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.