3605. And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. That this signifies that natural good was averse to the inverted conjunction of truth is evident from the signification of “hating” as here in the internal sense being to be averse to, which is the subject treated of in what follows; and from the representation of Esau, as being natural good; and of Jacob as being natural truth (concerning which above); and from the signification of a “blessing” as being conjunction (see n. 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565, 3584); that here it is an inverted conjunction of truth which is represented by Jacob is evident from what was said and shown above (n. 3539, 3548, 3556, 3563, 3570, 3576, 3603).

[2] That in the internal sense “to hate” denotes to be averse to is because it is predicated of good, which is represented by Esau, and good does not even know what hatred is, being the direct opposite thereof, and opposites are never possible in the same subject; but instead of hatred, good, or they who are in good, feel a kind of aversion; hence it is that “hatred” here in the internal sense denotes to be averse to; for the internal sense is principally for those who are in heaven, wherefore when it descends thence, and is derived into the literal sense, then, the historicals being of this nature, the affection of aversion falls into the expression “hatred,” but yet in such a way that with those who are in heaven there is no idea of hatred. This case is like that which was related from experience in volume 1875 (see n. 1875), concerning the words in the Lord’s prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”; in that temptation and evil are rejected until what is purely angelic, that is, good, remains without any idea of temptation and of evil, and this with the adjunction of a species of indignation and aversion, in regard to evil being thought of when the Lord is thought of.

[3] The case is the same when we read in the Word concerning Jehovah or the Lord “hating.” As in Zechariah:

Let none of you think evil in your heart of his neighbor; and love no lying oath; for all these are things that I hate, saith Jehovah (Zech. 8:17).

In Moses:

Thou shalt not set thee up a pillar, which Jehovah thy God hateth (Deuteronomy 16:22).

In Jeremiah:

Mine heritage is become unto Me as a lion in the forest; she hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jeremiah 12:8).

In Hosea:

In Gilgal I hated them; because of the wickedness of their works I will drive them out of Mine house; I will love them no more (Hos. 9:15).

In these passages “hatred,” predicated of Jehovah or the Lord, in the internal sense is not hatred, but mercy, for the Divine is mercy; but when this flows in with a man who is in evil, and he runs into the penalty of evil, it then appears as hatred and because it so appears, in the sense of the letter it is likewise so called.

[4] It is in the same way that “anger,” “wrath,” and “fury” are in the Word predicated of Jehovah or the Lord (concerning which, n. 245, 592, 696, 1093, 1683, 1874, 2395, 2447, 3235). Above all other peoples the Jewish and Israelitish people were such that as soon as they observed anything unfriendly, even in their associates, they believed it lawful to treat them cruelly, and not only to kill them, but also to expose them to wild beasts and birds; and therefore because the inflowing mercy of the Lord was turned with them into such hatred, not only against their enemies, but also against their companions, they could not believe otherwise than that Jehovah also entertained hatred, was angry, wrathful, and furious, and for this reason it is so expressed in the Word according to the appearance; for such as is a man’s quality, such the Lord appears to him (see n. 1838, 1861, 2706). But what the quality of hatred is with those who are in love and charity, that is, who are in good, is evident from the words of the Lord in Matthew:

Ye have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that injure and persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in the heavens (Matthew 5:43-45).

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.