722. That when she brought forth he might devour her offspring, signifies that they might destroy the doctrine of that church at its first rise. This is evident from the signification of "the offspring" that the woman was about to bring forth, as being the doctrine of the church; that this is meant by "the son a male" which she brought forth will be seen in the following article. Also from the signification of "to devour," as being to destroy; for what is predicated follows its subject, and when "the dragon" is the subject, "to devour" is predicated of him, but when the doctrine of the church is the subject, being destroyed is predicated of it, therefore "to devour" here signifies to destroy. To destroy it at its first rise is signified because it is said "that when the woman brought forth he might devour her offspring." "To devour" and "to eat" also elsewhere signify to destroy, when predicated of wild beasts, which signify falsities and evils, as is evident in Ezekiel:

One of the whelps of the lion went up, it became a young lion, and it learned to seize the prey, it devoured man (Ezekiel 19:3, 6).

"To devour man" signifies to destroy the understanding of truth and intelligence. In Hosea:

I will encounter them as a bear that is bereaved; and I will devour them like an immense lion; the wild beast of the field shall tear them (Hosea 13:8).

In Daniel:

Behold, a beast, like to a bear, it had three ribs in the mouth between the teeth, it was said to it, Rise, devour much flesh (Daniel 7:5).

Moreover, in the Hebrew, "to devour" in many passages stands for to consume, to ruin, and to destroy, as in Jeremiah:

They have devoured Jacob, they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste his habitations (Jeremiah 10:25).

3576. 'And he blessed him' means conjunction thereby. This is clear from the meaning of 'being blessed' as conjunction, dealt with in 3504, 3514, 3530, 3565. From these details which refer to Esau and Jacob it becomes clear that the good of the rational joined itself inmostly to the good of the natural, and then through the good of the natural to the truth there. For 'Isaac' represents the rational as regards good, 'Rebekah' the rational as regards truth, while 'Esau' represents the good of the natural and 'Jacob' the truth of the natural. The idea that the rational as regards good, which is 'Isaac', joined itself inmostly to the good of the natural, which is 'Esau', but not to the truth of the natural, which is 'Jacob', except indirectly, is evident from the consideration that Isaac had Esau in mind when pronouncing the blessing on Jacob. At that time he was not thinking of Jacob but of Esau. When anyone pronounces a blessing he is blessing the person of whom he is thinking, not someone of whom he is not thinking. All blessing comes forth from something interior, for though pronounced with the lips it receives its life from the will and the thought of the person pronouncing it. It belongs essentially therefore to the individual to whom he wishes to impart it and of whom he is thinking. If anyone intercepts it and so makes it his own it is like something stolen which ought to be restored to the other person. The fact that Isaac, when pronouncing the blessing, was thinking of Esau and not of Jacob becomes clear from every single detail that goes before this - from verses 18-19, where Isaac said to Jacob,

Who are you, my son? And Jacob said to his father, I am Esau your firstborn.

Then from verses 21-23,

Isaac said to Jacob, Come near now, and I will feel you, my son, whether you are my son Esau, or not.

And after feeling him he said, The voice is Jacob's voice, and the hands Esau's hands; and he did not recognize him.

Also from verse 24,

And he said. Are you my very son Esau? And he said, I am.

And at length, when kissing him,

He smelled the odour of his clothes.

That is to say, he smelled Esau's clothes, at which point he blessed him and said,

See, the odour of my son.

From all this it is clear that by the son whom he blessed he meant none other than Esau. This also was why when he heard from Esau that it had been Jacob,

Isaac trembled very greatly. Verse 33.

And he said, Your brother came in deceitfully. Verse 35.

The reason why Jacob retained the blessing however, according to what is said in verses 33-37, was that truth represented by 'Jacob' would from the point of view of time apparently have dominion, as shown frequently above.

[2] But once the time of reformation and regeneration is completed good itself which has been Lying hidden in the inmost parts and from there has been disposing every single thing which seemed to be a matter of truth, that is, which truth had ascribed to itself, comes to the fore and openly has dominion. And this is what Isaac's words addressed to Esau mean,

By your sword you will live, and you will serve your brother. And it will be when you have dominion over him, that you will break his yoke from above your neck, Verse 40.

The internal sense of these words is that all the time truth is joined to good, good appears to be in the lower position but will eventually be in the higher. At this point there will be a joining together of the rational with the good of the natural, and through the good of the natural with the truth. Truth will thus become the truth of good. In this case 'Esau' will consequently represent the good itself of the natural and 'Jacob' the truth of the natural, both joined to the rational. Accordingly in the highest sense they will represent the Lord's Divine Natural - 'Esau' as regards the Divine Good there and 'Jacob' as regards the Divine Truth.