4171. “被野兽撕裂的, 我没有带来给你” 表那良善所具有的邪恶并非因祂的过错. 这从 “被野兽撕裂” 的含义清楚可知, “被野兽撕裂” 是指别人所造成的死亡, 因而是指非他过错的邪恶. 人所具有的邪恶有许多来源. 第一个来源在于遗传, 从祖父辈和曾祖父辈到父辈, 再从父辈传到他这里, 邪恶在父辈里面就已经堆积如山了. 第二个来源在于他自己实际造作的, 也就是说, 在于人通过邪恶的生活为自己所获得的. 这邪恶部分地由他从遗传, 如同从邪恶的海洋所得来并付诸实践的东西组成, 部分地由他在此之上为自己大量添加的东西组成. 这就是人给自己所获得的自我. 人将其变成自己的这种实际邪恶也有各种来源, 不过通常有两种: 第一种是他从别人那里, 但非因自己的过错而得来的东西; 第二种是他自愿, 因而通过自己的过错而得来的东西. 在圣言中, “被 (野兽) 撕裂的” 就表示人从别人那里, 非因自己的过错而得来的东西; 而 “(动物) 尸体或尸首” 则表示人自愿, 因而通过自己的过错而得来的东西.

正因如此, 无论在古教会还是犹太人当中, 他们都禁止吃自死的, 也就是动物尸体, 以及被 (野兽) 撒裂的. 以下经文就有这项禁令:

凡吃自死的, 或是被野兽撕裂的灵魂, 无论是本地人, 是寄居的, 必不洁净到晚上, 都要洗衣服, 用水洗身, 到了晚上, 才为洁净. 但他若不洗衣服, 也不洗身, 就必担当他的罪孽. (利未记 17:15-16)

又:

自死的或是被野兽撕裂的, 他不可吃, 因此污秽自己. 我是耶和华. (利未记 22:8)

“被 (野兽) 撕裂的” 表示出于虚假的邪恶, 是由林中撕裂的野兽所指的恶人造成的; 因为在圣言中, 凡在地狱者都好比野兽. 出埃及记:

你们要归我作圣洁的人; 因此, 田间被野兽撕裂的肉, 你们不可吃, 要丢给狗. (出埃及记 22:31)

以西结书:

先知对耶和华说, 我的灵魂素来未曾被玷污, 从幼年到如今没有吃过自死的, 或被野兽撕裂的, 那可憎的肉也未曾入我的口. (以西结书 4:14)

又:

无论是鸟是兽, 凡自死的或是撕裂的, 祭司都不可吃. (以西结书 44:31)

这论及主的国度, 新地就在那里.

从这些经文可以看出, “被 (野兽) 撕裂的” 在内义上是什么意思; 为了使这一点显得更清楚, 我们举个例子. 某人过着良善的生活, 也就是出于愿意别人好而向他行善. 假如这人允许自己被陷入邪恶的人说服, 从而相信良善的生活无助于救恩, 因为所有人都生在罪中, 没有人能凭自己意愿良善, 因而行出良善. 假如他由此允许自己被这一观念说服: 所提供的得救方法就是那被称为信的; 因此人凭着信得救, 无需过良善的生活, 即便在临终的那一刻接受信也可以. 如果过着良善生活的这个人允许自己被这样的观念说服, 然后不再关心生活, 甚至蔑视它, 就可以说他 “被 (野兽) 撕裂了”; 因为 “被撕裂” 论及虚假被引入的良善, 那良善由此就不再活着了.

再以婚姻为例, 如果有人一开始将婚姻视为天上的制度, 但后来他 (或许还有他的配偶) 允许自己被说服相信, 婚姻的设立纯粹是为了这个世界的秩序, 为了抚养和照料孩子, 以及继承财产. 另外, 他还允许自己被说服相信, 婚姻的纽带无非一种契约, 若对方同意, 任意一方都可终止或放宽这个契约. 一旦接受了这些观念, 对于婚姻, 他就不再视为天上的事了. 假如这一切导致放荡, 那么后果就是所谓的 “被撕裂”. 其它例子也一样.

恶人就是那 “撕裂” 者, 他们通过基于外在事物的推理而这样做, 而内在事物由于生活的邪恶而无法被引入外在事物. 这一事实从以下经文可以看出来, 耶利米书:

林中的狮子必害死尊大的人, 野地的豺狼必灭绝他们, 豹子要在城外窥伺他们, 凡出城的必被撕碎; 因为他们的罪过极多, 背道的事也加增了. (耶利米书 5:5-6)

阿摩司书:

以东拿剑追赶兄弟, 毁尽怜悯, 他的怒气不断撕裂, 他永怀忿怒. (阿摩司书 1:11)

1919. That 'Abram said to Sarai' means perception is clear from what has been stated above in 1898. The perception which the Lord had was represented and is here meant by 'Abram said to Sarai', but thought which sprang from that perception is meant by 'Sarai said to Abram' - perception being the source of thought. The thought possessed by those who have perception comes from no other source. Yet perception is not the same as thought. To see that it is not the same, let conscience serve to 'illustrate this consideration.

[2] Conscience is a kind of general and thus obscure dictate which presents those things that flow in from the Lord by way of the heavens. Those things that flow in manifest themselves in the interior rational man where they are enveloped so to speak in cloud. This cloud is the product of appearances and illusions concerning the goods and truths of faith. Thought is, in truth, distinct and separate from conscience; yet it flows from conscience, for people who have conscience think and speak according to it. Indeed thought is scarcely anything more than a loosening of the various strands that make up conscience, and a converting of these into separate ideas which pass into words. Hence it is that the Lord holds those who have conscience in good thoughts regarding the neighbour and withholds them from evil thoughts. For this reason conscience can never exist except with people who love the neighbour as themselves and have good thoughts regarding the truths of faith. These considerations brought forward here show how conscience differs from thought, and from this one may recognize how perception differs from thought.

[3] The Lord's perception came directly from Jehovah, and so from Divine Good, whereas His thought came from intellectual truth and the affection for it, as stated above in 1904, 1914. No idea, not even an angelic one, is adequate as a means to apprehend the Lord's Divine perception, and thus this lies beyond description. The perception which angels have - described in 1384 and following paragraphs, 1394, 1395 - adds up to scarcely anything at all when contrasted with the perception that was the Lord's. Because the Lord's perception was Divine, it was a perception of everything in heaven; and being a perception of everything in heaven it was also a perception of everything on earth. For such is the order, interconnection, and influx that anyone who has a perception of heavenly things has a perception of earthly as well.

[4] But after the Lord's Human Essence had become united to His Divine Essence, and had become at the same time Jehovah, the Lord was then above what is called perception, for He was above the order which exists in the heavens and from there upon earth. It is Jehovah who is the source of order, and therefore one may say that Jehovah is Order itself, for from Himself He governs order, not merely, as is supposed, in the universal but also in its most specific singulars, for it is these singulars that make up the universal. To speak of the universal and then separate such singulars from it would be no different from speaking of a whole that has no parts within it and so no different from speaking of something consisting of nothing. Thus it is sheer falsity - a figment of the imagination, as it is called - to speak of the Lord's Providence as belonging to the universal but not to its specific singulars; for to provide and govern universally but not specifically is to provide and govern absolutely nothing. This is true philosophically, yet, strange to say, philosophers themselves, including the more eminent, understand this matter in a different way and think in a different way.