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)

4741. 'That they stripped Joseph of his tunic' means that they removed and annihilated the appearances of truth. This is clear from the meaning of 'stripping', when used in reference to Divine Truth represented here by 'Joseph', as removing and also annihilating; and from the meaning of 'tunic', because this consisted of various colours, as appearances of truth, dealt with in 4677. The removal and annihilation of the appearances of truth takes place once truth itself has been cast aside, for truth itself cannot but shine in people's minds, and no matter how much it is blotted out it remains visible, especially to those who are governed by good. Those who have annihilated truth see it too, and therefore they try to remove and annihilate even those appearances of it.

[2] Take an example to illustrate this. Who does not see that willing what is good and doing it is the whole essence of the Christian life? And if anyone is told that this is charity he is bound to agree. Indeed all who agree will go on to say that they know what willing and doing good is because this is a matter of life. But as for thinking, by the confidence imparted through faith, that this or that is true, as the adherents to faith separated from charity wish to do, they will say that they do not know what this is, for they can have no other conception of it than of smoke which vanishes. Now since faith alone and the confidence it imparts is seen to be like this by all who think seriously about it, especially by the good, those adherents to faith separated from charity strive to remove and annihilate even those appearances by cutting away every idea that is close to Divine Truth or in the neighbourhood of it. This is what is meant by stripping Joseph of the tunic that was on him.

[3] The same people also believe that those persons are wiser than all others who, once they have accepted some dogma, can substantiate it in various ways, and use various reasonings to present it as the truth. This however is anything but the mark of one who is wise. Anyone who is clever enough can do it, the wicked being more expert at it than the upright. Nor indeed is it the mark of a rational man; for a rational man can see from so to speak a higher viewpoint whether it is truth that is being substantiated or whether it is falsity. And this being what he sees he is quite unmoved by arguments substantiating falsity but regards them as senseless and absurd, no matter how much another person believes they are the result of wrestling to obtain pure wisdom. In short, it is anything but the mark of one who is wise, indeed anything but rationality, to be able to substantiate falsities; for it is the mark of a wise one, and it is rationality, when something is first seen to be the truth and is substantiated only after that. That is to say, seeing the truth implies seeing it by the light of heaven which comes from the Lord, but seeing falsity as truth implies seeing it by the inferior light which comes from hell.