1832. 'But the birds he did not cut apart' means that no such parallelism and correspondence existed in the case of spiritual things. This is clear from the meaning of 'birds' as that which is spiritual, dealt with just above in verse 9, and from the fact that he did not part the birds down the middle, which consequently means that no such parallelism and correspondence existed in their case. By spiritual things, as has often been stated already, are meant all those things that constitute faith, consequently all those things which are matters of doctrine, as these are called matters of faith even though in fact they are not so until they have been joined to charity. Between these and the Lord no parallelism and correspondence exists, for they are not such as flow in through an internal dictate and through conscience - as matters of love and charity do - but such as flow in through the reception of teaching and so through hearing, thus not from what is more internal, but from that which is more external; and in this way they form in man their vessels or recipients.

[2] The majority of these have the appearance of being truths but in fact they are not so - like those things which belong to the literal sense of the Word, being also representatives of truth, and meaningful signs of truth, and so not in themselves truths. Some are even falsities, which nevertheless are able to serve as vessels and recipients. With the Lord however only those exist which are wholly and essentially truths, and therefore no parallelism or correspondence exists involving those apparent truths. Yet they may be rendered suitable to serve celestial things - which are matters of love and charity - as vessels. These apparent truths are what constitute the cloud in the understanding part of the mind, dealt with already, into which the Lord infuses charity and so forms conscience.

[3] Take, for example, people who keep to the sense of the letter of the Word and imagine that it is the Lord who brings on temptation, that it is He who at such times tortures a person's conscience, and who imagine that because He permits evil He is the author of evil, that He thrusts the wicked down into hell, and similar ideas. These are not truths, but apparent truths. And because they are not in themselves truths there is no parallelism and correspondence. Nevertheless the Lord leaves these things in man as they are and in a remarkable fashion adapts them by means of charity so that they may serve as vessels for celestial things. The same applies as well to the worship, the teachings, the practices, even the idols, of honest gentiles. In the same way the Lord leaves these things as they are, yet adapts them by means of charity so that they too may serve as vessels. The same was true of so many of the forms of ritual in the Ancient Church, and subsequently in the Jewish Church. In themselves they were nothing more than religious observances that contained no truth in them and which were tolerated and permitted, even prescribed, because they had been held sacred by parents, and so had been implanted in and impressed upon their minds as truths since they were children.

[4] These and other such things are what are meant by the statement that the birds were not divided. For the things that are once implanted in a person's beliefs and are held sacred, provided they are not contrary to Divine order, are left by the Lord as they are; and although no parallelism or correspondence exists He nevertheless adapts them. The same things were also meant in the sacrifices of the Jewish Church by the birds not being divided, for to divide is to set one part opposite the other so that they exactly correspond. But because those things to which reference has been made are not exactly correspondent, they are in the next life blotted out in the case of those who allow themselves to be taught, and truths themselves are implanted in their affections for good. For the sake of this representation and meaning, birds in the Jewish Church were not divided, as is clear in Moses,

If his gift to Jehovah is a burnt offering of a bird, he is to bring a gift of turtle doves or of young pigeons; he will tear it with its wings, he is not to divide it. Leviticus 1:14, 17.

Likewise in sacrifices for sin, Leviticus 5:7-8.

2454. That 'his wife looked back behind him' means that truth turned away from good and looked towards matters of doctrine is clear from the meaning of 'looking back behind him' and from the meaning of 'a wife'. Looking back behind him means looking towards matters of doctrine, which have a relationship with truth, and not towards life in accordance with them, which has a relationship with good, as stated above in 2417. That which is secondary is referred to as 'behind him' and that which is primary as 'before him'. The fact that truth is secondary and good primary has been shown quite often. For truth belongs to good, since the essence and life of truth is good. 'Looking behind him' therefore means looking towards truth which constitutes doctrinal teaching, and not towards good which constitutes life in accordance with doctrinal teaching. That these points are what is meant becomes quite clear from the Lord's words, where also, referring to the final period of the Church or close of the age, He says in Luke,

On that day, whoever will be on the housetop with his vessels in the house, let him not come down to take them away; and whoever is in the field, let him likewise not turn back to behind him. Remember Lot's wife. Luke 17:31-32.

[2] These words of the Lord are by no means intelligible without the internal sense, and so are unintelligible unless one knows what is meant by 'being on the housetop', by 'vessels in the house', by 'coming down to take them away', by 'the field', and lastly by 'turning back to behind him'. According to the internal sense 'being on the housetop' means resting on good; for 'a house' means good, see 710, 2231, 2233. 'Vessels in the house' means truths which belong to good; for truths are the vessels for good, see 1496, 1832, 1900, 2063, 2269. 'Going down to take them away' means, as is evident, turning away from good towards truth, for since good is primary it is also higher, while truth, being secondary, is also lower. That 'the field' is the Church, so called from the seed which it receives, and consequently that those people are 'fields' in whom there is the good taught by doctrine, is clear from many places in the Word. These considerations show what 'turning back to behind him' means, namely turning away from good and looking towards matters of doctrine. And it is because these things are meant by the expression 'Lot's wife', that 'remember Lot's wife' is added. The reason it is not said that she looked 'behind herself' but 'behind him' is that 'Lot' means good, see 2324, 2351, 2371, 2399. This explains why, when Lot was told what to do, verse 17, the words used were, 'Do not look back behind you'.

[3] The reason why in Luke it is said 'let him not turn back to behind him' and not 'to the things behind him' is that celestial people are unwilling even to mention anything that is a matter of doctrine, see 202, 337. This is why no such thing is mentioned in Luke, only the words 'to behind him'.

[4] These same matters are described in Matthew as follows,

When you see the abomination of desolation, foretold by the prophet Daniel, then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything away out of his house; and let him who is in the field not return back to take his clothes. Matthew 24:15-17.

Here 'the abomination of desolation' is the state of the Church when there is no love and no charity. When these have been destroyed abominable things predominate. 'Judea' means the Church, and in particular the celestial Church, as is evident from both the historical and prophetical sections throughout the Old Testament Word, while 'the mountains into which they were to flee' means love to the Lord and consequent charity towards the neighbour, see 795, 1430, 1691. 'He who is on the housetop' means good flowing from love, as stated just above. 'Going down to take anything away out of his house' means turning away from good towards truth, as has also been stated above, while 'he who is in the field' means members of the spiritual Church, as is evident from the meaning of 'field' in the Word. 'Let him not return back to take his clothes' means not turning away from good towards truth that constitutes doctrinal teaching - 'clothes' meaning truths, for truths clothe good like garments, see 1073. Anyone may see that all those things which the Lord has said in that section about the close of the age mean things altogether different and embody arcana, such as that those in Judea were to flee into the mountains, that the one on the housetop was not to go down and bring anything out of the house, and that the one in the field was not to return back to take his clothes. Similar to this is the statement in verse 17 that Lot was not to look back behind him, and that made here that his wife did look back behind him and became a pillar of salt. In addition this matter is clear from the meaning of 'a wife' as truth, dealt with in 915, 1468, and from the meaning of 'Lot' as good, dealt with in 2324, 2351, 2371, 2399; hence the words 'after him'.

[5] Truth is said to turn away from good and look towards matters of doctrine when the member of the Church no longer takes to heart what kind of life he leads, only what kind of doctrine he possesses. Yet it is life according to doctrine, not doctrine separate from life, that makes anyone a member of the Church; for when doctrine is separated from life, then because good, in which life consists, has been vastated, truth as well, in which doctrine consists, is vastated, that is, it becomes 'a pillar of salt'. This is something anyone who looks to doctrine alone and not to life may know, by considering whether, even though doctrine teaches such things, he in fact believes in the resurrection, heaven, hell, and indeed the Lord, and so in everything else which doctrine teaches.