The Bible

 

創世記 4

Study

   

1 有一日,那和他妻子夏娃同房,夏娃就懷孕,生了該隱(就是得的意思),便耶和華使我得了一個子。

2 又生了該隱兄弟亞伯亞伯是牧的;該隱是種地的。

3 有一日,該隱拿地裡的出產為供物獻給耶和華

4 亞伯也將他羊群中頭生的和的脂油獻上。耶和華看中了亞伯和他的供物,

5 只是看不中該隱和他的供物。該隱就大大的發怒,變了臉色。

6 耶和華該隱:你為甚麼發怒呢?你為甚麼變了臉色呢?

7 你若行得好,豈不蒙悅納?你若行得不好,就伏在前。他必戀慕你,你卻要制伏他。

8 該隱與他兄弟亞伯話;二人正在田間。該隱起來打他兄弟亞伯,把他殺了。

9 耶和華該隱:你兄弟亞伯在那裡?他:我不知道!我豈是看守我兄弟的麼?

10 耶和華:你作了甚麼事呢?你兄弟的血有聲音從地裡向我哀告。

11 開了,從你裡接受你兄弟的血。現在你必從這地受咒詛。

12 你種不再你效力;你必流離飄蕩在上。

13 該隱耶和華:我的刑罰太重,過於我所能當的。

14 你如今趕逐我離開這,以致不見你面;我必流離飄蕩在上,凡遇見我的必殺我。

15 耶和華對他:凡殺該隱的,必遭報七倍。耶和華就給該隱立一個記號,免得人遇見他就殺他。

16 於是該隱離開耶和華的面,去在伊甸東邊挪得之

17 該隱妻子同房,他妻子就懷孕,生了以諾該隱建造了一座城,就按著他兒子的名將那城以諾

18 以諾生以拿;以拿生米戶雅利;米戶雅利生瑪土撒利;瑪土撒利生拉麥。

19 拉麥娶了兩個妻:個名叫亞大,個名叫洗拉。

20 亞大生雅八;雅八就是帳棚、牧養牲畜之人的祖師。

21 雅八的兄弟名叫猶八;他是一切彈琴吹簫之人的祖師。

22 洗拉又生了土八該隱;他是打造各樣銅利器的(或作:是銅匠匠的祖師)。土八該隱的妹子是拿瑪。

23 拉麥對他兩個妻子:亞大、洗拉,我的聲音;拉麥的妻子,細我的話語:壯年傷我,我把他殺了;少年損我,我把他害了(或作我殺壯士卻傷自己,我害幼童卻損本身。)

24 若殺該隱,遭報七倍,殺拉麥,必遭報七倍

25 亞當又與妻子同房,他就生了一個兒子,起名塞特,意思另給我立了一個兒子代替亞伯,因為該隱殺了他。

26 塞特也生了一個兒子,起名以挪士。那時候,人才求告耶和華的名。

   

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Arcana Coelestia #2417

Study this Passage

  
/ 10837  
  

2417. 'Do not look back behind you' means that he was not to look to matters of doctrine. This is clear from the meaning of 'looking back behind him' when the city was behind him and the mountain in front of him; for 'a city' means doctrinal teaching, 402, 2268, 2451, while 'a mountain' means love and charity, 795, 1430. That this is the meaning will be evident in the explanation at verse 26, where it is said that his wife looked back behind him and she became a pillar of salt. Anyone may recognize that these words - 'looking back behind him' - have some Divine arcanum within them and that this lies too far down to be visible. For looking back behind him seems to involve nothing reprehensible at all, and yet it is of such great importance that it is said that he was to escape for his life, that is, he was to be concerned about his life to eternity by not looking back behind him. What is meant by looking to matters of doctrine however will be seen in what follows.

[2] Here let it be merely stated what doctrinal teaching is. Such teaching is twofold: one kind has to do with love and charity, the other with faith. Each of the Lord's Churches at the outset, while still very young and virginal, neither possesses nor desires any other doctrinal teaching than that which has to do with charity, for this has to do with life. In course of time however a Church turns away from this kind of teaching until it starts to despise it and at length to reject it, at which point it acknowledges no other kind of teaching than that called the doctrine of faith. And when it separates faith from charity such doctrinal teaching colludes with a life of evil.

[3] This was so with the Primitive or gentile Church after the Lord's Coming. At the outset it possessed no other doctrinal teaching than that which had to do with love and charity, for such is what the Lord Himself taught, see 2371 (end). But after His time, as love and charity started to grow cold, doctrinal teaching regarding faith gradually crept in, and with it disagreements and heresies which increased as men leant more and more towards that kind of teaching.

[4] Something similar had happened to the Ancient Church which came after the Flood and which was spread throughout so many kingdoms, 2385. This Church at the outset knew no other teaching than that which had to do with charity, for that teaching looked towards and permeated life; and so they were concerned about their eternal welfare. After a time however some people started to foster doctrinal teaching about faith which they at length separated from charity. Members of this Church called such people 'Ham' however because they led a life of evil, see 1062, 1063, 1076.

[5] The Most Ancient Church which existed before the Flood and which was pre-eminently called Man enjoyed the perception itself of love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbour, and so had teaching about love and charity inscribed within them. But there also existed at that time those who fostered faith, and when these at length separated it from charity they were called Cain, for Cain means such faith, and Abel whom he killed means charity; see the explanation to Genesis 4.

[6] From this it becomes clear that doctrinal teaching is twofold, one kind having to do with charity, the other with faith, although in themselves the two are one, for teaching to do with charity includes everything to do with faith. But when doctrinal teaching comes to be drawn solely from things to do with faith, such teaching is said to be twofold because faith is separated from charity. Their separation at the present day becomes clear from the consideration that what charity is, and what the neighbour, is utterly unknown. People whose teaching is solely about faith know of charity towards the neighbour as nothing other than giving what is their own to others and taking pity on everyone, for they call everyone their neighbour indiscriminately, when in fact charity consists in all the good residing with the individual - in his affection, and in his ardent zeal, and consequently in his life - while the neighbour consists in all the good residing with people which affects the individual. Consequently the neighbour consists in people with whom good resides - and quite distinctly and separately from one person to the next.

[7] For example, charity and mercy are present with him who exercises righteousness and judgement by punishing the evil and rewarding the good. Charity resides within the punishment of the evil, for he who imposes the punishment is moved by a strong desire to correct the one who is punished and at the same time to protect others from the evil he may do to them. For when he imposes it he is concerned about and desires the good of him who does evil or is an enemy, as well as being concerned about and desiring the good of others and of the state, which concern and desire spring from charity towards the neighbour. The same holds true with every other kind of good of life, for such good cannot possibly exist if it does not spring from charity towards the neighbour, since this is what charity looks to and embodies within itself.

[8] There being so much obscurity, as has been stated, as to what charity is and what the neighbour, it is plain that after doctrinal teaching to do with faith has seized the chief position, teaching to do with charity is then one of those things that have been lost. Yet it was the latter teaching alone that was fostered in the Ancient Church. They went so far as to categorize all kinds of good that flow from charity towards the neighbour, that is, to categorize all in whom good was present. In doing so they made many distinctions to which they gave names, calling them the poor, the wretched, the oppressed, the sick, the naked, the hungry, the thirsty, the prisoners or those in prison, the. sojourners, the orphans, and the widows. Some they also called the lame, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, and the maimed, and many other names besides these. It was in accordance with this kind of teaching that the Lord spoke in the Old Testament Word, and it explains why such expressions occur so frequently there; and it was in accordance with the same that the Lord Himself spoke, as in Matthew 25:35-36, 38-40, 42-45; Luke 14:13, 21; and many times elsewhere. This is why those names have quite a different meaning in the internal sense. So that doctrinal teaching regarding charity may be restored therefore, some discussion will in the Lord's Divine mercy appear further on as to who such people are, and what charity is, and what the neighbour, generally and specifically.

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.