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.

2371. 'And they said, Did not this one come to sojourn' means people with different teaching and a different life. This is clear from the meaning of 'sojourning' as receiving instruction and living, and so as doctrine and life, dealt with in 1463, 2025. Here the nature of the state of the Church around the last times is described, when faith is no more because charity is no more, that is to say, when the good of charity is rejected on doctrinal grounds as well, because it has severed all connection with life.

[2] The people described here are not those who falsify the good of charity by explaining things to their own advantage. They are not those who, so that they may be very great and may possess all the world's goods, make the good of charity the earner of merit. Nor are they those who assume the right to dispense rewards, and in so doing defile the good of charity by various devices and misleading means. Instead the subject is those who do not wish to hear anything about the goods of charity, that is, about good works, only about faith separated from those works. And this they wish to hear from the argument that man has nothing but evil within him and that even the good which springs from himself is in itself evil, and so contains nothing of salvation; and from the argument that no one can merit heaven by means of any good, nor accordingly be saved by it, only by means of a faith whereby they acknowledge the Lord's merit. This is the teaching which flourishes in the last times when the Church starts to breathe its last, and which is enthusiastically taught and favourably accepted.

[3] But to maintain from all this that anyone can lead an evil life and at the same time possess a faith that is good is a false conclusion. It is also a false conclusion to say that because man has nothing but evil within him, good from the Lord - which has heaven within it because it has the Lord within it, and blessedness and happiness within it because heaven is within it - cannot exist there. Finally it is a false conclusion to say that because nobody can merit [heaven] by any good, heavenly good from the Lord in which [self-] merit is regarded as something monstrous has no existence. Such good exists with every angel, such good exists with every regenerate person, and such good exists with those who perceive delight, and indeed blessedness, in good itself, that is, in the affection for it. The Lord speaks of this good or charity in the following way in Matthew,

You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. [But] I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who hurt and persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? And if you salute only your brothers, what more are you doing [than others]? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? Matthew 5:43-48

Similar words occur in Luke, with this addition,

Do good and lend, hoping for nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. Luke 6:27-36.

[4] Here good which is derived from the Lord is described and the fact that it does not carry any thought of repayment. Consequently people who are governed by that good are called 'sons of the Father who is in heaven', and 'sons of the Most High'. Yet because that good has the Lord within it there is also a reward: in Luke,

When you give a dinner or a supper, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbours, lest perhaps they invite you back in return, and you are repaid. But when you give a feast invite the poor, the maimed, the blind, and you will be blessed, for they have nothing with which to repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. ¹ Luke 14:12-14.

'Dinner', 'supper', or 'feast' means the good that flows from charity, in which the Lord dwells together with man, 2341. Here it is described therefore, and it is plainly evident, that recompense lies within good itself since this has the Lord within it, for it is said that 'you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just'.

[5] People who strive to do good from themselves because the Lord has commanded it to be done are the ones who at length receive this good and who after receiving instruction then acknowledge in faith that all good comes from the Lord, 1712, 1937, 1947. And they are now so opposed to self-merit that they are saddened by the mere thought of merit and perceive that blessedness and happiness with them is that much diminished.

[6] It is quite different in the case of those who fail to do good and instead lead an evil life, while teaching and professing that salvation resides in faith separated from charity. These people are not even aware of the possibility of such good. And what is remarkable the same people in the next life, as I have been given to know from much experience, wish to merit heaven on the basis of all the good deeds they recall their having done, for they are now aware for the first time that no salvation lies in faith separated from charity. But these are the ones whom the Lord refers to in Matthew,

They will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Your name, and by Your name cast out demons, and in Your name do many mighty works? But then will I declare to them, I do not know you; depart from Me, you workers of iniquity. Matthew 7:22-23.

With these people it is also seen that they had paid no attention at all to any one of the things which the Lord Himself taught so many times about the good that flows from love and charity. Instead those things had been to them like clouds sailing by or like things seen in the night, such as the things recorded in:

Matthew 3:8-9; 5:7-48; 6:1-20; 7:16-20, 24-27; 9:13; 12:33; 13:8, 23; 18:21-end; 19:19; 22:35-40; 24:12-13; 25:34-end;

Mark 4:18-20; 11:13-14, 20; 12:28-35;

Luke 3:8-9; 6:27-39, 43-end; 7:47; 8:8, 14-15; 10:25-28; 12:58-59; 13:6-10;

John 3:19, 21; 5:42; 13:34-35; 14:14-15, 20-21, 23; 15:1-8, 9-19; 21:15-17.

These then, and other things like them, are what were meant by the words 'the men of Sodom' - that is, those immersed in evil, 2220, 2246, 2322 - 'saying to Lot, Did not this one come to sojourn, and will he surely judge?' that is, Will people with different teaching and a different life teach us?

Footnotes: