2417、“不要往你身后看”表示他不可关注教义事物，这从城在他身后，山在他前面时“往他身后看”的含义清楚可知。“城”表示教义（402，2268，2392节）；“山”表示爱和仁（795，1430节）。这就是意义所在，这一点从19:26的解释明显看出来，那里说，他的妻子在他身后回头一看，就变成了一根盐柱。谁都能看出，“在他身后回头一看”这句话包含某个神性奥秘在里面，只是这奥秘隐藏得太深，以至于看不见。因为“在他身后回头一看”似乎根本算不上犯罪，然而却是如此重大的事件，以至于经上说他要逃命，也就是说，他要为他的永生着想，不可在他身后回头看。在下文（2454节）可以看到什么叫关注教义事物；我们在此只说明这些教义事物或教义是什么。
教义有两种，一种教导爱与仁，另一种教导信。主的每个教会在一开始，即还是少女和童女时，只拥有并喜爱仁之教义，因为仁之教义与生活有关。然而，随着时间推移，教会逐渐远离这种教义，直到开始鄙视它，最终弃绝它；这时，它只承认所谓的信之教义。当它将信与仁分离时，这种教义便与邪恶的生活勾结合谋了。
主降临之后的初期（基督）教会，或外邦人的教会就是这种情况。一开始，它只有爱与仁的教义，因为这是主所教导的（参看2371e节）。但主的时代过后，随着爱与仁开始变得冷淡，信之教义逐渐渗透进来；纷争和异端也与该教义一同到来，随着人们越来越倾向于这种教义，纷争和异端逐渐增多。
在大洪水之后到来并遍及众多国家的古教会也是这种情况（2385节）。古教会一开始只知道仁之教义，因为仁之教义关注生活并渗透到生活中；他们通过它关注自己的永恒福祉。然而，一段时间过后，一些人开始酝酿信之教义，并最终将信之教义与仁分离。该教会成员把这样做的人称为“含”，因为他们过着一种邪恶的生活（参看1062，1063，1076节）。
大洪水之前的上古教会优于其它所有教会，被称为“人”，享有对对主之爱和对邻之仁的感知本身，因而拥有铭刻在他们里面的爱与仁之教义。然而，甚至那个时候也有一些酝酿信的人；当这些人将信与仁分离时，他们就被称为“该隐”，因为“该隐”就表示这种信，而他所杀死的“亚伯”表示仁（参看创世记第4章的解释，324-329，338-369节）。
这表明教义有两种，一种是仁之教义，另一种是信之教义，尽管这两者本身为一，因为仁之教义就包含信的一切。但当教义只从与信有关的事物中被提取出来时，就说教义有两种，因为信与仁分离了。如今两者被分离了，这一点从以下事实可以看出来：人们完全不知道何为仁爱、何为邻舍。那些只接受信之教义的人只知道对邻之仁就在于把自己的东西给予他人，并怜悯每个人，因为他们将每个人都视为邻舍，无差无别；而事实上，仁爱就是一个人里面的一切良善，包括在他的情感和热情里面，并由此在他的生活里面的一切良善；而邻舍是触动一个人内心的其他人里面的一切良善。因此，邻舍是指那些处于良善的人，并且具有各种各样的区别。
例如，一个通过惩恶扬善施行公义和公平的人就拥有仁爱和怜悯。仁爱就存在于对恶人的惩罚中，因为一种强烈的渴望或热情促使那实施惩罚的人纠正受到惩罚的人，同时保护善人，以免这些人在恶人手里受到伤害。他在这个过程中关心那作恶者或他仇敌的福祉，并向那人表达自己的善意，同时关心并渴望其他人和国家的利益；这种关心和渴望就来源于对邻之仁。这同样适用于生活中其它所有良善；事实上，生活的良善若不来源于对邻之仁，是绝无可能存在的，因为仁爱就是良善所关注和要求的。
如前所述，人们对何为仁爱、何为邻舍的观念极其模糊，信之教义已经占据主导地位，显然，仁之教义就成了已经遗失的东西之一。然而，仁之教义却是古教会成员所追求的唯一教义。事实上，他们甚至将所有属于对邻之仁的良善，也就是所有处于良善的人都分门别类。他们这样做的时候作了很多区分，还给它们取了名字，称他们为穷人、困苦人、受压迫的、患病的、赤身露体的、饥饿的、口渴的、被囚的或坐监的、寄居的、孤儿和寡妇。他们还称一些人为瘸子、瞎子、聋子、哑巴和残废的等等。在旧约圣言中，主就照着这种教义说话，这解释了为何这些词语如此频繁地出现在旧约中；主自己也照这种教义说话，如在马太福音（25:35-36，38-39，40，42-45）和路加福音（14:13，21）等等。这就是为何这些名字在内义上具有截然不同的含义。因此，为了恢复仁之教义，蒙主的神性怜悯，后面我会说明这些名字所表示的人都是谁，以及何为仁爱，何为邻舍，包括总体上的邻舍和具体的邻舍。
Potts(1905-1910) 2417
2417. Look not back behind thee. That this signifies that he should not look to doctrinal things, is evident from the signification of "looking back behind him," when the city was behind him and the mountain before him. For by "city" is signified what is doctrinal (n. 402, 2268, 2392); and by "mountain," love and charity (n. 795, 1430). That this is the signification will be evident in the explication at verse 26, where it is said that his wife "looked back behind him," and became a pillar of salt. Everyone may know that in this expression, "looking back behind him," there is some Divine arcanum, and that it lies too deep to be seen. For in looking back behind him there appears to be nothing criminal, and yet it is a matter of importance so great that it is said he should escape for his life, that is, should take thought for his eternal life by not looking back behind Him. But what it is to look to doctrinal things will be seen in what follows; in this place we shall merely state what these doctrinal things are. [2] Doctrine is twofold: that of love and charity, and that of faith. At first, while it is still a little maid and a virgin, every church of the Lord has no other doctrine, and loves no other, than that of charity; for this belongs to life. But successively the church turns itself away from this doctrine, until it begins to hold it cheap, and at length to reject it; and then it acknowledges no other doctrine than that which is called the doctrine of faith; and when it separates faith from charity, this doctrine conspires with a life of evil. [3] Such was the case with the Primitive Church, or that of the Gentiles, after the Lord's coming. In its beginning it had no other doctrine than that of love and charity, for this the Lord Himself taught (see n. 2371 at the end). But after His time, successively, as love and charity began to grow cold, there arose the doctrine of faith, and with it dissensions and heresies, which increased as men came to lay stress on this doctrine. [4] The like was the case with the Ancient Church that was after the flood, and was extended through so many kingdoms (n. 2385): this church also in its beginning knew no other doctrine than that of charity, because this looked to and affected the life, and by so doing they had regard for their eternal welfare. And yet after some time the doctrine of faith too began to be cultivated with some, and at length to be separated from charity; but those who did this they called "Ham," because they were in a life of evil (see n. 1062, 1063, 1076). [5] The Most Ancient Church which was before the flood and which in preeminence to all others was called "Man," was in the very perception of love to the Lord and of charity toward the neighbor; thus it had the doctrine of love and charity inscribed on itself. But even then there were those who cultivated faith, and when they separated it from charity they were called "Cain;" for by "Cain" is signified such faith, and by "Abel," whom he killed, charity (see the explication of chapter 4). [6] This shows that there are two doctrines, the one of charity, and the other of faith, although in themselves the two are one; for the doctrine of charity involves all things of faith. But when the doctrine comes to be from those things alone which are of faith, it is then called twofold, because faith is separated from charity. That these doctrines are separated at the present day may be seen from the fact that it is altogether unknown what charity is, and what the neighbor is. They who are solely in the doctrine of faith are not aware that charity toward the neighbor consists in anything beyond giving of their own to others, and in feeling pity for anybody who may seem to need it, because they call everybody the neighbor without distinction; and yet charity is all good whatever there is in a man: in his affection, and in his zeal, and from these in his life; and the neighbor is all the good in others by which one is affected, consequently those who are in good; and this with every possible distinction. [7] For example: that man is in charity and mercy who exercises justice and judgment by punishing the evil and rewarding the good. There is charity in punishing the evil, for to this are we impelled by our zeal to amend them, and at the same time to protect the good, lest these suffer injury at the hands of the evil. In this way does a man consult the welfare of one who is in evil, or his enemy, and express his good feeling toward him, as well as to others, and to the common weal itself; and this from charity toward the neighbor. The case is the same with all the other goods of life; for the good of life is never possible unless it comes from charity toward the neighbor, because it looks to this, and involves it. [8] Seeing then that there is obscurity so great as regards the true nature of charity and of the neighbor, it is clear that the doctrine of charity (the doctrine of faith having assumed the first place) is among the things that are lost; when yet it was this alone that was cultivated in the Ancient Church; and that to such a degree that they reduced into classes all the goods that belonged to charity toward the neighbor, that is, all those who were in good; and this with many distinctions, to which they also gave names, calling them the poor, the miserable, the oppressed, the sick, the naked, the hungry, the thirsty, captives or those in prison, strangers, orphans, and widows; some also they called the lame, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the maimed; besides many other names. In the Word of the Old Testament the Lord has spoken in accordance with this doctrine, on which account such terms so often occur there; and He himself again spoke in accordance with the same doctrine, as in Matt. 25:35-36, 38-39, 40, 42-45; Luke 14:13, 21; and in many other places. Hence it is that in the internal sense these names have quite a different signification. In order therefore that the doctrine of charity may be restored, it will of the Lord's Divine mercy be stated in the following pages who those denoted by these names are, and what charity is, and what the neighbor is, both generally and specifically.
Elliott(1983-1999) 2417
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 Matt 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.
Latin(1748-1756) 2417
2417. `Ne respicias post te': quod significet ne spectaret ad doctrinalia, constat ex significatione `respicere post se {1},' cum urbs erat post eum et mons erat ante eum; per `urbem' enim significatur doctrinale, n. 402, 2268, 2451 {2}, per `montem' autem amor et charitas, n. 795, 1430; quod ea significatio sit, patebit in explicatione ad vers. 26, ubi dicitur quod `respexit uxor ejus post eum, et facta statua salis': quisque scire potest quod in his, nempe `respicere post se,' arcanum quoddam Divinum sit, et hoc quod altius lateat quam ut videri possit; in respiciendo enim post se, nihil criminosum apparet, sed usque quod tanti momenti sit, ut dicatur, quod `eriperet se super anima sua,' hoc est, quod consuleret vitae suae in aeternum, non respiciendo post se; quid autem sit, spectare ad doctrinalia, in sequentibus videbitur: hic modo dicendum quid doctrinale; [2] doctrinale est duplex, unum amoris et charitatis, alterum fidei; omnis Ecclesia Domini in suo initio dum adhuc puella et virgo est, non aliud doctrinale habet, nec aliud amat quam charitatis, nam hoc est vitae; at Ecclesia successive se flectit ab hoc doctrinali, usque ut incipiat illud vilipendere, et tandem rejicere, et tunc nihil aliud doctrinale agnoscit quam quod vocatur fidei, quam cum separat a charitate, conspirat doctrinale cum vita mali. [3] Talis fuit Ecclesia primitiva seu gentium, post Adventum Domini; illa in suo initio non aliud doctrinale habuit quam amoris et charitatis, hoc enim docuit Ipse Dominus, videatur n. 2371 ad fin.; at post Ipsius tempus successive, sicut frigescere coepit amor et charitas, incepit doctrinale fidei, et cum illo dissensiones et haereses, quae auctae sicut huic incumbebant. [4] Similiter Antiqua Ecclesia, quae post diluvium, et per tot regna extensa fuit, n. 2385, illa in suo initio nec aliud doctrinale novit quam doctrinale charitatis, quia id spectabat et imbuebat vitam, et sic consulebant sibi in aeternum; at usque post aliquod tempus apud quosdam quoque excoli coepit doctrinale fidei, quam tandem separarunt a charitate, sed hos vocabant `Ham,' quia in vita mali, videatur n. 1062, 1063, 1076. [5] Antiquissima Ecclesia quae ante diluvium, et prae ceteris `Homo' dicta, in ipsa perceptione amoris in Dominum et charitatis erga proximum fuit, ita doctrinale amoris et charitatis habuit sibi inscriptum; sed fuerunt etiam tunc qui fidem excoluerunt, quam cum tandem separabant a charitate, dicti sunt `Cain,' nam per Cain significatur talis fides, et per `Habelem' quem occidit, charitas, videatur explicatio ad cap. iv Gen. [6] Inde constare potest quod duplex doctrinale sit, unum charitatis, alterum fidei, tametsi utrumque unum est in se, nam doctrinale charitatis involvit omnia fidei; at cum doctrinale fit ex illis solis quae sunt fidei, tunc dicitur doctrinale duplex quia separatur fides a charitate; quod hodie separata sint, constare potest inde quod nesciatur prorsus quid sit charitas et quid proximus; qui in solo doctrinali fidei sunt, nihil aliud charitatem erga proximum sciunt esse, quam dare ex suo aliis et misereri cujusvis, nam unumquemvis dicunt proximum absque distinctione; cum tamen charitas sit omne bonum quodcumque apud hominem, in ejus affectione, et in ejus zelo, et inde in ejus vita; [7] ut proximus omne bonum apud alios quo afficitur, proinde illi qui in bono sunt, et hoc cum omni distinctione; ut pro exemplo, ille in charitate et misericordia est qui justitiam et judicium exercet, puniendo malos et remunerando bonos; in puniendo malos est charitas, nam sic zelo fertur emendandi illum, et simul tutandi alios, ne inde iis malum; sic enim consulit et bene vult ei qui in malo seu inimico, (c)ac sic consulit et bene vult aliis ac ipsi reipublicae, et hoc ex charitate erga proximum; similiter se habet cum reliquis bonis vitae, bonum enim vitae nusquam dabile est, nisi sit ex charitate erga proximum, nam hanc spectat et hanc involvit. [8] Quia in tanto obscuro est, ut dictum, quid charitas et quid proximus, inde liquet quod doctrinale charitatis, postquam primas occupavit doctrinale fidei, inter res perditas sit; cum tamen illud solum erat quod excolebatur in Ecclesia Antiqua, usque adeo ut referrent in classes {3} omnia bona quae charitatis erga proximum, hoc est, omnes qui in bono erant, et hoc cum multa distinctione, quibus etiam nomina indebant, et vocabant, pauperes, miseros, oppressos, aegrotos, nudos, esurientes, sitientes, captivos seu in carcere, peregrinos, pupillos, viduas; quosdam etiam claudos, caecos, surdos, mutos, mancos, praeter alia plura; secundum hoc doctrinale locutus est Dominus in Verbo Veteris Testamenti, quare toties (t)ibi talia occurrunt; et secundum idem locutus est Ipse Dominus, ut apud Matth. xxv 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45; Luc. xiv 13, 21; ac multoties {4} alibi; inde est quod nomina illa aliud in sensu interno significent. Ut itaque doctrinale charitatis restauretur, in sequentibus, ex Divina Domini Misericordia, dicetur quinam illi sunt, (c)ac in genere (c)et in specie quid charitas et quid proximus. @1 te$ @2 AI have 2450, but 2451 has the reference to urbs. T suggests 2392.$ @3 i suas.$ @4 ubivis.$