Many years ago… more than 10, but less than 20… I heard a story that I found a bit disturbing. Basically it was told by an Old Testament scholar in France, who made a rather interesting claim. He said that he was contacted by the highest reaches of the French government at the behest of then French President Jacques Chirac. The professor was stunned by their request. What did they want? They asked him to supply them with a summary of the legends surrounding Gog and Magog. Why did they want this? Because, as the story goes, President Chirac had just had a meeting with then President George W Bush, and Bush said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw “Gog and Magog at work” and the Biblical prophecies unfolding. Chirac had no clue what Bush was talking about, and wanted to know more. Since then people have wondered if Bush’s real motivations around invading Iraq had more to do with bringing about the second coming than gaining control of Iraqi oil.
For me, it was the first time I was confronted with the idea that maybe, just maybe, world leaders took the Bible not just seriously, but literally. If my neighbor believes that Jesus is going to physically return, or that the New Jerusalem is literally going to descend from the skies, I don’t think too much about it. They don’t have charge over a military. But when I think Bush, or any other leader actually takes Biblical prophecy literally, then I start to worry. I don’t actually think that Bush invaded Iraq to bring about Armageddon, but I do wonder if it added weight to his plan.
These days however, I wonder how much Biblical literalism is fueling Israel’s war machine. Just over the past 600 days Israel has bombed Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the coast of Malta, and now you can add Iran to that list. Since October 7, 2023 Israel has managed to kill 62,614 Palestinians and Hamas has killed 1,139 Israelis. Now that Israeli attacks have begun in Iran, I wonder how many Iranians will be killed. It seems that Iran has a greater ability to retaliate than Hamas, so this war has an even greater potential for casualties.
To be perfectly honest, I’m not a fan of these wars in the middle east. To my mind, they all reek of love of dominion that is cloaked in religious fundamentalism, which is how they justify the delusion that God favors one group over another. Personally I’m much more comfortable with a war for territory or resources than a “holy” war. There’s a more rational component to a war for “stuff,” but a holy war can toss rationality out the window in the pursuit of what they’re claiming is God’s will. Which, of course, it isn’t.
Anyway, as all of this is unfolding just before New Church Day, it has me wondering what the world would be like today if only the world believed – as the Bible teaches – that the New Jerusalem isn’t actually a literal city descending from heaven nor is the New Jerusalem an “upgrade” to the old Jerusalem that is going to happen in this world.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand why a literal interpretation is appealing. If you go through the Bible, there are a lot of great prophecies about Jerusalem. Its inhabitants will be holy, they will be strengthened, and prayers from Jerusalem will be heard. The Lord will be there, and will be united to people there and they will be united to Him. Jerusalem will have shepherds, flocks and cattle plus there will be wine and milk there. Suffice it to say, farming will go well there! Personally I’d be more excited over the fact that there will be no evil there. Oh, and Jerusalem will be a joy! So I get why we want to believe that this is something that is going to happen in the here and now.
But what if we read our Bibles a bit more carefully? When it comes to the New Jerusalem, the typical New Church interpretation says that John was “in the spirit” when he saw it, thus it was never meant to be seen as a literal city descending from heaven. Yet, there are a couple of other places in the Bible that most New Church people probably aren’t aware of that tell us that the New Jerusalem is not going to be a physical one.
One we find is in the book of Hebrews. Paul is doing his thing, encouraging young churches throughout ancient Turkey to do better, and in chapter 12 he really pushes the point that they should not seek to go to a literal mountain like the Israelites going to Sinai. God won’t be there. He says, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels…” (Hebrews 12:22). What’s that? A “heavenly Jerusalem?” Sure doesn’t seem like Paul thinks we’re going to get a literal city dropping out of the sky.
Paul actually gets that the Bible is full of symbolism. Take a look at this quote from Galatians:
For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:22-26)
Did you catch that? Paul uses the word “corresponds!” The Jerusalem “above” is free. Where is that Jerusalem? In the nation of Israel? Nope. It’s above. Are we going to get to that Jerusalem above, the one that is free, by fighting over which religion has rights to that land? Sure doesn’t seem to be what the Bible says. Paul actually gets a lot more right than I think we give him credit for! But my point is that while sometimes I understand why Christians see things differently than the New Church, this time we really should all be on the same page that there are two Jerusalems, one is a physical city, and the other is a heavenly one.
So where does that leave us? I see us standing at the crossroads of ancient prophecy and modern geopolitics, with some people still holding a map written in metaphors but reading it like a GPS. The irony for me is that despite my annoyance with Biblical literalism, what I find myself wanting is something more like New Church literalism, which of course won’t really solve the problem either. You see, the real problem isn’t fundamentalism or literalism, but rather the condition of the human heart that will use any excuse it can to assert dominance or superiority over others. The reality is that until world leaders—and everyday believers—wake up to that higher Jerusalem, we may keep mistaking war cries for angel choruses. But maybe, just maybe, this New Church Day, we can begin to flip the script. Because the city of God isn’t coming down until it has risen up, within us.