Which Jerusalem are you talking about?

When Donald Trump made his announcement about recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the USA embassy here, some commentators made the point that it would help to define more clearly what he meant by 'Jerusalem' and also what other people, such as the Palestinians, mean when they talk about 'Jerusalem' (or 'Al-Quds', as they call it). Calev Ben-Dor, for example, in calling for 'constructive specifity' about Jerusalem, sets out at least three different geographical definitions.

Useful though such distinctions are, I want to write briefly about the religious definitions of Jerusalem, which the political rhetoric often implicitly invoke. When the Israelis, for example, say that Jerusalem is 'the eternal capital of Israel', there is an obvious reference to Biblical ideas of that city. But which Biblical Jerusalem are they talking about? Because even in the Scriptures there are different concepts of the Holy City knocking around.

Are we talking about the militarily-triumphant fortress city?

Within its citadels God has shown Himself a sure defence.
Then the kings assembled, they came on together.
As soon as they saw it they were astounded;
they were in panic, they took to flight...
(Ps 48:3-5)

Or are we talking about the inclusive, multicultural city?

Glorious things are spoken of you, O city of God.
Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon;
behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia -
"This one was born there," they say...
The Lord records as He registers the peoples,
"This one was born there."
(Ps 87:3-4,6)

Or maybe we're talking about the city of injustice and oppression?

I see violence and strife in the city.
Day and night they go around it on its walls,
and iniquity and trouble are within it;
ruin is in its midst;
oppression and fraud do not depart from its market-place.
(Ps 55:9-11)

These are but some of the facets of the Biblical Jerusalem. Underlying that multiplicity of images, however, is a more simple duality - the twin reality of the earthly and heavenly Jerusalems. These two cities are apparently recognised in rabbinic literature and hinted at in the current Hebrew name for Jerusalem, which is in the dual form.

I would guess that most rabbis, however, wouldn't go as far as Saul of Tarsus, who puts the distinction between the two Jerusalems thus:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar... she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
(Gal 4:22-26)


It is a great privilege to be living here in Jerusalem. But although it is a beautiful city, with many blessings, it is not what my heart longs for. I have wondered whether part of the purpose of Divine Providence in allowing the Jewish conquest of the earthly Jerusalem is to help the Chosen People realise, after centuries of exile, that it still does not satisfy their yearning.

"He is not here. He has risen."