Swedenborg, the Bible, and the Myth of a Third Testament
September 22, 2025
Most people today have never heard the name Emanuel Swedenborg. Fewer still have heard of the New Church, a small religious movement that traces its roots to his eighteenth-century theological writings. Yet the questions he raised and the revelations he recorded strike at the heart of Christianity: Who is the Lord? What is the Word of God? How should the church on earth receive divine truth?
If you’re completely unfamiliar with him, it will be helpful for you to first read these articles:
For those already familiar with Swedenborg, another question arises that is less known to the general public but absolutely vital to the future of Christian faith: Are Swedenborg’s theological writings themselves the Word of God, or are they authoritative teachings drawn from the Word? The way one answers this question changes everything. If they are the Word itself, they become a new Scripture, co-equal with divine books in the Old and New Testaments. If they are doctrine from the Word, they serve as divinely inspired guides to unlock its meaning but remain distinct from it.
Many Christians will regard any claim that the canon of the Word has been expanded to new books as a massive red flag. And they’re right to do so. The Word itself forbids it in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19. The irony is, Swedenborg himself was well aware of this and reiterated the same truths many times. He never elevated his writings to the same level as the Word in its fullness. However, many of his readers since his death, have elevated them to that status — wrongly so — and this has besmirched much of his reputation, causing many people to turn away from his works who may otherwise have benefited from the wisdom they contain.
This is not just a matter of hair-splitting theology. It touches every point of Christian life: how the Bible is read, how churches are organized, how people discern truth from falsity, and even how they recognize the Lord Himself. A misstep in defining the Word leads to the same danger the early church fell into: replacing Christ with traditions of men, or elevating commentaries and councils over Scripture.
By Swedenborg:
My friend, do not put your faith in any council, but in the Word of God, which is above all councils.
For those who may be encountering these ideas for the first time, the message can be put simply: Swedenborg taught that the Word has layers of meaning hidden within it — called the internal sense — placed there by God. These layers connect our world with heaven. Not every book of the Bible has these hidden layers, but the core ones do. Swedenborg’s mission was to reveal those layers as they already are, not to write a new Word.
The Lord is the Word
To grasp this, we must briefly explain a bit more about what is meant by the term the “internal sense.” Every detail of the Word — names, numbers, places, actions — corresponds to spiritual realities. The story of Abraham leaving his country is not only historical but also a parable of spiritual regeneration. The temple in Jerusalem signifies the Lord’s Divine Human. Numbers like seven or twelve are not arbitrary but encode divine qualities such as holiness or completeness.
This internal sense is not merely allegory in the human sense of imaginative metaphor. It is a fixed language of correspondences woven into creation itself. The Bible’s literal stories were chosen and arranged under divine providence precisely to embody this inner meaning. That is why certain books make the list and others do not: they were written in this correspondential style.
This sense is the very sanctuary of the Word: the Lord Himself is in this sense with His Divine, and in the natural sense with His Human.
As the Lord teaches, He is the Word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
If there is one theme that runs like a golden thread through all of true Christian theology, it is the holiness of the Word. Divine revelation has a structure unlike any other text in existence, and this structure makes the Word the very presence of the Lord with humanity.
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
By Swedenborg:
The Word may thus be compared to the Divine Man who is the Lord, in whom there is not only the Divine natural, but also the Divine spiritual and the Divine celestial; it is on this account that the Lord calls Himself the Word. And the angels said that the very holiness of the Word is in the sense of its letter, and that this is more holy than the other senses, which are internal, because it is the complex and containant of the rest, and is like the body living from the soul. Thus the Word in the sense of the letter (or the “natural”) is in its fullness, and also in its power; and by means of it man is in conjunction with the heavens, which, without the sense of the letter, would be separated from man.
No other books, no matter how holy or important, can make that claim. Not the writings of church fathers, not creeds or councils, not the Book of Mormon, not the Koran — and not even Swedenborg’s own volumes.
The Literal Sense
For angels, the Word appears without their understanding of it clinging to its natural history, so that it shines in pure light. But for mortals, literal imagery veils deeper truths so they can be preserved and not profaned. The literal sense functions as a protective shell and an entryway.
I am the Door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
The Lord also compares it to a house founded on a rock:
Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
By Swedenborg:
The Word’s literal sense is the Foundation, Containing Vessel and Buttress of its spiritual and celestial meanings.
The Canon According to the Lord
The Lord does not treat every book of the Bible as equal. This may come as a surprise to some people, who have inherited a canon settled centuries earlier by church councils.
The Lord’s Old Testament canon comes from His own words, here:
These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.
The Lord’s New Testament canon comes from His own testimony as spoken to and then written down by the Apostle John, here:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him, to show to His servants what must quickly come to pass; and He signified, sending by His angel to His servant John, who gave by testimony the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever he saw.
This latter list obviously includes the Book of Revelation, as the Apostle John is writing in the name of the Lord from that book, and by extension, of course, the Gospels, as they include the testimony of John and the Apostles, who are the Lord’s servants, detailing His own words when he walked among them. The testimony of each Gospel regarding this can also be seen within each of them, in Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 1:1–3, John 21:24.
THE BOOKS OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
In the Old Testament
The Law of Moses
(aka the Pentateuch)
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
The Prophets
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel, 2 Samuel
1 Kings, 2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
The Psalms
In the New Testament
The Four Gospels
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
The Book of Revelation
These are the books that contain an internal sense written in the language of correspondences, where every word and image carries layers of meaning that unite heaven with earth.
By Swedenborg:
Which are the Books of the Word. The books of the Word are all those which have an internal sense; but those books which have no internal sense, are not the Word. The books of the Word, in the Old Testament, are: the five Books of Moses, the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, the Psalms of David, the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: and in the New Testament, the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Book of Revelation. The rest have no internal sense.
—The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #266, Arcana Coelestia #10325, The White Horse #16
As shown above, the definition of this canon wasn’t an invention of Swedenborg’s, but was defined by the Lord based on His own statements in Luke 24:44–45 as well as those written by the Apostle John in Revelation 1:1-2.
What about the rest of the Bible?
You might now be thinking, “Wait a minute, I thought the Bible was the Word, but you’re saying it’s only specific books of the Bible that qualify?”
And yes — but it’s not me saying that, nor Swedenborg, but the Lord’s own statements.
Many people may have a hard time accepting this, because since birth, or since they were baptized, they’ve had a broader definition of what constitutes the Word. But although these other books from their upbringing may have been useful for instruction, they are not the Word. Swedenborg calls them “good books for the Church” (Letters #2). They can be read and enjoyed, but they are not authoritative, nor supremely divine, because they are not the Lord Himself, but rather derivative works of prophets, apostles, and priests.
The Lord says there is only one way to the Father, and that is through Him as the Word:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Within the literal text of the Word lies layers of deeper meaning which elevate all the way to the Supreme Divine of the Lord Himself, and this full and complete connection only exists in the books of the defined canon.
With this in mind, it may be helpful not only to define what is the Word but what is not the Word.
Books of the Bible which are not the Word
Ruth
Historical, but not written in correspondences.
1 and 2 Chronicles
Parallel history to Samuel/Kings; lacks the internal sense.
Ezra and Nehemiah
Records of the return from Babylon, but not correspondential.
Esther
Narrative of providence, but not in the Word’s symbolic style.
Job
Ancient book of moral wisdom that does contains correspondences, but because it does not have them in a perfect sequence, it doesn’t qualify.
Proverbs
Wise sayings, but not in the continuous correspondential form.
Ecclesiastes
Philosophical reflections, not the Word’s Divine style.
Song of Songs (Songs of Solomon or Canticles)
Poetic, with imagery, but not written in the style of the Word’s internal sense. It sounds eloquent and mystical, but is merely sensuous and doesn’t connect with the covenant of marriage in heaven.
Acts of the Apostles
Valuable church history, but not written in correspondences.
Paul’s Epistles (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews)
Doctrinally true and useful, but not written in the style of the Word; Swedenborg calls them “good books for the church,” but not the Word.
General Epistles (James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, Jude)
Same as Paul’s letters: sound doctrine, but not the Word in the strict sense.
Other Doctrinal Works of Various Religions
See the Appendix at the end of this article for a longer list (although by no means fully expansive).
That brings us back to the Writings — Swedenborg’s own twenty-seven years of theological output, composed in Latin between 1749 and 1771. They are vast, covering everything from the nature of heaven and hell to the inner meaning of Genesis and Exodus, to the true nature of the Trinity, to the process of salvation. Swedenborg himself testified that he wrote these works under direct commission from the Lord, who appeared to him in 1745 and opened his spiritual sight (Journal of Dreams, #54, True Christianity #779).
Although he interacted with spirits and angels daily, he nonetheless insisted that he was taught the truths of the Word not by angels, but by the Lord alone while he was reading it. For that reason, many in the New Church rightly regard his Writings as divinely inspired and concordant with it.
By Swedenborg:
The spiritual sense of the Word has today been uncovered by the Lord because the doctrine of genuine truth has now been revealed; and this doctrine is concordant with the spiritual sense of the Word, and not any other.
But here lies the razor’s edge: concordant, yes — but are they the Word?
By Swedenborg’s own statements, although his Writings are divinely inspired doctrine, fully concordant with the spiritual sense of the Word, they are not the Word. Rather, they fit into a category similar to the non-canonical books of the Bible, as listed above.
By Swedenborg:
It might be thought that the doctrine of genuine truth could be acquired by means of the spiritual sense of the Word, of which we are granted knowledge by correspondences. But doctrine is not acquired through this, merely illustrated and confirmed.
The books of the Word are all those which have an internal sense; but those books which have no internal sense, are not the Word.
The reason for this is because in its inner sense, the term “doctrine” does not describe the text of doctrinal writings, but rather the underlying concepts of goodness and truth formed within the soul of the person reading them, and how effectively he puts them to use in his life. This quality of life can only be drawn from the text of the Word from the official canon, rather than from exposition about it. Expositional text, such as Swedenborg’s writings, help to illustrate and confirm the Word, but they have no life on their own. Therefore, they can never stand alone, nor can or should they be termed “the Word.”
By this definition, even the most divinely inspired commentary does not count as the Word. Swedenborg acknowledges that the Epistles of Paul, for example, contain sound teaching and valuable exhortation, but they lack the correspondential structure that embeds an inner sense. They are straightforward prose, not the layered divine style.
The same applies to Swedenborg’s own works. They are doctrinal, didactic, explanatory. They open the internal sense of the Word but are not themselves written in correspondences. They do not veil spiritual truths under historical narrative but reveal them directly in plain speech. For that reason, they cannot be called the Word in the strict sense.
It is important to hold these two truths together:
The Writings are authoritative because they are from the Lord, given under extraordinary revelation, and intended as doctrine for the New Church.
They are not the Word, because they are not written in the correspondential style with a threefold sense.
Swedenborg lived by this distinction. He quoted the Word constantly, often verse by verse, as the source to be illuminated. He treated the Scriptures as the source and final authority.
This is what the Lord meant when he said He is “living waters” and “a fountain of water.”
If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.
Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.
A cup of water in the desert restores life to a traveler, just as reading the Word restores life to the student of it. A teacher of the Word, such as Swedenborg, can then help to pass that water on to other travelers, but he is never the Fountain or the Water, only the conveyer, as the Fountain and the Water are the Lord alone.
This is why Swedenborg says that his Writings are drawn from the Word, like drawing a cup of water from a well.
Why This Precision Matters
At first glance, one might think this is splitting hairs. If the Epistles contain divine truth, for example, why not count them as the Word, and by extension, Swedenborg’s works?
The reason is that, while other writings may reflect portions of the truth, none can unite both the form and the focus with the eternal and infinite perfection found only in the Word.
The Word is not holy only because it teaches sound doctrine. It is holy because it is a container of infinite truth, a vessel through which the Lord Himself is present.
If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you.
The Lord compares it to a body filled with a soul: the literal words may seem ordinary, but within them dwells the life of heaven. This is why he insists that the Word alone has power to conjoin heaven and earth. Remove that foundation, and religion collapses into human speculation.
The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Thus, the Lord protects the term “the Word” as a specific designation. By limiting it to those specific books, he is safeguarding the conduit of divine influence.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.
Hallow them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.
This distinction is crucial. The holiness of the Word is complete in its full structure, because the Divine terminates in what is lowest and makes it holy. To confuse other writings with the Word is to blur the very boundary that gives the Word its divine power.
History shows what happens when people confuse doctrine with Scripture. As Swedenborg explains in True Christian Religion, The Catholic Church gradually placed tradition and papal decrees on par with the Word. Protestants, though they revolted against Rome’s excesses, ended up elevating the dogmatic writings of Luther and Calvin into de facto scripture for their followers. And since then, (as I’ve explained here on the Nova Ecclesia website), Mormons went further still, canonizing the Book of Mormon and other volumes alongside the Word, creating a multi-part canon that distorts Christianity. If the Writings are called “the Word,” then by the same reasoning Mormons could call the Book of Mormon the Word, or any other religion could elevate its own writings to the same status. The Word is uniquely the Word because it has an inner sense. The Writings do not have an inner sense of their own, because they are given to explain the inner sense, and they are written in a doctrinal style that is distinct.
I have wrestled with this distinction myself. Coming out of Mormonism, where the Book of Mormon is claimed to be “another testament of Jesus Christ,” I saw firsthand the damage caused by adding to the Word. It distorts doctrine, confuses the Trinity, and leads people away from the Lord.
The same danger lurks among churches that formed after Swedenborg’s death. In the late 1800s, Bishop William Henry Benade and the Academy movement began teaching that Swedenborg’s Writings were a “Third Testament” equal in sanctity to the Old and New Testaments. Swedenborg himself never taught this idea, but from that time forward, the General Church of the New Jerusalem institutionalized this belief, teaching generations to revere the Writings as the Word. But what if this was a misstep? What if Swedenborg himself drew a line that the later church ignored? If so, the General Church has elevated doctrine above Scripture just as Rome did, only with a different set of books. And if that is the case, the very church meant to preserve Swedenborg’s teachings risks betraying them.
When I entered the General Church, I carried that caution with me. If it was clear to me at that time that Swedenborg’s followers treated his Writings in the same way Mormons treat Joseph Smith’s, I would have turned away (which I later did). I still consider myself a part of the New Church, but only insofar as it distinguishes itself from the General Church’s heresy. Only by carefully studying Swedenborg’s own writings did I see the distinction: his works reveal the Word; they do not add to it.
That insight preserved my faith and gave me clarity. And I believe the same clarity is needed for anyone today who wants to follow the Lord in sincerity.
The Lord’s Second Coming and Swedenborg’s Care in Definition
For the average Christian today, all of this might seem remote. Why debate whether books written three centuries ago are or are not “the Word”? But the implications are direct. If we mistake the nature of doctrinal writings, we risk repeating the same cycle of error that has plagued the Christian Church for two millennia: replacing living faith in the Lord and His Word with allegiance to an institution or its dogmas.
Another thing that shocks some people from the Christian tradition who aren’t familiar with Swedenborg’s writings is his explanation of what the Lord’s Second Coming means. The Lord’s Second Coming doesn’t mean that he is going to return physically in the sky, but rather than he will return through the Word itself. In that sense, the meaning of his Second Coming is allegorical. He’s returning through love united to wisdom and charity united to faith:
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Swedenborg’s writings act as a catalyst for this because they reveal the full picture. He does not hesitate to say that his teachings come directly from the Lord. In True Christian Religion #779 he wrote:
This, the Lord’s Second Coming, is taking place by means of a man to whom He has shown Himself and whom He has filled with His Spirit, so that he may teach the doctrines of the New Church which come from the Lord through the Word.
This is bold language. Swedenborg places himself as the man chosen to reveal the doctrine for the Lord’s Second Advent — but he is clear: the doctrines come from the Lord through the Word. That careful phrasing holds the key. Over and over Swedenborg emphasized that his Writings are drawn from the Word. He called them “the doctrines of the New Jerusalem” (doctrinae Novae Hierosolymae), never “the Word of the Lord.” He insisted that every point must be confirmed by Scripture’s literal sense. He enumerated the canon of the Word with precision and did not include his own works.
Rather, he insisted that the Lord’s Second Coming is in the Word — in the revelation of its spiritual sense. If we mistake his books for the Word, we shift the focus from the Lord to the servant, but if we treat his books as if they weren’t from a divine source, then we miss the Lord’s Advent altogether. Only by holding the right distinctions can we see the Second Coming for what it is: the Lord revealing Himself anew in His Word, with power and glory.
This is why clarity on this point is not optional. It is the very heart of New Church theology. Without it, the church will wander. With it, the church can bear witness to the Lord for ages to come.
Dr. Gabriel Beyer, one of Swedenborg’s most faithful correspondents, said:
It is not a new Divine Word but a disclosure in the Word we had, which is the Crown of all Heavenly revelation.
This statement captures the point precisely.
A Light to the Word and a Call to Return to the Truth
By Swedenborg:
It may therefore be evident that those who read the Word without doctrine, or who do not procure for themselves doctrine from the Word, are in obscurity concerning every truth. Their minds are wavering and unsettled, liable to errors and prone to heresies, which they also embrace if these are held in favour and supported by authority, and if their own reputation is not endangered. The Word to them is like a lampstand without a light, and they see many things, as it were, in the shade, yet understanding hardly anything, for doctrine alone is that which enlightens. I have seen such persons being examined by angels, and they appeared able to confirm from the Word whatever opinion they pleased, and to confirm what pertained to their own self-love and the love of those whom they befriended. But I have also seen them stripped of their garments, a sign that they were destitute of truths; for garments in the spiritual world are truths.
We can see from this that the Writings are essential. Without them we can’t understand the Word and would try to view it in darkness. The two must work together. The Writings function as the light: they support and direct our reading of Scripture, helping us to see what’s within it.
The way forward is not complicated. It is to return to the Lord in His Word. Let the Word be read and honored as Scripture. Let the Writings be studied and revered as doctrine that enlightens it. Let every doctrine be tested and confirmed by Scripture’s letter.
Moreover, in a culture that already disregards the Word, clarity matters. People will not be helped if we further muddy the waters by multiplying “scriptures.” What they need is to see the Lord in His Word, opened in its inner light. Swedenborg’s mission was to make that light shine. To call his books themselves the Word may actually obscure their purpose, turning the lamp into a wall rather than a window.
Doctrine, however, must not only be taken from the sense of the Letter of the Word, but it must also be confirmed by that sense. For if not confirmed by it, the truth of doctrine appears as if it were only man's intelligence in it and not the Lord’s Divine Wisdom; and thus doctrine would be like a house in the air, and not on the ground, and consequently without a foundation.
If this path is followed, the New Church will fulfill its destiny. It will not matter whether it is large or small, visible or hidden. What will matter is that it testifies faithfully: the Lord Jesus Christ is God, His Word is holy, and with the Writings it can be understood.
The Power of the Literal Sense
Swedenborg repeatedly warned against disregarding the literal sense of Scripture. In Arcana Coelestia #3954 he explained that the internal sense depends entirely on the literal as its foundation. To dismiss the letter in favor of doctrine is to cut off the root from which doctrine grows. A house cannot stand without a foundation, and the inner meaning cannot exist without the outer shell.
By Swedenborg:
The doctrine of the church is to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word and supported by it.
It was shown in the preceding paragraph that the Word is in its fulness in the literal sense and endowed with holiness and power. Since the Lord is the Word and is the First and the Last, as He says in Revelation (Revelation 1:17), it follows that the Lord is most especially present in that sense and by means of it teaches and enlightens men. But these points must be demonstrated in due order:
1. The Word is not to be understood without doctrine.
2. Doctrine is to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word.
3. But Divine truth, on which doctrine is based, is not visible to any but those who are enlightened by the Lord.
—True Christian Religion #225 (also see #229 and #234)
This is crucial for our topic. If the Writings are treated as the Word apart from the books listed, one might be tempted to sideline the literal Scripture altogether. But that would destroy the very foundation on which the Writings stand. The doctrines Swedenborg expounds live only because the Word lives. The Writings explain it; they do not replace it.
I think the main reason this issue has risen in recent years is because the primary concern Swedenborg had in his era was that the opposite would happen, that is, that people would accept the literal sense but not the internal. But he makes it very clear in many places — in every book he’s written — that both are vital, and neither can be missing.
18th century prevalence: In Swedenborg’s era, the Bible was far more central to everyday life in Europe and America. Literacy rates were rising, sermons and family devotions revolved around Scripture, and even skeptics were steeped in biblical language. Swedenborg himself assumed readers knew the stories and phrasing of the Bible.
Today: Globally, many people know of the Bible, but far fewer have actually read it. Surveys show that in much of the Western world, biblical literacy is declining rapidly. Many cannot identify basic stories or characters (e.g., Adam and Eve, the Good Samaritan). Even where Bibles are accessible, engagement is shallow. In some regions of the Global South, Bible reading is still strong, but in much of Europe and North America, it has collapsed.
People tend to overcorrect towards one extreme of the pendulum or to the other, coming up with their own ideas, rather than looking to the Lord, who is the unity of both the literal and the inner sense of the Word.
By Swedenborg:
Every Divine work has in it a first, intermediate, and final element, and the first one progresses through the intermediate one to the final one, and so takes form and endures. Thus the final element is the foundation. Moreover, the first element is present in the intermediate one, and present through the intermediate one in the final one. Thus the final element is the containing vessel. And because the final element is the containing vessel and foundation, it is also the buttress.
—Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture #27
The leaders are further warned at all costs to accept the belief that the Word is spiritual within, because it is Divine, and that unless they have accepted this belief they can be seduced by satans, to the point of denying the holiness of the Word; and if this is denied, the Church with them disappears. It is also impressed upon them that if they do not believe in this internal sense of the Word, the Word may at last appear to them like an ill-formed and clumsy writing, or like a book of all heresies, since from its sense of the letter as from some pool or other heresies of all kinds may be drawn, and confirmed by means of it.
This is why both are needed. The Word is the Lord in fullness and power, and the Writings protect against confusion and heresies.
In 2 Kings, Chapter 2:23–24, there is a story regarding the prophet, Elisha, and how boys taunted him, calling him “bald head.” The children are then mauled by bears. Many atheists like to point to this story as evidence that God is cruel or that the Word is ridiculous and not true. Yet, they completely ignore the fact that it’s meant to be allegorical, not literal. God didn’t condone bears mauling children and Elisha wasn’t necessarily a good person. Rather, this story was included in the Word because it’s a symbolic, divine correspondence about itself. “Boys” in the Word often represent natural or immature thoughts or affections. In this case, they are symbolizing mocking falsity — especially from those who make fun of what is divine — as represented by “Elisha.” Elisha’s baldness represents a state in which truth appears to be without power or stripped of its external form, and mocking that is mocking divine truth in its plainest form. The bears do not represent a cruel God, but the natural truths of the Word, which — when mocked or profaned — naturally turn against those who abuse them. The mauling is symbolic of spiritual ruin brought on by profaning holy things.
About this story, Swedenborg wrote:
The boys who called Elisha “bald head” were torn in pieces by bears, because Elisha and Elijah represented the Word; and the Word without the sense of the letter, which is like a head without hair, is without any power, and thus is no longer the Word.
Here, he states that without the sense of the letter, something can’t be called the Word. This, then, clearly applies to his own writings, as I believe he would be the first to admit and declare.
The pattern is this: first, read the Word. It’s now in your mind as knowledge. Second, study the Writings. Doing so allows the Lord to enter more deeply and convert that knowledge into understanding and will — but this can’t happen unless you go to the Word first. This is what it means to “directly approach the Lord.”
You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me. And you are not willing to come to me, that you may have life.
Swedenborg’s Calling and Mission
In 1745, while still serving as a Swedish nobleman, scientist, and assessor of mines, Swedenborg experienced a vision that changed his life. He later recounted that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him personally:
I then continued my prayer, saying, “Thou hast promised to receive in grace all sinners; Thou canst not otherwise than keep thy words!” In the same moment I was sitting at his bosom and beheld him face to face. It was a countenance of a holy mien, and all was such that it cannot be expressed, and also smiling, so that I believe that his countenance was such also while he lived in the world. He spoke to me and asked if I had a bill of health. I answered, “Lord, thou knowest better than I.” He said, “Well, then do,” This I found in my mind to signify, “Love me truly,” or “Do what thou hast promised.” O God, impart to me grace for this! I found that it was not in my own power. I awoke, with tremors.
From that time forward his spiritual sight was opened; he conversed daily with angels and spirits and received instruction directly from the Lord.
I testify in truth that the Lord manifested himself to me, his servant, and assigned me to this task; after doing so, he opened the sight of my spirit and brought me into the spiritual world; and he has allowed me to see the heavens and the hells and to have conversations with angels and spirits on a continual basis for many years now. I also testify that ever since the first day of this calling, I have accepted nothing regarding the teachings of this church from any angel; what I have received has come from the Lord alone while I was reading the Word.
Although he often spoke with angels, the key point is that the only things he was allowed to teach to the church came from (Latin: ex, or literally “out of”) the Lord alone while reading the Word. That phrase captures the balance: the Writings are divine in origin, yet derivative in authority. They draw all their light from the Scriptures they illuminate.
By the end of his life Swedenborg no longer hid his role. On the title page of True Christian Religion (published in 1771), he signed his name with the words “Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Later, he explained that this was not by his own choice but at the Lord’s command. In doing so he placed himself in line with the biblical prophets, who called themselves servants of the Lord when delivering divine messages. Still, he never blurred categories. The prophets spoke the Word itself, dictated in the style of correspondences. Swedenborg, as servant, was called to open the Word’s hidden sense and set forth doctrine. The authority was real, but the mode was different.
Unlike the prophets of old, who typically received words by audible dictation, Swedenborg described a more interior mode of revelation. He wrote that he was not personally enlightened by any angel, nor did he record words whispered into his ear; instead, the Lord enlightened his understanding while he was reading the Word. This mode fulfilled the Lord’s promise that the Spirit of Truth would guide the church into all truth (John 16:13).
This calling was the very fulfillment of prophecy concerning the Second Coming of Christ — not a physical return, but a second degree of perception and understanding of the Word, through the unveiling of its inner sense. His mission was therefore nothing more than to serve as the instrument of the Lord’s Advent in doctrine and truth.
He describes this mode of revelation in his journal, it consisted of:
1. Influx into thought — The words and meaning were impressed upon his mind in such a way that he was “held” to them by a heavenly force, so that even if he had wanted to write something different, he could not.
2. Varied levels of consciousness — Sometimes with full understanding as he wrote, sometimes without knowing the sequence of ideas until afterward.
3. Not the same as the prophets’ inspiration — He distinguishes his experience from the verbal dictation and exact-letter inspiration of the Old Testament prophets. That’s why he ties verbal dictation to Moses, the prophets, and David — but his own writings to influx of Divine truth into rational thought, which is still from the Lord but is a different mode.
4. Purpose of this method — To open the rational understanding of the Word’s spiritual sense for the New Church, rather than to produce another literal-sense Scripture that joins heaven and earth in the same way the Word does.
These descriptions can be found in his writings as chronicled in his spiritual experiences during his transitionary period into prophecy. During this time, he was just finishing up an exploratory draft for what later became Arcana Coelestia, called The Word Explained. See Spiritual Experiences-Word Explained #42 and #344.
He wrote:
I have not been permitted to say anything here that was dictated orally to me by any of them [the angels] (when this did take place, as it sometimes did, it had to be erased), but only the things that streamed in from God the Messiah Alone, indirectly through them, and directly. This was very plain to me.
—Spiritual Experiences-Word Explained #42
…It was dictated, but in an amazing way in my thought, and my thinking was guided to an understanding of these words, and was firmly concentrated upon the individual words by a mental image, as if being held by a heavenly force.
…Neither is it allowed them [the angels] to dictate anything [to me] aloud, even though I have been spoken to aloud for such a long time, almost continuously. But when it [the Doctrine] was being written, they kept quiet.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, some members of the General Church, such as C. T. Odhner, Alfred Acton, and others, misunderstood Swedenborg’s use of the term “dictated” (Latin: dictatus), citing Arcana Coelestia, where he wrote:
But that the internal sense is such as has been set forth, is evident from all the details that have been unfolded, and especially from the fact that it has been dictated to me from heaven.
Therefore, they said, Swedenborg’s writings were the Word. Yet, they ignored, or were ignorant of, Swedenborg’s definition of his use of the term, dictated, as he did, in fact, define his meaning behind it. He said that he received revelation while reading the Word, and drawing doctrine from it, so even though it was “dictated” to him, he didn’t mean dictation in the same way people in the 19th and later centuries did when thinking about someone audibly dictating to a typist, as before that time the term was mostly used to indicate a mandate. The invention of the typewriter narrowed the common usage of dictation into audible dictation, but the typewriter wasn’t invented until after Swedenborg’s death.
At times Swedenborg spoke in bold terms about his role. He said that his books contained “the testimony of the Lord’s Advent,” that in the spiritual world they bore the inscription Adventus Domini (“The Coming of the Lord”), and that his mission surpassed all miracles given before. Yet even in these declarations he clarified that the content was divine because it unveiled the Word’s inner truth, rather than being the Word.
What “The Word Itself” Means
In Arcana Coelestia #1540, Swedenborg says: “the internal sense is the Word itself.” Some have taken this to mean that the spiritual sense alone is the Word, apart from the letter. But this rests on a misunderstanding of the Latin word ipsum.
In Swedenborg’s usage, ipsum is an intensifier. It elevates or intensifies the noun it attaches to: “the Lord Himself,” “the Word Itself,” meaning the very essence, the inmost reality.
In English, “itself” can also function as an isolator. It can mean “on its own” or “by itself,” as in “the thing itself, apart from anything else.”
The General Church has tended to read ipsum in this isolating sense. Thus, they argue a position that the spiritual sense in isolation is the Word; a sentiment that traces its roots back William Benade, William Frederic Pendleton, and Carl Theophilus Odhner and has often been echoed since then by their successors, such as in the works by Alfred Acton, Prescott Rogers, and others.
But Swedenborg’s meaning is more nuanced: the spiritual sense is the essence within the literal sense, and together they make the Word. Without the letter, the internal is inaccessible; without the internal, the letter is dead.
This is why he insists that doctrine cannot be drawn from the spiritual sense, but only by first being illustrated through the sense of the letter. The Word is Divine because both are united: the internal making it holy, the literal making it present.
This relates to the central arcana of heaven: that the Son is the Father and that the Father is the Son. They are united in one body, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are not two separate people. And, just as the Lord is one, so is the Word one.
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or else believe Me for the very works’ sake.
That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.
As the Father is in the Son bearing witness of him, so the spiritual sense is within the Word bearing witness of the Lord. But the order must be preserved: the Father is only seen in the Son (John 5:37), and the Writings only have authority in opening the Word, never apart from it.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Some might say the text that expounds the Heavenly Doctrine is the spiritual sense itself, but Swedenborg distinguishes the two: the spiritual sense belongs within the Word and is guarded by the Lord, while his writings teach the doctrine for the New Church drawn from the Word, illustrating and confirming that sense rather than replacing it.
(Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture 50–54, True Christian Religion #230)
By Swedenborg:
The Word is not understood apart from doctrine. That is because the Word in its literal sense consists of nothing but correspondent forms, in order for spiritual and celestial concepts to be present in it at the same time, and for each word to be a containing vessel and buttress of those concepts. In some places in the literal sense, therefore, we find not naked truths, but truths clothed, which we call appearances of truth. Many of these truths, too, are accommodated to the comprehension of simple folk, who do not elevate their thoughts above the kinds of things they see before their eyes. And some of them seem to involve contradictions, even though there is no contradiction in the Word when seen in its true light.
Moreover, in some places in the Prophets, we find also collections of place names and the names of people from which it is impossible to elicit any meaning…
Since that is the nature of the Word in its literal sense, it can be seen therefore that it cannot be understood apart from doctrine.
Since the New Church is meant to endure into the ages — not only for centuries or millennia, but into eternity — this law can never be broken. If it were, the result would be a gradual drift away from the Word toward other texts, with consequences that would eventually touch the whole human race.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
The grass withers, the flower fades: but the Word of our God shall stand forever.
From Private Conviction to Institutional Doctrine
What began as a conviction of a few leaders gradually hardened into a defining doctrine of the Academy movement. In 1890, the tension between this high view of the Writings and the more cautious stance of the older New Church body (the General Convention) led to a split. Benade and his followers withdrew and, by 1897, organized the General Church of the New Jerusalem.
Regarding the history of the New Church movement, the naming of the sects which have formed after Swedenborg’s death can be a little bit confusing at first, so I’ll lay it out clearly like this, with a few short notes about each one:
The General Conference of the New Church
Based in London, United Kingdom, one of the first sects to organize, founded in 1789.
Teaches that the Bible is the Word (which is not technically correct, per our discussion above).
Holds to policies which are not concordant with the Word, by sustaining LGBT and female ministers.
General Convention of the New Jerusalem
Based in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, founded in 1817.
Does not claim that the Writings are the Word (which is good).
But their policies are not concordant with the Word (which is not good), by disregarding some of the content in Swedenborg’s opus on Conjugial Love, as stated in a doctrinal statement they made called A Declaration by the General Convention. Like the General Conference, they also sustain LGBT and female ministers.
General Church of the New Jerusalem
Based in Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania, USA, founded in 1897.
Split from the General Convention over disagreements regarding Conjugial Love.
Teaches that the Writings are the Word (which is heretical and the subject of this article).
The Lord’s New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma
Based in Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania, USA, founded in 1937, after they split from the General Church.
Systemized the General Church’s heresy by declaring that the Writings are a “Third Testament.”
This schism from the General Church was an eventual inevitability, since it’s what was implied by the General Church since its formation once they started calling the Writings “the Word.”
None of the major organized sects of the New Church, as of today, have aligned their policies with the true doctrine of the New Church. This is a sad state of affairs, but does not speak against the authenticity of the Lord, his Word, or the Heavenly Doctrine revealed through Swedenborg.
For readers of this blog, I encourage you to go to the Word and read and compare it with the Writings. It’s clear that the Lord has made the above mentioned sects stewards over the Writings (at least for the time being) so that they’d be preserved, and so I nonetheless recommend downloading and reading Swedenborg’s books from them. But that said, analyze them with caution, check them carefully against Swedenborg’s Latin text, and be careful to read Swedenborg himself, not just the words of later priests and commentators (including my own).
The split between the General Church of the New Jerusalem and the General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the late 19th century centered on doctrinal authority, with Conjugial Love as a flashpoint. Many in the Convention held that Swedenborg’s Writings were human commentary on Scripture, valuable but not themselves Divine revelation. This led to skepticism about teachings in Conjugial Love, especially its affirmation of eternal, monogamous marriage and its rejection of adultery, concubinage, and polygamy as spiritual evils. Critics in the Convention questioned whether such details could bind the conscience, treating them as Swedenborg’s opinion rather than the Lord’s Word. In response, leaders of what became the General Church, such as the Reverend William Fredrick Pendleton, insisted that the Writings were revelation given at the Lord’s Second Coming and therefore authoritative on all matters, including marriage.
The General Church was right to defend the correctness of conjugial love, recognizing it as genuine doctrine from the Lord and essential to true Christianity. In this they preserved the sanctity of eternal marriage against those in the Convention who dismissed it as Swedenborg’s personal opinion. Yet, the sad truth is, in pressing their case, the General Church went a step too far by attempting to establish authority by declaring the Writings themselves to be the Word. The Lord clearly defined the Word as the Law, Prophets, Psalms, Gospels, and Revelation. The Writings are divine doctrine given to open the Word, not to replace or extend it. By blurring this distinction, the General Church safeguarded one truth while creating yet another fundamental error.
Because we live in this situation where none of the sects of the New Church have actually aligned their policies with heaven’s doctrines, my experience has been that when I share the New Church with Evangelicals, they’ll navigate to newchurch.org, see the errors they’ve made, and immediately reject the New Church and its teachings. This essentially blocks the Lord’s Second Coming from being revealed in the clouds because the sects who are safeguarding the Writings are not in alignment with them, and have thereby profaned them. Swedenborg explained in Divine Providence that in a fallen, dark world, the Lord’s options for safeguarding his Word and his doctrines are slim, because everyone is engaged in self-love and self-intelligence.
Consequences of Imbalance
Both extremes carry consequences:
Where the Writings are downgraded, the church loses its distinct identity. It becomes just another liberal Christian denomination, dissolving into vague moralism.
Where the Writings are canonized, the church becomes insular and rigid. The Word fades, sermons become repetitious, and dialogue with the wider Christian world is stunted.
In both cases, the vitality of the New Church wanes. Membership declines, schools close, and the younger generation drifts away. Without clarity, the church withers.
The Dutch Expansion: De Hemelsche Leer
Unfortunately, this one little false seed — the idea that the Writings are the Word — has grown into more than one heresy.
In the 1930s, a group of Dutch theologians extended this line of thought further in their journal De Hemelsche Leer (“The Celestial Doctrine”). If the Writings were truly the Word, they reasoned, then they must also contain an internal sense, hidden beneath their literal prose, just as Genesis and Exodus do. According to this claim, the same correspondential method Swedenborg applied to the Word must also be applied to his own books.
This was a bold leap. It implied that the Writings themselves carried layers of deeper meaning, so that even Swedenborg’s explanations of the Word were not final, but required spiritual interpretation of their own. In practice, this placed the Writings on an even higher pedestal, making them seem inexhaustible in the same way as the Word.
One of the most prominent defenders of this teaching was Theodore Pitcairn, a leading layman and patron of the General Church. Drawing on the earlier insistence by Benade, Pendleton, and Odhner that the Writings were Divine, Pitcairn argued that they were not only revelation but also the Word itself, complete with an internal sense. He helped circulate works such as What the Heavenly Doctrine Testifies Concerning Itself, reinforcing the Dutch claim. When General Church leadership declined to make this doctrine official, the conflict eventually led to a schism. In 1937, Pitcairn and his supporters formed a new body, The Lord’s New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, which made the doctrine of the internal sense in the Writings its central principle.
The General Church never embraced this radical step, but neither did it fully confront the kernel of the error that allowed it: the decision to call the Writings the Word in the first place. By leaving that seed unaddressed, it gave space for the later falsity to grow — and that ambiguity continues to exist within it today.
Ministers with this idea justified it by finding one of the few scriptures Swedenborg hadn’t had time to expound on directly, and bastardizing it:
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews… and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
In their thinking, “Hebrew” meant Old Testament, “Greek” New Testament, and “Latin” the Heavenly Doctrine (since the Heavenly Doctrine was written in Latin). However, just because a three-fold symbolism is used in the Word, doesn’t mean we should stretch our imaginations to presume it’s applied to everything, such as to a separation of the Testaments, or to priesthood structure. The correspondence of the Trinity must only go as the Lord outlined it — this is proven by the fact that the Old Church abused the correspondence of the Trinity, applying the symbolism of a trine onto ideas where it wasn’t meant to be taken — which is the very error that the Lord corrected through Swedenborg in True Christian Religion.
Swedenborg never does the kind of explicit three-book mapping that Theodore Pitcairn attempted (OT = Hebrew, NT = Greek, Writings = Latin). That’s a correspondential misapplication, not Swedenborg’s own exegesis.
This trinal scheme had an immediate, however erroneous appeal. It seemed to harmonize the Bible’s divisions with Swedenborg’s doctrine of the Lord, and it appeared to give the Writings an exalted status. But it is built on a false parallel. Swedenborg never equated the Word’s three senses with three separate Testaments, nor did he map them onto the Persons of the Trinity. His entire theology rejected dividing the Divine into three beings. To do so with the Word is to reintroduce the very tritheism he worked so hard to overcome.
Is it ironic that the very verse of scripture that Pitcairn chose to propose that idea is the one where the Lord is nailed to the cross?
At first the difference may look like semantics, but it is not.
The threefold sense unites the Word. It shows how one text can speak simultaneously to heaven and earth, binding the church in every age to the Lord.
The “Threefold Word” divides. It suggests three separate Scriptures, three separate revelations, even three separate aspects of God.
The former magnifies the holiness of the Word. The latter risks fragmenting it and multiplying canons.
Alfred Acton’s “Virgin Mind” Heresy
Some General Church ministers, such as Alfred Acton, drew a bold analogy to convey this idea. He likened Swedenborg’s revelatory role to the Virgin Mary’s in the incarnation of Christ:
Can any one suppose for a moment that the Word in its glory is less Jehovah, because Baron Swedenborg was its vehicle? as well might he suppose that Jesus Christ was not Jehovah, because the Virgin Mary gave him birth?
—Alfred Acton, The Writings as the Word: A Study in the History of Doctrine (1957)
Acton’s idea was that just as Mary’s natural womb provided a body for the Word made flesh, Swedenborg’s prepared mind — described as a “mental or internal… womb or matrix” — provided the vessel for written Divine truth. This striking metaphor implies that Swedenborg’s intellect was miraculously formed to “give birth” to a new embodiment of the Word – a third textual advent of divine truth.
But the idea that the Lord was spiritually born in Swedenborg’s mind like the Lord’s body was born in Mary’s womb is grotesque and deeply profane because it inverts the actual order of divine influence. In reality, the opposite occurred: Swedenborg’s mind was spiritually born in the Lord.
What this inversion of truth amounted to was, once again, a division of the Trinity. In order to make this new grotesque idea work, Acton, and perhaps those before him, had essentially divided each component of the Trinity onto a different collection of books: The Old Testament was equated to the Father, the New Testament to the Son, and the Heavenly Doctrine to the Holy Spirit. This was like crucifying the Lord the same way the Old Church did: splitting him up into three corpora.
Remember, as we mentioned above, the Lord is united in one Word, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; he isn’t split up into two or three components.
All of this implies that Benade and his followers missed the entire point of the New Church, and the General Church which they founded cannot be rightly termed the New Church insofar as they hold to this heresy.
Summary: Two Paths Diverge
Swedenborg’s own teaching: The Word is the books of the Bible that the Lord specifically defined, those written in correspondences with a threefold sense. Swedenborg’s Writings are doctrine from the Lord through the Word, authoritative because they reveal its inner meaning.
The General Church’s doctrine: The Writings are themselves the Word, the Third Testament, coequal with the Old and New Testaments. Some even claim they contain their own inner sense.
The difference may seem subtle, but its implications are vast. One path preserves the unique holiness of the Word while honoring the Writings as divinely inspired doctrine. The other path risks creating a new canon, repeating the errors of history.
The fact this is occurring in the New Church movement today may correspond with how the dragon (self-love and self-intelligence) is described as being “loosed for a little season” before he is then once again bound and cast into the abyss:
…that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
…And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.
—Revelation 20:3, 7-8 (Apocalypse Revealed #856, #858, #859)
Returning to the Lord in His Word
The heart of the matter is simple: the Lord Jesus Christ is the Word. He came into the world as the Word made flesh, and He remains present with us in the Scriptures that bear His voice. The Second Coming is not the arrival of a new book, but the unveiling of the divine meaning within the book He already gave.
Emanuel Swedenborg was called to be the servant of that Advent. For nearly three decades he labored to open the inner sense of the Word, showing that every verse is about the Lord, about His kingdom, and about our regeneration. His writings were not human speculation but doctrine from the Lord, given for the sake of the New Jerusalem.
The Two Errors to Avoid
The history of the New Church shows two opposite errors:
Diminishing the Writings — treating them as optional commentary, which reduces the New Church to another denomination adrift in uncertainty.
Canonizing the Writings — calling them the Word, which obscures it, undermines the literal sense, and repeats the error of adding to Scripture.
Both errors betray the Lord’s purpose. The first leaves the Word closed; the second covers it with another veil.
In Study and Education
The doctrinal distinctions we have explored — between the Word and the Writings, between the threefold sense and the so-called “Threefold Word” — are not merely academic. They shape the spiritual health of the New Church in the present day. How the church regards its own foundation determines whether it thrives, declines, or fades into irrelevance. In this section we will take stock of where things stand, both within the organized bodies of the New Church and in the broader world that increasingly ignores the Word altogether.
Practical Implications for the Church
Preaching and Worship: The Books of the Word should remain at the center of liturgy as the Word, but sermons must teach it alongside the Writings to unfold its inner meaning.
Study and Education: New Church schools and colleges must treat the Writings as the fountain of doctrine, while training students always to confirm teachings by Scripture.
Personal Devotion: The faithful should read both the Word and also the Writings as the Lord’s light to understand it.
Guarding Against Extremes: One extreme is to elevate the Writings into a Third Testament; the other is to diminish them into mere commentary. Both are errors. The safe path is to honor them as divine doctrine derived from the Word.
Why the Distinction Safeguards the Future
We live in an age when the Word no longer commands cultural respect. In previous centuries, even skeptics knew its stories and language. Today, large swaths of the population have no idea what “the Prodigal Son” refers to, or why Christmas and Easter are tied to the Lord’s birth and resurrection. The Word has been pushed to the margins. In many households, dusty copies sit unopened; in many schools, biblical literacy is gone.
This collapse of respect for Scripture is not just intellectual. It reflects a deeper spiritual turning. Swedenborg foresaw such a time, describing how the former church would be vastated — emptied of living faith and charity — so that the Lord could establish a new one. That time is now. And in that climate, clarity about the Word and the Writings becomes even more urgent.
This distinction is not casuistry. It is the safeguard of the Second Coming. The Lord promised to return “in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Swedenborg explained that the “clouds” mean the literal sense of the Word and the “glory” its spiritual sense. The Writings are the vehicle by which the Lord has revealed that glory. They are not the clouds themselves, but the light that shines through them.
Finally, how the Writings are received shapes the witness of the New Church to the world. If we present them as another Bible, we will be dismissed as a sect adding to Scripture, no different from Mormons. If we present them as mere commentary, we will fade into irrelevance. But if we present them as the Lord’s revelation of the Word’s inner sense — doctrine from the Lord through the Word — then we have something unique and powerful to offer: the testimony of the Lord’s Second Coming.
The True Church Beyond Institutions
Swedenborg, however, reminded us that the church is not confined to its external institutions. The true church exists wherever people live by charity and truth from the Lord. It may exist invisibly in individuals scattered across the world, even outside the organized New Church.
This is a comfort, but also a warning. If the institutions entrusted with preserving Swedenborg’s revelation betray its balance, the Lord will still preserve His church in individuals who cling to the truth. The visible church may falter, but the invisible church — the communion of those who live in charity — will endure.
Looking Forward
In this moment of cultural collapse and ecclesiastical confusion, clarity about the Word and the Writings is more than a doctrinal luxury. It is a matter of survival. If the New Church is to serve its role as the crown of all churches, it must stand firmly on the Lord in His Word, with the Writings illuminating that Word.
This clarity gives the church something no other denomination can offer: the ability to show people the Lord in His Word in a way that makes sense, that reveals coherence, that unites love and truth. It offers not just more doctrine, but light — the very glory of the Second Coming.
The future of the New Church will not depend on numbers, buildings, or institutions. It will depend on whether it remains faithful to its calling. That calling is simple: to testify that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, that His Word is holy, and that the Writings reveal its inner sense. Where that testimony is clear, the church will live, even if only in a few. Where it is blurred, the church will fade, even if the institutions continue.
Appendix: Other Common Books That Some Claim to Be the Word Which are Not
The Qur’an (Islam)
Muslims hold the Qur’an to be the literal Word of God revealed to Muhammad. Swedenborg, however, makes clear that the Word has a unique character: it is written entirely in correspondences, with a continuous internal and celestial sense, uniting heaven and earth. The Qur’an contains truths accommodated to its audience, but it does not have this inner structure; therefore, it is not the Word.
The Vedas and Upanishads (Hinduism)
The Vedas and later writings like the Upanishads are regarded as divinely revealed scripture in Hinduism. Swedenborg acknowledges that ancient peoples outside Israel had sacred books and religious knowledge preserved by Providence. Yet the Vedas are poetic, ritual, and philosophical writings, not composed in the symbolic form of correspondences that conveys an internal sense. They are holy in their context but not the Word.
The Tripitaka and Mahayana Sutras (Buddhism)
Buddhists view these collections as sacred teachings of the Buddha and later teachers. They contain moral, philosophical, and devotional instruction. According to Swedenborg’s definition, however, they are human writings enlightened by Providence, not the Word. They do not hide within their literal sense an infinite spiritual and celestial sense, which only the Word of the Lord possesses.
Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism)
The Guru Granth Sahib is venerated by Sikhs as the living Guru and eternal Word. It is a compilation of hymns and teachings from Sikh Gurus and other saints. From Swedenborg’s perspective, this text contains wisdom for that religion but lacks the Divine correspondential framework that makes the Word universal. It cannot serve as the direct vessel of Divine influx between heaven and the human race.
Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price (Latter-day Saints)
These are considered divine revelations in Mormonism. While they present moral teachings and narratives tied to Christian ideas, they are not written in correspondences, nor do they contain the continuous internal sense that defines the Word. Swedenborg would say they are doctrinal writings, not the Word itself, and are therefore limited to serving that religious body rather than uniting heaven and earth.
Scientology (e.g. Dianetics, The Scientology Scriptures)
L. Ron Hubbard’s works are treated by Scientology as “scripture.” They claim divine status in that tradition, but they are self-authored philosophical/psychological writings. According to Swedenborg’s doctrine, these have no correspondential structure, no internal or celestial sense, and so they are not the Word. At best they are human teachings, not revelation.
Jehovah’s Witness Publications (e.g. Watchtower writings)
Jehovah’s Witnesses treat the Watchtower publications and the New World Translation as authoritative. But again, according to Swedenborg, the only Word is the Law, Prophets, Psalms, Gospels, and Revelation. Jehovah’s Witness literature interprets the Word (often narrowly), but is not itself the Word. It does not have the correspondential depth that unites heaven and earth.
Taoism (e.g. Tao Te Ching, Zhuangzi)
The Tao Te Ching is revered as divinely inspired in Taoism, often treated as mystical scripture. Swedenborg would classify it alongside other ancient wisdom texts: containing natural and moral truths accommodated by Providence, but not written as the Word. The Tao Te Ching uses paradox and metaphor, not the strict correspondential framework that makes the Word a vessel of heaven.
The Avesta (Zoroastrianism)
The Avesta is a collection of ancient Zoroastrian hymns and laws, regarded as sacred by its followers. Swedenborg recognized that Divine Providence allowed many nations to have religious texts that guide them toward charity and moral life. Still, the Avesta lacks the Word’s distinct feature: a literal sense that enfolds infinite spiritual meaning by correspondence.
Baha’i Writings (e.g. Kitáb-i-Aqdas)
Baha’is see the writings of Bahá’u’lláh as new revelation from God. These writings are inspirational and moral, yet they are straightforward doctrinal texts. They are not written in the symbolic correspondential style, and so they do not contain within them a hidden internal sense. They are not the Word, but rather religious teaching for their community.
Apocryphal / Gnostic Gospels (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas)
Some early Christian groups considered these works sacred. They contain sayings or reinterpretations of the Lord’s life, but they are human compositions outside the canon of the Word. Swedenborg explains that only the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation are the New Testament portion of the Word, because only these are written to carry the continuous correspondential sense.
Catholic Tradition and Apocryphal Additions (e.g. Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Church Fathers)
The Catholic Bible includes the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) like Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees. These books were treated as edifying by the early church, but Swedenborg excludes them as not the Word. They are historical or moral, not written in correspondences. Likewise, the writings of monks, mystics, and popes may be inspiring, but they do not carry the Divine texture of the Word.
The Pseudepigrapha (e.g. Book of Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs)
These Jewish writings, composed between the Old and New Testament periods, were often attributed to biblical figures but are not canonical. Some early Christians valued the Book of Enoch, and Jude even quotes a passage (Jude 1:14). Still, Swedenborg would not count them as the Word. They may contain symbolic language and moral teachings, but they were not written in the Divine correspondential style with a continuous internal and celestial sense. At best, they are edifying works of the ancient church, preserved by Providence as background, not as the living conduit of Divine influx.
Writings of Later Christian Teachers (e.g. Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Catholic monks and mystics)
The works of Reformers, theologians, and monks (such as Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, Calvin’s Institutes, Augustine’s Confessions, Thomas à Kempis’ Imitation of Christ) are deeply influential. They contain much true doctrine, and some are filled with spiritual devotion. But Swedenborg insists that such works, however useful, are not the Word. Their authority is derivative, not intrinsic; they are human expositions of the Word, not Divine revelation in correspondences.
