Introduction
Shincheonji’s reinterpretation of Revelation 2:13 and the figure of Antipas marks a significant development in their doctrine. For years, the group offered no explanation for who Antipas was. More recently, however, they have claimed that Antipas and the “ten who resisted” experienced a “spiritual death,” meaning they lost the Word of truth rather than being physically martyred. This shift allows SCJ to argue that Antipas symbolizes a fallen pastor within their fabricated “era of betrayal,” using the idea of “spiritual death” to assert that the true Word disappeared after the apostles, only to be restored through their leader, Lee Manhee. By redefining “death” as doctrinal failure instead of physical martyrdom, SCJ turns a straightforward historical reference into a prophetic code that supports their narrative of exclusive revelation and divine succession.
The purpose of this article is to examine and respond to these claims while addressing the common objections Shincheonji members may raise. It will explore the biblical and linguistic evidence showing that Antipas was a real believer who suffered physical martyrdom in Pergamum, the historical plausibility of his death within the Roman imperial cult context, and the theological implications of SCJ’s reinterpretation. It will also respond to Shincheonji’s related questions about the letters to the seven churches, such as whether John was writing to himself, what “I know your deeds” means, and why Jesus warns about removing lampstands. By systematically analyzing these passages, the article demonstrates that Revelation 2–3 is not a hidden prophecy about modern Korea but a pastoral exhortation addressed to real first-century churches—one that continues to call all believers to faithfulness, repentance, and endurance in every generation.
In this article, I will address two main points:
- The issues with Antipas
- Addressing the common feedback expected from Shincheonji
The Issue with Antipas
Shincheonji used to not have an answer for the fulfillment of Antipas, but they now have a vague claim of the fulfillment of this person. They would make the claim that Antipas and the “ten who resisted” were “spiritually” killed, meaning they lost the Word of truth. Shincheonji would make the claim that the “death” was accepting false doctrine rather than a physical death and martyrdom. This interpretation then allows SCJ to make the claim that the truth was lost shortly after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and the death of the Apostles, as they claim that the entire book of Revelation is only in the future.
The Issue with Antipas
Redefinition of Death
“Antipas, my faithful witness, who was killed among you.”
The Greek apokteinō always means literal killing.
Turning this into a “loss of truth” is linguistic eisegesis that changes the plain sense to fit SCJ’s narrative.
Undermines the Sufficiency of Christ’s Work
Contradicts Revelation’s Own Theology of Martyrdom
| Biblical Teaching | SCJ’s Revision | Resulting Problem |
| Death = sin’s separation from God | Death = ignorance of Lee Man-hee’s “truth” | Re-defines salvation epistemologically, not spiritually |
| Antipas = faithful martyr | Antipas = fallen messenger | Inverts moral meaning of the text |
| The Spirit abides forever | Spirit left until new pastor | Denies Christ’s promise |
| One mediator (Christ) | New mediator (Lee Man-hee) | Christological heresy |
Shincheonji's Pushback
- “Antipas” is mentioned only once, and there’s little reliable historical data.
- Therefore, he must be a symbol, not a real person.
- That “symbol” must point to a spiritual pastor in the “era of betrayal,” fulfilled in Korea.
- Since only the “one who overcomes” (Lee Manhee) can interpret this hidden symbolism, he alone reveals who Antipas and the Nicolaitans truly are.
This move allows SCJ to erase history and insert their own modern narrative, justify secret revelation by claiming that since no one knows who Antipas was, God hid his true meaning until now, and reframe Scripture as prophecy rather than as a pastoral message originally addressed to first-century believers.
The Internal Evidence
From an internal textual perspective, Jesus says, “Antipas, my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.” The phrase “among you” (en hymin) clearly refers to the historical congregation in Pergamum, emphasizing that Antipas was someone who belonged to their community and whose death they personally witnessed or knew about. This phrase grounds the statement in the immediate context of that local church.
Moreover, the structure of all seven letters to the churches in Revelation follows a consistent pattern: each message addresses a specific church, describes its deeds, issues a rebuke or commendation, and concludes with a promise to those who overcome. That literary framework requires a concrete referent for each name and event mentioned. Therefore, even in the absence of external historical records, the internal grammar and structure of Revelation itself confirm that Antipas was a real individual known to the believers in Pergamum.
Historical plausibility
The phrase “where Satan’s throne is” in Revelation 2:13 likely alludes to this oppressive environment. It could refer to the massive Altar of Zeus that dominated Pergamum’s acropolis, or to the imperial cult center where sacrifices were made to Caesar. Both interpretations capture the atmosphere of idolatry and persecution that defined the city. For Christians who refused to burn incense to the emperor or acknowledge him as lord, persecution and martyrdom were very real threats.
Revelation was written during or shortly after the reign of Domitian (AD 81–96), a period marked by intensified imperial cult enforcement. Historical records, including Pliny’s correspondence with Emperor Trajan around AD 112, confirm that Christians in Asia Minor faced trials and executions for refusing to worship the emperor. In this context, the account of a local believer named Antipas being killed for his faith fits perfectly within the broader pattern of early Christian persecution. While later traditions such as the Martyrium Antipae from the seventh century may contain legendary details, they preserve the memory of an authentic martyrdom tradition rather than inventing it. Thus, although external documentation about Antipas is limited, everything about the historical and cultural context supports his historicity and affirms that Scripture provides all that is necessary to recognize his faithful witness.
Why the Lack of Detail Doesn’t Justify SCJ’s Symbolism
- Silence Does Not Equal Symbolism
The Bible frequently mentions individuals only once, such as Jabez, Onesiphorus, and Phoebe. The absence of detailed biographical information about them does not make these figures symbolic or metaphorical. By the same logic, the lack of details about Antipas does not imply that he represents something other than a real person. Shincheonji’s interpretive method, if applied consistently, would turn every obscure name in Scripture into a prophetic code—resulting in an interpretive free-for-all detached from historical and textual context.
- Revelation’s Symbolism Is Transparent, Not Secret
When John employs symbolism in Revelation—such as the stars, lampstands, or dragon—the text itself signals or explains those symbols. For instance, Revelation 1:20 explicitly states, “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.” This interpretive transparency helps readers discern when language is symbolic. No such signal appears around the mention of Antipas; his reference reads as part of a straightforward narrative embedded within a symbolic prophecy. This indicates that Antipas is being presented as a real historical person, not a coded reference to a future individual.
- The Purpose of Revelation 2–3 Is Ethical, Not Predictive
The letters to the seven churches are pastoral and ethical in nature, calling believers to remain faithful amid persecution and compromise. Within this context, Antipas serves as an example of steadfast faithfulness, encouraging the church in Pergamum to persevere despite opposition. By contrast, Shincheonji’s interpretation strips the passage of its pastoral and moral power, reframing it as a secret initiation story that centers on Lee Manhee rather than on Christ’s call for faithful endurance.
Does SCJ trust the bible?
This understanding directly counters Shincheonji’s attempt to exploit the lack of external records about Antipas. Even if secular history remains silent, the biblical witness stands as a reliable and authoritative historical record. In the logic of Scripture, divine inspiration guarantees accuracy; thus, Revelation 2:13 alone provides all the evidence necessary to affirm that Antipas was a genuine believer and martyr in Pergamum.
Summary
| SCJ Claim | Biblical Response |
| Antipas isn’t historical → he’s symbolic of a betrayed pastor. | The phrase “among you” and the letter format show he’s a real person in Pergamum, like the other seven churches. |
| His death was “spiritual.” | The Greek apokteinō means literal killing. SCJ’s reinterpretation distorts Revelation’s consistent use of “death” for physical martyrdom. |
| Since the meaning was hidden, Lee Manhee had to reveal it. | Revelation itself claims to be a revealed (not sealed) message (Rev 1:1–3). Christ already “made it known.” No new mediator is needed. |
| The lack of history means Christians misunderstood him. | Early Christians understood him as a martyr, which fits Revelation’s theme of overcoming by faith, not as a coded parable. |
Addressing Common SCJ Objections to Revelation 2–3
For the remainder of this article, I will address several common questions and objections raised by Shincheonji (SCJ) regarding the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3. SCJ often uses these passages to argue that the letters are not historical communications to first-century congregations but prophetic codes about the “time of fulfillment” and the rise of their modern organization. By reframing the context of these chapters, they attempt to disconnect Revelation from its original audience and reinterpret it through the lens of Lee Man-hee’s claimed revelation. The following sections respond to these arguments one by one, showing how each can be understood within its proper biblical, historical, and literary context.
Did the Apostle John just send a letter to himself since he was the head of a church?
Their reasoning typically follows this pattern: John wrote the letters to the seven churches in Asia and was himself one of the leaders of the early church. Therefore, they argue, it would make no sense for him to “send letters to himself.” From this, they conclude that the “messenger of each church” mentioned in Revelation 2–3 cannot refer to an actual leader from John’s time but must symbolize a future figure. Building on that assumption, they claim that Revelation is not about the first-century church at all but rather a sealed prophecy meant to be fulfilled in the modern era through Lee Man-hee and contemporary “messengers.”
Early church sources such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1) and Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.18–20) confirm that John spent his later years in Ephesus. However, Revelation 1:9 makes clear that when he received the vision, he was exiled on the island of Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” This means that John was not physically leading the church in Ephesus at that time. The day-to-day leadership would have been managed by local elders or a presiding overseer—perhaps one of John’s disciples. Therefore, John was not “writing to himself.” Rather, he was acting as a prophet-apostle in exile, transmitting messages from Jesus to real, existing congregations, including the one he had formerly overseen.
Historical evidence supports this understanding that successors continued to lead the Ephesian church after John. Timothy had earlier served as the overseer (or bishop) of Ephesus, as noted in 1 Timothy 1:3. Following him, early Christian writings mention Onesimus—possibly the same individual referenced in the letter to Philemon—and later Polycrates as bishops of Ephesus. By this period, church governance typically followed a model of multiple elders, as seen in Acts 20:17–28. John may have maintained a spiritual oversight role while others carried out the local ministry. Thus, even if John had once been the primary apostolic figure for Ephesus, the evidence indicates that the church’s leadership continued under capable successors, showing continuity rather than a leadership vacancy.
Revelation 2:1 says, “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write.” The “angel,” or messenger, of Ephesus is not John himself but the representative of that local congregation. John serves as the scribe through whom Jesus delivers His direct message, not as one of the intended recipients. This is similar to how Old Testament prophets such as Jeremiah or Ezekiel were members of Israel yet still proclaimed God’s rebuke to Israel. In the same way, John is not writing to himself but acting as a prophetic intermediary between Christ and the churches.
SCJ’s argument assumes that if John was over Ephesus, it would make no sense for him to send a message to his own church. However, this reasoning rests on a false dichotomy. It assumes that John was still actively pastoring the Ephesian church when Revelation was written, ignores the historical context of his exile on Patmos where he could only communicate through letters and vision reports, and misunderstands the literary nature of Revelation as a prophetic circular letter rather than a local pastoral memo. By the time Revelation was composed in the mid-90s AD, John was likely very old and no longer involved in direct ministry at Ephesus. The churches of Asia Minor had their own functioning leaders, just as Paul’s former congregations continued to operate after his death.
| SCJ Claim | Biblical & Historical Response |
| John was over Ephesus; so writing to himself makes no sense | John was in exile; local leadership continued under successors |
| There could be no replacement | Early churches had succession of elders/bishops (Timothy, Onesimus, Polycrates) |
| Therefore, these are future symbolic churches | No need — Revelation’s letters fit real 1st-century communities |
| The “angel” is a physical pastor | The “angel” is a representative or symbolic messenger of the church |
Why does Jesus say, ‘I know your deeds’? How can He say that if this was about 2,000 years ago?
Their argument is that since Jesus says He “knows” their deeds, it must refer to what is happening now at the time of fulfillment. What they imply is that the statement is not historical but ongoing. They interpret “I know your deeds” as a present-day message directed toward churches in Korea.
Jesus is omniscient, and His knowledge of the seven churches in Revelation reflects His divine oversight rather than a time-bound awareness. Revelation 1:14 describes Him as having “eyes like a flame of fire,” a symbol that communicates penetrating vision and perfect discernment. In biblical imagery, fire often represents purity, judgment, and divine presence, meaning Christ’s fiery eyes see through all appearances and expose the true spiritual condition of His people. This description establishes His authority as the risen Son of God who sees everything within His Church.
Each message to the seven churches corresponded precisely to their real historical situations: Ephesus had abandoned its first love, Smyrna faced persecution, Pergamum tolerated false teaching, and Laodicea was wealthy yet spiritually lukewarm. Jesus’ statements, “I know your deeds,” therefore reflect His intimate awareness of their specific circumstances. Yet this omniscient knowledge is not limited to the first century. The same Christ who saw into the hearts of those early believers continues to see and judge His Church in every generation. His eyes “like a flame of fire” remind all believers that He watches over His people with perfect insight and divine authority.
Why are lampstands mentioned in Rev 1:20 and 2:1? Are they physical churches or spiritual organizations?
Their argument is that lampstands represent organizations of God that can be removed. When the seven churches fell, the lampstands were taken away and given to the new organization (SCJ)
Revelation 1:20 defines the imagery clearly: “The seven lampstands are the seven churches.” This means the lampstands represent real, existing congregations, not future institutions to be established at a later time. Each lampstand symbolizes a church that bears the light of Christ in its city and is accountable to Him for maintaining that light.
When Jesus warns that He will remove a church’s lampstand if it fails to repent, He is not announcing the expiration of its covenant or the rise of a new organization. Instead, He is warning that their witness and spiritual influence can be extinguished through unfaithfulness. The imagery reflects the Temple menorah, which burned continually before God as a sign of His ongoing presence. Likewise, the lampstands in Revelation signify Christ’s continuing relationship with His Church and His call for believers to remain steadfast, not the replacement of one generation of believers with another.
Why does Jesus threaten to ‘remove the lampstand’ from Ephesus? Didn’t that mean the church lost salvation?
Shincheonji is arguing that this would entail the spiritual death of all of the churches, thus paving the way for the “New Creation”.
The removal of the lampstand in Revelation does not signify the loss of salvation but the loss of witness. It is a disciplinary act meant to correct, not to condemn. The church’s light can be removed if it persists in unrepentance, meaning its testimony and influence in the world will fade. This aligns with Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:20–22, where he warns that branches can be cut off if they do not continue in faith. The focus is on maintaining faithfulness and holiness, not on eternal rejection.
Historically, the church in Ephesus did decline over time, and its local presence eventually disappeared. Yet the broader Christian faith endured and spread across the world. Christ remains faithful to His promise to preserve His bride, as Ephesians 5:27 affirms, presenting her to Himself “without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish.” The removal of a lampstand, therefore, serves as a sobering reminder that while local churches may falter, Christ’s global Church will never be extinguished.
If there’s a ‘throne of Satan’ in Pergamum, shouldn’t there also be a physical ‘throne of God’ on earth today?”
SCJ may argue: Where Satan dwelled physically then, God must dwell physically now — in the place of fulfillment (Shincheonji)
The phrase “throne of Satan” in Revelation refers to Pergamum’s center of pagan power, likely the imperial cult temple or the massive altar of Zeus that dominated the city. It is not describing a literal or metaphysical throne belonging to Satan on earth. Scripture consistently places God’s throne in heaven, as seen in Revelation 4:2, emphasizing His sovereign rule above all earthly powers.
Jesus also declared that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), meaning its full, visible manifestation will come only in the new creation described in Revelation 21–22. By contrast, Shincheonji’s teaching of a “throne on earth” confuses this distinction and reverts to Old Covenant imagery, treating physical locations as the center of divine authority. In doing so, it overlooks the truth that Jesus has already fulfilled the temple typology, and God’s dwelling place is now with His people through the Holy Spirit, not confined to any earthly structure.
Why is Jezebel called a ‘prophetess’? Doesn’t that show false prophecy in the church?
SCJ may argue that all of the churches were overtaken by false doctrines, and now belong to Satan due to the false prophets and teachers like Jezebel.
The name “Jezebel” in Revelation is symbolic of moral and spiritual compromise, echoing the Old Testament figure from 1 Kings 16–21 who led Israel into idolatry. In the context of Thyatira, it refers to a real teacher who was seducing believers toward idolatry or sexual immorality. The warning is moral, not predictive, reminding the church that every generation will face similar false teachers who distort truth and encourage compromise.
Shincheonji, however, turns this moral warning into a timeline device, treating “Jezebel” as a prophetic code for future figures rather than a historical and ethical lesson. This shifts the focus away from the intended call to repentance and vigilance against corruption within the Church. The passage’s purpose is to expose sin and call believers to faithfulness, not to provide hidden clues for a later prophetic fulfillment.
Why does it say ‘write what you have seen, what is now, and what will take place later’ (1:19)? Doesn’t that divide Revelation into eras?
SCJ would use this verse to justify that there’s going to be another church which supersedes Christianity.
The phrase in Revelation 1:19 simply outlines the structure of the book rather than dividing history into separate eras. “What you have seen” refers to John’s initial vision of the risen Christ in chapter 1. “What is now” describes the present condition of the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3. “What will take place later” points to the future visions revealed in chapters 4 through 22. This structure provides a literary framework that organizes the content of Revelation.
Shincheonji’s “era mapping” interpretation misreads this outline as a prophetic timeline of successive historical ages. Such an approach ignores the genre and purpose of apocalyptic writing, which uses vivid symbols to reveal spiritual truths rather than to chart discrete epochs. Revelation’s intent is to strengthen the faith of believers across all generations by unveiling Christ’s sovereignty, not to encode a secret chronology
If Revelation was about the first century, why does Jesus keep saying ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’? Who is hearing today?
Shincheonji may argue that the repeated phrase is meant for those at the end of age for when the fulfillment of Revelation begins, through their Promised Pastor – the New John.
The phrase echoes Jesus’ own words in the Gospels (Matthew 11:15; 13:9) and serves as a universal call to spiritual responsiveness, not an invitation to follow a secret revealer. It means, “Let everyone who is willing to listen obey,” emphasizing personal openness to God’s truth rather than exclusive access to hidden knowledge. The Holy Spirit continues to speak through Scripture to all believers, guiding and convicting them collectively, not through a single individual claiming special revelation.
Why does Jesus say, ‘Buy from me gold refined by fire’ (3:18)? What is that gold?
Shincheonji would equate “gold” with their “revealed word”.
In biblical metaphor, refined gold represents tested and proven faith, as seen in 1 Peter 1:7. When Jesus counsels the church in Laodicea to buy gold refined by fire, He is calling them to genuine repentance and steadfast faith rather than to the pursuit of hidden knowledge or doctrinal secrets. The passage is a rebuke against materialism and spiritual complacency, urging believers to depend on Christ for true righteousness and spiritual wealth. It has nothing to do with receiving new revelation but everything to do with renewing faith and devotion.
Why does Jesus stand outside the door and knock (3:20)? Isn’t that proof the churches lost Jesus’ presence?
Since Jesus is outside of the churches, wouldn’t that mean that Jesus is no longer with the churches?
The image in Revelation 3:20 is relational rather than geographical. It depicts Christ calling lukewarm believers to repentance and restored fellowship with Him. His knocking at the door is a personal appeal for renewed intimacy, not a sign of physical arrival or relocation. Jesus disciplines those He loves, as verse 19 explains, showing His commitment to correct, not to abandon, His people. The invitation, “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door,” is universal in scope, extending to all who will respond in faith. This directly contradicts Shincheonji’s exclusive narrative that limits Christ’s presence and message to a single messenger or group.
The Underlying Strategy of Shincheonji
Most likely, there are more questions that I may not have addressed. Of course, as time continues, I will continue updating this post. However; one thing to keep in mind, Shincheonji normally isn’t doing a pursuit of truth when asking these questions. Instead, they are waiting for you to stumble, so that they can have a “gotcha” moment, and then dismiss the rest of the refutations.
| Category | Goal | Corrective Principle |
| Dehistoricize | Detach the letters from 1st-century context | Anchor interpretation in real Asia-Minor churches |
| Resymbolize | Turn real churches into end-time codes | Maintain genre balance: symbolism + historical realism |
| Re-mediate | Replace Christ’s direct authority with Lee Manhee’s revelation | Affirm Christ as sole head and mediator (Eph 1:22; 1 Tim 2:5) |
| Re-create | Claim Christianity died and was reborn as SCJ | Emphasize continuity of the Church and Spirit (John 14:16–17) |
Conclusion
Revelation 2–3 presents Jesus’ direct messages to seven real congregations in Asia Minor, addressing their strengths, failures, and calls to repentance. Far from being sealed parables about future organizations, these letters reveal Christ’s ongoing relationship with His Church throughout history. The issues of love grown cold, compromise with the world, false teaching, and spiritual complacency are timeless and continue to confront believers in every generation.
Shincheonji’s reinterpretation of these chapters detaches the letters from their first-century context, turning them into a coded prophecy about modern figures and institutions. This approach not only ignores the historical circumstances of the churches but also undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s revelation and the Holy Spirit’s work within the universal Church. By claiming that Revelation’s warnings and promises apply only to their own “time of fulfillment,” SCJ redefines biblical faithfulness as loyalty to a new human mediator rather than to the risen Christ who reigns over His Church.
In contrast, the biblical record shows that Jesus continues to walk among His lampstands—His people—and still speaks through the Spirit to every believer who has ears to hear. The same Lord who knew the deeds of the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, and Laodicea knows the state of His Church today. His words remain as relevant now as they were then: calls to repentance, perseverance, and love for Him above all else. Revelation’s letters are not predictions of a new creation under human leadership, but enduring testimonies of Christ’s authority, presence, and promise to sustain His Church until He returns.