Introduction

Shincheonji assigns a very specific symbolic meaning to the word “earth,” treating it as a reference to the Christian congregation or the place where God’s work is carried out. To support this idea, they gather passages such as Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2:21, Matthew 13, and 1 Corinthians 3, and then merge them into a single interpretive system. According to their teaching, the vineyard in Isaiah becomes the church, the field in Matthew becomes the church, Paul’s expression “God’s field” becomes the church, and therefore every occurrence of “earth” in Revelation must also refer to the church. In their framework, the entire Bible becomes one continuous agricultural parable that describes repeated cycles of planting, corruption, judgment, and replanting, culminating in the appearance of the Promised Pastor at the time of fulfillment.

The difficulty arises when this symbolic system is applied to the book of Revelation. Revelation does not use the word “earth” in this way. Instead, the text consistently employs “earth” to describe the physical world, the nations, the inhabitants who oppose God, and the arena in which divine judgments fall. Phrases such as “those who dwell on the earth” always indicate unbelievers or hostile nations, not the church. Furthermore, when Revelation intends a symbol to represent something else, it provides an explanation for the reader. The lampstands are churches. The many waters are peoples and nations. The dragon is Satan. Revelation never offers such an explanation for the word “earth.” This meaning is supplied by Shincheonji’s interpretive system rather than by Revelation itself.

The goal of the following analysis is to examine how Shincheonji constructs this symbolic chain and then compare it to the actual usage of “earth” in Revelation and in the Old Testament passages that Shincheonji cites. When each text is allowed to speak within its own historical and literary context, the symbolic meaning that Shincheonji assigns to the earth does not hold. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that the term describes the created world, the nations, and the objects of divine judgment, not the Christian congregation. The contrast between Shincheonji’s symbolic system and the biblical use of the term allows us to see where their interpretation departs from Scripture and why their understanding of the “earth” in Revelation cannot be supported by the text.

How Revelation uses the “Earth”

Shincheonji has the following set of definitions for the symbolic meaning of the “earth”.

• They would primarily focus on Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2:21,  Matthew 13, 1 Corinthians 3 as their proof text.

They would try to overreach and claim that the “vineyard” of Isaiah 5 is then also pointing to the Christian congregation, and even try to read into the book of Revelation that whenever we see earth, it must mean the congregation of Christianity. 

However, even the book of Revelation contradicts this notion –

How Revelation uses “Earth”

Revelation consistently uses “earth” in the following ways:

• the physical world
• the nations
• unbelievers
• those who oppose God (“inhabitants of the earth”)

In every instance:

“Those who dwell on the earth” are hostile to God, not the church. John never uses “earth” to mean “the congregation.”

When Revelation intends a symbol to represent something else, it explicitly tells the reader: the lampstands are churches (Revelation 1:20), the bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints (Revelation 5:8), the many waters symbolize peoples and nations (Revelation 17:15), and the dragon is identified as Satan (Revelation 12:9). In every case where symbolic interpretation is needed, the book provides its own explanation. Yet Revelation never defines the “earth” as “the church” or a congregation. That meaning is not found anywhere in the text; it is inserted from outside the book by Shincheonji’s interpretive system, not drawn from Revelation itself.

Isaiah 5

Shincheonji’s Perspective

Shincheonji begins with Isaiah 5, where God plants a vineyard that represents His chosen people. He provides every condition for spiritual growth, yet the leaders of Israel betray His expectations and produce bad fruit. This becomes the foundational pattern for SCJ’s understanding of biblical history. God plants truth through a chosen pastor. Over time, corrupt leaders betray that truth and lead the people into falsehood. Because the vineyard fails, God must establish a new work through a different appointed person.

From there, SCJ extends the vineyard theme into the first coming. In Matthew 21, Jesus describes Israel again as a vineyard that kills the servants and finally the Son. According to SCJ, this confirms the recurring pattern: God plants, leaders betray, and authority is transferred to a new group who will produce fruit. Jesus Himself becomes the new center of planting. Matthew 13 develops this further. Jesus sows the good seed in the field, which SCJ interprets as the church or the place of God’s work. While Jesus plants truth, the “enemy” sows lies through false pastors. The field contains both good seed and weeds, growing together until the time of harvest.

Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 3 reinforce this connection. Paul says the believers are “God’s field,” which SCJ understands as confirmation that the vineyard, the field, and the church are all part of a single symbolic system. Throughout every era, God plants His word in one central place, and that place can be corrupted when false shepherds arise. Revelation then reveals the final stage of this cycle. The darkening of the sun, moon, and stars signifies the complete fall of the traditional church. At this point, the field has become entirely overrun by weeds. Therefore, at the time of the end, God sends the one who overcomes to reveal the open scroll, restore the truth, and carry out the harvest described in Revelation 14.

In this framework, the entire Bible forms a consistent agricultural story. The Old Testament vineyard prepares the pattern. Jesus’ parables of sowing and harvesting establish the spiritual principles. Paul’s “God’s field” confirms the symbolic interpretation. Revelation shows the final harvest and the creation of a new kingdom composed of the harvested first-fruits. All of Scripture, according to SCJ, points to this culminating work, revealed and led by the promised pastor at the time of fulfillment.

Doctrinal Issues

SCJ is correct when they claim that Isaiah 5 refers to Israel and its apostasy. The passage clearly presents Israel as God’s vineyard, planted with care and given every opportunity to bear good fruit. Instead, the leaders and the people produced injustice and unrighteousness, leading to God’s judgment. This interpretation aligns with mainstream Christian theology and Jewish scholarship. Isaiah’s metaphor is not ambiguous: the vineyard is Israel, the bad fruit is their national sin, and the removal of the hedge is God’s disciplinary action.

By acknowledging this, we start from common ground. Isaiah 5 does show that God judged Israel for corruption. It does present a failed vineyard that forfeited God’s protection. And it does demonstrate that Israel’s unfaithfulness had serious consequences for their covenant relationship. SCJ is not inventing these points; they are genuinely present in the text.

However, what SCJ does next is not grounded in Isaiah 5. They take a historically specific judgment on Old Covenant Israel and convert it into an ongoing prophetic template that they then apply to Christianity, the first coming, the second coming, Revelation, and finally their own organization. Isaiah 5 itself never claims to be a timeless model that repeats across later eras. The passage never suggests that Christianity will become a failed vineyard, nor does it establish a pattern of “God plants, leaders betray, God appoints a new pastor” as a universal cycle.

This is where the interpretation shifts from biblical exegesis to theological projection. SCJ begins with a correct historical meaning, but then extends it far beyond the scope the text actually addresses.

The Limits of Isaiah 5 in its own Context

Isaiah 5 is a prophetic indictment directed specifically at eighth-century BCE Israel. The vineyard represents the covenant people of that time, living under the Mosaic covenant, occupying the land God promised to their ancestors. The “fruit” God expected was justice, righteousness, and covenant faithfulness. Instead, He found bloodshed, corruption, and oppression. Every detail in the chapter is tied to Israel’s unique covenant relationship, their national institutions, their leadership failures, and the historical judgment that would come through Assyria.

Nothing in Isaiah 5 indicates that the vineyard metaphor functions as a timeless pattern that repeats in future eras. The chapter never states that God will replant a new vineyard at the first coming, nor does it claim that Christianity will later become a failed vineyard in the same sense as Israel. The text does not lay out a three-stage cycle of planting, betrayal, and replanting. It is focused solely on Israel’s situation leading up to their exile, not on constructing an ongoing spiritual blueprint for future religions.

Isaiah’s judgment is covenantal, not universal. The vineyard is Israel, not the world, not the church, and not a symbolic place representing all future communities of faith. The destruction described in the passage refers to Israel’s historical downfall and loss of protection, not to the fall of Christianity or a global apostasy. Once we keep Isaiah 5 anchored in its own historical setting and covenant framework, the passage cannot legitimately support Shincheonji’s claim that it predicts a second great apostasy before the supposed “new planting” at the Second Coming.

What is Isaiah 5 About?

Isaiah 5 addresses the failure of Old Covenant Israel under the Mosaic Law, which resulted in exile and judgment. The vineyard represents Israel’s inability to produce the righteousness God required, leading to divine discipline through foreign invasion. At the first coming, Jesus did not plant another vineyard destined to fail, restart the same cycle, or establish a temporary new system that would eventually be judged and replaced again. Instead, He fulfilled the Old Covenant and inaugurated an entirely new covenant through His death and resurrection. This new covenant does not continue the cycle of failure and judgment seen under Moses; it breaks that cycle by establishing a permanent, Spirit-empowered relationship between God and His people, grounded in Christ’s finished work rather than human performance.

The New Covenant is categorically different from the Old Covenant

Under the Old Covenant, God’s presence was tied to a particular nation, obedience was expressed through external legal requirements, and sin brought national judgment. By contrast, under the New Covenant, God’s people are defined by faith in Christ, and the Spirit indwells every believer. Jesus describes His kingdom as something secure and permanent: it is “built on a rock” in Matthew 16:18, a kingdom that “will never be destroyed” in Daniel 7:14, a people whom “no one can snatch out of His hand” in John 10:28, and a reign that “will last forever” in Luke 1:33. Nothing in Jesus’ teaching suggests that the New Covenant community will fall into total darkness, that the entire church age will end in universal apostasy, or that another “promised pastor” must arise to replace Him because His work failed. His kingdom is not cyclical or temporary.

This is the decisive difference between the two covenants: Israel failed, but Christ cannot fail. The Old Covenant produced a failed vineyard because it depended on human obedience. The New Covenant produces a lasting people because it depends on Christ’s obedience. For that reason, the New Covenant is not a repeat of Isaiah 5’s failed vineyard imagery. It is the fulfillment that ends the cycle altogether, establishing a people secured by Christ’s righteousness rather than their own.

Because righteousness now comes through Christ’s finished work, the covenant cannot be broken the way the Mosaic covenant was. Its mediator is Jesus—perfect, eternal, and unchanging. This is why Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that the New Covenant is “better,” “eternal,” “unshakeable,” and one that “will never grow old or become obsolete.” The Old Covenant could collapse because it relied on human performance; the New Covenant cannot collapse because it rests on the perfect obedience of its divine Mediator.

Shincheonji’s Logic Already collapses

At the first coming, Jesus did not “replant” another version of Israel’s failing vineyard. Instead, He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about judgment on unfaithful Israel and inaugurated something entirely new and permanent. Through His death and resurrection, He established the new covenant, gave His people a new heart, poured out a new Spirit, created a new people of God, and began the new creation described throughout the New Testament. This was not a restart of the old cycle, nor the beginning of another temporary era that would eventually collapse. It was the decisive and final shift promised in Jeremiah 31, where God speaks of a covenant unlike the one Israel broke, and confirmed in Hebrews 8, which declares the old covenant obsolete and replaced by something better, lasting, and unbreakable.

Because of this, the entire logical system that Shincheonji depends on collapses at the foundation. SCJ argues that because Israel failed under the old covenant, Christianity must also fail under the new covenant, repeating the same pattern of corruption, darkness, and judgment. Yet Scripture teaches the exact opposite. Israel failed precisely so that God would establish a new covenant that cannot fail, a covenant grounded in Christ’s obedience rather than human performance. The transition from Israel to the new covenant community is the final movement in God’s redemptive plan, not the start of another recurring cycle that awaits another “promised pastor” or a new replacement system. In biblical theology, the pattern ends with Christ. He fulfills, completes, and perfects what came before, leaving no room for the repetitive, cyclical framework that SCJ imposes on Scripture.

Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 3

Shincheonji’s Perspective

Shincheonji argues that Matthew 13 describes the spiritual field where God carries out His redemptive work, which they believe refers to the community that receives God’s word in each era. Although Jesus says “the field is the world,” SCJ teaches that the word “world” can represent the realm of God’s work rather than the physical globe. They point out that Jesus is speaking in the context of parables about the kingdom, not about secular humanity, and therefore the “world” should be understood spiritually. In their framework, Jesus plants the good seed of truth through a chosen messenger, while the enemy plants lies through false pastors. Wheat represents the people who receive and keep the true word, while weeds represent those who follow false teachings. The coexistence of the two until the harvest mirrors what SCJ believes happens within the community of God’s people in every era, culminating in a final harvest at the time of fulfillment when God separates true believers from false ones. To them, this parable provides a timeless pattern that explains the rise of corruption within the church and the need for a final restoration.

Shincheonji connects this interpretation to 1 Corinthians 3 by arguing that Paul’s statement “you are God’s field” confirms that the field symbolizes the place where God works among His people. They argue that the church is the spiritual field in which different workers build on the foundation laid by Christ and that the quality of this work is tested by fire. In their view, this supports the idea that a congregation can become corrupt through false teachings, just as weeds can overrun a field. They see Paul’s imagery of planting, watering, building, and testing as evidence that God’s work is centralized and that this work can be damaged or destroyed if false workers arise. By combining Paul’s agricultural metaphor with Jesus’ parable, SCJ teaches that both passages describe a spiritual community that can fall into deception and must be restored through a final work of harvest and judgment.

Doctrinal Issues

Yet, Jesus says otherwise – Matthew 13:38 – The field is the world.

Shincheonji then tries to add to the words of Jesus, and they also have their other excuses that can be examined here for their “wheat and the tares”

Paul’s use of “foundation,” “building,” and “work” in 1 Corinthians 3 refers to an individual believer’s life and ministry before God, not to a cosmic or apocalyptic setting. The “building” is the Christian community in Corinth, and the “foundation” is Christ Himself (1 Cor 3:11). The “work” that is tested by fire concerns each believer’s labor for the kingdom (vv. 12–15). Paul is addressing a pastoral issue inside a local congregation plagued with divisions. His metaphors are relational and ethical, describing how Christian leaders and members build up or damage the church’s spiritual integrity. The language is intimate, moral, and focused on personal accountability. Nothing in the chapter speaks about global judgment, cosmic events, heavenly visions, or the rise and fall of nations.

Revelation 6, by contrast, is an apocalyptic vision that unfolds from heaven downward, not an inward examination of a believer’s heart. The “earth” in Revelation 6 is not the human heart or the inner life of a Christian but the global arena where divine judgments are unleashed—war, famine, death, and cosmic upheaval. The riders go “out over the earth,” affecting nations, populations, and the physical world. John never narrows “earth” to an internal spiritual condition, and nothing in 1 Corinthians 3 gives permission to redefine cosmic imagery in Revelation as metaphors for the human heart. The two passages belong to completely different genres, with different purposes and symbolic frameworks. Therefore, connecting Paul’s pastoral metaphor to Revelation’s global judgment scenes is a category error that cannot stand under contextual or theological scrutiny.

Jeremiah 4:23–28

Jeremiah 4:23–26 “I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void…I looked, and the mountains were quaking…I looked, and all the birds had fled…”

Shincheonji’s Perspective

They claim this is not describing literal land but the spiritual state of God’s people who have fallen into corruption.

They use this to argue: “If Israel can be described as ‘earth,’ then the ‘earth’ in Revelation must also be the congregation.”

Doctrinal Issues

Jeremiah is describing literal judgment on Judah’s land, not the spiritual condition of a congregation. The Hebrew word ʾerets consistently refers to physical territory throughout the book. Jeremiah speaks of Judah’s cities, vineyards, fields, and borders that will be devastated by Babylon’s invasion, such as in Jeremiah 4:26 and Jeremiah 7:34. The focus is geographic and national, not symbolic or ecclesiological.

The phrase “formless and void” in Jeremiah 4:23 intentionally echoes the language of Genesis 1:2. This connection signals an act of cosmic de-creation, showing that the coming judgment will unravel the order God had established. Jeremiah is not describing a corrupt congregation but portraying how the Babylonian invasion will turn Judah’s land into a chaotic wasteland, reversing creation itself.

The surrounding verses reinforce this theme by depicting the unraveling of creation. Jeremiah describes mountains quaking (Jeremiah 4:24), birds fleeing (Jeremiah 4:25), the land becoming desolate (Jeremiah 4:27), and cities collapsing before the Lord’s anger (Jeremiah 4:26). Each image points to catastrophic environmental and geopolitical devastation, not to spiritual confusion or doctrinal corruption within a church.

The usage in Jeremiah is even more explicit and consistent. Jeremiah uses erets more than 200 times, almost always referring to actual land or territory. For example, Jeremiah 4:27 states, “The whole land shall be desolate,” referring to Judah’s geographical territory devastated by Babylon. Jeremiah 7:20 speaks of God’s wrath being poured out “on the land,” meaning Judah’s soil and cities. Jeremiah 8:16 warns of invaders who “devour the land and all that is in it,” describing literal destruction, not symbolic spiritual conditions. There is no credible basis to reinterpret these passages as metaphors for congregations.

Finally, Jeremiah explicitly states that these judgments fall upon Judah because of their evil ways (Jeremiah 4:18). The people sin, and as a result their land is destroyed. The two are related but not identical. The passage maintains a clear distinction: the people are guilty, and the land is judged accordingly. It does not collapse these categories into a metaphor for the internal condition of a religious community.

Jeremiah 4 describes the desolation of Judah’s land, not the spiritual betrayal of a congregation. Although the land suffers because of the people’s sin, the land itself is never identified with the people; the two remain distinct throughout the passage. Shincheonji collapses this clear prophetic distinction by flattening Jeremiah’s imagery into a symbolic codebook and ignoring its historical, grammatical, and literary context. Because Jeremiah is portraying territorial devastation from Babylon’s invasion, not ecclesial symbolism, its “land judgment” cannot be transferred into Revelation’s cosmic visions or used to redefine “earth” as a church.

Isaiah 24:1-6

Isaiah 24:1–6 “Behold, the LORD will empty the earth and make it desolate…The earth mourns and withers…The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants…Therefore a curse devours the earth…”

Shincheonji’s Perspective

Shincheonji teaches that “earth” symbolizes the congregation of God, so that whenever Scripture describes the earth as defiled, languishing, or judged, it refers to corrupt leadership, false teachings, and spiritual famine within a church. In their system, phrases like “the curse devours the earth” become metaphors for divine judgment falling specifically on the Tabernacle Temple in Korea. This redefinition is then carried over into Revelation, where SCJ claims that every occurrence of “earth” describes the collapse of that single congregation rather than global or cosmic judgment. As a result, passages such as Revelation 6, 7, 8, 13, and 16—which plainly depict worldwide turmoil—are reinterpreted as symbolic accounts of the downfall of one church organization, an approach central to SCJ’s larger theological framework.

Doctrinal Issues

Isaiah makes a distinction between Earth and People

Isaiah 24:5 makes a clear distinction that completely undermines the SCJ interpretation. The verse states, “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants,” which shows two separate subjects: the earth and the inhabitants who corrupt it. The structure of the sentence depends on this distinction — the earth is the object affected, and the inhabitants are the agents causing the defilement. Isaiah is describing the physical world lying under judgment because of human sin, not a congregation defiling itself. The entire verse hinges on contrasting creation with the people who dwell upon it, reinforcing that they are not the same entity.

If someone tried to read “earth = people” into the verse, the sentence collapses into nonsense: “The people lie defiled under the people.” Isaiah’s wording does not allow this interpretation, because the distinction between the earth and its inhabitants is deliberate and essential to the argument. The corruption of the land as a consequence of human wickedness is a constant theme in the Old Testament (for example, Leviticus 18:25 and Hosea 4:1–3). Isaiah is following that pattern by showing that human sin brings judgment upon the land they occupy. This alone disproves the SCJ reading, because Isaiah’s contrast between earth and people cannot be reinterpreted to make both terms refer to the same group.

The Isaiah Apocalypse

Isaiah 24 belongs to the section often called the “Isaiah Apocalypse” (chapters 24–27), a sweeping vision of universal judgment rather than a description of ecclesial corruption. These chapters expand the scope of the earlier oracles in Isaiah 13–23, which focus on individual nations, and move to a picture of judgment upon the entire created order. The imagery is intentionally cosmic: the heavens are shaken, the moon is confounded, the earth is broken, and the world is thrown into chaos as all nations come under God’s judgment. Isaiah’s goal is to portray global upheaval, not the downfall of a temple community or a single group of God’s people.

Although Isaiah uses highly metaphorical and poetic language—meaning the earth will not literally fracture into pieces—the imagery still refers to worldwide divine judgment, not to church corruption. The text repeatedly describes the earth in terms that emphasize global catastrophe: “the earth is utterly broken” and “split apart” (Isaiah 24:19), and it “staggers like a drunkard” (Isaiah 24:20). The judgment falls on “the host of heaven on high” and “the kings of the earth” (Isaiah 24:21), which clearly points to celestial beings and earthly rulers, not to congregational leaders or pastors. Isaiah reinforces this global scope through parallel terms—earth, world, heights, mountains, and islands—none of which he uses to symbolize “Israel’s congregation” in this chapter.

Even acknowledging the poetic nature of Isaiah’s language, his metaphors consistently point to worldwide upheaval, not internal church decline. Isaiah 24 describes the collapse of the world’s order on a cosmic scale, not the downfall of a particular temple or religious group, and nothing in the chapter supports the idea that “earth” should be reinterpreted as a congregation.

The “curse” is applied Universally

Isaiah’s reference to a “curse” devouring the earth draws on the broad covenant framework of Scripture, especially the Noahic covenant, which governs the entire world and all its inhabitants. The imagery echoes the universal scope of Genesis 9, where God establishes a covenant with “every living creature of all flesh.” By invoking this theme, Isaiah signals that the judgment he describes is not restricted to a single nation or religious community but applies to the whole world. His language also draws from the earliest chapters of Genesis: Eden’s creation motifs, the disruption of order, and humanity’s corruption spreading across the earth. These echoes frame Isaiah 24 as a scene of end-time judgment, where the earth itself suffers because humanity has violated God’s everlasting statutes.

Nothing in the passage suggests Isaiah is speaking about a synagogue, a tabernacle, a church, or any specific religious institution. Instead, he describes the “earth” being consumed by judgment because of a universal moral collapse among its inhabitants. The moral decay Isaiah condemns is global in scale, affecting kings, nations, and even cosmic powers. His focus is on the breakdown of the world’s moral order, not the fall of a particular congregation. This universal scope rules out SCJ’s attempt to confine Isaiah’s language to ecclesial corruption, since Isaiah explicitly situated the curse within the context of worldwide covenant violation and creation’s unraveling.

Conclusion

Revelation’s use of the word “earth” makes it clear that Shincheonji’s symbolic definition cannot be supported by Scripture. Shincheonji constructs an interpretive chain that begins with Isaiah 5 and stretches through Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 3 until the entire Bible is treated as one continuous agricultural parable. This allows them to redefine “earth” in Revelation as the Christian congregation. However, Revelation itself does not use the term this way. In every passage, “those who dwell on the earth” refers to unbelievers, hostile nations, or the rebellious world under judgment. When Revelation intends a symbol to have a special meaning, the book explicitly provides that meaning, but it never defines the earth as the church. The interpretation that Shincheonji applies to Revelation is imported from outside the text, not drawn from it.

The Old Testament passages used by Shincheonji do not support their view either. Isaiah 5 is a judgment on eighth-century Israel, not a timeless cycle that predicts the fall of Christianity. Jeremiah 4 describes the devastation of Judah’s land during the Babylonian invasion, not the spiritual state of a congregation. Isaiah 24 presents worldwide judgment and clearly distinguishes the earth from its inhabitants. None of these passages redefine “earth” as God’s people or point to a repeating pattern of planting, corruption, and replanting across biblical history. Each passage must be understood within its own covenant and historical context, and none of them provide the symbolic foundation that Shincheonji claims.

The New Covenant established by Jesus Christ also stands against Shincheonji’s interpretation. The New Covenant is permanent, secure, and grounded in the finished work of Christ. It does not follow the pattern of failure seen under the Old Covenant, nor does it anticipate a future collapse that requires the rise of a new pastor with exclusive authority. For this reason, the symbolic system that Shincheonji applies to the earth cannot stand. Scripture consistently uses the term to describe the physical world, the nations, and those who oppose God. When each passage is read in context, the meaning becomes clear and the interpretive framework built by Shincheonji falls apart.