Revelation 1:20 does not leave its symbols undefined or sealed away for a future age. The verse itself contains both the introduction of the mystery and its explanation: “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” In other words, the passage introduces a symbolic image — stars and lampstands — and then immediately provides the interpretation. This follows a common biblical pattern, where God gives a vision but also supplies the explanation so His people are not left guessing (cf. Genesis 40:12, Daniel 2:36–45). The mystery here is not about some hidden end-time organization but about understanding the vision John saw in his time.

The text also roots this explanation firmly in history. Revelation 1:11 names the seven churches explicitly — Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These were real congregations in Asia Minor during the first century, and Jesus speaks to them directly in Revelation 2–3. Each church receives a specific letter addressing its strengths, weaknesses, and spiritual condition. For example, Smyrna is commended for enduring persecution, while Laodicea is rebuked for being lukewarm. These personalized messages only make sense if the lampstands represent actual churches in John’s day, not a symbolic projection of a single future church.

This is significant because it demonstrates that the mystery has already been revealed and explained within the text itself. The lampstands do not require a modern interpreter or a “promised pastor” to decode them thousands of years later. Instead, the mystery functions as other biblical mysteries do — something once hidden but now revealed (Romans 16:25–26; Colossians 1:26). By providing both the vision and its explanation, Revelation 1:20 makes clear that the seven lampstands are the seven churches of Asia Minor, and the letters that follow are Christ’s direct messages to those churches in their historical context.

When the Bible uses the word “mystery” (Greek: mystērion), it rarely refers to something sealed away for a distant future generation. Instead, it consistently describes a divine truth that was once hidden but has now been revealed through God’s chosen messengers. Paul makes this point repeatedly in his letters. For example, in Romans 16:25–26, he speaks of “the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations.” Similarly, in Ephesians 3:3–6, he explains that the mystery “was made known to me by revelation” and that it “has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” These passages show a consistent biblical pattern: a mystery is something God has chosen to unveil, not something that remains locked until a modern figure comes to explain it.

Other passages reinforce this same principle. In Colossians 1:26–27, Paul writes of “the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints,” identifying the mystery as Christ in you, the hope of glory. In 1 Corinthians 2:7–10, Paul contrasts the hidden wisdom of God with its present revelation through the Spirit, concluding, “these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.” And in 1 Corinthians 4:1, he describes the apostles as “stewards of the mysteries of God,” entrusted with truths already disclosed, not guardians of truths waiting thousands of years for another human interpreter.

Taken together, these passages make it clear that the New Testament treats “mystery” as a revealed truth centered on Christ and His gospel. The apostles themselves were given direct authority to proclaim these mysteries, and the church received them as part of God’s fully revealed will. This stands in direct contrast to Shincheonji’s claim that “mystery” in Revelation means a hidden prophecy waiting to be unlocked only by Lee Manhee. Biblically, the mysteries have already been made known, and their content is not about a future Korean church or a modern pastor but about the person and work of Jesus Christ, revealed once for all to the saints.

A major problem with SCJ’s interpretation is that Revelation 2–3 does not treat the seven churches as one unified body under a single corrupt leader. Instead, each church receives its own unique letter from Christ, tailored to its specific condition. Two of the churches, Smyrna and Philadelphia, are praised without rebuke. Others, such as Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira, are commended in some ways but sharply corrected in others. Still others, like Sardis and Laodicea, are warned of severe judgment unless they repent. This diversity shows that the lampstands represent distinct congregations, each with its own strengths, weaknesses, and spiritual trajectory.

If SCJ were correct that the seven lampstands represent one unified organization whose fall is tied to the corruption of a single leader, we would expect Jesus to address them collectively with a single message. Yet what we see in Revelation 2–3 is the exact opposite: seven distinct evaluations and seven unique calls to repentance or perseverance. This undercuts the idea of a collective fall and instead emphasizes Christ’s intimate knowledge of each congregation’s faithfulness or compromise.

A central flaw in Shincheonji’s interpretation of Revelation 1:20 is that it directly contradicts the plain meaning of the text. The passage explicitly identifies seven stars and seven lampstands, making clear that the vision is about multiple entities, not one. SCJ collapses these into a single collective body — the Tabernacle Temple — arguing that the seven only symbolize one unified organization. But Revelation goes out of its way to keep them distinct. John is told the “seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” The text makes a one-to-one correspondence: each church has its own angel, each church is its own lampstand. To reinterpret the seven as one is to ignore the structure and symmetry built into the vision.

The contradictions become even sharper in Revelation 2–3. Each of the seven churches receives a different evaluation and a different outcome based on their faithfulness or failure. Smyrna and Philadelphia are praised with no rebuke, Pergamum and Thyatira are partly commended but also corrected, while Sardis and Laodicea are severely warned. If the lampstands represented one organization falling together under one leader, these varied messages would make no sense. Why would Christ praise one “part” of the body while condemning another if they were all judged as a single collective? The diversity of promises and warnings in these letters presupposes that the churches are separate communities, each accountable for its own response to Christ. This stands in direct tension with SCJ’s claim of a single church betrayal and collapse, showing that their interpretation not only stretches but actually overturns the plain meaning of the text.

One of Shincheonji’s key arguments for collapsing the seven lampstands into a single body is their appeal to Psalm 133:2, which describes oil being poured on Aaron’s head and flowing down onto his beard and robes. SCJ interprets this as a blueprint for revelation: God’s word, like oil, flows from the head (a central leader) down to the body (the people). From this, they conclude that if the “head” is corrupted, the whole body is defiled — and therefore, the seven churches in Revelation must be seen as one system under a single head whose betrayal affects them all.

But this is a misuse of the psalm. Psalm 133 is not about hierarchical revelation or the mechanics of prophecy; it is a song celebrating the blessing of unity among God’s people. The imagery of oil on Aaron’s head is symbolic of the priestly consecration and God’s blessing flowing over the whole community of Israel when brothers live together in harmony. The psalm is poetic, not prescriptive — it does not lay down a theological law about how God’s word flows or how authority structures should be set up in every era. By importing this imagery into Revelation 1:20, SCJ stretches the text beyond its intended meaning, taking a psalm about communal unity and turning it into a justification for centralized, authoritarian control of doctrine.

Furthermore, Revelation itself does not use the oil imagery in connection with the lampstands of chapter 1. Later in Revelation 11, lampstands appear again in connection with the two witnesses, but no mention is made of oil flowing from a head leader. Instead, the lampstands in Revelation 1:20 are already clearly identified as seven distinct churches, each addressed individually by Christ. By forcing the imagery of Psalm 133 into this passage, SCJ introduces a foreign concept into the text — one that not only distorts the psalm’s original meaning but also undermines the integrity of Revelation’s own explanation of its symbols.