Introduction
This section addresses common Shincheonji pushbacks surrounding the scrolls in Revelation, particularly the claim that the little scroll in Revelation 10 is the same as the sealed scroll in Revelation 5 and that it represents the fully unsealed revelation delivered to a Promised Pastor. These arguments are central to Shincheonji’s authority structure, since their theology depends on the idea that Man Hee Lee uniquely received and testified to the complete fulfillment of Revelation.
What follows is a systematic examination of these claims using the text of Revelation itself, with close attention to Greek vocabulary, narrative structure, and biblical patterns of prophetic commissioning. Each pushback is evaluated on its own terms and tested against the internal consistency of Scripture rather than later doctrinal assumptions. The goal is not to speculate about symbolism, but to determine what the text actually says and what it does not authorize.
By tracing how Revelation distinguishes between different scrolls, songs, commissions, and testimonies, this section demonstrates that Shincheonji’s conclusions require importing theological assumptions that are absent from the biblical text. Revelation presents Christ as the sole authority over God’s redemptive plan and Scripture as the completed testimony delivered to the churches, leaving no textual basis for a future promised pastor who receives or completes the book
Be aware that groups like Shincheonji often respond to criticism by subtly adjusting their doctrine—a common tactic involving denial, adaptation, and manipulation; is a common tactic among high-control organizations. They may gather information on critics and “flip the script,” portraying exposure as persecution or misinformation. It’s essential to carefully observe doctrinal shifts rather than accepting new explanations at face value. Stay vigilant against gaslighting through evolving teachings designed to counter today’s realities and criticisms. (Read More)
Expected Pushback
If Shincheonji claims that the scroll in Revelation 10 is called “little” because its contents have already been fulfilled or unsealed, this creates a serious contradiction within their own teaching. If the seals and trumpets are already fulfilled, then the scroll given in Revelation 10 cannot contain the full message of Revelation.
If βιβλαρίδιον, the “little scroll,” is physically small because its contents have already been fulfilled, meaning the seals and trumpets, then the scroll given to the so called New John would contain only the remaining portion of Revelation, namely chapters 10 through 22. This would mean that the New John does not receive the complete revelation, but only a partial remainder.
This directly conflicts with Shincheonji’s core claim. SCJ teaches that the New John, identified as Man Hee Lee, receives the opened book in Revelation 10 and is commanded to testify to the entirety of Revelation, as referenced in Revelation 22:8 and 22:16. Man Hee Lee further claims that he has seen and heard the fulfillment of all the chapters of Revelation.
Shincheonji states the following in The Creation of Heaven and Earth, page 79. The spirit of truth comes in Jesus’ name and speaks the words of Jesus on Jesus’ behalf. The promised pastor speaks the words of the spirit of truth on its behalf, citing Revelation 19:10. It further claims that the apostle John receives the explanation of the entire book of Revelation from the spirit of prophecy, also citing Revelation 19:10, and then testifies to everything he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ, referencing Revelation 1:2.
When these claims are placed side by side, Shincheonji’s explanation of the little scroll undermines its own assertion that the promised pastor receives and testifies to the complete and fully unsealed revelation.
Revelation uses highly consistent terminology for repeated objects. The author uses βιβλίον for every major scroll throughout the book and never switches terms when referring to the same object. If the Revelation 10 scroll were the same scroll from chapter 5, John had no reason to change words. By using the extremely rare βιβλαρίδιον, which appears nowhere else in the New Testament, John signals that this is a distinct scroll with a different function. Symbolic language does not override consistent usage.
Nothing in the text suggests that the scroll shrinks or changes size after the seals open. The text does not say it becomes little, nor does it say that only a portion remains. The seals reveal events; they do not physically alter the scroll. The Revelation 5 scroll is never described as opened by the Lamb in a way that implies a change in form. If John intended to describe a changed version of the same scroll, he would retain the same term and add a detail about the transformation. He does not do this.
The front and back writing is essential to the identity of the Revelation 5 scroll. It signals completeness. If the Revelation 10 scroll were the same object, it would make no sense for John to omit the defining feature of completeness and instead use an entirely different word. The absence of these identifiers shows that the second scroll is separate in identity and purpose.
Eating the scroll is a commissioning act, not a sign of receiving the entire revelation. Ezekiel eats a scroll in Ezekiel 2 and 3, yet this does not mean he received every covenant or decree from God. It simply means he receives his prophetic assignment. Revelation 10 follows this pattern. The act of eating does not imply continuity with the Revelation 5 scroll.
Biblical patterns do not guarantee repetition unless the text specifies it. Ezekiel’s symbolic action pointed to his own ministry, not to a chain of future prophetic replacements. John’s symbolic action commissions him for his prophetic role within Revelation. There is no verse pointing to another figure who must eat another scroll. The pattern shows how God commissions prophets, not that new prophets must arise in every age to eat scrolls.
Revelation 1:1 describes how God communicated the vision to John. It does not prescribe a model for future revelation. The text gives no authorization for a future prophet or a continuation of the chain. It is a description, not a mandate.
This assumes that Revelation requires a physical eyewitness to fulfillment, but the book never says this. The call to “hear the words of the prophecy” applies to the church, not to a single promised pastor. The idea that a future prophet is required is imported from SCJ doctrine, not drawn from the text.
The scroll in Revelation 5 contains God’s redemptive and judicial plan, not explanatory teaching for a future pastor. Its contents are judgments, plagues, and the unfolding of God’s cosmic purposes. Nothing in the text points to a curriculum for a human pastor. Christ alone is worthy to handle this scroll, which shows its content is divine authority, not transferable teaching material.
The seals do not hide the meaning; they initiate events. The moment a seal is broken, a judgment occurs on earth. The result is not hidden knowledge but visible action. The idea of seals representing hidden interpretation contradicts the actual narrative sequence.
Revelation does not say that Christ must verbally explain the scroll for it to be understood. Christ’s authority to open it is the key point. The scroll’s meaning unfolds through the judgments themselves, not through a human interpreter.
Sequence does not imply identity. Many different objects appear sequentially in Revelation without being the same object. The Greek vocabulary intentionally distinguishes the two. Narrative order cannot override lexical differences.
Prophesying again refers to John’s ongoing prophetic ministry, not to receiving the entire content of Revelation. The text does not say that John receives a full interpretation or that the little scroll contains all previous material.
Revelation 5 does not say that angels sing the new song. The new song is sung by the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures. Angels join in praise afterward, but they do not sing the new song itself. Revelation makes this distinction clear. In Revelation 14 the 144,000 learn the new song, but this does not imply that the song itself is different. It only shows that different groups join in the same praise at different points in the vision. In Scripture it is common for multiple groups to participate in the same song in different contexts, as in Exodus 15 where Moses sings and Miriam joins afterward. Different singers do not imply different songs.
Revelation 14 contains no lyrics and gives no indication that the content is different from Revelation 5. The only defining content of the new song in Revelation is already given in chapter 5, and it centers on Christ’s redemptive work. Revelation 14 simply says that the 144,000 learn a new song before the throne. There is no evidence that the new song is tied to new information or to the Second Coming. The text does not mention secrets, prophecies, or explanations. The theological consistency of Revelation points to a single theme: praise for the Lamb who redeemed His people.
Learning the new song does not require new information. It requires belonging to the Lamb. Revelation 14 emphasizes purity, loyalty, and identity, not access to hidden doctrine. Only the 144,000 can learn the song because it reflects their redeemed identity and their exclusive relationship with the Lamb. In the Old Testament only the redeemed people of God could sing certain songs, such as the songs of Zion. Exclusivity of participation does not imply new content. It simply reflects who belongs to the Lamb.
Revelation itself contradicts this claim. Revelation 1:3 promises a blessing to all who read, hear, and keep the words of the prophecy. This blessing is for the entire church, not for a future person who sees fulfillment. Jesus expects the early churches in chapters 2 and 3 to understand and obey the message. They did not witness the final fulfillment, yet they are accountable to understand the prophecy. This shows that Revelation is meant to be understood by believers throughout history, not by a single eyewitness at the end.
Disagreement among interpreters does not mean the scroll remains sealed. The seal imagery refers to the execution of God’s judgments, not to interpretive difficulty. Once the Lamb opens a seal, an event takes place on earth. The seals do not symbolize hidden meaning but the unfolding of divine action. Christians can differ in interpretation while still affirming that the scroll is opened and Christ’s authority has been revealed. Human disagreement does not imply the need for a new pastor to explain the text.
In the Bible songs often belong to specific groups as expressions of identity. The new song in Revelation 14 is learned only by the 144,000 because it reflects their status as redeemed firstfruits who follow the Lamb. They learn the song because of their relationship to Christ, not because they receive new doctrinal information. The exclusivity points to identity and purity, not to new revelation.
The pattern SCJ describes is selective and incomplete. In Scripture many major acts of God occur without a forerunner, such as the flood, the Babylonian restoration, and Pentecost. More importantly, the New Testament teaches that Jesus Himself is the final and complete revelation of God. Hebrews 1 explains that God has spoken fully through His Son, not through a future prophet. The Father does not promise a new messenger for the final age. The Second Coming is visible and unmistakable, not dependent on a prophetic announcement.
Similar themes do not imply identity or continuity. Many biblical prophets received messages of judgment, but their scrolls and commissions were distinct. Ezekiel’s scroll prepared him for his ministry to Israel. John’s little scroll prepares him for his prophetic role in Revelation. The fact that both contain sorrowful messages reflects the nature of prophetic ministry, not the transmission of a single scroll across eras. John does not claim that Ezekiel’s scroll was handed to him, nor does the text suggest any continuity.
Revelation 10:11 tells John that he must continue his own prophetic ministry, not that someone else will complete it for him. This reinforces John’s role as the one who receives and writes the vision. It does not create space for a successor. The idea that a future pastor is needed to finish what John started contradicts the purpose of the book itself, which is written for all churches until Christ returns.
Revelation never teaches that a heavenly revelation must be transferred to a single earthly person. John already fulfills this role by writing down everything he saw. That is the purpose of the book. The churches receive the testimony through Scripture, not through an additional prophetic messenger. SCJ’s claim that the scroll must come to a pastor is not based on any verse but on their own theological structure.
A single book can contain multiple symbolic objects. Revelation contains dragons, beasts, lampstands, stars, bowls, trumpets, horses, scrolls, cities, and altars. No one argues that these objects must be the same because they appear in one book. The argument that a single book cannot contain two scrolls is baseless. John uses different vocabulary and narrative functions for each scroll, which shows that he intends them to be distinct.
Revelation 22 does not establish a pattern for future messengers. It simply shows that John, as the prophet who saw the vision, delivers it to the churches. If anything, Revelation closes the door on future prophetic additions by warning against adding or removing words. John’s role is unique and final. The idea that a second John must appear contradicts the closing warnings of the book.
Conclusion
Shincheonji’s interpretation of the scrolls in Revelation collapses under sustained textual scrutiny because it depends on assumptions the book itself never makes. Revelation clearly distinguishes between the sealed scroll in chapter 5 and the little scroll in chapter 10 through different Greek vocabulary, different narrative roles, and different theological functions. The scroll in Revelation 5 represents God’s redemptive and judicial plan, handled exclusively by the Lamb as an expression of divine authority. The little scroll in Revelation 10 functions as a commissioning symbol for John’s prophetic task within the vision, following well-established prophetic patterns seen in Ezekiel. Treating these as the same scroll requires overriding lexical precision, narrative clarity, and biblical precedent, replacing them with doctrinal necessity.
More importantly, every Shincheonji pushback reveals the same underlying move: shifting authority away from Christ and Scripture and relocating it into a future human interpreter. Whether by redefining “little” as partially fulfilled content, treating seals as hidden meanings rather than enacted judgments, or insisting that Revelation cannot be understood without eyewitness fulfillment, the result is the same. The text is made subordinate to an external authority structure. Revelation, however, presents itself as a complete testimony delivered to the churches, centered on Christ’s finished work and ongoing reign, and guarded by explicit warnings against addition or succession. John is not a placeholder awaiting completion by a later figure. He is the divinely appointed witness whose written testimony is sufficient until Christ returns.
In the end, the scrolls of Revelation do not authorize a promised pastor, a new John, or a future recipient of unsealed revelation. They testify to the opposite. Christ alone opens the scroll of God’s purposes. John faithfully records what he sees. The churches are commanded to read, hear, and keep the prophecy. Any system that requires a later interpreter to complete Revelation does not arise from the text. It is imposed upon it. Revelation closes not with an invitation to await new revelation, but with a warning to remain faithful to the one already given.