A Refutation of Shincheonji’s “Re-Creation” Teaching on Genesis 1

Introduction: Back to the Beginning

Imagine you’ve just completed nine months of intensive Bible study. You’ve passed the Revelation exam. You’ve proven you’re “sealed.” You’re preparing to “pass over” to Shincheonji. You might think the journey is complete.

But then your instructor announces with barely contained excitement: “Now we’re going to study Genesis chapter 1!”

The instructor’s enthusiasm is palpable: “This is truly one of my favorite, favorite lessons. I have taught this many times, and without fail, students always respond with ‘no way!’ Every single time—it’s wonderful.”

This is Lesson 132, and it represents a crucial pivot point in Shincheonji’s curriculum. After spending months learning to interpret Revelation as a coded message about their organization, students are now taught to read Genesis—the very first chapter of the Bible—through the same organizational lens. The instructor promises to show Genesis “in a way you’ve never heard before—through the lens of the open word.”

But what happens when we examine this lesson through the eyes of first-century Christians and Jewish believers who originally received Genesis? What happens when we apply historical, literary, and biblical lenses instead of Shincheonji’s “re-creation” framework?

This question becomes even more critical when we understand that Shincheonji’s interpretation of Genesis 1 serves as the foundation for their entire theological system. As their teachings state, “Genesis 1 is the summary and conclusion of the entire Bible” and serves as “the blueprint for God’s work of recreation in every era.” If this foundational interpretation is flawed, the entire structure built upon it collapses.

Let’s examine Lesson 132 carefully, distinguishing between what is genuinely biblical and what is uniquely Shincheonji teaching—a distinction that becomes increasingly difficult as students are taught to see their organization in every passage from Genesis to Revelation.

Part 1: The Setup—”You Are More Blessed Than the Apostles”

What the Lesson Actually Says

The instructor begins with an extraordinary claim that should immediately raise red flags for any biblically literate Christian:

“You are beyond blessed. How blessed are you? Let me explain. I often remind you of this truth: you are more blessed than Peter who saw Jesus in person. You are more blessed than Paul, more blessed than John, and even more blessed than David and Solomon.”

The reasoning provided is equally stunning: “While they only knew in part, we know all. They were each part of God’s plan in their own eras—they played their roles in specific times and places. However, we are part of God’s plan at the end, and we have the privilege of understanding everything that has come before.”

Let’s pause here and consider what is actually being claimed. The instructor is telling students who have completed nine months of Bible study through Shincheonji’s curriculum that they possess:

• More blessing than Peter, who walked with Jesus for three years
• More blessing than Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament under divine inspiration
• More blessing than John, who received the Revelation vision
• More blessing than David, the man after God’s own heart
• More blessing than Solomon, to whom God granted unprecedented wisdom

The basis for this claim? “They only knew in part, we know all.”

The Psychological Manipulation at Work

Before we examine the biblical problems with this claim, we need to understand its psychological function. This opening accomplishes several critical objectives in the indoctrination process:

1. Elevation of Students’ Spiritual Status

By telling students they are “more blessed” than the greatest figures in biblical history, the instructor creates an inflated sense of spiritual importance. Students who may have felt ordinary or inadequate in their previous churches are now told they possess knowledge and blessing that surpasses even the apostles.

This is intoxicating. Who wouldn’t want to be more blessed than Peter or Paul? The human ego naturally gravitates toward such elevation.

This tactic is particularly effective because it exploits a legitimate biblical truth—that believers today do have certain advantages (the complete canon of Scripture, 2,000 years of church history, etc.)—and twists it into a claim of spiritual superiority. The distinction between having access to more information and being “more blessed” than the apostles is deliberately blurred.

2. Validation of the Study Process

Nine months is a significant investment of time and energy. Students have attended classes multiple times per week, completed homework, memorized passages, and passed tests. By this point, many have also distanced themselves from previous churches, strained relationships with family members who question their involvement, and reorganized their lives around Shincheonji activities.

The sunk-cost fallacy is powerful: the more we invest in something, the harder it becomes to walk away, because doing so would mean admitting that investment was wasted.

By telling students they now possess knowledge the apostles lacked, the instructor validates this enormous investment. The message is clear: “All that time, all that effort, all those sacrifices—they were worth it. You now possess something incredibly valuable.”

3. Creation of Cognitive Dissonance with Outside Perspectives

If students possess knowledge that surpasses the apostles, what does that say about pastors, theologians, and biblical scholars who haven’t gone through Shincheonji’s training?

The implication is obvious: those outside Shincheonji are operating with inferior understanding. Their interpretations, their teachings, their theological training—all of it is incomplete at best, wrong at worst.

This creates a powerful barrier against outside input. If a family member raises concerns, if a pastor points out problems, if a friend questions the teaching—students can dismiss these concerns because “they only know in part, but we know all.”

4. Establishment of Organizational Authority

Most importantly, this claim establishes that Shincheonji’s interpretation is not just one perspective among many—it is the superior, complete understanding that even the apostles lacked.

This sets up everything that follows. When the instructor presents the “8 steps of re-creation” or interprets Genesis 1 as a “blueprint,” students have already been primed to accept it as superior truth, even if it contradicts everything they previously understood about Scripture.

What Jesus Actually Taught About Blessing

Now let’s examine what Scripture actually says about blessing, starting with Jesus’ own words.

After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples. Thomas was absent during the first appearance, and when the other disciples told him they had seen the Lord, Thomas famously replied:

“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)

A week later, Jesus appeared again, this time with Thomas present. After inviting Thomas to touch His wounds, Jesus said something profound:

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

Notice what Jesus is saying here. Thomas had the privilege of seeing the risen Christ with his own eyes, touching His wounds, receiving physical proof of the resurrection. Yet Jesus pronounces a special blessing on those who would believe without such physical evidence.

This is indeed a blessing for future believers—including us. We haven’t seen Jesus physically, yet we believe based on the testimony of those who did see Him, recorded in Scripture and passed down through the church.

But notice what this blessing is not about:

• It’s not about possessing superior knowledge of biblical interpretation
• It’s not about understanding hidden patterns in Scripture
• It’s not about having access to secret meanings that the apostles lacked
• It’s not about membership in a particular organization

The blessing Jesus pronounces is about faith—trusting in Him without physical proof. It’s not about intellectual superiority or interpretive expertise.

What Paul Taught About Knowledge

The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had much to say about knowledge and understanding. His words directly contradict Shincheonji’s claim that current students “know all” while the apostles “only knew in part.”

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:

“For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)

This passage is crucial for understanding the biblical perspective on knowledge and revelation. Let’s unpack what Paul is actually saying:

1. Paul Acknowledges His Own Partial Knowledge

Paul, who received direct revelation from Christ (Galatians 1:12), who was caught up to the third heaven and heard inexpressible things (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), who wrote much of the New Testament under divine inspiration—this same Paul openly acknowledges that his knowledge is partial.

“Now I know in part.”

If Paul, with all his revelation and inspiration, knew only in part, what does that say about the claim that Shincheonji students “know all”?

2. Completeness Comes at the Eschaton

Paul describes a future time when “completeness comes” and when we will “see face to face” and “know fully.” When is this?

The context makes it clear: this is the eschaton, the final consummation when Christ returns and we see Him face to face. This is when our partial knowledge will be replaced by full knowledge.

Paul is not saying, “In 2,000 years, Korean Bible students will know more than I do.” He’s saying that all believers currently know in part, and full knowledge awaits Christ’s return and our glorification.

3. The Contrast: Now vs. Then

Paul sets up a clear temporal contrast:

• Now: We see dimly, as in a mirror; we know in part
• Then: We shall see face to face; we shall know fully

“Then” refers to the future resurrection and glorification, not to a present-day organization’s teaching.

4. The Certainty of Future Fullness

Paul’s point is not to make us despair about our current partial knowledge. Rather, he’s assuring us that complete understanding is coming. When we see Christ face to face, when we are transformed to be like Him, then we will know as we are known.

But this is a promise for all believers at Christ’s return—not a claim that some believers in history achieve this fullness while still in mortal bodies.

Addressing Shincheonji’s Defense of “Knowing in Part”

During question and answer sessions, instructors often anticipate the objection about 1 Corinthians 13:12. They typically respond with something like: “Yes, Paul said ‘we know in part,’ but that was because Revelation hadn’t been fulfilled yet. The apostles lived before the fulfillment, so they could only see prophecy. We live after the fulfillment, so we can see both prophecy and fulfillment—that’s why we know more than they did.”

This defense contains several fatal flaws:

First, it misunderstands Paul’s timeframe. Paul explicitly states that full knowledge comes when we “see face to face”—a clear reference to the beatific vision when Christ returns. The contrast is not between “before fulfillment” and “after fulfillment” of Revelation, but between our current mortal state and our future glorified state.

Second, it assumes Revelation is being fulfilled in Shincheonji. This is circular reasoning: “We know more than the apostles because Revelation is being fulfilled in us, and we know Revelation is being fulfilled in us because we understand more than the apostles.”

Third, it ignores that the apostles themselves saw fulfillment. The apostles witnessed the ultimate fulfillment—Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. They saw the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost. They saw the gospel go to the Gentiles. They saw the church established. If seeing fulfillment makes one “know all,” the apostles should have known all.

Fourth, it contradicts the nature of eschatological hope. Paul’s “now vs. then” contrast is not about historical eras (before and after Revelation’s fulfillment), but about the present age versus the age to come. Even if Revelation were being fulfilled in Shincheonji (which it is not), we would still be in the “now” phase—seeing dimly, knowing in part—until Christ returns.

The instructor’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:12 reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of biblical eschatology. The “completeness” Paul anticipates is not organizational fulfillment in history, but the consummation of all things when Christ returns.

The Dangerous Implications of Shincheonji’s Claim

When we understand what Paul actually taught, the problems with Shincheonji’s claim become clear. By asserting that students “know all” while the apostles “only knew in part,” Shincheonji is implicitly claiming:

1. The Apostles’ Writings Were Incomplete

If the apostles only knew in part, and if that partial knowledge was insufficient, then the writings they produced under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration must also be incomplete or unclear.

This directly contradicts the doctrine of Scripture’s sufficiency. Paul wrote to Timothy:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Scripture thoroughly equips believers for every good work. It doesn’t require supplementation by a modern organization’s interpretation to become useful or complete.

2. The Holy Spirit’s Inspiration Was Insufficient

The New Testament writers explicitly claimed to write under the Holy Spirit’s guidance:

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

If the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write Scripture, but their knowledge was so partial that 21st-century students possess superior understanding, what does this say about the adequacy of the Holy Spirit’s work?

3. Church History Missed the Point for Two Millennia

If the apostles only knew in part, and if the full understanding has only now been revealed through Shincheonji, then the entire history of the Christian church—all the councils, all the theologians, all the faithful believers who studied Scripture for 2,000 years—they all missed the point.

This is interpretive arrogance of the highest order. It places Shincheonji’s modern interpretation above:

• The apostles who walked with Jesus
• The church fathers who were taught by the apostles’ disciples
• The Reformers who recovered biblical truth
• The countless faithful scholars who devoted their lives to understanding Scripture

4. Current Students Are Spiritually Elite

Most dangerously, this claim creates a spiritual elite class. Students who have completed Shincheonji’s curriculum are told they possess knowledge and blessing superior to the greatest figures in biblical history.

This breeds spiritual pride—the very thing Scripture repeatedly warns against:

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)

“God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” (James 4:6)

Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for religious leaders who thought themselves spiritually superior. The Pharisee in Jesus’ parable who prayed, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people” (Luke 18:11) was condemned, while the tax collector who simply prayed, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner” (Luke 18:13) was justified.

The Biblical Pattern: Humility, Not Superiority

Throughout Scripture, we see a consistent pattern: those who truly encounter God are marked by humility, not claims of superior knowledge.

Isaiah’s Response to God’s Holiness:

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:5)

Job’s Response After God Speaks:

“Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know… My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:3, 5-6)

Peter’s Response to Jesus’ Power:

“When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, ‘Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!'” (Luke 5:8)

Paul’s Self-Assessment:

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” (1 Timothy 1:15)

Notice the pattern: genuine encounter with God produces humility and awareness of one’s own inadequacy, not boasting about superior knowledge or blessing.

What About Progressive Revelation?

Someone might object: “But doesn’t the Bible teach progressive revelation? Don’t we understand things now that weren’t clear to Old Testament believers?”

This is a fair question, and yes, the Bible does teach progressive revelation. God revealed His plan gradually throughout history, with each stage building on what came before.

Old Testament believers looked forward to the Messiah without fully understanding how God’s promises would be fulfilled. They “saw” these things “from a distance” (Hebrews 11:13). The prophets themselves “searched intently and with the greatest care” trying to understand the salvation that would come (1 Peter 1:10-11).

When Christ came, He brought clarity to what was previously mysterious:

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)

So yes, New Testament believers understand things more clearly than Old Testament believers did. We see the fulfillment of promises they only saw in shadow and type.

But notice what this progressive revelation culminates in: God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

The writer of Hebrews is not saying, “God spoke through His Son, and then 2,000 years later, He spoke through a Korean organization to finally make everything clear.” He’s saying that God’s final and complete revelation is in Christ.

The New Testament apostles, writing under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, gave us the authoritative interpretation of Christ’s person and work. They explained how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, what His death and resurrection accomplished, and how believers should live in light of this gospel.

This is why the apostle John could write:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life… We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.” (1 John 1:1, 3)

The apostles were eyewitnesses who received direct revelation from Christ. Their testimony, recorded in Scripture, is the foundation of Christian faith:

“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)

We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. We don’t surpass this foundation—we build on it.

The Real Blessing We Have

So what is the blessing that current believers have? It’s not superior knowledge that makes us “more blessed than Peter or Paul.” Rather, it’s the blessing of living after Christ’s completed work and having the full New Testament revelation.

We are blessed to have:

1. The Complete Canon of Scripture

We possess the full Bible—Old and New Testaments. We can read the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. We can study Paul’s letters explaining the gospel. We can read John’s Revelation. The early church didn’t have all these writings compiled and widely available as we do.

2. Two Thousand Years of Church History

We benefit from centuries of faithful Christians who studied Scripture, fought heresies, clarified doctrine, and passed down the faith. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel—we can learn from those who came before us.

3. Widespread Access to Scripture

For most of church history, few believers owned personal copies of Scripture. Today, we can have multiple translations on our phones. We can search the entire Bible in seconds. We have access to commentaries, lexicons, and study tools that previous generations couldn’t imagine.

4. Global Perspective

We can learn from believers across cultures and throughout history. We’re not limited to our local context—we can benefit from the global body of Christ.

These are genuine blessings. But they don’t make us “more blessed than the apostles” in the sense Shincheonji claims. We don’t possess superior spiritual knowledge or understanding. We simply have the privilege of building on the foundation they laid.

The Warning in This Opening

The instructor’s opening claim—that students are more blessed than the apostles because “they only knew in part, we know all”—should serve as a major warning sign.

This claim:

• Contradicts Paul’s explicit teaching about knowledge
• Creates spiritual elitism
• Elevates organizational interpretation above apostolic authority
• Breeds pride rather than humility
• Sets up students to dismiss all outside input
• Establishes Shincheonji’s teaching as superior to Scripture itself

When any teacher claims to possess knowledge superior to the inspired apostles, when any organization suggests its interpretation surpasses what the Holy Spirit revealed to the New Testament writers, alarm bells should ring.

This is not humility before God’s Word. This is not careful biblical interpretation. This is the setup for a interpretive system that will place organizational authority above Scripture itself.

And that’s exactly what the rest of Lesson 132 proceeds to do.

Part 2: The Foundation—Genesis and Revelation as “Seed and Fruit”

The Core Claim

Having established that students possess superior knowledge to the apostles, the instructor now introduces the foundational framework for understanding Genesis 1:

“We should think about Genesis and Revelation in 2 simple terms:

1. Genesis is the seed.
2. Revelation is the fruit.”

The lesson elaborates: “Genesis, being the seed, marks the beginning of God’s work. It contains all of His promises, hopes, desires, and will regarding future events… When Revelation is opened, we see that the seed God planted is finally bearing fruit. God’s plan, which He set in motion 6,000 years ago, comes to full reality in the book of Revelation.”

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. The Bible does use agricultural metaphors. Jesus spoke of seeds and fruit. The idea that God’s plan unfolds from beginning to end seems biblical.

But then comes the crucial interpretive move:

“Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 summarizes and concludes the entire Bible… The creation of God’s kingdom in every era is fulfilled according to the order of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 serves as a blueprint of how God creates and recreates, repeating throughout the Bible multiple times.”

This is where the teaching shifts from biblical metaphor to organizational framework. Let’s examine what’s actually being claimed and why it’s problematic.

Understanding the Claim

The instructor is establishing several key points that will undergird everything that follows:

1. Genesis 1 is a “Blueprint”

Not just a creation account, not just theological truth about God’s creative work, but a blueprint—a pattern or template that God follows repeatedly.

2. This Blueprint Involves “8 Steps”

As the lesson will detail, these steps are:

1. Selection of a pastor
2. Creation of a kingdom
3. Covenant with chosen people
4. Betrayal of the covenant
5. Destruction
6. Selection of a new pastor
7. Judgment and salvation
8. New kingdom and new covenant

3. The Pattern Repeats Throughout History

This isn’t just about the original creation. According to Shincheonji, this same 8-step pattern repeats in every biblical era: Adam’s era, Noah’s era, Abraham’s era, Moses’ era, Jesus’ era, and now in the “New John” (Lee Man-hee) era.

4. Revelation is the Final Fulfillment

The pattern that began in Genesis finds its ultimate fulfillment in Revelation—which Shincheonji claims is being fulfilled through their organization.

5. Therefore, Genesis Predicts Shincheonji

This is the logical conclusion: if Genesis is the blueprint, if the blueprint repeats throughout history, if Revelation is the final fulfillment, and if Revelation is being fulfilled in Shincheonji, then Genesis was ultimately predicting Shincheonji’s emergence.

The Hermeneutical Circle

Before we examine the biblical problems with this framework, we need to understand the interpretive circle being created:

• You need Revelation to understand Genesis (Genesis is the “seed,” Revelation is the “fruit”)
• You need Genesis to understand Revelation (Genesis provides the “blueprint”)
• You need Shincheonji to understand both (they provide the interpretive key)
• You can’t question Shincheonji because the Bible validates them (circular reasoning)
• You can’t use the Bible to question them because they define how to interpret the Bible (circular reasoning)

This creates a closed interpretive system. Once you accept the framework, every passage you read will seem to confirm it, because you’ve been trained to see the pattern everywhere.

This is not biblical interpretation—it’s indoctrination.

What First-Century Readers Actually Understood

When ancient Jews and early Christians read Genesis 1, they did not understand it as a “blueprint” for organizational recreation. Let’s examine what they actually saw in this text.

The Ancient Near Eastern Context

Genesis was written in a world where every culture had creation stories. The Babylonians had the Enuma Elish, which described the gods Marduk and Tiamat battling, with Marduk splitting Tiamat’s body to create heaven and earth. The Egyptians had multiple creation myths involving various gods. The Canaanites had their own accounts.

Against this backdrop, Genesis 1 was radically different:

1. Monotheism vs. Polytheism

Genesis declares: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Not gods (plural), but God (singular). Not through divine conflict, but through divine word. This was a revolutionary claim in the ancient world.

2. Creation by Word vs. Creation by Conflict

In Babylonian myths, creation resulted from violent conflict between gods. In Genesis, God simply speaks: “Let there be light,” and there was light.

This established God’s absolute sovereignty. He doesn’t battle chaos—He commands it. He doesn’t struggle to create—He speaks and it exists.

3. Creation’s Goodness vs. Creation’s Evil

Many ancient myths viewed the material world as inherently evil or as the result of divine failure. Genesis repeatedly declares: “God saw that it was good.”

The physical world isn’t evil—it’s God’s good creation. This laid the foundation for a positive view of the material world and human embodiment.

4. Humanity’s Dignity vs. Humanity’s Slavery

In many ancient myths, humans were created as an afterthought, often as slaves to serve the gods. Genesis declares:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

Humans are made in God’s image—not as slaves, but as His representatives, given the dignity of stewarding His creation.

5. Sabbath Rest as Creation’s Goal

Genesis 1 culminates not in endless work, but in rest:

“By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” (Genesis 2:2-3)

This established the Sabbath principle: work is good, but rest in God’s presence is the goal. Creation moves toward communion with God, not toward endless productivity.

The Literary Structure of Genesis 1

Ancient readers would also have recognized the careful literary structure of Genesis 1. The passage is not random or haphazard—it’s beautifully organized:

Days 1-3: Forming (Creating Spaces)

• Day 1: Light and darkness → Creating time (day and night)
• Day 2: Sky and waters → Creating vertical space (above and below)
• Day 3: Land and seas → Creating horizontal space + vegetation

Days 4-6: Filling (Populating Spaces)

• Day 4: Sun, moon, stars → Filling time (corresponding to Day 1)
• Day 5: Fish and birds → Filling waters and sky (corresponding to Day 2)
• Day 6: Animals and humans → Filling land (corresponding to Day 3)

Day 7: Resting (Completing Creation)

• God rests, blesses, and sanctifies the seventh day

This structure shows God bringing order (forming) and fullness (filling) to what was formless and empty. It’s a literary presentation of God’s creative work, organized to emphasize His purposeful, orderly process.

The structure itself teaches theology:

• God is not chaotic but orderly
• Creation moves from less complex to more complex
• Humanity is the pinnacle of creation (created last, on the same day as land animals, but distinguished by being made in God’s image)
• The goal is rest in God’s presence

How Early Christians Read Genesis 1

When the early church read Genesis 1, they saw it through a Christological lens—they understood it in light of Christ’s revelation.

1. Christ as the Agent of Creation

The Apostle John opened his Gospel with a deliberate echo of Genesis 1:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1-3)

John is making a profound theological claim: the same Word (Logos) who spoke creation into existence in Genesis 1 is the same Word who became flesh in Jesus Christ.

This wasn’t John imposing a new meaning on Genesis—he was revealing what was always there. The God who said “Let there be light” is the same God who came as “the light of the world” (John 8:12).

Paul made the same connection:

“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17)

Christ is not just involved in creation—He is the agent through whom all things were created, and the purpose for which they were created, and the power by which they hold together.

2. Christ as the New Creation

Early Christians also saw Genesis 1 as pointing forward to God’s work of new creation in Christ.

Paul wrote:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Just as God brought order from chaos in Genesis 1, Christ brings new creation—spiritual renewal and transformation. Those who are in Christ experience a new creation reality.

3. Christ as the Light

When God said “Let there be light” on Day 1, early Christians saw this as pointing to Christ:

“When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'” (John 8:12)

The light created on Day 1 (before the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4) was understood as God’s own presence—His glory, His revelation. And this light finds its ultimate expression in Christ.

4. Christ as the Sabbath Rest

The Sabbath rest that concludes creation pointed to the ultimate rest found in Christ:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:28-29)

The writer of Hebrews developed this theme extensively, showing that the Sabbath rest was always pointing to something greater—rest in Christ:

“There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest.” (Hebrews 4:9-11)

The Real Connection Between Genesis and Revelation

Yes, Genesis and Revelation are connected—but not as “seed and fruit” in the way Shincheonji teaches. They’re connected as bookends of God’s redemptive story.

Genesis 1-3: Paradise Created, Then Lost

• God creates a perfect world
• Humanity is in God’s presence
• The tree of life is accessible
• There is no sin, death, or suffering
• God dwells with humanity in the garden

Genesis 3: The Fall

• Humanity rebels against God
• Sin enters the world
• Death becomes humanity’s fate
• Humanity is exiled from God’s presence
• The tree of life is barred by cherubim with flaming swords

Genesis 4 – Revelation 20: Redemptive History

• God doesn’t abandon His creation
• He begins a plan to restore what was lost
• He makes covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David
• He sends prophets to call His people back
• He promises a Messiah who will crush the serpent’s head
• The Messiah comes—Jesus Christ
• Through His death and resurrection, He defeats sin and death
• He establishes the New Covenant
• He sends the Holy Spirit
• The gospel goes to all nations
• The church is built

Revelation 21-22: Paradise Restored

• God creates a new heaven and new earth
• Humanity is in God’s presence again
• The tree of life is accessible again
• There is no more sin, death, or suffering
• God dwells with humanity in the New Jerusalem

The story arc is: Paradise → Paradise Lost → Paradise Restored

This isn’t about organizational patterns repeating throughout history. It’s about God’s redemptive work in Christ restoring what was lost in the fall.

Notice the parallels between Genesis 1-2 and Revelation 21-22:

These parallels show that Revelation is describing the restoration and consummation of what God began in Genesis. It’s not about a “blueprint” that repeats—it’s about God’s faithful work to restore His creation.

The Problem with “Blueprint” Thinking

When Shincheonji teaches that Genesis 1 is a “blueprint” that repeats throughout history, several serious problems emerge:

1. It Makes Genesis About Process, Not About God

The focus shifts from who God is (Creator, Sovereign, Good, Purposeful) to what pattern He follows (8 steps of recreation).

Genesis 1 becomes a formula to follow rather than a revelation of God’s character and work.

2. It Requires Finding the Pattern Everywhere

Once you accept that Genesis 1 is a repeating blueprint, you must find “8 steps” in every biblical era—even when the text doesn’t suggest such a pattern.

This leads to eisegesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing meaning out of the text). You’re not discovering what’s there—you’re imposing a predetermined pattern.

3. It Makes the Pattern More Important Than the Content

The specific details of each biblical account become less important than fitting them into the predetermined pattern.

Did Abraham’s story actually follow “8 steps”? Did Moses’ era? Did Jesus’ ministry? It doesn’t matter—the pattern must be there, so the details are adjusted to fit.

4. It’s Unfalsifiable

If every era must follow the pattern, and if Shincheonji provides the only valid interpretation of how each era fits the pattern, there’s no way to test whether the pattern is actually there or simply being imposed on the text.

This is a hallmark of cultic interpretation: the system can never be proven wrong because it defines its own terms and validates its own claims.

5. It Distorts Biblical History

The Bible presents history as linear and purposeful, moving toward a goal—the consummation of all things in Christ. Shincheonji’s framework makes history cyclical—the same pattern repeating over and over.

This fundamentally misrepresents the biblical narrative.

The Biblical Pattern of Covenant

Someone might object: “But doesn’t the Bible show a pattern of covenant-making? Doesn’t God repeatedly make covenants with His people?”

This is a fair point. Yes, the Bible does show God making multiple covenants:

• Adamic/Edenic Covenant (Genesis 1-3)
• Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9)
• Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17)
• Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24)
• Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)
• New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, fulfilled in Christ)

But notice what’s different from Shincheonji’s framework:

Biblical Covenant Pattern:

1. Progressive Revelation: Each covenant builds on and expands previous covenants. God doesn’t start over—He moves forward.
2. Pointing to Christ: All covenants find their fulfillment in Jesus. The writer of Hebrews shows how the Old Covenant pointed to and was fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ.
3. God’s Faithfulness: Despite human failure, God remains faithful to His promises. The pattern is not “covenant → betrayal → new covenant with someone else.” Rather, it’s “covenant → human failure → God’s gracious provision → ultimate fulfillment in Christ.”
4. Culmination, Not Repetition: The New Covenant in Christ is the final covenant, not one in a repeating cycle.

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13)

The New Covenant replaces the old covenant—it doesn’t start a new cycle that will repeat again.

The Finality of Christ’s Work

This is crucial: the New Testament repeatedly emphasizes that Christ’s work is final and complete. It doesn’t need to be repeated or supplemented.

“But now he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26)

Once for all—not repeatedly. At the culmination—not in the middle of an ongoing cycle.

“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” (Hebrews 10:11-12)

The Old Testament priests stood daily, offering repeated sacrifices. Christ sat down—His work is finished. He offered one sacrifice for all time.

“For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Hebrews 10:14)

Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t need to be repeated. It doesn’t need to be supplemented by new covenants in new eras. It is sufficient and final.

This is why the “seed and fruit” metaphor, as Shincheonji uses it, is so problematic. It suggests that Genesis planted something that needed millennia to come to fruition, and that this fruition is happening now through Shincheonji.

But the biblical testimony is clear: the “seed” planted in Genesis found its fulfillment in Christ. He is the promised offspring of Abraham (Galatians 3:16). He is the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22-23). He is the Son of David whose kingdom will never end (Luke 1:32-33). He is the Second Adam who undoes what the first Adam did (Romans 5:12-21).

All of God’s promises find their “Yes” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The story doesn’t continue beyond Christ to find its ultimate fulfillment in a Korean organization. Christ is the fulfillment.

The Christopher Nolan Movie Analogy

The instructor uses a pop culture analogy to make the “seed and fruit” concept more relatable:

“It’s comparable to watching a Christopher Nolan movie—it’s confusing for about 90% of the time, but when you reach the end, everything suddenly clicks together. You realize, ‘Oh, it was him the whole time!’ Once you’ve seen the movie’s ending, the beginning makes perfect sense. All the seeds that the director planted throughout the movie finally come to fruition. The Bible works in the same way.”

This analogy is rhetorically effective, but it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture’s nature and purpose.

The Problems with This Analogy:

1. The Bible Is Not a Puzzle to Solve

Christopher Nolan intentionally makes his movies confusing, planting clues that only make sense in retrospect. The audience is meant to be confused until the reveal at the end.

But the Bible is not a puzzle designed to confuse. It’s God’s revelation of Himself and His redemptive work. While it contains depths we can explore for a lifetime, its central message is clear and accessible:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

The gospel is not hidden in coded language requiring organizational interpretation—it’s proclaimed openly for all to hear and believe.

2. Scripture Claims to Be Clear

The Reformers articulated the doctrine of Scripture’s “perspicuity”—its essential clarity. This doesn’t mean every passage is easy to understand, but that the central message is accessible to all believers:

“The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130)

God’s Word gives understanding even to the simple—those without special training or organizational membership. It’s not designed to be incomprehensible until you have the secret key.

3. It Creates Dependency on the Interpreter

Christopher Nolan movies require the director’s vision to make sense—you need to understand what he intended. Similarly, this analogy suggests you need Shincheonji’s interpretation to understand what God intended.

But Scripture is self-interpreting (Scripture interprets Scripture) and Spirit-illuminated (the Holy Spirit guides believers into truth). The Apostle John wrote:

“As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” (1 John 2:27)

John isn’t saying believers don’t need teachers—the New Testament clearly affirms the gift of teaching (Ephesians 4:11). He’s saying they’re not dependent on human mediators because the Holy Spirit teaches them.

We don’t need a Korean organization to unlock the Bible—we need careful study, historical context, literary awareness, and the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

4. It Misrepresents How the Bible Was Used Historically

For thousands of years, believers have:

• Found comfort in the Psalms
• Learned wisdom from Proverbs
• Been challenged by the Prophets
• Been transformed by the Gospels
• Been instructed by the Epistles

They didn’t need to understand Revelation as fulfilled in Shincheonji to benefit from Scripture. The Bible has been life-giving and transformative throughout history, not a confusing puzzle awaiting a 21st-century Korean solution.

5. It Sets Up a False “Aha!” Moment

The analogy creates an expectation: when you understand Genesis through Shincheonji’s lens, you’ll have an “Aha!” moment—”Oh, it was about Shincheonji the whole time!”

This emotional experience feels like genuine insight, reinforcing the teaching. But emotional resonance doesn’t equal truth. Many false teachings create powerful “Aha!” moments because they offer simple explanations for complex realities.

The test isn’t whether an interpretation feels profound or creates an emotional response. The test is whether it aligns with how Scripture was understood by its original audience, how it has been interpreted throughout church history, and whether it can be verified through sound biblical interpretation.

Legitimate “Aha!” Moments vs. Imposed Patterns

This doesn’t mean there are no legitimate “Aha!” moments in Bible study. There absolutely are moments when connections click, when themes become clear, when the beauty of Scripture’s unity becomes evident.

Legitimate insights include:

• Seeing how Old Testament passages point to Christ
• Understanding the flow of redemptive history
• Recognizing literary structures and themes
• Connecting passages across Scripture
• Grasping how God’s character is consistently revealed

But notice what these insights have in common: they deepen our understanding of God’s work in Christ. They don’t reveal that the Bible is secretly about a modern organization.

When an interpretation makes the Bible about an organization rather than about God’s redemptive work in Christ, it has gone wrong—no matter how profound it feels.

The Framework Introduced

Having established that Genesis 1 is a “blueprint” and that this blueprint repeats throughout biblical history, the instructor now introduces the specific pattern that will become the lens through which students are taught to read all of Scripture:

The 8 Steps of Creation and Recreation:

1. Selection of a pastor
2. Creation of a kingdom
3. Covenant with the chosen people
4. Betrayal of the covenant by the chosen people and destruction
5. Selection of a new pastor
6. Judgment and salvation
7. Creation of a new kingdom
8. New covenant

The lesson teaches: “In every era, God establishes someone to carry out the work of recreation—a person God uses to start anew when his people descend into darkness. This pattern is seen throughout history: First, God established Adam as the light. When Adam’s world fell into darkness, God came to Noah. After Noah’s son betrayed him, there was Shem, and this continued all the way to Abraham. Following the events of Egypt, God established Moses, and then Joshua carried on the torch from Moses. Later on, Jesus came, who is the light of the world and continues to be. In this time, Jesus is working through the one who overcomes, New John.”

This framework is presented as if it’s an obvious pattern that runs throughout Scripture. But when we examine it carefully, we discover that this pattern is not drawn from the text—it’s imposed on the text. Let’s examine each step and see how this works.

Step 1: “Selection of a Pastor”

What Shincheonji Claims:

The first step in God’s work is always the selection of a “pastor”—a human leader through whom God will work. This pastor is identified as “the light” for that era.

The lesson lists: Adam → Noah → Shem → Abraham → Moses → Joshua → Jesus → Lee Man-hee (“New John”)

The Biblical Reality:

This list creates a false equivalence between figures who served very different roles in God’s plan and who are presented very differently in Scripture.

1. Adam Was Not a “Pastor”

Adam was the first human being, created in God’s image. He was given the mandate to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and exercise stewardship over creation (Genesis 1:28).

Nowhere in Genesis is Adam called:

• A pastor
• A priest
• A mediator
• The light

In fact, Adam’s story is primarily one of failure. He disobeyed God’s command, brought sin into the world, and was exiled from the garden. Paul uses Adam as a type of Christ specifically to show the contrast:

“For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” (Romans 5:15)

Adam is the one through whom sin and death entered. Christ is the one through whom grace and life come. They’re not parallel figures in a repeating pattern—they’re contrasting figures in a single redemptive story.

2. Noah Was Not a “Pastor” Who Replaced Adam

The lesson suggests that “when Adam’s world fell into darkness, God came to Noah.” This makes it sound like Noah was the next in a succession of leaders, replacing Adam after Adam failed.

But this misrepresents the biblical narrative. Between Adam and Noah, there were ten generations (Genesis 5). The text doesn’t present Noah as Adam’s replacement or as the next “pastor” in a series.

Rather, Noah is presented as a righteous man in a corrupt generation:

“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.” (Genesis 6:9)

God chose Noah to preserve humanity through the flood because of Noah’s righteousness, not because he was the next step in a repeating pattern.

Moreover, Noah is never called:

• A pastor
• The light
• A mediator between God and humanity

He was a righteous man whom God used to preserve humanity. That’s a very different role than what Shincheonji claims.

3. Shem Was Not a “Pastor” Who Replaced Noah

The inclusion of Shem in this list is particularly revealing, because Shem plays almost no role in the biblical narrative after the flood.

The lesson claims: “After Noah’s son betrayed him, there was Shem.” This refers to the incident in Genesis 9:20-27, where Ham saw his father Noah’s nakedness and told his brothers, while Shem and Japheth covered their father.

But the text never presents Shem as taking over from Noah or as being “the light” for a new era. Shem is simply one of Noah’s three sons, through whom humanity was repopulated after the flood.

The only reason Shem is significant in the biblical narrative is genealogical—he’s in the line that leads to Abraham. But he’s not presented as a leader, a pastor, or a spiritual figure in his own right.

The fact that Shincheonji includes Shem in their list of “pastors” shows how the pattern is being imposed rather than discovered. They need someone between Noah and Abraham to fill out the pattern, so Shem is inserted—even though the text doesn’t support this role.

4. Abraham Was Not a “Pastor”

Abraham is a major figure in biblical history—the father of faith, the one with whom God made covenant promises. But Abraham was not a pastor in any meaningful sense.

Abraham was called by God to leave his country and go to a land God would show him (Genesis 12:1-3). God promised to make him into a great nation, to bless him, and to make him a blessing to all nations.

Abraham’s significance is:

• Covenantal: God made promises to Abraham that would be fulfilled through his descendants
• Typological: Abraham’s faith is held up as an example for all believers (Romans 4, Galatians 3, Hebrews 11)
• Genealogical: He’s the ancestor of Israel and, ultimately, of Jesus Christ

But Abraham was not:

• A pastor leading a congregation
• A mediator between God and humanity (in the sense of a priest)
• “The light” for his era

Abraham built altars and worshiped God, but there’s no indication he served as a spiritual leader for others in the way Shincheonji’s framework suggests.

5. Moses Was a Unique Mediator

Moses is indeed a significant figure—the one through whom God delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Law. Moses served as a mediator between God and Israel, interceding for the people and receiving God’s revelation.

But Moses himself pointed beyond himself to one who would come:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15)

Moses knew he was not the ultimate mediator. He pointed forward to the Prophet who would come—ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22-23).

Moreover, Moses’ role was unique to the Mosaic Covenant era. He wasn’t one in a series of repeating figures—he was the specific mediator of a specific covenant at a specific time in redemptive history.

6. Joshua Was Moses’ Successor, Not a New “Pastor”

Joshua did succeed Moses as the leader of Israel, guiding them into the Promised Land. But Joshua’s role was primarily military and administrative—leading the conquest of Canaan and distributing the land among the tribes.

Joshua was not:

• A new covenant mediator (he operated under the Mosaic Covenant)
• A prophet in the sense of receiving new revelation
• “The light” for a new era

Joshua was the faithful successor who completed the task Moses began—bringing Israel into the land God promised. He’s not starting a new cycle—he’s completing the previous one.

7. Jesus Is Categorically Different

This is the most serious problem with Shincheonji’s list. By placing Jesus in a series with Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Moses, and Joshua, they create a false equivalence.

Jesus is not one in a series of “pastors” or “lights”—He is the Light:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

Not “a” light—”the” light. Not the light for one era—the light for all time.

Jesus is not one mediator among many—He is the one mediator:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Jesus is not one covenant maker in a series—He is the mediator of the final covenant:

“But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

The New Testament is emphatic: Jesus is not one step in a continuing pattern. He is the culmination, the fulfillment, the completion of all that came before.

8. Lee Man-hee (“New John”) Does Not Follow Jesus

The lesson concludes: “In this time, Jesus is working through the one who overcomes, New John.”

This is the entire point of the framework—to establish that just as God worked through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus in previous eras, He is now working through Lee Man-hee in this era.

But this contradicts everything the New Testament teaches about the finality of Christ’s work and revelation.

Jesus is not working through a Korean leader in the same way God worked through Moses or Abraham. Jesus’ work is complete. His revelation is final. His covenant is eternal.

The book of Hebrews was written specifically to address this issue—to show that Christ is superior to all previous mediators and that His work is final:

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)

God has spoken in His Son. This is the final revelation. There is no “next step” in the pattern, no new mediator for a new era.

The False Equivalence Problem

The fundamental problem with Shincheonji’s “selection of a pastor” framework is that it creates false equivalences between figures who served very different roles in very different contexts.

The Biblical Reality:

• Adam was the first human, whose disobedience brought sin
• Noah was a righteous man who preserved humanity through the flood
• Abraham was the father of faith with whom God made covenant promises
• Moses was the unique mediator of the Old Covenant
• Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the final mediator, the fulfillment of all promises

These are not parallel figures in a repeating pattern. They are unique figures in a progressive, linear story that moves toward its climax and fulfillment in Christ.

What Shincheonji Does:

By placing these figures in a list and calling them all “pastors” or “the light” for their eras, Shincheonji:

1. Flattens the biblical narrative into a repeating cycle
2. Obscures the uniqueness of Christ by making Him one among many
3. Creates space for Lee Man-hee as the next in the series
4. Distorts each figure’s actual role in redemptive history

This is not biblical interpretation—it’s eisegesis, reading a predetermined pattern into the text.

Step 2: “Creation of a Kingdom”

What Shincheonji Claims:

After selecting a pastor, God’s next step is creating a kingdom through that pastor. This kingdom represents God’s work in that era.

The Biblical Reality:

The concept of “kingdom” is used very differently in different biblical contexts, and forcing them all into the same pattern distorts their actual meaning.

1. Adam and “Kingdom”

Adam was given dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28), but this is not the same as establishing a “kingdom” in any political or organizational sense.

Adam and Eve were the only humans. There was no kingdom to rule, no subjects to govern. They were stewards of God’s creation, exercising the authority God delegated to them.

To call this a “kingdom” in the same sense as Israel under Moses or the church under Christ is to equivocate—using the same word for very different realities.

2. Noah and “Kingdom”

After the flood, Noah and his family repopulated the earth. But again, there’s no “kingdom” in any meaningful sense.

Noah offered sacrifices to God (Genesis 8:20), and God made a covenant with him (Genesis 9:8-17), but Noah didn’t establish a kingdom. He was simply the head of his family, from whom all post-flood humanity descended.

3. Abraham and “Kingdom”

God promised Abraham that he would become a great nation (Genesis 12:2), and that promise was eventually fulfilled in the nation of Israel. But Abraham himself never ruled a kingdom.

Abraham was a nomadic patriarch who moved from place to place, living in tents. He had a large household, but not a kingdom.

The “kingdom” that came from Abraham was Israel—but that didn’t happen in Abraham’s lifetime. It was a promise that would be fulfilled generations later.

4. Moses and “Kingdom”

Under Moses, Israel did become a nation—freed from Egypt, organized under the Law, moving toward the Promised Land. In this sense, there was a “kingdom” (though Israel didn’t have a king until much later, under Saul).

But this wasn’t Moses creating a kingdom in the sense of organizational structure. This was God fulfilling His promise to Abraham by making his descendants into a nation.

5. Jesus and “Kingdom”

Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God throughout His ministry:

“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15)

But Jesus’ kingdom is fundamentally different from earthly kingdoms:

“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'” (John 18:36)

Jesus’ kingdom is spiritual, not political. It’s not an organization or institution—it’s the reign of God in the hearts of those who submit to Him.

When Shincheonji equates Jesus’ kingdom with their organization, they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of God’s kingdom.

The Problem:

By forcing all these different contexts into the same “creation of a kingdom” step, Shincheonji:

1. Ignores the different meanings of “kingdom” in different contexts
2. Treats spiritual realities as organizational structures
3. Sets up their organization as the current “kingdom”
4. Misses the biblical teaching that God’s kingdom is not a human organization but God’s sovereign rule

The kingdom of God is not Shincheonji. The kingdom of God is wherever God reigns—in the hearts of all who submit to Christ as Lord.

Step 3: “Covenant with the Chosen People”

What Shincheonji Claims:

After creating a kingdom, God makes a covenant with the chosen people of that era.

The Biblical Reality:

Yes, God did make covenants at various points in biblical history. But these covenants are not identical steps in a repeating pattern—they are progressive stages in a single redemptive plan.

The Progressive Nature of Biblical Covenants:

Biblical scholars recognize that God’s covenants build on each other, each adding new elements while maintaining continuity with what came before:

1. The Adamic/Edenic Covenant (Genesis 1-3)

God’s relationship with Adam involved commands (don’t eat from the tree of knowledge) and consequences (death for disobedience). Some theologians call this a covenant, though the word “covenant” isn’t used in Genesis 1-3.

2. The Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9)

After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood. This covenant was:

• Universal (with all humanity and all creatures)
• Unconditional (not dependent on human obedience)
• Marked by a sign (the rainbow)

3. The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17)

God called Abraham and made promises to him:

• Land (Canaan)
• Descendants (a great nation)
• Blessing (to Abraham and through him to all nations)

This covenant was:

• Particular (with Abraham and his descendants)
• Unconditional in its ultimate fulfillment (God would accomplish it)
• Marked by a sign (circumcision)

4. The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24)

At Mount Sinai, God made a covenant with Israel through Moses:

• Based on the Law (Ten Commandments and other laws)
• Conditional (blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience)
• Marked by signs (Sabbath, sacrificial system)

5. The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)

God promised David that his dynasty would endure forever:

• A descendant of David would always sit on the throne
• God would establish David’s kingdom forever
• This pointed forward to the Messiah (Jesus, son of David)

6. The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, fulfilled in Christ)

God promised a new covenant that would replace the old:

• Written on hearts, not stone tablets
• Based on grace, not law-keeping
• Providing forgiveness of sins
• Giving the Holy Spirit
• Fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection

The Key Point:

These covenants are not identical steps in a repeating cycle. They are progressive stages in God’s single plan of redemption:

• Each builds on the previous ones
• Each adds new revelation
• Each points forward to Christ
• All find their fulfillment in the New Covenant

The writer of Hebrews makes this explicit:

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13)

The New Covenant in Christ is the final covenant. It doesn’t start a new cycle—it completes the old cycle. There is no “Step 8: New Covenant” that repeats again in a new era.

What Shincheonji Does:

By treating covenants as identical steps in a repeating pattern, Shincheonji:

1. Ignores the progressive nature of biblical covenants
2. Misses how each covenant points to Christ
3. Denies the finality of the New Covenant
4. Creates space for a “new covenant” with Shincheonji

This is not biblical theology—it’s organizational self-justification.

Step 4: “Betrayal of the Covenant and Destruction”

What Shincheonji Claims:

In every era, the chosen people betray the covenant, leading to destruction. This betrayal is inevitable and sets up the need for God to start the cycle again with a new pastor.

The Biblical Reality:

Yes, human beings repeatedly fail to keep God’s commands. This is a consistent theme throughout Scripture. But Shincheonji’s framework distorts how the Bible presents this reality.

1. The Pattern Is Not Cyclical

The Bible does not present history as a cycle where:

• God makes a covenant
• People betray it
• God destroys them
• God starts over with someone new
• Repeat indefinitely

Rather, the Bible presents history as linear and purposeful:

• God creates humanity
• Humanity falls into sin
• God begins a plan of redemption
• Despite repeated human failure, God remains faithful to His plan
• The plan culminates in Christ
• Christ’s work is final and complete

Human failure is consistent, but God’s response is not to start over repeatedly. His response is to move His plan forward toward its completion in Christ.

2. God’s Faithfulness Despite Human Failure

One of the most beautiful themes in Scripture is God’s faithfulness despite human unfaithfulness.

After Israel made the golden calf (a massive covenant betrayal), Moses interceded:

“But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” (Exodus 32:32)

God’s response was not to destroy Israel and start over with someone new. Rather:

“The LORD replied, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'” (Exodus 33:19)

God remained faithful to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even when their descendants failed.

This pattern repeats throughout the Old Testament:

• Israel sins
• God disciplines them
• They cry out to God
• God raises up a deliverer
• God remains faithful to His covenant promises

The point is not that God keeps starting over with new people. The point is that God remains faithful even when His people are unfaithful.

3. The Ultimate Solution Is Not a New Cycle

Shincheonji’s framework suggests that betrayal leads to destruction, which leads to a new pastor, which starts a new cycle—which will eventually be betrayed again, leading to another new cycle.

But this is not the biblical solution. The biblical solution is the New Covenant in Christ, which addresses the root problem:

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people… For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

The New Covenant doesn’t just start another cycle that will end in betrayal. It provides:

• Internal transformation (law written on hearts)
• The Holy Spirit’s indwelling power
• Complete forgiveness of sins
• A new nature that enables obedience

This is why Paul can write:

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2)

Those who are in Christ are set free from the cycle of sin and death. They’re not just waiting for the next inevitable betrayal and destruction—they’re being transformed by the Holy Spirit.

4. The “Betrayal” Framework Creates Fear and Control

Shincheonji’s emphasis on inevitable betrayal serves a psychological function: it keeps members in a state of fear and vigilance.

If betrayal is inevitable, then:

• You must constantly watch for signs of betrayal in yourself and others
• You must be suspicious of anyone who questions the teaching
• You must report those who show signs of doubt
• You must prove your loyalty by unwavering commitment

This creates a culture of fear and control, where questioning is equated with betrayal, and betrayal leads to destruction.

But this is not the atmosphere of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is characterized by:

• Assurance of salvation (Romans 8:38-39)
• Freedom in Christ (Galatians 5:1)
• Love that casts out fear (1 John 4:18)
• The Holy Spirit’s witness that we are God’s children (Romans 8:16)

The Problem:

By making “betrayal and destruction” a necessary step in the pattern, Shincheonji:

1. Creates a cyclical view of history that denies the finality of Christ’s work
2. Ignores God’s faithfulness despite human failure
3. Misses the transforming power of the New Covenant
4. Uses fear of “betrayal” to control members

This is not biblical theology—it’s manipulation.

Step 5: “Selection of a New Pastor”

What Shincheonji Claims:

After the destruction that follows betrayal, God selects a new pastor to start the cycle again. This new pastor replaces the previous one who failed or whose era ended.

The Biblical Reality:

This step reveals the fundamental flaw in Shincheonji’s framework: it treats God’s work as a series of failed attempts that require constant restarts.

1. God’s Plan Doesn’t Fail

The biblical narrative is not about God repeatedly trying and failing, then trying again with someone new. It’s about God’s sovereign plan unfolding exactly as He intended, despite human failure.

God told Abraham:

“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:2-3)

This promise was not contingent on Abraham’s perfection. God knew Abraham would fail at times (he did—lying about Sarah being his sister, trying to fulfill God’s promise through Hagar). But God’s plan didn’t fail because Abraham failed. God’s plan moved forward.

The same is true throughout biblical history. God’s plan is not a series of restarts—it’s a single, purposeful progression toward its goal.

2. Leaders Are Not Replaced—They’re Succeeded

When biblical leaders die or their roles end, they’re not “replaced” as if they failed. They’re succeeded by those who continue the work.

• Moses was succeeded by Joshua—but Joshua didn’t replace Moses or start a new cycle. He completed what Moses began.
• David was succeeded by Solomon—but Solomon didn’t replace David or start over. He built on what David established.
• The prophets came one after another—but each built on the revelation given to previous prophets.

This is succession, not replacement. It’s continuity, not restart.

3. Christ Has No Successor

This is the crucial point: Christ’s work is final and complete. He has no successor.

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

Christ doesn’t need to be replaced by a new pastor for a new era. His work endures forever.

The writer of Hebrews contrasts the Old Testament priesthood (which required succession because priests died) with Christ’s priesthood:

“Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” (Hebrews 7:23-25)

Christ doesn’t need a successor because He lives forever. His priesthood is permanent. His work is complete.

4. The Holy Spirit Continues Christ’s Work

Jesus did promise that He would not leave His followers alone. But He didn’t promise a succession of human leaders—He promised the Holy Spirit:

“But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

The Holy Spirit—not a Korean leader—continues Christ’s work in the world. The Holy Spirit teaches believers, reminds them of Jesus’ words, convicts the world of sin, and guides the church.

The Problem:

By insisting on a “new pastor” for each era, Shincheonji:

1. Denies the finality of Christ’s work
2. Ignores the Holy Spirit’s role
3. Creates space for human leaders to claim authority equal to or surpassing Christ
4. Treats God’s plan as a series of failures requiring restarts

This is not biblical theology—it’s organizational self-promotion.

Step 6: “Judgment and Salvation”

What Shincheonji Claims:

After selecting a new pastor, God brings judgment on those who betrayed the covenant and salvation to those who follow the new pastor.

The Biblical Reality:

Yes, the Bible speaks extensively about judgment and salvation. But Shincheonji’s framework distorts these concepts in several ways.

1. Judgment and Salvation Are Not Cyclical

The Bible does describe various judgments throughout history:

• The flood in Noah’s day
• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
• The exile of Israel and Judah
• The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70

But these are not identical steps in a repeating pattern. Each judgment has its own historical context, its own specific causes, and its own theological significance.

More importantly, the Bible points to a final judgment—not one in a series of repeating judgments:

“Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:27-28)

There is one death, one judgment, one sacrifice, one second coming. This is not a repeating cycle.

2. Salvation Is in Christ Alone

Shincheonji’s framework suggests that salvation in each era comes through following the pastor of that era. But this contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture:

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Salvation is not in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Lee Man-hee. Salvation is in Christ alone.

Even in the Old Testament, salvation was always by faith in God’s promises—promises that pointed forward to Christ:

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3, quoting Genesis 15:6)

Abraham was saved by faith, not by being the “pastor” of his era or by following a human leader. His faith was in God’s promises, which were ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

3. Judgment Is Not About Organizational Membership

Shincheonji’s framework implies that judgment falls on those who reject the pastor of their era, while salvation comes to those who follow him.

But biblical judgment is about response to God’s revelation, not about organizational membership:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18)

The issue is belief in Christ—not membership in Shincheonji.

4. The Final Judgment

The Bible is clear that there will be a final judgment when Christ returns:

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)

This final judgment is not one in a series of repeating judgments. It’s the culmination of history, when Christ will judge all humanity.

At that judgment, the question will not be, “Did you join Shincheonji?” The question will be, “Did you trust in Christ?”

The Problem:

By treating judgment and salvation as repeating steps in a pattern, Shincheonji:

1. Denies the finality of Christ’s work
2. Makes salvation dependent on organizational membership
3. Ignores the biblical teaching about final judgment
4. Creates fear and control through threats of judgment

This is not biblical theology—it’s cultic manipulation.

Step 7: “Creation of a New Kingdom”

What Shincheonji Claims:

After judgment and salvation, God creates a new kingdom through the new pastor. This new kingdom replaces the old kingdom that was destroyed.

The Biblical Reality:

This step reveals how Shincheonji’s framework is designed to point to their organization as the current “new kingdom.”

1. The Kingdom of God Is Not a Human Organization

Jesus was explicit about the nature of God’s kingdom:

“Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ‘The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, “Here it is,” or “There it is,” because the kingdom of God is in your midst.'” (Luke 17:20-21)

The kingdom of God is not a visible organization that you can point to and say, “There it is.” It’s not an institution with membership rolls and organizational structure.

The kingdom of God is God’s sovereign rule in the hearts of those who submit to Him. It’s wherever God reigns.

2. Christ’s Kingdom Is Eternal

When the angel announced Jesus’ birth to Mary, he said:

“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32-33)

Christ’s kingdom will never end. It doesn’t need to be replaced by a new kingdom in a new era.

Paul wrote:

“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)

Christ reigns now and will continue to reign until all enemies are defeated. Then He will hand the kingdom to the Father. There is no “new kingdom” that replaces Christ’s kingdom.

3. The Church Is Christ’s Body, Not a Replacement Kingdom

The New Testament does speak of the church as a new reality—the body of Christ, the community of believers. But the church is not a new kingdom that replaces previous kingdoms in a repeating cycle.

Rather, the church is the fulfillment of what God was always working toward:

“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Ephesians 3:10-11)

The church is not Plan B or the next step in a cycle. It’s the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose accomplished in Christ.

4. The Church Is Universal, Not Organizational

When the New Testament speaks of “the church,” it refers to all believers in Christ—the universal body of Christ. It’s not limited to one organization or denomination.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

One body—not multiple bodies in different eras. One Lord—not different pastors for different eras. One faith—not different teachings for different times.

The Problem:

By teaching that God creates a “new kingdom” in each era, Shincheonji:

1. Sets up their organization as the current “new kingdom”
2. Denies the eternal nature of Christ’s kingdom
3. Confuses the universal church with their organization
4. Makes organizational membership essential for being part of God’s kingdom

This is not biblical ecclesiology—it’s organizational self-identification with God’s kingdom.

Step 8: “New Covenant”

What Shincheonji Claims:

The final step in each cycle is the establishment of a new covenant with the new kingdom through the new pastor.

The Biblical Reality:

This step is perhaps the most problematic, because it directly contradicts the New Testament’s teaching about the finality of the New Covenant in Christ.

1. The New Covenant Is Final

The prophet Jeremiah prophesied about a new covenant that God would make:

“‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD. ‘This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people… For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'” (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

This new covenant was fulfilled in Christ. At the Last Supper, Jesus said:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:20)

The New Covenant was inaugurated by Christ’s death. It’s not one in a series of repeating covenants—it’s the final covenant.

2. The New Covenant Replaces the Old

The writer of Hebrews is explicit: the New Covenant makes the old covenant obsolete:

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13)

The New Covenant doesn’t start a cycle that will be replaced by another new covenant. It replaces the old covenant permanently.

3. The New Covenant Is Better

Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that the New Covenant is superior to the old:

“But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

The New Covenant is better because:

• It’s based on better promises
• It provides internal transformation (law written on hearts)
• It includes complete forgiveness of sins
• It’s mediated by Christ, the perfect high priest
• It’s eternal, not temporary

4. There Is No “Newer” Covenant

The New Testament never hints at another covenant coming after the New Covenant in Christ. The New Covenant is the final covenant.

When Christ returns, He won’t establish a newer covenant. He will consummate the New Covenant—bringing it to its full and final realization.

The Problem:

By suggesting there’s a “new covenant” in each era, Shincheonji:

1. Denies the finality of the New Covenant in Christ
2. Suggests Christ’s covenant was insufficient and needs to be replaced
3. Claims their organization represents a new covenant
4. Contradicts the explicit teaching of Hebrews

This is not biblical theology—it’s heresy.

The Entire Framework Collapses

When we examine each of the “8 Steps” individually, we see that none of them accurately represent biblical history. The pattern is not drawn from the text—it’s imposed on the text.

The steps don’t fit:

• Adam was not a “pastor”
• Noah didn’t “replace” Adam
• Shem played no significant role
• Abraham wasn’t a “pastor” creating a “kingdom”
• Moses was a unique covenant mediator
• Joshua completed Moses’ work, not starting a new cycle
• Jesus is categorically different from all who came before
• Lee Man-hee has no biblical warrant to be in this list

The pattern distorts biblical theology:

• It makes history cyclical, not linear
• It denies the finality of Christ’s work
• It ignores the progressive nature of revelation
• It confuses different types of covenants
• It treats organizational membership as salvation
• It places human leaders where only Christ belongs

The pattern serves organizational purposes:

• It creates space for Lee Man-hee as the current “pastor”
• It identifies Shincheonji as the current “kingdom”
• It makes membership in Shincheonji equivalent to the “new covenant”
• It uses fear of “betrayal” and “judgment” to control members
• It dismisses all outside perspectives as belonging to the “old kingdom”

This is not biblical interpretation. This is an interpretive framework designed to validate an organization’s claims about itself.

The Interpretive Move

Having established the “8 Steps” framework, the instructor now turns to the actual text of Genesis 1 to show how it supposedly supports this pattern. The key move happens with Genesis 1:2:

Genesis 1:2 (NIV): “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

The instructor makes several crucial claims about this verse:

1. The Footnote About “Was” vs. “Became”

“In your Bible, there should be a footnote next to the word ‘was.’ The footnote indicates something significant—it mentions ‘or possibly became.’ This is not a coincidental note.”

2. The Connection to Jeremiah 4:23

The lesson then connects Genesis 1:2 to Jeremiah 4:23:

“I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone.” (Jeremiah 4:23)

3. The Conclusion

“Looking at the terminology in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23, we find the same description: ‘formless and empty.’ Who is God referring to in these passages? His people. God’s people—my people—who were destroyed. But what would cause God’s people to be destroyed in the Bible? The reason is betrayal.”

4. The Final Claim

“Therefore, Genesis 1 serves as a blueprint for recreation—showing how God begins anew when His people are in a state of darkness, formlessness, and emptiness.”

This interpretive move is crucial to Shincheonji’s entire framework. If Genesis 1 is about “recreation” after betrayal rather than original creation, then it fits the “8 Steps” pattern. Let’s examine each element of this argument carefully.

Understanding the Hebrew: “Tohu Wabohu”

The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 1:2 is “tohu wabohu” (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ), translated as “formless and empty” or “formless and void.”

What Hebrew Scholars Understand:

1. The Meaning of the Terms

• Tohu (תֹהוּ): Formlessness, emptiness, waste, wilderness. It describes something without structure or shape.
• Bohu (בֹהוּ): Emptiness, void. This word appears only three times in the Old Testament, always paired with “tohu.”

The phrase “tohu wabohu” is a Hebrew idiom—a paired expression that emphasizes the concept. It’s like saying “null and void” in English—the two words together create a stronger expression than either alone.

2. The Concept Being Described

“Tohu wabohu” describes the state of the earth before God’s ordering work:

• Not chaos in the sense of disorder or evil
• But unformed potential—like a lump of clay before the potter shapes it
• Or uninhabited space—like an empty canvas before the artist paints

This is the starting point for God’s creative work. The earth is described as:

• Formless (tohu): without structure or shape
• Empty (bohu): without inhabitants or content
• Dark: without light
• Watery: covered by the deep

God then brings order (forming) and fullness (filling) to what was formless and empty.

3. Ancient Near Eastern Context

In the ancient Near Eastern worldview, creation involved bringing order to chaos, structure to formlessness. The “deep” (tehom) represented the primordial waters—not evil, but simply the unformed state before God’s creative work.

Genesis 1 is declaring that God has complete sovereignty over this unformed state. He doesn’t battle it (as in Babylonian myths)—He simply commands it, and it obeys.

4. The Literary Function

In the structure of Genesis 1, “formless and empty” serves a literary function: it describes the problem that God’s creative work will solve.

• Problem: Formless and empty
• Solution: Forming (Days 1-3) and Filling (Days 4-6)

This creates a beautiful symmetry in the passage, showing God’s purposeful, orderly work.

The “Was” vs. “Became” Debate

The instructor makes much of the footnote suggesting “became” instead of “was.” This relates to a theological debate known as the “Gap Theory.”

The Gap Theory:

This theory, popular in the 19th century, proposed:

1. Genesis 1:1: God creates a perfect world (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”)
2. [Gap of time—possibly millions of years—during which Satan rebels and the world is judged]
3. Genesis 1:2: The earth “became” formless and void as a result of this judgment
4. Genesis 1:3-31: God “recreates” or “restores” the world

Why the Gap Theory Was Proposed:

The Gap Theory was an attempt to reconcile Genesis with geological evidence of an old earth. By placing a gap between verses 1 and 2, proponents could accommodate:

• Fossil evidence
• Geological ages
• The appearance of an old earth

While maintaining a literal interpretation of the six days in Genesis 1:3-31.

Why Biblical Scholars Largely Reject It:

The Gap Theory has been largely abandoned by biblical scholars (even those who hold to a young earth) for several reasons:

1. The Hebrew Grammar Doesn’t Support It

The construction in Genesis 1:2 is a standard Hebrew waw-consecutive narrative sequence. This indicates sequential narrative, not a gap or break.

Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke explains that the grammar of Genesis 1:2 shows it’s describing the initial state of creation, not a state that the earth “became” after some catastrophe.

2. The Word “Was” (Hayah) Doesn’t Require “Became”

While the Hebrew verb “hayah” can sometimes mean “became,” in this context it simply means “was.” The verb is describing a state, not a change of state.

If Moses wanted to say the earth “became” formless and void, he would have used different grammatical constructions to indicate this change.

3. The Rest of Scripture Doesn’t Support It

Nowhere else in Scripture is there any hint of a creation-judgment-recreation sequence between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

When other biblical authors refer to creation, they consistently present it as God’s original creative work, not a restoration after judgment:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:11)

This straightforward statement doesn’t allow for a gap with a previous creation and judgment.

4. It Creates Theological Problems

If there was a perfect creation in Genesis 1:1, followed by judgment that made it formless and void, this raises questions:

• What was judged? (There were no humans yet)
• Was it Satan’s rebellion? (But Satan is a created being—when was he created?)
• Why would God’s “very good” creation become formless and void?
• Doesn’t this suggest death and judgment before Adam’s sin?

These theological problems led most scholars to abandon the Gap Theory.

5. It’s Not Necessary

The Gap Theory was proposed to reconcile Genesis with science. But there are other interpretive approaches that handle this issue without requiring a gap:

• Day-age interpretation (days as long periods)
• Framework hypothesis (days as a literary structure, not chronological)
• Analogical days (God’s creative “days” as archetypal patterns)
• Young earth creationism (accepting a young earth)

Whatever one’s view on the age of the earth, the Gap Theory is not necessary and is not supported by the grammar or context of Genesis 1.

Addressing Shincheonji’s Use of the Gap Theory

During question-and-answer sessions, when students ask about the “was vs. became” issue, instructors often respond with something like: “The footnote is there because scholars recognize that something happened between verse 1 and verse 2. The earth became formless and empty because of judgment. This shows that Genesis 1 is describing recreation, not original creation.”

This response reveals several problems:

1. It Misrepresents Scholarly Consensus

The footnote offering “became” as an alternative translation doesn’t mean scholars believe there was a gap and judgment. Most modern translations and scholars reject the Gap Theory.

The footnote is there simply to show the range of possible translations of the Hebrew verb, not to endorse a particular theological interpretation.

2. It Ignores the Grammatical Evidence

As noted above, the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1:2 indicates it’s describing the initial state, not a state the earth “became” after judgment.

Leading Hebrew grammarians and Old Testament scholars consistently affirm that the construction in Genesis 1:2 is describing the condition of the earth at the beginning of God’s creative work, not a condition it became later.

3. It Imports Jeremiah’s Language Backwards

As we’ll see in the next section, Shincheonji’s primary evidence for the “recreation” interpretation is Jeremiah 4:23, which uses the same phrase “formless and empty.” But this is reading the text backwards—Jeremiah is using Genesis’s language, not revealing what Genesis originally meant.

4. It Serves Organizational Purposes

The Gap Theory, as Shincheonji uses it, serves to:

● Make Genesis 1 about “recreation” rather than original creation ● Fit Genesis into the “8 Steps” pattern ● Establish that history is cyclical (repeating patterns of creation, fall, and recreation) ● Position Shincheonji as the current “recreation”

This is eisegesis—reading a predetermined theological framework into the text.

The Connection to Jeremiah 4:23

The instructor’s key move is connecting Genesis 1:2 with Jeremiah 4:23, which uses the same phrase “formless and empty” (tohu wabohu).

Jeremiah 4:23-26: “I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone. I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying. I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away. I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger.”

The Instructor’s Logic:

1. Genesis 1:2 describes the earth as “formless and empty”
2. Jeremiah 4:23 uses the same phrase to describe God’s judgment on His people
3. Therefore, Genesis 1:2 must also be describing judgment on God’s people
4. Therefore, Genesis 1 is about “recreation” after betrayal, not original creation

What’s Wrong with This Logic:

This is a classic example of illegitimate totality transfer—assuming that because a word or phrase means something in one context, it must mean the same thing in all contexts.

1. Jeremiah Is Using Genesis Language, Not Vice Versa

When Jeremiah describes God’s judgment on Judah, he deliberately uses language from Genesis 1 to show the severity of the judgment. This is a powerful rhetorical device.

Jeremiah is saying: “God’s judgment will be so severe, it will be like undoing creation. What God formed will become formless; what God filled will become empty; what God illuminated will return to darkness.”

This is called “de-creation” language—describing judgment as reversing creation.

But notice the direction: Jeremiah is borrowing from Genesis to describe judgment. He’s not revealing what Genesis originally meant. He’s using creation language to show how severe the judgment will be.

2. This Is a Common Prophetic Device

The prophets frequently use creation language to describe judgment:

Isaiah 34:4: “All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.”

Is Isaiah revealing that the original creation of stars was about judgment? No. He’s using cosmic, creation-scale language to describe the magnitude of God’s judgment.

Zephaniah 1:2-3: “‘I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will sweep away both man and beast; I will sweep away the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea—and the idols that cause the wicked to stumble. When I destroy all mankind on the face of the earth,’ declares the LORD.”

Is Zephaniah revealing that Genesis 1’s creation of animals was about judgment? No. He’s using creation language (sweeping away what God created) to describe judgment.

3. The Literary Allusion Works Because Genesis Is About Creation

Jeremiah’s use of “formless and empty” is powerful precisely because his audience knew Genesis 1. They understood that “formless and empty” described the state before God’s creative work.

By using this phrase, Jeremiah is saying: “Judgment will reduce the land to the state it was in before God’s ordering work—formless, empty, dark.”

This rhetorical power depends on Genesis 1 being about original creation. If Genesis 1 were already about judgment and recreation, Jeremiah’s allusion would lose its force.

4. The Context of Jeremiah 4 Confirms This

Look at what Jeremiah is describing: judgment on Judah for their idolatry and covenant unfaithfulness. He’s not describing a literal return to pre-creation chaos. He’s using hyperbolic, creation-scale language to show the severity of the coming judgment.

The next verses make this clear:

“This is what the LORD says: ‘The whole land will be ruined, though I will not destroy it completely. Therefore the earth will mourn and the heavens above grow dark, because I have spoken and will not relent, I have decided and will not turn back.'” (Jeremiah 4:27-28)

God will not destroy completely—this is not a literal return to pre-creation formlessness. It’s prophetic hyperbole using creation imagery.

5. Other Uses of “Tohu” Confirm the Original Meaning

The word “tohu” appears 20 times in the Old Testament. In most cases, it clearly means “wasteland,” “wilderness,” or “formlessness”—not judgment on God’s people.

Isaiah 45:18: “For this is what the LORD says—he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty (tohu), but formed it to be inhabited—he is the LORD, and there is no other.”

Here, “tohu” clearly refers to the formless, uninhabited state. God didn’t create the earth to remain in that state—He formed it to be inhabited.

This confirms that “tohu” in Genesis 1:2 describes the initial, unformed state, not a state resulting from judgment.

Addressing Shincheonji’s Defense

In question-and-answer sessions, instructors often anticipate this objection and respond: “But why would Jeremiah use the exact same phrase if there wasn’t a connection? The fact that both passages use ‘formless and empty’ shows they’re describing the same thing—God’s people in a state of judgment.”

This defense fails for several reasons:

1. It Misunderstands How Biblical Authors Use Earlier Scripture

Biblical authors frequently allude to earlier texts to make theological points. This doesn’t mean the earlier text was originally about what the later author is discussing.

For example:

● Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) and applies it to Jesus (Matthew 2:15) ● But Hosea 11:1 is originally about Israel’s exodus from Egypt ● Matthew is showing that Jesus recapitulates Israel’s story—he’s not saying Hosea 11:1 was originally about Jesus

Similarly, Jeremiah is using Genesis 1 language to describe judgment—he’s not revealing that Genesis 1 was originally about judgment.

2. It Ignores the Direction of Interpretation

The question is: Which text interprets which?

● Shincheonji’s method: Use Jeremiah 4:23 to reinterpret Genesis 1:2 ● Sound hermeneutics: Understand Genesis 1:2 in its own context, then see how Jeremiah alludes to it

We should not read later symbolic or hyperbolic uses of language back into earlier literal texts.

3. It Creates Interpretive Chaos

If we use Shincheonji’s method consistently, we’d have to conclude:

● Because Isaiah 34:4 uses creation language for judgment, Genesis 1:14-18 (creation of sun, moon, stars) must originally be about judgment ● Because Zephaniah 1:2-3 uses creation language for judgment, Genesis 1:20-25 (creation of animals) must originally be about judgment ● Because Revelation 21:1 says “there was no longer any sea,” Genesis 1:9-10 (gathering of seas) must be about something other than literal seas

This method would make it impossible to understand any text in its own context.

The “Sea” as Satan’s World

The lesson also makes a claim about “the deep” in Genesis 1:2:

“The surface of the deep refers to the sea, which represents Satan’s world. Therefore, darkness was covering the surface of Satan’s world—the deep, the sea.”

The Biblical Reality:

This interpretation imports later symbolic uses of “sea” back into Genesis 1, creating a meaning that wouldn’t have been understood by the original audience.

1. “The Deep” (Tehom) in Ancient Context

The Hebrew word “tehom” (תְּהוֹם) refers to the primordial waters—the deep, chaotic waters that existed before God’s ordering work.

In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the “deep” represented:

• The primordial ocean
• The unformed waters before creation
• The potential for chaos (not evil, but disorder)

In Babylonian mythology, Tiamat (cognate to tehom) was a goddess representing the chaotic waters. Genesis deliberately uses this term but demythologizes it—tehom is not a goddess, just water that God commands.

2. God’s Sovereignty Over the Deep

A key theme in Genesis 1 is that God has complete sovereignty over the waters:

Day 2: “And God said, ‘Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.” (Genesis 1:6-7)

Day 3: “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” (Genesis 1:9)

God commands the waters, and they obey. He separates them, gathers them, sets boundaries for them. This demonstrates His absolute authority.

3. The Sea in Later Biblical Symbolism

Yes, later in Scripture, “sea” is sometimes used symbolically:

Daniel 7:3, 17: Beasts rise from the sea, representing kingdoms Revelation 13:1: A beast rises from the sea Revelation 21:1: In the new creation, “there was no longer any sea”

But these are symbolic uses in apocalyptic literature. They’re using “sea” as a symbol for chaos, nations, or opposition to God.

4. The Direction of Interpretation

Just as with Jeremiah’s use of “formless and empty,” we must not read later symbolic uses back into Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 is not using “the deep” symbolically to represent “Satan’s world.” It’s describing the actual state of the earth before God’s creative work—covered with water, unformed, uninhabited.

Later biblical authors can use “sea” symbolically because their audiences understand the original context. But the original context is not symbolic—it’s describing creation.

5. Theological Problems with “Satan’s World”

If “the deep” in Genesis 1:2 represents “Satan’s world,” this creates serious theological problems:

Problem 1: Was Satan’s world already there before creation?

• If yes, then Satan is eternal (not created), which is heresy
• If no, then when was Satan created and when did he rebel?

Problem 2: Did God create Satan’s world?

• Genesis 1:1 says “God created the heavens and the earth”
• If the earth was covered by “Satan’s world,” did God create that?

Problem 3: Is creation a response to Satan?

• This suggests dualism—God and Satan as opposing forces
• But biblical monotheism affirms God as the sole Creator with absolute sovereignty

The Biblical Teaching:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

God created everything. There was no pre-existing “Satan’s world” that God had to overcome. Satan is a created being who rebelled—he’s not an eternal counterforce to God.

“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)

All things—including the angelic beings, some of whom later rebelled—were created by and for Christ. There is no “Satan’s world” that exists independently of God’s creative work.

The Real Meaning of Genesis 1:2

When we set aside Shincheonji’s imposed framework and read Genesis 1:2 in its context, the meaning becomes clear:

Genesis 1:2 Describes the Initial State:

“Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

This verse describes the earth’s condition before God’s ordering work:

1. Formless (Tohu): Without structure or shape
2. Empty (Bohu): Without inhabitants or content
3. Dark: Without light
4. Watery: Covered by the deep
5. Spirit of God Hovering: God’s presence is there, ready to act

This is not describing judgment or “Satan’s world.” It’s describing the canvas on which God will paint His creation, the clay from which He will shape His masterpiece.

The Literary Structure Confirms This:

The rest of Genesis 1 shows God addressing each element:

Formless → Forming (Days 1-3):

• Day 1: Creates light, separates light from darkness
• Day 2: Creates sky, separates waters
• Day 3: Creates land, separates land from sea; creates vegetation

Empty → Filling (Days 4-6):

• Day 4: Creates sun, moon, stars (filling the light/darkness from Day 1)
• Day 5: Creates fish and birds (filling the waters and sky from Day 2)
• Day 6: Creates land animals and humans (filling the land from Day 3)

Dark → Light:

• Day 1: “Let there be light”
• Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars to govern day and night
• Throughout: God’s work brings illumination and order

This structure shows God bringing order and fullness to what was formless and empty. It’s a beautiful literary presentation of God’s creative work.

Why This Matters

Shincheonji’s reinterpretation of Genesis 1:2 is not a minor point of disagreement. It’s foundational to their entire framework.

If Genesis 1:2 describes the state after judgment (as Shincheonji claims):

• Then Genesis 1 is about “recreation” after betrayal
• Then the “8 Steps” pattern fits
• Then history is cyclical (repeating patterns of betrayal and recreation)
• Then we’re currently in another “recreation” phase
• Then Shincheonji is the current “new kingdom”

But if Genesis 1:2 describes the initial state before creation (as the text actually indicates):

• Then Genesis 1 is about original creation
• Then the “8 Steps” pattern doesn’t fit
• Then history is linear (moving toward a goal in Christ)
• Then Christ’s work is final and complete
• Then Shincheonji’s framework collapses

This is why the instructor spends time on this verse. The entire interpretive system depends on redefining “formless and empty” to mean “judgment after betrayal” rather than “initial state before creation.”

The Hermeneutical Principle at Stake

This section reveals a crucial hermeneutical (interpretive) principle:

Sound Biblical Interpretation:

• Understands words in their immediate context
• Recognizes when later authors allude to earlier texts
• Distinguishes between literal and symbolic uses
• Reads texts in light of their historical and cultural context
• Allows Scripture to interpret Scripture (but in the right direction)

Shincheonji’s Method:

• Takes words out of context
• Reads later symbolic uses back into earlier literal texts
• Ignores historical and cultural context
• Uses Scripture to reinterpret Scripture (in the wrong direction)
• Imposes a predetermined framework on the text

The difference is between exegesis (drawing meaning out of the text) and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text).

Shincheonji’s interpretation of Genesis 1:2 is eisegesis—they’re reading their predetermined framework into the text, not drawing the meaning out of the text.

The Psychological Function

Beyond the interpretive problems, we must recognize the psychological function of this teaching.

By redefining Genesis 1:2, the instructor:

1. Makes the Familiar Strange

Students have likely read Genesis 1 many times. By presenting a radically different interpretation, the instructor creates cognitive dissonance—the uncomfortable feeling when new information contradicts what you previously believed.

This dissonance makes students feel that their previous understanding was inadequate, creating openness to Shincheonji’s “superior” interpretation.

2. Demonstrates Organizational Authority

If Shincheonji can reveal that Genesis 1 is not about what everyone thought it was about, this demonstrates their authority to interpret Scripture in ways that contradict traditional understanding.

This sets up students to accept other counterintuitive interpretations—if they were wrong about Genesis 1, maybe they’re wrong about everything else too.

3. Creates Dependency

If Genesis 1 has been misunderstood for thousands of years, and if understanding it correctly requires Shincheonji’s interpretive key, then students need Shincheonji to understand the Bible.

This creates dependency—students can’t trust their own reading of Scripture or traditional interpretations. They need the organization to tell them what the Bible really means.

4. Validates the Framework

By “showing” that Genesis 1 is about recreation after betrayal, the instructor validates the “8 Steps” framework. Students now have “biblical proof” that the pattern is real.

This makes the framework seem less like an imposed system and more like a discovered truth.

5. Prepares for Application

If Genesis 1 is about recreation after betrayal, and if this pattern repeats throughout history, then students are primed to accept that it’s happening again now—with Shincheonji as the current recreation.

The reinterpretation of Genesis 1:2 is not just about that verse—it’s about setting up the entire organizational claim.

The Test of Truth

How can students (or anyone) evaluate whether Shincheonji’s interpretation of Genesis 1:2 is correct?

Ask These Questions:

1. Does This Interpretation Fit the Immediate Context?

Read Genesis 1:1-3 without any preconceptions:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

Does this read like:

• (A) God creating the heavens and earth, describing their initial state, then beginning to form and fill them?
• (B) God judging a previous creation, leaving it formless and empty, then recreating it?

The natural reading is (A). Reading (B) requires importing ideas from outside the text.

2. How Did Ancient Readers Understand It?

Is there any evidence that ancient Jews or early Christians understood Genesis 1:2 as describing judgment after betrayal?

No. The consistent understanding throughout Jewish and Christian history has been that Genesis 1:2 describes the initial state before God’s creative work.

3. Does the Grammar Support It?

Do Hebrew scholars who study the grammar and syntax of Genesis 1:2 conclude that it describes a state the earth “became” after judgment?

No. The consensus among Hebrew scholars is that the grammar indicates a description of the initial state, not a change of state.

4. Does It Create Theological Problems?

Does this interpretation raise questions about God’s sovereignty, the nature of evil, or the relationship between creation and judgment?

Yes. It creates numerous theological problems that the traditional understanding doesn’t have.

5. Who Benefits from This Interpretation?

Does this interpretation serve the text’s purpose, or does it serve an organization’s claims about itself?

It clearly serves Shincheonji’s organizational claims. By making Genesis 1 about recreation after betrayal, they can claim to be the current recreation.

The Alternative: Reading Genesis 1:2 Faithfully

When we read Genesis 1:2 in its context, without imposing Shincheonji’s framework, we see:

A Beautiful Picture of God’s Creative Work:

God takes what is formless and gives it form. God takes what is empty and fills it. God takes what is dark and brings light. God takes what is chaotic and brings order. God takes what is lifeless and creates life.

This is not about judgment and recreation—it’s about creation itself.

A Revelation of God’s Character:

God is creative—bringing something from nothing God is orderly—creating with purpose and structure God is powerful—commanding and it happens God is good—declaring creation “good” and “very good” God is relational—creating humans in His image for fellowship

A Foundation for the Biblical Story:

Genesis 1 establishes the foundation for everything that follows:

• God is the Creator, therefore He has authority over creation
• Creation is good, therefore the problem is not the material world but human sin
• Humans are made in God’s image, therefore we have dignity and purpose
• God’s work culminates in rest, therefore communion with God is the goal

A Pointer to Christ:

As we’ve seen, early Christians understood Genesis 1 as pointing to Christ:

• Christ as the Word through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3)
• Christ as the Light of the world (John 8:12)
• Christ as the agent of new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)
• Christ as the one in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17)

This is the rich, beautiful, theologically profound meaning of Genesis 1—a meaning that Shincheonji’s framework obscures rather than illuminates.

Part 5: “Light” as Pastor—The Dangerous Redefinition

The Central Claim

Having reinterpreted Genesis 1:2 as describing judgment after betrayal, the lesson now turns to Genesis 1:3-5:

Genesis 1:3-5: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”

The instructor makes a crucial interpretive move:

“When we read ‘Let there be light,’ we must understand what this light represents. Throughout the Bible, light represents God’s messenger—the one through whom God works. In John 8:12, Jesus says, ‘I am the light of the world.’ But Jesus also says in Matthew 5:14, ‘You are the light of the world.’ So light represents God’s chosen vessel—the pastor through whom God brings His word.”

The lesson continues: “Therefore, when God says ‘Let there be light’ in Genesis 1:3, He is selecting a pastor—the first step in the 8-step pattern of recreation. This pastor is the light who will lead God’s people out of darkness.”

This interpretation is foundational to Shincheonji’s entire system. If “light” means “pastor,” then:

● Genesis 1:3 becomes “Step 1: Selection of a pastor”
● Every reference to “light” in Scripture becomes about human leaders
● The pattern of “light → darkness → new light” becomes the pattern of “pastor → betrayal → new pastor”
● Lee Man-hee can be identified as the current “light” (pastor) for this era

Let’s examine this interpretation carefully and see why it’s biblically untenable.

What “Light” Actually Means in Genesis 1

1. Light as Physical Phenomenon

In Genesis 1:3, “light” (Hebrew: אוֹר, “or”) refers to physical light—the illumination that makes vision possible and that stands in contrast to darkness.

The text is straightforward:

“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.'” (Genesis 1:3-5)

Notice what the text says about this light:

● It’s created by God’s word
● It’s separated from darkness
● It’s called “day” (as opposed to “night”)
● It marks the first day

This is describing the creation of light itself—the physical phenomenon that makes day distinct from night.

2. The Theological Significance

While the light in Genesis 1:3 is physical, it does have theological significance:

Light represents God’s presence and glory:

● God Himself is light: “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5)
● God’s glory is described as brilliant light: “His splendor was like the sunrise; rays flashed from his hand, where his power was hidden” (Habakkuk 3:4)
● God dwells in “unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16)

Light represents God’s revelation and truth:

● “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (Psalm 119:105)
● “The unfolding of your words gives light” (Psalm 119:130)

Light represents God’s salvation and deliverance:

● “The LORD is my light and my salvation” (Psalm 27:1)
● “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light” (Isaiah 9:2, fulfilled in Christ)

Light represents God’s creative power:

● The first act of creation is bringing light
● This demonstrates God’s sovereignty over darkness
● It establishes the pattern: God speaks, and reality responds

3. The Problem with Day 1

There’s an interesting detail in Genesis 1 that creates a problem for Shincheonji’s interpretation: light is created on Day 1, but the sun, moon, and stars aren’t created until Day 4.

Genesis 1:14-16: “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.’ And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

This raises the question: What was the light on Day 1 if not the sun?

Various interpretations have been proposed:

Option 1: The light was God’s own glory

Some interpreters suggest that the light on Day 1 was God’s own presence—His glory illuminating creation before He created the sun to be the regular source of light.

This interpretation sees a parallel with Revelation 21:23: “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.”

Just as the New Jerusalem won’t need the sun because God’s glory provides light, so the original creation was illuminated by God’s presence before He created the sun.

Option 2: Light as a phenomenon before its localization in the sun

Some interpreters suggest that God created light as a phenomenon on Day 1, then on Day 4 He localized and organized it in the sun, moon, and stars.

Option 3: Literary/theological structure

Some interpreters see the six days as a literary framework rather than strict chronology. In this view, Days 1-3 describe God creating spaces (light/darkness, sky/waters, land/seas), and Days 4-6 describe God filling those spaces (sun/moon/stars, fish/birds, animals/humans).

Whatever interpretation one takes, the key point is this: the light in Genesis 1:3 is not a human leader. It’s either physical light, God’s glory, or both—but it’s not a “pastor.”

4. Ancient Readers Would Not Have Understood “Light” as “Pastor”

When ancient Jews read Genesis 1:3, they understood it as describing the creation of light. This is how it was understood:

● In Jewish tradition and commentary
● In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament)
● By the early church fathers
● Throughout church history

There is no evidence that any ancient reader understood “Let there be light” as “Let there be a pastor.”

This interpretation is a modern innovation created to fit Shincheonji’s framework.

The Misuse of John 8:12 and Matthew 5:14

The instructor appeals to two New Testament passages to support the claim that “light” means “pastor”:

John 8:12: “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'”

Matthew 5:14: “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.”

The logic is: Jesus is called “the light,” and believers are called “the light,” therefore “light” in Genesis 1:3 must refer to God’s chosen human vessel.

What’s Wrong with This Logic:

1. It Confuses Literal and Metaphorical Uses

Genesis 1:3 is using “light” literally—describing the physical phenomenon of light.

John 8:12 and Matthew 5:14 are using “light” metaphorically—describing Jesus’ role as revealer of truth and believers’ role as witnesses.

These are different uses of the word “light.” We can’t take a metaphorical use in one context and read it back into a literal use in another context.

Analogy: If I say “The sun rose this morning” (literal), and then I say “You are the sunshine of my life” (metaphorical), you wouldn’t conclude that the sun rising this morning was actually about a person. These are different uses of sun/sunshine.

2. It Ignores the Unique Nature of Jesus as Light

When Jesus says “I am the light of the world,” He’s making a profound claim about His identity:

● He is the source of spiritual light (revelation, truth, salvation)
● He is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about light coming to those in darkness
● He is the one who dispels the darkness of sin and death

Jesus is not just “a” light—He is “the” light:

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it… The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.” (John 1:4-5, 9)

Jesus is “the true light”—not one in a series of lights, but the ultimate, true light.

3. It Misunderstands What Jesus Meant by “You Are the Light”

When Jesus tells His disciples “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14), He’s not saying they are the same kind of light He is. He’s saying they are to reflect His light.

The context makes this clear:

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14-16)

Notice several key points:

Point 1: The light is derivative

Jesus is describing a lamp that is lit—it doesn’t generate its own light. Believers are like lamps that reflect the light they’ve received from Christ.

Point 2: The purpose is to point to God

“That they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” The light believers shine is not about drawing attention to themselves, but about pointing others to God.

Point 3: It’s about witness, not authority

Jesus is talking about believers being witnesses—living in such a way that others see God’s work in them. He’s not talking about believers being authorities or mediators.

4. It Creates a False Equivalence

By using John 8:12 and Matthew 5:14 to interpret Genesis 1:3, Shincheonji creates a false equivalence:

● Jesus = light
● Believers = light
● Therefore, “light” in Genesis 1:3 = human vessel

But this logic fails because:

● Jesus is light in a unique, unrepeatable way (He is the source)
● Believers are light in a derivative way (they reflect Jesus)
● Genesis 1:3 is describing literal light (the physical phenomenon)

These are not equivalent uses of the word “light.”

The Pattern of “Light” Throughout Scripture

To understand how Scripture uses “light,” we need to trace the theme throughout the biblical narrative:

1. Creation: God Creates Light (Genesis 1:3)

The first act of creation is bringing light. This establishes:

● God’s sovereignty over darkness
● Light as good (God saw that it was good)
● The pattern of day and night
● The foundation for all that follows

2. Exodus: God Is Israel’s Light

Throughout Israel’s history, God Himself is their light:

“The LORD is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear?” (Psalm 27:1)

“The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.” (Isaiah 60:19)

3. Prophecy: The Coming Light

The prophets spoke of a coming light that would shine on those in darkness:

“The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned.” (Isaiah 9:2)

This prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus (Matthew 4:16).

4. Incarnation: Jesus Is the Light

When Jesus came, He fulfilled these prophecies:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

“I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.” (John 12:46)

Jesus is the light in the ultimate sense:

● He reveals God (John 1:18)
● He reveals truth (John 14:6)
● He provides salvation (John 8:12)
● He conquers darkness (John 1:5)

5. Church: Believers Reflect the Light

After Jesus’ ascension, believers are called to reflect His light:

“You are the light of the world.” (Matthew 5:14)

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light.” (Ephesians 5:8)

But notice: believers are light “in the Lord”—their light is derivative, dependent on Christ.

6. Consummation: God Is the Eternal Light

In the new creation, God Himself will be the light:

“There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 22:5)

The Pattern:

● God is the ultimate source of light
● Jesus is the light incarnate—God’s light made visible
● Believers reflect Jesus’ light as witnesses
● In the end, God will be the eternal light

Nowhere in this pattern is “light” simply a human leader or “pastor.” Light is ultimately about God, revealed in Christ, reflected by believers.

The Dangerous Implications of “Light = Pastor”

When Shincheonji teaches that “light” means “pastor,” several dangerous implications follow:

1. It Elevates Human Leaders to Christ’s Position

If “light” means “pastor,” and Jesus is “the light,” then the pastor is placed in the same category as Jesus.

This is exactly what Shincheonji does with Lee Man-hee. By calling him “the light” for this era, they’re giving him a status that belongs only to Christ.

But Scripture is clear: Jesus is the light in a unique, unrepeatable way. No human leader can claim this title.

2. It Creates a Series of Replaceable “Lights”

Shincheonji’s framework suggests:

● Adam was the light for his era
● Noah was the light for his era
● Abraham was the light for his era
● Moses was the light for his era
● Jesus was the light for his era
● Lee Man-hee is the light for this era

This makes Jesus one in a series of replaceable lights, rather than the eternal, unchanging light.

But Scripture teaches:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

Jesus is not the light for one era—He is the eternal light.

3. It Makes Salvation Dependent on Following Human Leaders

If the “light” is the pastor of each era, then salvation comes through following that pastor.

This is the logical conclusion of Shincheonji’s teaching: to be saved, you must follow the current “light”—Lee Man-hee.

But Scripture teaches:

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Salvation is in Christ alone, not in following human leaders.

4. It Creates Fear and Control

If the “light” is a human leader, and if following that leader is necessary for salvation, then:

● You must never question the leader (that would be rejecting the light)
● You must obey the leader completely (that’s following the light)
● You must cut off anyone who opposes the leader (they’re in darkness)
● You must recruit others to follow the leader (bringing them to the light)

This creates a system of fear and control, where the leader’s authority is absolute and unquestionable.

5. It Distorts the Gospel

The gospel is good news about what God has done in Christ:

● Christ died for our sins
● He was buried
● He rose on the third day
● Salvation comes through faith in Him

But Shincheonji’s framework changes the gospel to:

● God works through pastors in each era
● The current pastor is Lee Man-hee
● Salvation comes through following him and joining Shincheonji

This is not the gospel—it’s a different message entirely.

Paul’s warning applies:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:6-8)

Addressing Shincheonji’s Defense

During question-and-answer sessions, when students raise concerns about interpreting “light” as “pastor,” instructors often respond with something like: “But doesn’t the Bible use light symbolically? When Jesus says ‘I am the light,’ He’s not talking about physical light—He’s using it symbolically. So why can’t Genesis 1:3 also be symbolic?”

This defense contains several flaws:

1. It Confuses Different Literary Contexts

Yes, the Bible uses light symbolically in some contexts (poetry, prophecy, Jesus’ teaching). But Genesis 1 is narrative—describing events in straightforward language.

We must interpret each passage according to its genre and context, not assume that because a word is used symbolically in one place, it must be symbolic everywhere.

2. It Ignores the Immediate Context

The immediate context of Genesis 1:3 makes clear that “light” refers to physical light:

● It’s separated from darkness
● It’s called “day” (as opposed to “night”)
● It marks the first day
● Later (Day 4), the sun, moon, and stars are created to govern this light

The text is describing the creation of light itself, not the appointment of a human leader.

3. It Requires Arbitrary Decisions

If “light” in Genesis 1:3 is symbolic (representing a pastor), then what about:

● “Darkness” in Genesis 1:2—is that symbolic?
● “Waters” in Genesis 1:2—are those symbolic?
● “Sky” in Genesis 1:6—is that symbolic?
● “Land” in Genesis 1:9—is that symbolic?
● “Vegetation” in Genesis 1:11—is that symbolic?

Once you start reading Genesis 1 symbolically, where do you stop? Who decides what’s symbolic and what’s literal?

This opens the door to completely arbitrary interpretation, where the text can be made to mean whatever the interpreter wants.

4. It Contradicts How Jesus Used Genesis 1

When Jesus referenced Genesis 1, He treated it as describing actual events:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)

Jesus appeals to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as describing what actually happened “at the beginning.” He doesn’t treat it as symbolic or parabolic.

If Jesus read Genesis 1 as straightforward narrative, shouldn’t we?

The Christological Reading of Genesis 1:3

There is a legitimate way to read Genesis 1:3 in light of Christ—but it’s very different from Shincheonji’s interpretation.

The Johannine Connection:

The Apostle John, writing under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, saw a profound connection between Genesis 1 and Jesus:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1:1-5)

John is deliberately echoing Genesis 1:

● “In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1 / John 1:1)
● The Word speaks and creation happens (Genesis 1:3 / John 1:3)
● Light and darkness (Genesis 1:3-5 / John 1:4-5)

But notice what John is saying:

● The Word (Jesus) was the agent of creation
● The Word was with God and was God
● All things were made through Him
● In Him was life, and that life was the light of mankind

John is not saying that “light” in Genesis 1:3 was a human pastor. He’s saying that Jesus, the eternal Word, was the agent through whom God created light.

The Pauline Connection:

Paul makes a similar connection:

“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6)

Paul connects:

● God’s creative word in Genesis 1:3 (“Let there be light”)
● God’s redemptive work in believers’ hearts (making His light shine)
● The revelation of God’s glory in Christ

But again, Paul is not saying that “light” in Genesis 1:3 was a human leader. He’s saying that the same God who spoke light into existence at creation speaks spiritual light into believers’ hearts through Christ.

The Legitimate Christological Reading:

● Christ, the eternal Word, was the agent of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
● When God said “Let there be light,” Christ was the one through whom this creative word was spoken
● The light created in Genesis 1:3 points forward to Christ, who is the true light (John 1:9)
● The same creative power that brought physical light brings spiritual light through Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6)

This reading:

● Honors Christ as the eternal Word and Creator
● Sees Genesis 1 as describing actual creation
● Recognizes typological connections between creation and redemption
● Maintains the uniqueness of Christ as the light

This is very different from Shincheonji’s reading, which:

● Makes “light” refer to human leaders
● Treats Jesus as one in a series of “lights”
● Elevates Lee Man-hee to the position of “light” for this era
● Distorts both Genesis 1 and the gospel

The Test: Does This Interpretation Exalt Christ or Human Leaders?

Here’s a simple test for any biblical interpretation: Does it exalt Christ or does it elevate human leaders?

Sound biblical interpretation:

● Points to Christ as the center of Scripture
● Shows how all Scripture testifies to Him (Luke 24:27, John 5:39)
● Maintains Christ’s uniqueness and supremacy
● Leads people to worship and follow Christ alone

Cultic interpretation:

● Points to human leaders as the key to understanding Scripture
● Makes human leaders necessary for salvation
● Places human leaders in positions that belong only to Christ
● Leads people to follow and depend on human leaders

Shincheonji’s interpretation of “light” clearly falls into the second category. It takes a passage about God’s creative work and makes it about human leaders. It takes a title that belongs uniquely to Christ (“the light of the world”) and applies it to a series of human leaders, culminating in Lee Man-hee.

This is not biblical interpretation—it’s organizational self-promotion disguised as Bible study.