The sealed scroll of Isaiah

Isaiah 29:9-13 – “Be delayed and horrified, blind yourselves and be blind; they become drunk, but not with wine, they stagger, but not with intoxicating drink, for the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep, He has shut your eyes—the prophets; and He has covered your heads—the seers; the entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which, when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, ‘Please read this,’ he will say, ‘I cannot, because it is sealed’; then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Please read this,’ and he will say, ‘I cannot read’; then the Lord said, ‘Because this people approaches Me with their words and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of the commandment of men that is taught.'”

Isaiah’s Vision and the Sealed Scroll: Shincheonji draws heavily on Isaiah 29:9-13, which describes a vision given to Isaiah that was hidden from the people, likening it to a sealed book that no one, not even prophets, could understand. This passage serves as a foundation for their belief that God intentionally conceals certain truths until the appropriate time. They interpret the blindness mentioned in this passage as a consequence of relying solely on human understanding and tradition, mirroring their criticisms of traditional churches.

Writing on Tablets and Running

Habakkuk 2:2-3 – “Then the Lord answered me and said, ‘Write down the vision and inscribe it clearly on tablets, so that one who reads it may run, for the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hurries toward the goal and it will not fail; though it delays, wait for it, for it will certainly come, it will not delay long.'”

According to Lee Manhee:

Creation of Heaven and Earth, p. 8-9

In the same way, the sealed books that the prophet Isaiah and Apostle John saw in their visions are hidden revelations of future events. God said, “Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herland may run with it. For the revelation awaits an appointed time”, (Hb 2:2-3, NIV).

In essence, Shincheonji teaches that Habakkuk 2:2-3 points to their church as the site of the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, with Lee Man-Hee as the key figure revealing the previously sealed truths of the Bible, particularly Revelation. They see their interpretation as the only correct and complete understanding of the Bible, leading to salvation for those who believe.

Ezekiel and the Open Scroll

Ezekiel 2:1, 8-10 & 3 – Then He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.”

…

“Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth wide and eat what I am giving you.” 9 Then I looked, and behold, a hand was extended to me; and behold, a scroll was in it. 10 When He spread it out before me, it was written on the front and back, and written on it were songs of mourning, sighing, and woe.

…

“Then He said to me, ‘Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel,’ so I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll, and He said to me, ‘Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you,’ then I ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.”

Shincheonji strengthens their claims by drawing parallels between Lee Man Hee and the prophet Ezekiel, who, in Ezekiel chapters 1-3, receives a scroll from God and is commanded to eat it. They view both figures as receiving symbolic scrolls containing God’s message, linking Ezekiel’s prophetic role to Lee Man Hee and reinforcing their assertion that Lee Man Hee is a divinely chosen revealer of truth. While Ezekiel foreshadows Jesus eating the open scroll in the first coming, during the second coming, the Apostle John also ate the open scroll in Revelation 10, and thus, foreshadows another “Promised Pastor” in the future.

The scroll in the right hand of God

Revelation 5:1-5 – “I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals, and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and to break its seals?’ and no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it; then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or look into it, but one of the elders said to me, ‘Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to be able to open the scroll and its seven seals.'”

The Sealed Book in Revelation: Shincheonji identifies the “sealed book” explicitly with the scroll mentioned in Revelation 5:1-5, which depicts a scroll sealed with seven seals, only openable by Jesus the Lamb. They interpret the seven seals as symbolic of the hidden nature of Revelation’s prophecies, inaccessible to those without the proper spiritual understanding. By highlighting Jesus’s role in opening the scroll, Shincheonji reinforces the idea that understanding Revelation requires divine intervention and revelation.

The Little Scroll of Revelation 10

Revelation 10:1-2; 9-11 – “I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little scroll, and he said to me, ‘Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth, it will be sweet as honey,’ so I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it, and in my mouth, it was sweet as honey, but when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter; and they said to me, ‘You must prophesy again concerning many peoples, nations, languages, and kings.'”

We can see this being reinforced with SCJ’s literature, including:

The Creation of Heaven and Earth, p. 8:

“Approximately 2,700 years ago the prophet Isaiah saw visions regarding Judah and Jerusalem (Is 1:1). Approximately 2,000 years ago Apostle John, who was in exile on the island of Patmos, received the revelation of Jesus Christ (Rv 1:1-2). The visions and revelations these two men received included information about God’s sealed book (Is 29:9-14; Rv 5, 10). Let us understand the sealed book and the process of revelation more deeply.”

And

Creation of Heaven and Earth, p. 339

“This same content also appears in Rv 6-7. Isaiah 29:9-13, however, says that because God’s vision is like words sealed in a book, none of the prophets or the seers (heads) can understand. This same concept also appears in Rv 5, where no one is able to open, much less see or read, the book sealed with seven seals that are in God’s right hand. The consequence of the inaccessibility of God’s word is that people can only learn and teach according to the rules and traditions of men. Believers who attempt to draw closer to the Lord do so only with their lips because their hearts are far from God (Is 29:13)”

Shincheonji uses Daniel 12:4, 9 as a foundational proof-text for the concept of the Bible being sealed for thousands of years. According to SCJ, this passage demonstrates that God intentionally sealed His full plan of redemptive history, especially the vision of the end times, until the appointed time of fulfillment. The instruction to Daniel to “seal up the book” is not seen as limited to his own writings but symbolic of the entire Bible being spiritually encrypted through figurative language, parables, and prophecy. SCJ argues that this sealing has caused confusion and doctrinal division within Christianity for 2,000 years, leaving traditional churches unable to perceive the true meaning of Scripture, especially the book of Revelation.

From SCJ’s perspective, the “end time” mentioned in Daniel 12:4, 9 refers to the era of the Second Coming — the time in which Lee Man Hee is alive. They claim that since this is the appointed time, the sealed book can now be opened, and the hidden truths can be understood only through the promised pastor. Lee Man Hee is believed to be the fulfillment of the “one who reads and understands” the previously sealed book, and he is seen as the only person with the spiritual authority and insight to testify to its meaning. This interpretation reinforces SCJ’s central doctrine: that salvation is only possible through the revealed word of the open scroll delivered by the one who has received it directly from heaven — Lee Man Hee.

Shincheonji (SCJ) places great emphasis on Amos 3:7 to justify the necessity of a single, divinely chosen messenger at every major turning point in redemptive history. They interpret this verse to mean that God never acts without first revealing His will through a prophet, and in the context of the end times, that prophet is none other than Lee Man Hee. SCJ teaches that God’s “secret counsel” — the hidden meaning of the parables, prophecies, and the scroll sealed in Revelation — was not given to the traditional church or Christian leaders, but to the Promised Pastor. This is how they argue that Lee Man Hee, like Moses or the Apostle John, is the exclusive recipient of divine revelation in this era.

Furthermore, SCJ uses Amos 3:7 to delegitimize all other Christian interpretations of Scripture, especially regarding the book of Revelation. Since no major prophet had arisen to reveal the meaning of Revelation until Lee Man Hee, SCJ argues that all previous teachings were based on human understanding, tradition, or even demonic deception. Only the person to whom the “secret counsel” has been revealed — in this case, Lee Man Hee — has the authority to speak on behalf of God at the time of the end. In this framework, Amos 3:7 becomes a divine protocol, and failure to recognize the Promised Pastor is seen as a rejection of God’s final revelation. As such, this verse is central to SCJ’s claim that salvation today hinges on hearing and believing the testimony of the one to whom the open scroll has been given.

Shincheonji interprets Isaiah 34:16 as a prophetic statement that underscores the importance of finding the correct pairings or fulfillments of the figurative and symbolic language in Scripture. The phrase “none will lack its mate” is taken to mean that every prophecy has a corresponding fulfillment, and it is the responsibility of the one sent by God to properly “mate” each prophecy with its correct event or figure in reality. According to SCJ, this verse justifies their methodology of matching parables and symbolic language with physical fulfillments — a core principle in their interpretation system. They claim that only the Promised Pastor, who has witnessed the fulfillment of Revelation, can accurately pair each symbolic prophecy with its real-world counterpart, thus revealing the true meaning of the “book of the Lord.”

Additionally, the command to “seek from the book of the Lord and read” is understood by SCJ to imply that the Bible contains hidden truths that require proper spiritual insight to decode. They argue that traditional churches fail to properly interpret Scripture because they lack the revealed knowledge that comes only from the opened scroll, which is entrusted to Lee Man Hee. The second half of the verse — “His mouth has commanded, and His Spirit has gathered them” — is used to support the idea that this divine pairing of prophecy and fulfillment is not by human effort, but by divine appointment and revelation. Therefore, SCJ presents Isaiah 34:16 as a validation of their approach: that God’s word can only be fully understood when every prophecy is correctly matched with its fulfillment — something they claim only they can do through the testimony of the one who has seen and heard all events of Revelation.

Shincheonji interprets this passage as a direct prophecy about a single individual who is appointed by Jesus at the Second Coming — the “faithful and wise servant” — to deliver the spiritual food (i.e., the revealed word of truth) to God’s people. According to SCJ, this “food” is not general Christian teaching but the opened scroll — the revealed and fulfilled word of Revelation — which had been sealed for 2,000 years. The “proper time” refers to the time of the end, when Jesus returns spiritually and fulfills the prophecies of Revelation. In this era, SCJ claims that Lee Man Hee is this wise servant, appointed to distribute this food of life, which is necessary for salvation.

They argue that just as Jesus fed His disciples with the word of truth during His first coming, a new messenger must feed believers at the Second Coming with the fulfilled word of Revelation. The authority given to the servant — “to be put in charge of all his possessions” — is interpreted as divine endorsement, signifying that the Promised Pastor becomes the representative of Jesus on earth, leading and teaching the twelve tribes that are re-created at the time of fulfillment (Revelation 7).

In SCJ theology, the “hidden manna” symbolizes the secret and sealed word of God, especially the fulfillment of Revelation that had remained hidden until the end times. Manna was the food God gave the Israelites in the wilderness to sustain their lives (Exodus 16), and SCJ draws a parallel by teaching that the hidden manna at the time of the end is spiritual food — the revealed word — that sustains eternal life. Since Revelation is viewed by SCJ as a sealed book full of parables and symbolic language, only someone who has “overcome” (i.e., spiritually conquered lies and deception) can receive this hidden manna.

They teach that Lee Man Hee is the one who has overcome, having fought and won against the false pastors of Babylon (Rev 13, Rev 12), and therefore has been given the hidden manna to distribute to the churches. The white stone with a new name is interpreted as a symbol of judgment and authority — that Lee Man Hee bears witness to the fulfilled events of Revelation and alone can pass judgment based on that revealed word. In this framework, the hidden manna becomes synonymous with the open scroll, and receiving it through the Promised Pastor is seen as essential for recognizing God’s work and attaining salvation.

Shincheonji (SCJ) heavily emphasizes Matthew 13:11–15 to support the idea that God has always concealed divine truths in parables and symbolic language, accessible only to a chosen few. According to SCJ, this passage shows that not everyone is permitted to understand the secrets of the kingdom — only those to whom it has been “granted,” such as Jesus’ disciples during His first coming, and Lee Man Hee at the time of the Second Coming. They argue that parables serve as spiritual encryption, hiding the truth from outsiders (those not chosen) and protecting God’s redemptive plan from being interfered with by Satan. Just as Jesus explained the meaning of His parables only to His disciples, SCJ teaches that Lee Man Hee, as the “Promised Pastor,” is the only one today who has been given the hidden meanings of the parables and prophecies, particularly those in Revelation. This passage is therefore used to justify SCJ’s secretive Center classes and their belief that true understanding of the Bible requires direct instruction from the one to whom the secrets have been revealed.

Shincheonji uses Psalm 78:2 to reinforce the idea that God has spoken in hidden, figurative language throughout history — not just in the New Testament, but even in the Old. The phrase “dark sayings of old” (or “hidden things” in some translations) is interpreted by SCJ as evidence that the Scriptures contain mysteries that are not plainly understood by the average reader or the traditional church. They argue that these dark sayings span generations, and were designed by God to be unlocked only at the appointed time — specifically, when Revelation is fulfilled. In SCJ theology, this verse supports the continuity of God’s pattern: just as He spoke through parables in the Old and New Testaments, He continues to do so in Revelation, requiring someone today to correctly interpret and explain them. That person, they assert, is Lee Man Hee, who is said to have received the full understanding of these “dark sayings” and now reveals their true meaning through his testimony of fulfillment. Psalm 78:2 thus becomes a key verse in SCJ’s argument that spiritual understanding must be received through revelation, not through traditional theological training or historical interpretation.

God used metaphors and parables calling for Israel to repent

Throughout the book of Hosea, God used parables that were understood by the Israelites calling for repentance.

This shows an understanding of God’s words to the general audience.

Throughout the book of Hosea, God was repeatedly asking the Israelites to repent of their sins, using metaphors and parables urging them to repent.

While it is true that God used a prophet to convey his message, the prophet Hosea wasn’t uttering obscure parables, but instead used the parables which were understood by the general public to convey a message.

We can see these parables being understood in the following passages of the book of Hosea.

Marriage and Infidelity; Hosea’s Marriage to Gomer (Hosea 1:2-3, 3:1-3)

Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, who is described as a woman of promiscuity, serves as a living metaphor for Israel’s unfaithfulness to God through idolatry. This personal story of marital unfaithfulness would resonate deeply with an audience familiar with the covenantal language often used to describe Israel’s relationship with God, where infidelity represented idolatry and turning away from God.

Parent Child Relationship; God as a Parent to Israel (Hosea 11:1-4)

God describes His relationship with Israel as that of a parent to a child, depicting how He “taught Ephraim to walk,” and “led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love.” This portrayal taps into a deeply relational and emotive understanding, emphasizing God’s nurturing and caring role, juxtaposed with Israel’s ingratitude and rebellion.

Agricultural Metaphors; Reaping the Whirlwind (Hosea 8:7)

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” This agricultural metaphor would be instantly clear to an agrarian society, illustrating the principle of consequences aligning with one’s actions, particularly in the context of Israel’s political alliances and idolatrous practices leading to inevitable disaster.

Animal; Israel as a stubborn heifer

Hosea prophecies the end of joyous occasions like Sabbaths, New Moons, and festal assemblies due to Israel’s unfaithfulness. This would strike a chord with the audience as these were familiar religious practices, now being highlighted as hollow or corrupted due to their improper conduct and idolatrous associations.

These metaphors and parables were not only culturally and contextually relevant, but they also provided clear and impactful messages that the audience could understand without needing specialized interpretation. Hosea’s use of such imagery was intended to provoke reflection and repentance by vividly illustrating the consequences of Israel’s actions and God’s enduring offer of reconciliation.

There are also other things to take into consideration, especially when dealing with parables and prophecies.

Not every prophecy is written in a parable

There are plenty of examples throughout the Bible that show that not every prophecy was written in an obscured parable.

Isaiah’s Prophecy of Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 – 45:1)

This prophecy names Cyrus, King of Persia, about 150 years before his birth, describing how he would be instrumental in God’s plan for the Jewish people, particularly regarding their return from exile and the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Isaiah 44:28 – “It is I [the LORD] who says of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid.’”

Jeremiah’s Seventy Years Prophecy (Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10)

Jeremiah prophesied that the Babylonian exile would last exactly 70 years before the people would return and rebuild Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 25:11-12 –  “This entire land will be a place of ruins and an object of horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,’ declares the Lord, ‘for their wrongdoing, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation”.

Jeremiah 29:10 – “For this is what the Lord says: ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.

Jonah’s Prophecy to Nineveh (Jonah 3:4)

Jonah finally goes to Nineveh and proclaims that the city will be overthrown in forty days because of its wickedness. This is a straightforward declaration without parables.

Jonah 3:4 – “Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Forty more days, and Nineveh will be overthrown.”

We can also see Jesus make some “plain text” prophecies, like the following:

Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial (Luke 22:34)

Before the events of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, he tells Peter that Peter will deny knowing him three times before the rooster crows.

Luke 22:34 – “But He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.”

Prediction of His Betrayal (Matthew 26:21-25)

During the Last Supper, Jesus explicitly told his disciples that one of them would betray him. This was fulfilled by Judas Iscariot.

Prophecy: In Matthew 26:21-25, during the meal, Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” He later identifies Judas more specifically by saying, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.” This prediction was straightforward, allowing all the disciples to understand that a betrayal would occur, though they were initially unsure who it would be.

Prediction of his death, burial, and resurrection (Mark 8:31)

After Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ, Jesus starts to teach his disciples about the suffering he must endure.

Mark 8:31 – “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead.”

We can see with the above examples, that not every prophecy needs to have a divinely appointed prophet, or “Promised Pastor”, to explain the prophecies, and instead can be plainly stated and understood.

Not every Parable needs a Divine Explanation

Many of the parables were understood by the intended audience. When Jesus was confronting the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, he used parables to point out their hypocrisy; something that the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law understood.

The Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32)

Synopsis: A man asks his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first son initially refuses but later goes to work, while the second son agrees to work but then does not go.

Message: This parable criticizes the religious leaders for their failure to follow God’s will, compared to tax collectors and prostitutes who, despite initial disobedience, ultimately repent and obey God. Jesus points out that these sinners believed John the Baptist and changed their ways, unlike the religious leaders who saw John’s righteousness but did not repent.

The Parable of the Vineyard (Matthew 21:33-46)

Synopsis: A landowner plants a vineyard and leases it to tenants. When he sends servants and later his son to collect the fruit, the tenants beat the servants and kill the son.

Message: The vineyard represents Israel, the landowner is God, the servants are the prophets, and the son is Christ. This parable serves as a direct indictment of the leaders’ mistreatment of God’s messengers and their ultimate rejection of Jesus. It prophesies the punishment that will befall them and the passing of the kingdom of God to others who will produce its fruits.

Matthew 21:45 – When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

Parable of the Wedding Banquet (mentioned later in Matthew 22:1-14, but often linked in theme to the teachings of Matthew 21)

Synopsis: A king hosting a wedding feast for his son sends out invitations, but the invited guests refuse to come, mistreat the messengers, and are ultimately punished. The king then invites others from the streets to fill the wedding hall.

Message: This parable further elaborates on the themes of rejection by the original invitees (Israel’s leaders) and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God.

The Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, Matthew 13:11-15

Shincheonji counter:

While Shincheonji would acknowledge that not every parable is “obscured” or “hidden” secret language, they would point to Matthew 13:11-15, showing that the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven are only given to a select few.

Christian Response

When looking at the context of Matthew 13:11-15, it is true, Jesus was only giving his “secrets” to his inner circle, why? Because his inner circle were asking him questions, and he was answering them. This is why at the end of Matthew 13, when asked about the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus gave them a straightforward answer.

While it is true that there are some parables that are more obscured, to make the claim that every parable is not understandable, and that every prophecy is written in parables, is just flat out wrong.

Also, another thing to keep in mind, a lot of the parables were given to a Jewish audience, like the Father declaring the hour in Mark 13:32, and the Jewish audience would have a full understanding of what that meant without the need of having a special, secretive, Promised Pastor to explain it to them.

When Jesus stated in Matthew 15:24 that He was sent to “the lost sheep of Israel,” He was affirming His initial mission focus: the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Israel. This priority was rooted in God’s redemptive plan, in which the Messiah would first come to His own people as foretold in the prophets (Isa. 49:6; Rom. 15:8). However, this initial focus was never intended to be the limit of His mission. Throughout His ministry, Jesus consistently anticipated the inclusion of the Gentiles, as seen in His promise of “other sheep… not of this fold” (John 10:16) and His post-resurrection command to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). This progression reveals a unified mission: beginning with Israel but ultimately encompassing the entire world.

Shincheonji attempts to draw a straight-line parallel between the “rebellious house” in Ezekiel’s ministry and the Israel of Jesus’ day, suggesting that both missions were primarily centered on judgment of a wayward covenant people. While it is true that Jesus, like Ezekiel, confronted spiritual stubbornness and hypocrisy, this is only part of the picture. Jesus’ confrontation of Israel’s rebellion was never an end in itself; it was a necessary step in calling them to repentance so they might receive the kingdom of God. To frame His mission primarily as judgment is to ignore the overwhelming New Testament emphasis on His role as Redeemer and Savior (Luke 19:10; John 12:47).

By emphasizing this “rebellious house” theme in a way that overshadows the salvation message, Shincheonji misrepresents the scope and heart of Christ’s mission. It risks portraying Jesus as merely another prophet of judgment in the mold of Ezekiel rather than the incarnate Son who came to fulfill the law, reconcile humanity to God, and extend grace to all who believe. Such an interpretation downplays the universal, inclusive nature of His redemptive work, which broke down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14–16) and established one people of God in Christ. The gospel’s trajectory was always outward, moving from Israel to every tribe, language, people, and nation (Rev. 7:9), something a judgment-centered parallel between Ezekiel and Jesus simply cannot capture.

Ezekiel’s scroll in Ezekiel 2–3 contains messages of lamentation, mourning, and woe — a prophetic indictment against the rebellious house of Israel during the Babylonian exile. It is a covenant lawsuit, confronting Israel with their sin and calling them to repentance. In contrast, the scroll in Revelation 5 is sealed with seven seals and represents the fullness of God’s redemptive plan for history, which only the Lamb — Jesus Christ — is worthy to open. Revelation 10 introduces yet another scroll, this time described as “small” and already “open,” given to John to eat as part of his prophetic commission to speak further words of both sweetness and bitterness. These are separate visions, given in different contexts, with different content and purposes. There is no textual or thematic evidence in Scripture that these scrolls are meant to be viewed as the same object passed along through time.

Shincheonji collapses these distinct scrolls into a single prophetic object, creating a false continuity that moves from Ezekiel to Jesus to their leader, Lee Man-Hee. This artificially constructed chain is necessary for their theology because it allows them to claim that Lee has received the “final” scroll in a supposed line of prophetic succession. However, the biblical text never presents the scrolls as connected in this way. Revelation 5 makes it clear that the sealed scroll is opened only by Christ, and there is no indication that its authority or contents are handed to another figure after Him. By merging these scrolls into one narrative, Shincheonji distorts the biblical storyline, undermines the uniqueness of Christ’s role, and imposes an interpretive framework foreign to the text itself.

In Scripture, the imagery of “eating” a scroll appears in places like Ezekiel 3 and Revelation 10, and in each case it signifies a prophet personally internalizing God’s message so they can faithfully proclaim it to their audience. In Ezekiel’s case, the scroll contained words of judgment for the exiled nation of Israel; in John’s vision, the small open scroll brought a bittersweet commission to continue prophesying to many peoples and nations. In both examples, the act is tied to an individual prophet’s specific mission and context — it is a personal commissioning, not a symbolic passing of authority from one figure to another. The imagery focuses on the prophet’s reception and embodiment of the message, not on creating a prophetic “relay race” across generations.

Shincheonji departs from this biblical pattern by turning the “eating” motif into a man-made doctrine of prophetic succession: “Ezekiel ate → Jesus embodied → Lee eats.” This interpretation forces unrelated biblical events into a continuous chain, implying that God’s revelation progresses through a line of specially appointed human mediators. Yet Scripture never uses this symbol to indicate an unbroken transfer of authority from one prophet to another. On the contrary, the Bible affirms that Jesus, as the eternal Word, is both the source and fulfillment of God’s message (Heb. 1:1–3), leaving no theological need for a third figure to “complete” what He has already accomplished.

Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry was rooted in the historical reality of Israel’s rebellion during the Babylonian exile. His message called the nation to repentance and pointed toward restoration under the framework of the old covenant. This role was specific to his time, audience, and covenant context. By contrast, Jesus came not to renew the old covenant but to inaugurate the new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20), accomplishing redemption through His death and resurrection. His ministry fulfilled the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17), bringing the promises of God to their intended completion. The two roles are not interchangeable: Ezekiel functioned as a prophet announcing God’s word; Jesus is the eternal Son of God who embodies and fulfills that word.

Shincheonji distorts this distinction by presenting Ezekiel as a type of Christ and then extending the supposed “pattern” one step further to include their leader, Lee Man-Hee. This manufactured typology allows them to portray Lee as a necessary prophetic figure who receives a final revelation for the modern age. Such a claim undermines the sufficiency and finality of Christ’s work. According to the New Testament, Jesus has fulfilled the prophetic promises “once for all at the end of the ages” (Heb. 9:26), and God has now spoken definitively through His Son (Heb. 1:1–3). There is no biblical basis for expecting a new human mediator after Christ, and adding one only serves to displace the centrality of Jesus in God’s plan of salvation.

Hebrews 1:1–3 clearly teaches that while God communicated through the prophets in various ways in the past, He has now spoken definitively and fully through His Son, Jesus Christ. This means that Christ is not just another prophet in a long sequence but the ultimate and complete revelation of God, perfectly revealing the Father’s will and accomplishing salvation through His life, death, and resurrection. His person and work stand as the climax of God’s redemptive plan, leaving no gap for further mediators to complete or improve upon His message.

Shincheonji undermines this truth by claiming that the process of “receiving and embodying the scroll” continues through their leader, Lee Man-Hee. This interpretation places Lee in the same prophetic line as Christ and suggests that Christ’s revelation was somehow incomplete or in need of a final human figure to bring it to fulfillment. Such a view strips Christ of His unique role as the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13) and contradicts the New Testament’s testimony that He is the final authority, the complete expression of God’s Word, and the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5). By introducing another figure in this role, Shincheonji redefines the scope of Christ’s identity in a way that is both theologically unfounded and biblically incompatible.

In Ezekiel, the term “rebellious house” is used repeatedly to describe Israel under the old covenant — a nation in persistent disobedience that had broken God’s law and was facing covenant curses, including exile. This designation fits the historical context of Israel’s spiritual state during the Babylonian captivity. In the new covenant, however, Jesus speaks of His church in very different terms. He declares in Matthew 16:18 that He will build His church and that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” emphasizing its permanence and divine protection. While local congregations may face corruption or decline, the universal church — the body of Christ — will never be overcome.

Shincheonji distorts this reality by applying the “rebellious house” label to the Christian church as a whole, portraying it as entirely fallen and in need of a new prophet to restore it. This interpretation not only ignores the covenantal shift from old to new but also directly contradicts Christ’s own promise of the church’s perseverance. By insisting that the church has failed and must be rebuilt through their leader, Shincheonji effectively denies the sufficiency of Christ’s ongoing work as Head of the church (Eph. 1:22–23) and undermines the assurance He gave that His kingdom will endure until the end of the age.

Dual Fulfillment?

Shincheonji Response:

Shincheonji may make the following argument: 

In Hab 2:3 – Though it delays, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay long.

Points to a future time when God would send a messenger to reveal the hidden secrets.

Christian Response:

The context of Hab 2:3 is talking about the upcoming destruction by Babylon; something that God plainly revealed to the prophet Habbakuk, and is the reason why the back and forth dialog between God and the prophet occurred.

Shincheonji Response:

While Shincheonji may acknowledge the historic fulfillment of Hab 2:2-3, they may also make the argument of a “spiritual” dual fulfillment of the chapter. They could argue that the prophecy also points to a later, more significant fulfillment. They might assert that just as the vision in Habakkuk was about the fall of a great and oppressive power (Babylon), the prophecy could be seen as foreshadowing a final, eschatological revelation of truth, which they believe is realized in their movement.

Shincheonji might draw parallels between Habakkuk’s vision and the Book of Revelation, suggesting that both texts deal with the ultimate revelation of God’s plan and the judgment of the wicked. They could claim that Lee Man-Hee, as the “New John,” has received the final, unsealed revelation that was hidden in the scriptures, thus fulfilling both the prophecies of Habakkuk and Revelation.

Christian Response:

Shincheonji is making the argument of “double fulfillment”. The principle of double fulfillment in biblical prophecy typically applies to Messianic prophecies, where an immediate historical event prefigures a later, greater event (e.g., the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, with an immediate and a Messianic fulfillment). Not all prophecies are subject to double fulfillment, especially when the context clearly indicates a specific, time-bound event, as in Habakkuk’s case.

For the application of Habakkuk’s case, There is no clear textual or theological basis to apply a double fulfillment to Habakkuk 2:2-3. The context of Habakkuk is focused on the specific judgment of Babylon and the faithfulness of God during that time. Unlike prophecies clearly identified as Messianic, Habakkuk’s prophecy is not presented as having a future, eschatological counterpart.

The language of Habakkuk is clearly laid out to be fulfilled in the immediate future, ie, the destruction of Babylon and the punishment of Judah, not a future eschatological “promised pastor”.

The “appointed time” referred to in Habakkuk 2:3 is directly linked to the historical events of that era, not a distant eschatological event.

Habakkuk and Revelation are distinct prophecies addressing different issues and eras. The former is about immediate judgment and the righteousness of God in history, while the latter deals with the ultimate culmination of God’s plan in eschatology. There’s no textual evidence in Habakkuk suggesting it should be linked with the eschatological visions in Revelation.

Using the book of Habakkuk as a way to justify the open and revealed word of Lee Manhee, and tying it into Revelation 5 and 10, is another example of Shincheonji adding and subtracting to God’s word by going beyond what the text is saying.

In Habakkuk 2:3, God tells the prophet that “the revelation awaits an appointed time.” The Hebrew phrase for “appointed time” is מוֹעֵד (moed), which in the Old Testament is consistently used to mark a specific, fixed point in God’s plan — often one that is already set and will happen within a foreseeable period, not an indefinite event thousands of years away. This word is also used for scheduled feasts, festivals, or predetermined moments of judgment, showing that it communicates certainty and imminence, not mystery or secrecy. In other words, when God uses moed in a prophetic context, it signals a real, identifiable event on the horizon for the original audience.

This pattern can be seen in passages like Daniel 8:19, where the angel tells Daniel, “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.” In its historical context, this “appointed time” referred to events in the rise and fall of kingdoms during the intertestamental period — events that unfolded within centuries, not millennia, and could be traced to real political powers known to the prophet’s audience. Similarly, in Ezekiel 12:23–25, God responds to a proverb among the exiles claiming that visions “never come to anything.” He assures them that His word “will be fulfilled without delay” and ties this to an appointed time, underscoring that the prophecy’s fulfillment would be witnessed by that very generation.

When Shincheonji applies Habakkuk 2:3’s “appointed time” to their own movement and claims it points to Lee Man-Hee’s revelations in the 20th and 21st centuries, they are breaking with this consistent biblical usage. In the Old Testament, moed in prophetic contexts is about God’s predetermined schedule for His acts in history, anchored in the original audience’s timeline. Turning it into a vague, hidden countdown for a far-distant, eschatological “promised pastor” ignores both the linguistic meaning of the term and the historical pattern of how God revealed His plans through the prophets. The result is a distortion of Scripture that reads Shincheonji’s claims into the text rather than drawing meaning out from it.

In Habakkuk 2:2, God commands the prophet, “Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herald may run with it.” The Hebrew verb used here, בָּאֵר (ba’er), means “to make clear, explain, or clarify.” This is the opposite of concealing a message — it is an explicit instruction to communicate the vision in a way that is understandable to others. The image is one of public accessibility, where even a messenger running could grasp the meaning and carry it onward. Far from being hidden, the vision was intended to be widely known and easily understood by the prophet’s contemporaries.

This stands in sharp contrast to the sealed scroll imagery in Revelation 5, which no one could open except the Lamb. A sealed scroll in apocalyptic literature signifies a message that is intentionally withheld until the appointed one has the authority to reveal it. Habakkuk’s message shares none of those qualities — it was not locked away, not waiting for a mysterious future interpreter, and not couched in language designed to obscure its meaning from its original audience. It was already revealed and explained in the prophet’s lifetime.

By ignoring these differences, Shincheonji collapses all “scroll” references in the Bible into one symbolic category, treating every scroll — sealed or unsealed — as if it refers to the same end-times revelation. This interpretive shortcut strips away the original historical and literary context of each passage. It allows them to artificially connect Habakkuk 2 to Revelation 5 or Revelation 10, even though the contexts, purposes, and audiences are completely different. Recognizing that Habakkuk’s vision was intentionally made plain dismantles the claim that this prophecy was a hidden message waiting thousands of years for Lee Man-Hee to disclose.

Habakkuk’s prophecy of judgment on Babylon found its fulfillment in 539 BC, when the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. This occurred within decades of Habakkuk’s ministry, which is generally dated to the late 7th century BC. The Babylonians, whom God had raised up to discipline Judah, themselves became the object of divine judgment for their arrogance, violence, and idolatry. This swift historical turnaround — from being God’s instrument of discipline to becoming the target of His wrath — fits precisely with God’s assurance in Habakkuk 2:3 that “it will certainly come and will not delay.”

Understanding this timeline makes it clear that the phrase “though it linger, wait for it” in Habakkuk 2:3 referred to a fulfillment within the lifespan of those who first heard the prophecy. The call to wait was measured in years or decades, not millennia. Shincheonji’s claim that this verse points to events in the 20th and 21st centuries stretches the prophecy far beyond its original context, effectively disregarding the fact that it already came to pass in the fall of Babylon. This re-interpretation not only disconnects the verse from its historical anchor but also undermines the very nature of biblical prophecy, which is often tied to concrete, verifiable events in the lives of its original audience.

Habakkuk belongs to the genre of prophetic poetry, a form that blends vivid imagery with direct oracles from God to address specific historical situations. Its audience was the people of Judah in the late 7th century BC, facing moral decay within their nation and the looming threat of Babylonian invasion. The prophet’s dialogue with God, the announcement of judgment, and the call to live by faith were all rooted in that immediate historical crisis. The text was designed to speak into the lived reality of Judah, offering both warning and assurance.

Revelation, by contrast, is apocalyptic literature — a highly symbolic, visionary genre intended to reveal God’s ultimate plan and encourage perseverance amid persecution. It was written to seven real churches in Asia Minor during the first century AD, each facing specific spiritual and cultural challenges under Roman rule. While Revelation draws on Old Testament imagery, its focus is the climactic triumph of Christ and the final judgment, not the fall of ancient Babylon in the 6th century BC. The symbolic “Babylon” of Revelation is a theological motif for oppressive world systems, not the historical empire addressed in Habakkuk’s day.

Because these books differ so sharply in genre, historical audience, and purpose, it is methodologically unsound to directly link Habakkuk’s vision to Revelation’s sealed scroll or to Shincheonji’s modern claims. The leap from Habakkuk → Revelation → Lee Man-Hee bypasses the original meaning of both texts, ignoring the historical and literary contexts that anchor their message. This kind of interpretive shortcut is what allows Shincheonji to reassign nearly any biblical passage to their leader, even when the passage was never intended to speak about the end times or a “promised pastor.”

When Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 in Matthew 15:8–9 and Mark 7:6–7, He applies the prophet’s words to the religious leaders of His own day. By doing so, He exposes their hypocrisy and spiritual stubbornness, showing that they honor God with their lips while their hearts are far from Him. In this context, Isaiah’s “sealed” message is not a prediction about the Bible’s inaccessibility but a timeless indictment of people who outwardly claim devotion to God while rejecting His truth in practice.

Far from postponing the meaning of Isaiah’s words for a distant generation, Jesus immediately reveals the truth to those willing to listen. In Mark 4:11, He tells His disciples, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God,” and in John 18:37, He declares that He came into the world “to testify to the truth.” These statements show that Christ Himself breaks the “seal” by explaining the kingdom openly to His followers during His ministry.

This makes it clear that the “seal” in Isaiah is not a prophetic timetable awaiting the arrival of a modern “promised pastor.” Instead, it represents a spiritual condition — one that is removed whenever God speaks and His people respond in repentance and faith. In Jesus’ ministry, the unsealing happens in real time, not after centuries of darkness, proving that God’s word is accessible to those with open hearts.

In Revelation 5:5–7, John sees that only the Lamb, Jesus Christ, is worthy to take the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne and open its seals. This scene makes it unmistakably clear that the authority to unseal the scroll belongs to Christ alone, not to any human messenger or leader. The focus of the vision is on the Lamb’s unique worthiness, rooted in His sacrificial death and victory, as the basis for revealing God’s plans.

The actual opening of the seals occurs immediately in Revelation 6, within John’s vision, long before the new heaven and new earth appear in Revelation 21. This sequencing shows that the scroll’s “sealed” state does not persist until the very end of history. By the time the NHNE arrives, the scroll has already been opened and its contents revealed in the unfolding judgments and events that follow in Revelation.

This scroll is also not the same as the “sealed book” in Isaiah 29. Isaiah’s imagery addressed Judah’s spiritual blindness in the eighth century BC, while Revelation’s scroll is part of John’s distinct apocalyptic vision. SCJ’s claim that the unsealing happens only in the modern era collapses the historical and literary distinctions between the two texts and directly contradicts the internal order of Revelation, which places the unsealing in the first half of the book, not at its conclusion.

In Revelation 21:1–5, Isaiah 65:17, and 2 Peter 3:13, the new heaven and new earth (NHNE) represent the final state of God’s redemptive plan, when evil, sin, and death are permanently removed. This is not simply another stage in history but the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises to restore creation and dwell with His people in perfect harmony forever. It marks the end of the curse, the completion of judgment, and the arrival of eternal life in its fullness.

The biblical description of the NHNE is both visible and complete. In this state, God dwells openly with His people, every tear is wiped away, death is no more, and nothing impure can ever enter (Rev 21:3–4, 27). This is a public and global reality, not a hidden or partial condition. It is the consummation of all prophecy and the moment when the separation between heaven and earth is permanently removed.

The timing of the NHNE is clear in Revelation’s structure: it follows the final judgment, the defeat of Satan, and the removal of all evil. It is not the beginning of a human organization or the start of a new movement within history. By presenting the NHNE as already existing in a partial, secretive form since the founding of Shincheonji, SCJ redefines the biblical vision into something far less than what the text describes.

SCJ teaches that the new heaven and new earth began in 1984 with the establishment of their church, but this interpretation falls far short of the biblical description. Revelation 21:4 states that in the NHNE there will be no more death, mourning, crying, or pain, yet SCJ still experiences physical death, illness, and grief among its members. This alone shows that their “NHNE” is not the perfected creation described in Scripture.

The Bible also teaches that in the NHNE nothing unclean or deceitful will ever enter it (Rev 21:27), but SCJ acknowledges that unbelievers and spiritual opposition still exist in the world. This means that their claimed “NHNE” still coexists with evil and rebellion, which contradicts the finality and purity of the NHNE as revealed in the text. A kingdom that still battles against outside defilement is not the fully secure and perfected kingdom promised in Revelation.

Furthermore, Daniel 7:14 prophesies that the kingdom given to the Son of Man is everlasting and will never be destroyed. SCJ, however, teaches that after Jesus’ ascension, His kingdom (the early church) fell to Satan’s control, only to be restored through their leader in the present day. This directly undermines the prophecy’s assurance of Christ’s permanent dominion and raises the question: if Christ’s eternal kingdom could fall once, what prevents it from falling again under SCJ’s system?

SCJ’s interpretation conflates three distinct biblical passages — Isaiah 29’s “sealed” metaphor, Revelation 5’s sealed scroll, and Revelation 21’s new heaven and new earth — as if they all describe the same prophetic event. In reality, these texts occur in different historical contexts, address different audiences, and serve different theological purposes. By merging them into a single timeline, SCJ erases the unique meaning of each passage and imposes an artificial continuity that the Bible itself does not establish.

This approach also replaces Christ’s role in Revelation with that of a modern leader. In Revelation 5–6, the Lamb alone is worthy to take and open the scroll, and He does so within the vision itself. By claiming that their leader must reveal what Jesus has already unsealed, SCJ diminishes the direct authority and work of Christ in Scripture, shifting that authority onto a human figure. This is a theological downgrade from the biblical text, which centers the unsealing on the victorious, risen Lamb.

Furthermore, SCJ’s framework ignores the internal sequence of Revelation, moving the unsealing from chapter 6 all the way to chapter 21. This leap not only distorts the narrative flow but also supports their exclusive revelation claim — the idea that Isaiah’s and John’s visions could not be understood by their original audiences and only find meaning through SCJ’s leader. This interpretation bypasses the accessibility and relevance of the prophecies in their own contexts, replacing them with a secret, esoteric reading that revolves entirely around SCJ’s organizational claims.

The “new song” of Revelation 5:9–10 is a hymn of praise sung by the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures before the throne of God. The lyrics clearly focus on the Lamb’s sacrificial death, the redemption purchased by His blood, and the transformation of believers into “a kingdom and priests to serve our God.” This is a direct celebration of Christ’s completed work at the cross and its ongoing effect in gathering people from every tribe, language, people, and nation. Importantly, this worship scene takes place before the scroll is opened, showing that the song commemorates a past act of salvation, not a new event or message in the modern day.

Throughout Scripture, “new songs” consistently serve as responses to God’s saving acts, not as endorsements of new human messengers. In the Psalms, “new song” appears as an invitation to praise God for His deliverance and mighty works (Psalm 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1). In Isaiah 42:10, the command to sing a new song is linked to God’s coming judgment and salvation for the nations. Each instance celebrates divine intervention and redemption, never the proclamation of an individual’s personal testimony as an authoritative message for all believers.

Other songs in the Bible reinforce this pattern. The “Song of Moses” (Exodus 15) exalts God for delivering Israel from Egypt and defeating Pharaoh’s army. Deborah’s song (Judges 5) praises God for giving Israel victory over their enemies. Hannah’s song (1 Samuel 2) glorifies God’s sovereign reversal of human fortunes. Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) magnifies the Lord for His mercy and fulfillment of His promises. Even in Revelation 15:3, the “song of Moses and the song of the Lamb” is a celebration of God’s righteous acts and ultimate victory. In every case, the focus of the song is on God’s redemptive plan and His mighty deeds — never on elevating a single contemporary leader as the center of salvation history.

Shincheonji’s claim that the “new song” of Revelation 5 represents the testimony of Lee Man-Hee as the “promised pastor” is entirely unsupported by this biblical pattern. To redefine the “new song” as a modern human proclamation is to strip it from its scriptural context and shift the focus away from the Lamb, who alone is worthy of worship. The Bible’s witness is clear: songs of praise are always directed toward God’s redemptive acts through Christ, not toward the testimony of a man.

Revelation 1:1–3 opens the book by describing how “the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon take place,” was made known through an angel to “His servant John.” The “John” here is the apostle John, who faithfully recorded the visions he saw while exiled on the island of Patmos. Nothing in the text suggests that John is serving as a symbolic “template” for a future individual who would repeat his role in the last days. The verse is simply identifying the historical recipient of the vision and the divine source of its message.

The blessing in Revelation 1:3 is inclusive, not exclusive. It states, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it.” This blessing applies to all believers in every generation who engage with and obey the message of the book, whether in the first century or today. It does not limit understanding or authority to a single, specially appointed “promised pastor” who must arise at the end of time.

Shincheonji’s teaching of a “New John” is not drawn from the biblical text itself but from their own “revealed truth” as presented by Lee Man-Hee. This makes it a circular interpretation: the doctrine of the “New John” is used to validate Lee Man-Hee’s authority, while Lee Man-Hee’s authority is defended on the basis that he is the “New John.” Without independent biblical support, this claim collapses under its own weight.

If SCJ’s logic were applied consistently, it would imply that every prophet or apostle in Scripture requires a “new” counterpart in later generations to fulfill the same role. That would mean a “new Moses,” “new Isaiah,” or “new Paul” would need to appear for believers to understand God’s word in each era — something Scripture never teaches. The Bible instead affirms the sufficiency of the prophetic and apostolic witness already given (2 Timothy 3:16–17; Jude 3) and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in guiding believers into all truth (John 16:13) without the necessity of a singular, modern-day prophetic figure.

Revelation was originally written to seven actual churches in the Roman province of Asia — Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Revelation 1:4, 11). These communities were facing severe trials, including persecution from Roman authorities, pressure to participate in emperor worship, and internal threats from false teaching. The book’s immediate purpose was to encourage these first-century believers to remain faithful to Christ in the face of suffering, assuring them that God’s plan was unfolding according to His sovereign will. The letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3 address their specific spiritual conditions, showing that the content of Revelation was both timely and understandable to its original audience.

In Revelation 1:3, John declares a blessing on those who read aloud the prophecy, hear it, and take it to heart “because the time is near.” This statement is significant — it affirms that the prophecy carried an urgent and relevant message for those living in John’s day. While the book contains visions that point toward the future, its central themes of God’s sovereignty, Christ’s ultimate victory over evil, and the call for perseverance in faith were meant to strengthen and guide believers in the present, not merely in a distant age.

Throughout history, Christians have drawn hope and encouragement from Revelation’s message without needing a new human mediator to unlock its meaning. The imagery and symbolism have been studied, preached, and applied by the Church for centuries, leading to a variety of interpretations but always centering on the victory of Christ and the assurance of God’s justice. This reality directly contradicts Shincheonji’s assertion that Revelation remained a completely sealed mystery for 2,000 years until the arrival of Lee Man-Hee.

By claiming that only their leader has the authority and ability to interpret Revelation, SCJ effectively denies the text’s historical accessibility and the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church into truth (John 16:13). The biblical and historical evidence shows that Revelation was not hidden from believers throughout the ages but has been an open source of comfort, exhortation, and hope for every generation of the faithful.

Revelation 5 presents one of the most exalted scenes in all of Scripture. In the heavenly throne room, John weeps because no one in heaven, on earth, or under the earth is found worthy to open the scroll or even look inside it. The tension breaks when the Lion of the tribe of Judah — the Lamb who was slain — appears, and the heavenly host erupts in worship, declaring Him worthy “because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). The scene drives home a single truth: only the Lamb, Jesus Christ, has the authority to open the seals and bring God’s plan to completion. This authority flows from His unique identity and redemptive work, which no angel, apostle, or human leader can replicate.

To transfer this divine prerogative to a modern, fallible human being — as Shincheonji does with Lee Man-Hee — is to strip Revelation 5 of its meaning and diminish the centrality of Christ. The Bible affirms the sufficiency of Scripture for equipping believers (2 Timothy 3:16–17) and teaches that the faith has been “once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3). By asserting that Revelation’s contents can only be rightly understood through the interpretation of one present-day “promised pastor,” SCJ places a human intermediary in a role that the text reserves exclusively for Christ.

The biblical pattern confirms this problem. God has indeed used prophets and apostles throughout history to proclaim His word, but even they never shared in Christ’s exclusive heavenly authority to execute God’s final plan of judgment and redemption. The prophets pointed forward to Christ, the apostles bore witness to His completed work, and the Church continues to proclaim the gospel under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. At no point does Scripture suggest that a single future leader would share in the Lamb’s throne-room authority or act as a co-revealer of the sealed scroll.

Ultimately, SCJ’s teaching redirects the believer’s focus from the sufficiency of Christ to the supposed necessity of Lee Man-Hee. This not only undermines the glory of the Lamb but also distorts the gospel itself by making salvation and understanding contingent on allegiance to a human leader. In contrast, the New Testament presents Christ as the one and only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), whose authority is complete and whose word is final.

When Jesus told His disciples in John 15:15, “Everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you,” He was declaring that His followers were not left in the dark about God’s purposes. This was not a promise to give them scraps of truth that would later be completed by another teacher; it was a statement of completed revelation within His earthly ministry. Jesus consistently unfolded the Father’s will to them, teaching both publicly and privately, and equipping them with the full message necessary to proclaim the gospel and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18–20). This makes SCJ’s idea of a centuries-later, final “decoder” unnecessary and contradictory to Jesus’ own words.

The writer of Hebrews reinforces this truth in Hebrews 1:1–2, stating that while God had spoken through prophets in many ways in the past, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” This means the climactic and definitive revelation of God came in Christ Himself. Nothing greater, clearer, or more authoritative could be delivered after Him because the fullness of God’s message was embodied in His person and teaching. To claim that a modern human leader is required to “finish” what Jesus began is to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s revelation and to place a lesser authority above Him.

The apostles, as eyewitnesses and direct recipients of Jesus’ teaching, were entrusted with a complete gospel — one so complete that Paul could say in Galatians 1:8–9 that any new or altered message, even if delivered by “an angel from heaven,” should be rejected. This stands in sharp opposition to SCJ’s teaching that the true gospel was incomplete until their leader appeared. From the New Testament’s perspective, the gospel was already whole, already entrusted to the saints, and already powerful to save in the first century (Romans 1:16). Any claim to add to it is, by definition, a distortion.

SCJ teaches that those who never heard the “revealed word” during their lifetime will be given a second opportunity after death, claiming that Jesus will personally instruct them in a so-called “spirit prison.” This doctrine creates the impression that the urgency of responding to the gospel in this life is lessened, since a person could supposedly receive the necessary teaching after death. While this may sound compassionate, it directly conflicts with the urgency and finality consistently taught in Scripture regarding salvation.

In Acts 17:30–31, Paul declares that “now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice.” The command to repent is immediate and universal, with judgment already fixed on God’s calendar. There is no suggestion of a later remedial phase after death where the unreached will be taught; instead, the apostolic preaching presents today as the only time to respond to God’s call (2 Corinthians 6:2). If repentance could be postponed until after death, this urgency would be meaningless.

Hebrews 9:27 makes the matter even clearer: “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” This simple statement leaves no room for post-death instruction or a spiritual probationary period. Throughout the New Testament, salvation is portrayed as a decision that must be made in this life, on the basis of the gospel already revealed through Christ and His apostles. Any teaching that offers hope of a second chance after death directly undermines the biblical call to respond to God’s truth now.

2 Corinthians 6:2 — “Now is the day of salvation.” The window for repentance is this life, not an afterlife classroom.

Parables were never intended to function as mysterious, esoteric codes that required decoding thousands of years later; rather, they were grounded in the daily life and culture of first-century Judaism. The disciples, along with other listeners, could understand the imagery once Jesus explained the spiritual application because it drew directly from their shared experiences and traditions. This made the parables both relatable and memorable, while still challenging the hearers to respond in faith and obedience.

For example, the wedding banquet in Matthew 22:1–14 reflected well-known Jewish wedding customs, including the sending of invitations and the expectation of proper attire. The sower and seeds in Matthew 13:3–9 used agricultural practices familiar to farmers who worked the rocky, varied soils of Galilee. The fishing nets in Matthew 13:47–50 tapped into the common livelihood around the Sea of Galilee, where sorting the catch was an everyday task. Each of these parables connected deep kingdom truths to real-world activities the audience could visualize immediately.

Because the imagery was rooted in common life, the meaning was accessible to anyone who was open to hearing and willing to receive the truth — especially when explained by Jesus Himself. This stands in sharp contrast to SCJ’s claim that the parables were cryptic prophecies intended to be unlocked only by a modern “promised pastor.” In reality, Jesus designed them to reveal truth to the receptive, not to conceal it for centuries.

The concealment in Jesus’ parables was never meant to be indefinite or to hide truth from all people until a far-off future generation. In Mark 4:22, Jesus makes this explicit: “For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.” His use of parables served a temporary purpose — to veil spiritual truths from those who were hardened against Him while still making them available to those genuinely seeking. Once the danger of immediate rejection or opposition was addressed, those truths were to be revealed plainly.

Jesus also affirmed the openness of His teaching in John 18:20 when He told the high priest, “I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.” This statement dismantles the idea that His message was a coded riddle to be unlocked by a single, future interpreter. He was transparent in His teaching and made Himself accessible to any who would listen.

By Matthew 13:51, after explaining the parables, Jesus asked His disciples, “Have you understood all these things?” and they answered, “Yes.” This exchange demonstrates that the concealment was temporary and selective, aimed at protecting the message from hostile rejection — not withholding it for centuries until the “last days.” The disciples left that conversation with real understanding, ready to proclaim the kingdom message without needing a future “promised pastor” to clarify it.

SCJ argues that Psalm 78:2 proves God’s truth is deliberately hidden in figurative, symbolic language from the Old Testament onward, requiring a final, end-time interpreter to reveal it. They connect this verse to Jesus’ use of parables in Matthew 13:34–35, where He quotes Psalm 78:2, and conclude that just as Jesus revealed hidden things in His time, their leader now reveals the “hidden” meanings of Revelation. This interpretation frames the verse as a coded prophecy pointing to a modern messenger rather than understanding it in its original historical and literary context.

Psalm 78, however, is a historical psalm of Asaph that recounts Israel’s history — from the exodus to the reign of David — to warn future generations not to repeat the sins of their ancestors. In this context, the word “parable” does not mean an encrypted riddle but refers to teaching through analogy, poetry, and illustrative storytelling. Likewise, the “hidden things” (or “dark sayings of old”) are not undisclosed future prophecies but lessons from Israel’s past that may have been neglected or forgotten. Verse 3 makes this explicit: “things we have heard and known, things our ancestors have told us.” These truths were already known within Israel’s collective memory and were being retold, not secretly stored away for a distant future revelation.

When Matthew 13:34–35 applies Psalm 78:2 to Jesus, it highlights that He, like Asaph, used parables to convey spiritual truths — some of which clarified aspects of God’s kingdom that had not been fully grasped before. But even here, the “hidden things” were explained directly to those who sought understanding (Matthew 13:36–43), and their meaning was immediately available to the disciples. The concealment was temporary and situational, not a centuries-long secrecy awaiting a Korean “promised pastor.” Thus, SCJ’s interpretation fails because Psalm 78:2 is about remembering God’s past works, not predicting an end-time decoder, and linking it to Revelation’s imagery ignores the psalm’s focus on covenant faithfulness, not apocalyptic prophecy.

SCJ interprets Isaiah 34:16 as proof that the Bible is a coded “scroll” whose meaning can only be unlocked by their promised pastor. They argue that “none will lack her mate” refers to pairing symbolic prophecies across Scripture, with each “mate” revealing hidden meaning when matched correctly. In their view, this verse supports the idea that the full truth of God’s Word remained sealed until the last days, when their leader would reveal it.

In its actual context, Isaiah 34 is a prophecy of judgment against Edom and the nations opposing God. The chapter describes total desolation, where the land will be left to wild animals. The command to “look in the scroll of the Lord and read” simply points to Isaiah’s own written prophecy as a trustworthy witness of what will happen. The phrase “none will lack her mate” refers to the animals listed in the preceding verses (Isaiah 34:11–15), emphasizing that each creature will have its counterpart in the devastated land. This is poetic imagery about the certainty and completeness of God’s judgment, not about pairing symbols across different prophecies.

SCJ’s interpretation fails because the “scroll” is not a hidden codebook but Isaiah’s prophecy itself, and the “mates” are literal animals in the context. The point is that everything God has decreed will come to pass exactly as written. Using this verse to justify a sealed, symbolic Bible ignores its plain meaning and the historical setting of Isaiah’s message to his audience.

SCJ teaches that the “hidden manna” in Revelation 2:17 refers to the secret, figurative meaning of Scripture that has been concealed since the Bible was sealed and is now revealed only through their promised pastor. They connect it to the manna given in Exodus as “bread from heaven,” arguing that just as Israel could only receive manna through Moses, believers today can only receive this spiritual food through their leader. In their view, this manna is their exclusive teaching, without which one cannot truly overcome or attain salvation.

In context, Revelation 2:17 is part of Jesus’ letter to the church in Pergamum, written to encourage believers to remain faithful in the face of idolatry and persecution. The “hidden manna” alludes to God’s provision for Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16) and the portion kept in the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:4), which was “hidden” from ordinary sight in the Most Holy Place. This imagery points to God’s preserved covenant blessings for His people and ultimately to Christ Himself, the true bread from heaven (John 6:32–35), who gives eternal life to all who believe in Him.

SCJ’s interpretation fails because the promise of hidden manna is given to every believer who overcomes, not to a single end-time messenger. Biblically, manna represents God’s provision in Christ, not coded doctrine requiring a modern interpreter. The “hidden” aspect refers to its heavenly and eternal nature, not to an undisclosed teaching stored away for 2,000 years. Jesus has already revealed Himself as the true manna, making the idea that it remained sealed until the last days both unnecessary and contrary to His own words.

SCJ teaches that the “food at the proper time” in Matthew 24:45–47 refers to the revealed word that only their promised pastor can give in the last days. In their view, the “faithful and wise servant” is a prophecy about this one man, appointed by God to distribute spiritual food when the appointed time arrives. They argue that without receiving this teaching from their leader, believers will lack the nourishment needed to overcome and be saved. This interpretation frames the passage as a prediction of a singular, end-time figure rather than a general principle.

In context, Matthew 24 is part of Jesus’ teaching on being watchful and ready for His return. The “faithful and wise servant” is an illustration meant to apply to anyone entrusted with caring for God’s household — a role that encompasses church leaders, teachers, and all believers who serve others in Christ’s name. The “food” symbolizes the faithful teaching, encouragement, and spiritual care given to fellow believers, a theme consistent with the rest of the New Testament (see John 21:15–17; 1 Peter 5:2–4). This is not a secret, hidden message reserved for a future era, but the ongoing ministry of God’s Word across all generations.

The phrase “at the proper time” simply highlights the importance of providing the right spiritual care at the right moment, much like Paul instructs Timothy to “preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2). It is about continual readiness and responsiveness to the needs of God’s people, not a cryptic timetable pointing to a modern religious leader. The parable stresses faithful stewardship over God’s household until Christ’s return — a call that applies to the entire church age, not exclusively to the final generation.

SCJ’s interpretation fails because it narrows a universal principle into an exclusive prophecy about their organization’s leader. The blessing Jesus promises is for whoever the Master finds faithfully serving when He returns, not for one individual holding a unique position. By claiming sole ownership of this “food,” SCJ distorts the passage’s purpose, which is to encourage every believer to remain faithful, vigilant, and ready to serve until the day Christ comes again.