u/Kitchen-Response-515

I recently received the following comment on my article, “One Promised Pastor—or All Taught by God?” I assume the person who wrote it is a current SCJ member, although I cannot say that for certain.

I want to respond to it directly in this article and let everyone examine the issue and discern the truth for themselves.

Here is the comment:

“LMH is not the word of God god is the wordz LMH testifies to all PNLK to what he saw and heard. He doesnt claim to be God nor jesus, nome of the Saints of SCJ claim he is God nor Jesus he is the filfilled reality of Servant John the one who testifies to the book of revelation thats it nothing more nothing less he is the one who was given the authority to do so anointed to do so as prophesied in revelation.”

This is my response:

That is exactly where I see the contradiction.

You are now describing LMH as merely the “fulfilled reality of servant John”—a witness who testifies to what he saw and heard, “nothing more, nothing less.”

But this description is very different from the way LMH has actually presented himself and exercised authority in SCJ.

A witness gives testimony. A witness does not determine the verdict. A witness does not become the judge simply because he claims to have seen something. The judge evaluates the testimony and makes the judgment.

So if LMH is only a witness, why does he have the authority to mandate so many rules for believers—many of which appear to come from Korean organizational and cultural practices rather than directly from Scripture?

During my years in SCJ, I personally experienced being scorned and verbally attacked by LMH and other leaders for supposedly not evangelizing enough. At times, we were even told that failing to do enough could result in going to hell.

That is not merely the behavior of someone saying, “I am only a witness.”

If his role is simply to testify about Revelation, then let him testify and allow people to compare his testimony with Scripture.

Why must people follow him?

Why must they belong to his organization?

Why must they evangelize according to his requirements?

Why are people spiritually threatened when they do not perform enough?

And what about LMH’s stories about people seeing a halo around his head? Why promote something like that if the message is really that he is merely a witness? What impression is that supposed to create?

I am not saying that SCJ officially teaches, “LMH is God” or “LMH is Jesus.” That is not the main issue.

The issue is that LMH claims for himself a unique spiritual authority that goes far beyond the ordinary role of a witness, while SCJ defends him as “only a witness” whenever that authority is challenged.

You cannot have it both ways.

Changing the narrative does not answer the question. It actually exposes the contradiction.

Jesus should be the one we follow. A witness is supposed to point us to the truth—not make himself the indispensable gateway through which everyone must pass.

According to Revelation 1:1, John is one individual who receives the Revelation and testifies to it.

But we also have to look carefully at what Revelation 1:2 actually says. John testifies to what he saw—not to “what he fulfilled.” What he saw was a revelation given to him through prophetic visions.

Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). If LMH claims to uniquely represent Jesus at the Second Coming and to testify to the true fulfillment of Revelation, then his testimony cannot simply be treated as “close enough.” Truth cannot be 90%, 95%, or 99% true and still be presented as the absolute truth of Revelation.

If parts of his testimony or his claimed fulfillments contradict Scripture, change over time, or depend on interpretations that cannot be established from the Bible, those are not minor details. They directly affect his claim to uniquely represent the one who is “the truth.”

If that claim cannot withstand careful examination according to Scripture, then I should not believe him—and neither should you, if you are a follower of Jesus rather than a follower of LMH.

LMH often quotes John 10:35 to emphasize that Scripture cannot be broken:

“If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—”
—John 10:35

But he never bothers to explain the first part of the passage, where Jesus tells us exactly what he is referring to:

“Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, “I have said you are ‘gods’”?’”
—John 10:34

If he had explained this part, then the idea that there must be one individual “promised pastor” whom everyone must listen to—and even treat with extraordinary reverence—would become much more difficult to defend, if not outright preposterous.

The phrase “to whom the word of God came” shows that God’s Word is not limited to one exclusive individual. Jesus further explains this principle in John 6:45:

“It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.”

The emphasis is on “they will all be taught by God.” In other words, those who hear the Father and learn from him receive God’s Word. John 10:35 does not point to one exclusive person who alone receives God’s Word; rather, it speaks of those to whom the word of God came.

Hebrews 8:11 makes the problem with the idea of an exclusive “promised pastor” even more serious:

“No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”

If God says that “they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” then the claim that everyone must depend on one particular “promised pastor” in order to know God or understand his Word becomes very difficult to reconcile with Scripture.

To those who are currently in SCJ, I am not writing this to attack you or to tell you what you must believe. I once accepted many of the same teachings, so I understand why they can seem convincing.

I only ask that you read this article with the same attitude encouraged in Acts 17:11: examine the Scriptures carefully and decide for yourself whether these teachings truly stand according to God’s Word. Do not accept what I say simply because I say it, but do not reject it simply because it challenges what you have been taught.

SCJ skillfully uses a strategy reminiscent of the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu. It first portrays traditional churches as failing to conform to God’s Word by pointing out obvious errors or inconsistencies in commonly accepted biblical teachings. It then introduces its own explanations of parables and other passages, presenting them as teachings based directly on Scripture.

By creating this sharp contrast between SCJ and traditional churches, it paves the way for the claim that its teachings are “heaven-sent” through one particular individual. In the beginning, many of us—including myself—readily accepted this idea because the contrast seemed so convincing. Once we were persuaded that traditional churches had misunderstood Scripture while SCJ appeared to explain it correctly, it became much easier to accept the further claim that this understanding must have come through a uniquely chosen person.

Indeed, many of SCJ’s explanations of parables can be supported, or at least referenced, within the Bible. But this raises an important question: if these teachings can already be found and examined within Scripture, are they truly “heaven-sent” revelations unique to SCJ, as they often proclaim?

The passages, symbols, and concepts are already present in the Bible and have long been examined, discussed, and understood by careful readers of Scripture.

This is why Acts 17:11 is so important. The Bereans were considered noble because they received the message eagerly while examining the Scriptures daily to see whether what they were being taught was true. Likewise, Jesus says in John 6:45, “They will all be taught by God.”

Therefore, believers should not assume that biblical understanding belongs exclusively to one organization or one teacher. We should carefully examine Scripture for ourselves and allow ourselves to be taught by God.

So I would like to use this platform to point out some teachings about Revelation in SCJ that I believe do not stand up to careful examination of Scripture.

Before I begin, however, I want you to ask yourself one important question:

Are you willing to accept anything less than 100% of God’s truth?

You may remember the analogy used at SCJ center about bug droppings in a cup of clean water. They would ask:

“If you found even a tiny amount of bug droppings in the water, would you still drink it?”

I would like to use the same analogy and turn the question around:

If you discover that some of SCJ’s teachings are false—even if the error amounts to less than 1%—would you still accept the rest of their teachings as absolute truth without further examination?

If we were taught to reject even the smallest amount of falsehood when examining other churches, shouldn’t we apply the same standard when examining SCJ’s own teachings?

The real question is not whether most of a teaching sounds convincing. The question is whether it can consistently withstand careful examination of Scripture.

One example, in my view, is SCJ’s interpretation of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 and the male child in Revelation 12.

Mr. Lee uses what he describes as his own divinely guided experience to interpret these prophecies as being fulfilled through himself as one particular individual. But when we examine the Scriptures carefully, there are important reasons to question that interpretation.

Revelation 11:4 says:

“These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.”

The two witnesses are explicitly identified as two lampstands.

According to Revelation 1:20, lampstands represent churches. A church, throughout the New Testament, is not one individual but a collective body of God’s people. Therefore, if the two witnesses are also two lampstands, there is strong biblical reason to consider whether they should be understood collectively rather than as one individual person.

This becomes even more important when we connect Revelation 11 with Revelation 12.

Both chapters contain the same prophetic period of three and a half years—expressed as forty-two months, 1,260 days, or “a time, times, and half a time.”

If the two witnesses in Revelation 11 can represent a collective body, then the male child in Revelation 12 should not automatically be assumed to represent only one individual. The possibility that the male child also represents a group of God’s people should at least be examined from Scripture rather than dismissed simply because one person claims to have fulfilled the prophecy.

There is another important issue concerning the interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12.

According to Mr. Lee’s teaching, the woman is interpreted as a particular pastor, and Galatians 4:19 is used to support the idea that a woman can symbolically represent a pastor. But when we examine the broader biblical use of this imagery, a woman is frequently used to represent God’s people and their covenant relationship with God.

Consider these passages:

Isaiah 54:5 — “For your Maker is your husband.”

Jeremiah 3:14 — God says, “I am married unto you.”

Hosea 2:19 — “I will betroth you unto me for ever.”

These passages use the relationship between husband and wife to describe the relationship between God and His people.

The imagery of pregnancy and labor pains can also be connected with distress, judgment, rebellion, and the suffering of God’s people.

Consider Isaiah 13:8, Jeremiah 30:6, and Micah 4:9–10.

From this perspective, the pregnant woman in Revelation 12 can reasonably be examined as representing God’s people experiencing rebellion, judgment, and spiritual distress, rather than simply being identified with one particular pastor.

If these foundational interpretations are mistaken, then the larger fulfillment narrative built upon them must also be reconsidered.

The real question should not be whether we trust a particular person’s claimed experience. The question should be whether that interpretation can withstand careful examination of Scripture.

This brings us to another important issue.

According to SCJ’s own fulfillment teaching, its explanation of Revelation has, for decades, focused on events fulfilled up through Revelation 17. Yet as SCJ itself has grown into a large religious organization, shouldn’t its interpretation of Revelation 18 also be examined by the same standard it applies to traditional churches?

SCJ has often identified “Babylon” with traditional churches and used Revelation 18:4—

“Come out of her, my people”

—to call people out of those churches.

But what if that same verse should also cause SCJ members to examine their own organization?

Many former SCJ members are now speaking to those who remain inside, asking them to reconsider what they have been taught. Rather than automatically dismissing those voices, perhaps we should at least ask:

Could some of those voices now saying, “Come out of her,” also deserve to be considered in light of Revelation 18:4 as a warning directed toward SCJ?

The Berean standard still applies.

Do not accept a teaching simply because of who teaches it.

Do not reject a teaching simply because of who challenges it.

Examine the Scriptures carefully and determine whether these things are truly so.

SCJ often says that it teaches the new covenant—Revelation, the “new wine” and the “new song,” while traditional churches supposedly teach only the Gospels, which they characterize as “old wine” and an “old song.” But if that is really their position, then why do they turn to verses from the four Gospels to support their teachings about suffering? If the Gospels are supposedly “old,” why are those same passages suddenly authoritative when they help make their point?

I also remember when SCJ required members to take off their shoes in the assembly. They appealed to the example of Moses before the burning bush, when God told him to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. At the time, I asked: if we are going to apply that Old Testament command literally, then should we also follow all the other laws and regulations in the Old Testament? And what about the New Testament teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:19 that the believer himself is the temple of the Holy Spirit?

This reveals a larger problem. SCJ has enforced many rules by quoting verses here and there, often without considering whether those rules are consistent with its own teachings or with the broader message of Scripture. Verses are selected to justify a particular rule when convenient, even when the same reasoning would contradict other doctrines they teach.

What is especially sad is that people inside SCJ can sometimes recognize these inconsistencies, yet still choose to submit to the rules. When Scripture is used selectively to enforce obedience rather than being understood consistently as a whole, biblical teaching can easily become a means of control.

That brings Revelation 22:11 to mind: those who choose to continue in a certain course may continue in it. In the end, each person must decide whether to follow an organization unquestioningly or to examine everything carefully according to Scripture (Acts 17:11).

SCJ teaches that the twelve tribes in Revelation 7 must be fulfilled as a literal organizational structure established on earth, with 144,000 people gathered into those twelve tribes. But when Revelation itself is read carefully, there is a serious problem with this interpretation: John never says that he saw a twelve-tribe organization being established.

Revelation 4 is especially important. John is invited to see the heavenly reality:

“Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”

 John then describes what he saw: the throne of God, the twenty-four elders, the four living creatures, the lamps, the sea of glass, and the worship surrounding the throne. Yet nowhere in this foundational vision of God’s throne and heavenly order does John see a twelve-tribe organizational structure.

 That absence is significant. If the twelve tribes were intended to be the essential physical structure of God’s kingdom at the fulfillment of Revelation, we should at least ask:

Why is that structure absent from the very vision in which John is shown God’s throne and heavenly order?

 The twelve tribes first appear in Revelation 7, but even there John does not say:

 “I saw twelve tribes being organized.”

 Instead, Revelation 7:4 says:

“Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.”

 John hears the number.

 This becomes even more significant when we look back at Revelation 6:9–11. John sees the souls of those who had been killed because of the word of God and their testimony. They are told to wait until the number of their fellow servants and brothers is completed.

 The emphasis, therefore, is on God completing and sealing the number, not on human beings constructing an organization and then filling it with members.

 The ending of Revelation 6 strengthens this point. Revelation 6:17 asks:

“The great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

 Revelation 7 immediately follows by showing God’s servants being sealed.

 This also fits the biblical pattern of a remnant. Ezekiel 5:3 describes a few hairs being preserved during judgment, while Isaiah 6:13 speaks of a “holy seed” remaining after devastation. If Revelation 6 describes judgment among God’s people, then Revelation 7 naturally follows with those whom God preserves, identifies, and seals.

 Revelation 14:4 further describes the 144,000 as:

 “firstfruits to God and the Lamb.”

 “Firstfruits” are received by God from his harvest. The image does not naturally describe a human administrative system created in advance and then filled with members so that prophecy can be declared fulfilled.

 Therefore, the biblical question should not be:

“Which organization has physically established twelve tribes?”

 A better question is:

Who survives God’s judgment, is recognized and sealed by God, and becomes part of the number that God himself completes?

Revelation gives strong reason to understand the twelve tribes and the 144,000 first as God’s sealed people and God’s completed number, rather than as a command for human beings to construct a twelve-tribe organization and then use that organization as proof that prophecy has been fulfilled.

 This also helps explain why, after nearly forty years, SCJ has still been unable to give a clear and consistent answer concerning the identity of the sealed 144,000.

Many people have interpreted biblical terms such as “prince,” “shepherd,” and “faithful and wise servant” as references to one special individual who will appear in the last days. However, when we carefully examine the whole Bible, we find that these titles often describe spiritual officers rather than prophesy the appearance of one unique individual.

 1. The “Prince” in Ezekiel

Ezekiel 37:24–25 says:

“My servant David shall be king over them… and David my servant shall be their prince forever.”

Because of this passage, many people believe that the “prince” mentioned in Ezekiel 40–48 is Jesus Christ.

However, when we continue reading Ezekiel 45, we encounter an important detail:

“On that day the prince shall provide for himself and for all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering.” (Ezek. 45:22)

This passage clearly states that the prince must present a sin offering “for himself.”

The New Testament, however, plainly tells us concerning Jesus:

“He was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)

It also says:

“Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins… He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” (Heb. 7:27)

Therefore, if the prince in Ezekiel 45 must present a sin offering for himself, he cannot be directly identified with the sinless Jesus Christ.

A more reasonable interpretation is:

• Christ is the eternal Davidic King and the King of kings.
• The prince represents those who receive authority from Christ and are entrusted with governing God’s people.

This interpretation also corresponds with what we find in Revelation.

 2. The Many Kings in Revelation

At the beginning of Revelation, Jesus Christ is declared to be:

“The ruler of the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 1:5)

Therefore, Christ alone is the supreme King.

Nevertheless, Revelation also says:

• God makes believers a kingdom and priests who reign upon the earth (Rev. 5:10).
• The overcomers will reign with Christ (Rev. 20:6).
• Jesus sent his angel “to give you [plural] this testimony for the churches” (Rev. 22:16). The testimony was therefore given to a plural audience and was intended for the churches, not exclusively for one individual.
• “The kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it.” (Rev. 21:24)
• “They shall reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 22:5)

This shows that Christ remains the supreme Ruler, while under his authority there are many who reign with him.

Therefore, the “prince” in Ezekiel may be understood as representing those who receive authority from Christ and govern God’s people within his kingdom, rather than being restricted to one individual.

 3. The Same Principle Applies to Matthew 24:45

Jesus said:

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?” (Matt. 24:45)

It is worth noting that Jesus did not say:

“In the last days there will be one faithful and wise servant.”

Instead, he asked:

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant?”

He then immediately continued:

“But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time…’” (Matt. 24:48)

This raises an important question.

If Matthew 24:45 refers to one unique end-time servant, would Matthew 24:48 mean that this same unique individual might become the wicked servant?

Such an interpretation does not follow naturally from the passage.

A more reasonable interpretation is that Jesus was warning everyone entrusted with the responsibility of caring for God’s household.

Every servant may become either:

• A faithful and wise servant; or
• An unfaithful and wicked servant.

Therefore, this passage describes an office and a person’s character rather than prophesying the appearance of one special individual.

 4. A Common Biblical Principle

Throughout the Bible, we repeatedly find the following pattern:

• Christ is the Chief Shepherd, but there are many shepherds (1 Pet. 5:2–4).
• Christ is the great High Priest, but believers are also priests (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6).
• Christ is the King of kings, but the overcomers reign with him (Rev. 20:6; 22:5).
• Christ is the Ruler of the kings of the earth, while the kings of the earth bring their glory into the holy city (Rev. 1:5; 21:24).
• Christ is Lord, but there are many faithful servants entrusted with caring for God’s household (Matt. 24:45).

All these offices share one common principle:

Christ is the one source of authority, while God’s servants carry out various responsibilities under his authority.

 5. John 10:34–35 Provides Another Important Principle

When the Jews accused Jesus of making himself God, Jesus answered:

“I said, ‘You are gods.’ If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came…” (John 10:34–35)

Jesus quoted Psalm 82 to show that those who received God’s word could represent God in exercising the authority entrusted to them.

Therefore, a person becomes a shepherd, prince, priest, king, or faithful servant not because that person possesses an inherently special status, but because that person has received God’s word and faithfully carries out the mission God has entrusted to him.

 Conclusion

I believe that neither the “prince” in Ezekiel nor the “faithful and wise servant” in Matthew should be restricted to one special individual who will appear in the last days.

The Bible more naturally presents these expressions as descriptions of spiritual offices.

Anyone who receives God’s word, faithfully shepherds God’s flock, provides spiritual food at the proper time, and completes the mission entrusted by the Lord may fulfill such an office.

Nevertheless, regardless of how many shepherds, princes, kings, or servants there may be, Christ always remains the one Chief Shepherd, the one great High Priest, the one King of kings, and the one Ruler of the kings of the earth.

All authority comes from him, and all glory belongs to him.

Therefore, if “the promised shepherd” refers to Christ—the one promised in Scripture who eternally shepherds God’s people—the teaching can be supported. But if the “promised pastor” doctrine claims that one particular individual must appear in the last days, replace the collective body of overcomers, and possess exclusive authority over revelation and salvation, then this doctrine cannot be established from the passages examined above.

 

Ex-SCJ member