Moon’s Theology of the Fall, Tamar, Jesus and Mary
Jesus, Judas and Mary
It is indeed official UC teaching that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene:
“According to True Father’s first Principle text, Wolli Wonbon (written 1951-1952), Jesus was indeed married to Mary Magdalene. It was a conditional marriage, however, because Mary Magdalene also had been sleeping with another man in the Archangel position (Judas Iscariot), who was supposed to give her to Jesus. Mention that Jesus would have to restore Eve in this way is hinted at in Exposition of the Divine Principle in the discussion of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt”
(Bible quotation skipped)
“God set up this situation to restore the Fall of Man. God had created Adam and Eve to become husband and wife, but Lucifer slept with Eve and stole her from Adam. To restore the Fall, this action had to be reversed: an Archangel-type husband would have to give up his wife, representing Eve, to a man in the position of Adam — and do it voluntarily. Thus Pharaoh (the Archangel) was induced to give up Sarah (Eve) to Abraham (Adam).
In this regard, Wolli Wonbon describes a triangular relationship between Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Judas, who were in the positions of Adam, Eve and Archangel:
Jesus tried to set up Judas’ wife as the woman in the position of Eve who would fulfill the original purpose of the Will. Mary Magdalene was this woman. Although she was Judas Iscariot’s lover, she absolutely obeyed Jesus’ will. Thus, as Satan had taken Eve from Adam, Jesus would try to take Judas’ wife for himself and thereby fulfill the Will according to the Principle.”
Graham C. Lester
Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement
by Ruth A. Tucker (PhD, Northern Illinois University) She has taught mission studies and church history at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Calvin Theological Seminary. She is the author of dozens of articles and eighteen books.
Accusations of immorality
From the very beginning the movement was shrouded in controversy.… Moon’s critics argue that Moon’s church activities involved more than developing new doctrine—that according to a newspaper account. “A third jailing in 1955 reportedly was for ‘causing social disorder’ and having bad morals stemming from ritual sex with women in his church.” Followers of Moon strongly deny such allegations, claiming that Moon was arrested for draft evasion and later acquitted of the charges.
The accusation of practicing the ritual of pikareum (“cleansing of the blood”) was specifically the charge that “Moon purportedly performed intercourse with each female initiate to purify her of the pollution she had inherited from Eve.” So widely believed was the charge that “the Korean National Council of Churches, representing various mainline Christian denominations, condemned the movement and refused it membership.”
The accusations of practicing ritual sex rites are the most devastating charges lodged against Moon during his earIy ministry. Are they warranted, or were they simply fabricated by enemies? Sontag rightly points out that “Every strong religious leader has been charged with sexual irregularities. Such stories surround Jesus too and survive in the early literature.” Yet, the accusations against Moon were made in many cases by reputable individuals. A Presbyterian minister [Rev. Won-il Chei] in Seoul gave the following testimony: “If we believe those who have gone into the group and come out, they say that one has to receive Sun Myung Moon’s blood to receive salvation. That blood is ordinarily received by three periods of sexual intercourse. But this fact they themselves keep absolutely secret.”
While such stories may be scurrilous lies, critics argue that they are made more believable within the context of Unification theology. A one-time supporter of Moon made the following observations of the sex allegations:
It is entirely possible that those sexual rituals were a part of the early church in Korea. Since original sin came through the woman’s [Eve’s] intercourse with Lucifer through which she received his evil characteristics, it is perfectly logical that the reversal of this, woman’s intercourse with the perfect man through which she could receive his perfect characteristics, would liquidate original sin. Then, as Adam received Satan’s evil characteristics from Eve through intercourse, so man would receive perfect characteristics through intercourse with the woman.
In 1960 Moon married again—some say for the fourth time. His new bride was Hak Ja Han, an eighteen-year-old follower who was less than half his age. That marriage is referred to as “the Marriage of the Lamb.” and through it, the couple became the Father and the Mother “of the universe.” Han, according to Moon, had been preparing for this role since the age of four, at which time she was blessed by a Korean mystic. “Being so young at the time, she did not remember the experience. But Moon was aware of it from the moment he met her.” Moon’s own marriage would reverse the sin of Adam and Eve that had infected all mankind.
According to Robert Boettcher: Once the vows of matrimony were exchanged, Moon as Perfect Adam could not let himself fall into the same trap as the first Adam. He “snatched her out of the Satanic world” and taught her to obey. Since Adam fell by being dominated by Eve, he had to reverse the precedent by achieving complete domination over his wife. Obedience training went from formation to growth and perfection, to the point where, after three years, he says, she would sacrifice her life if he so ordered.
Sun Myung Moon “God himself nursed Adam and Eve”
Chapter 5 The Master Speaks On Creation
These questions and answers have been transcribed from tapes made during our Leader’s sessions with members and guests at centers throughout the United States during his trip in March and April 1965.
Question: Do science and religion conflict in regard to the time lapse of the creation and the historical records?
Moon: No historical record goes back more than 4,000 years. So there is conflict between historians and anthropologists or archaeologists.
Question: Is creation only 6,000 years old? Scientists say it is much older.
Moon: I do not necessarily think that Adam lived 6,000 years ago. The time between Adam and Abraham is considered as the prehistoric age. At that time, according to the Bible, people lived 800 or 900 years. We don’t know if they had the same kind of calendar we have today. Nine hundred years in their time might not be 900 years by our way of measuring time. As it says in the Bible, one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Often things revealed by God are not literally true, but symbolical.
Question: If the prehistoric age (prior to Abraham) is to be taken as revelation, then how can we base our explanation of the history of resurrection on a literal interpretation of that part of history? We say it is 10 generations from Adam to Noah, 10 generations from Noah to Abraham, and so on.
Answer: The 10 generations are not necessarily literal. God may choose one person out of 10 million to accomplish a certain mission. He will count that person as one generation. Adam was the first generation; Jesus was the second generation; and the Lord of the Second Advent is the third generation.
There have been two forerunners to our Leader. They were both elders in the Christian church. Both did great work, but neither followed him. Spiritually gifted people sometimes receive that Mr. [Un-mong] Na was the first generation and Mr. [Tae-seon] Pak was the second generation and that our Leader is the third generation. They [Mr Na and Mr Pak] are not related at all.
We should count the generations from Adam to Noah and Noah to Abraham just as we count Adam, Jesus and the Second Messiah.
Question: We get into difficulties with this, in that we have made such a point of these numbers. If we suddenly say they are not to be taken literally we might well get the answer, “Then why should we take the days of the flood, or the fall itself literally?”
Moon: Not all people who lived between the times of Adam and Noah are considered, but only those selected people. Noah’s account should be taken literally. God’s providence or dispensation with Noah was carried on by that individual. Therefore, the events in his lifetime must be literally taken. Only the time element is not to be taken literally. The existence of Noah and of Adam as individual human beings is factual.
Pray about this matter and try to get answers yourself. Some explanation of this may be given in the new book which will help those you teach to understand better.
Question: The question of time is not the thing that bothers me most. It is the question of taking the Bible as literal in regard particularly to evolution. Did man come into existence suddenly, while the rest of creation was the product of evolution? Or did man gradually evolve?
Moon: Grass didn’t take long to grow. Bees didn’t take long to grow. They took originally just as long as they take today. If you sow a seed this year, it will grow and become a young tree next year.
Question: The theory of evolution, which may or may not be right, says that life started out as a single cell and continues to multi-celled organisms. This is not true?
Moon: Man is made of animal essence, vegetable essence and mineral essence. Suppose you have prepared all the material necessary to build a house. It doesn’t take long to build the house itself. To collect the material may take time, but once you have the materials the building itself doesn’t take much time. Likewise, the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms were all created over perhaps millions of years. All the materials were there. Out of those essences, it wouldn’t take long to create a man.
Question: Did Adam and Eve have earthly, physical parents?
Moon: No! The source of creation is energy. You don’t need physical parents to be created. Adam was a special creation.
Question: Were Adam and Eve created from other animal-like humans?
Moon: Have you ever wondered how a plant came into being? Where did the seed come from? In the small seed is every potential of the big tree. Likewise, in God’s energy and power itself is all the potential of man. A baby is born through the strong love of its father and mother. God’s strong love, His energy, created the baby. Eve was not created out of Adam’s rib, but was created after Adam and after Adam’s pattern.
Question: Were Adam and Eve born of God as we understand birth? That is, physiologically?
Moon: Through the power of God, Adam and Eve were created as a baby is created by humans today. Man was a special creation.
Question: Archaeologists are coming up with the bones of humans considered to be many millions of years old. How does this relate to Adam and Eve being created all at once.
Moon: On the whole, the process of creation was evolutionary. It took a long time to have plants, animals and minerals on earth. There may have been animals very like man. It is probably these skeletons which have been discovered.
Question: If there was no link between ape and man, what were the early men like?
Moon: There could have been men like Adam for some time…History both before and after Jesus must be viewed symbolically rather than literally. The important point is in the meaning. Our calendar was changed at the time of the Roman Empire. Who knows what it was prior to that time, particularly before Abraham…The matter is not important except in its symbology…The prehistoric age is revelation and should not be taken literally. Since it is revelation, the figures appearing prior to Abraham should be regarded symbolically. It is not literally 2,000 years.
Question: Why don’t we ask the spirit world about the exact time of the creation?
Moon: The spirit world does not have the same conception of time as we do, (It is useless to ask them how many years it has been). Our earth revolves around the sun once a year. But other planets revolve maybe once in every 20 years. So even spirits cannot tell us the time in terms of our own time.
Question: We receive many questions on evolution. Can you tell me how the Divine Principle looks at evolution as Darwin expounded it?
Moon: Evolution is true, and all the creations of the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms have developed through the evolutionary process…This, of course, does not include man’s creation.
Question: Then man, too, is continually evolving? Were Adam and Eve, then, an actual physical creation as it says in the Bible; or did their physical bodies evolve and their spirits evolve?
Moon: Adam and Eve were produced by exactly the same process as we produce a child. By strong love and energy of father and mother, a child is conceived and grows, first within the womb, then outside of it. In the same way, God created Adam and Eve. By His love and energy, a little thing was created which grew and grew and became Adam. It is all an evolutionary process.
Question: Then who nursed the two babies?
Moon: God Himself did. They were raised in a very unusual environment.
Moon’s theology of Tamarism
As the Unification movement hangs by the very thin thread of Moon’s Tamar theology, it’s appropriate to examine the theology of “Tamarism” which is the belief that the Fall of Man is restored through illicit sex. Tamarism is the theology upon which Moon based his mission.
Moon said, “… If you can understand about Tamar, you can understand the whole Principle. Whom did Tamar have a relationship with? Her father-in-law. How could a baby born out of such a relationship inherit the blood lineage of Israel?…The woman named Tamar had a relationship with her father-in-law, Judah. According to the law in those days, a woman who committed adultery had to be stoned to death. Tamar’s first husband had died, and then her second husband had died also; but she knew God loved the blood lineage of her husband. She knew she had to protect and continue that blood lineage. For Tamar, her personal dignity was not a factor. She was only concerned about preserving the blood lineage which God loved. Since she loved that blood lineage, she stood in a providential position and she was able to establish the proper condition of heart. With such a heart, she had a relationship with her father-in-law.” http://www.unification.net/gww/gww-04.html
However, Tamar’s first two husbands were Judah’s sons born of a Canaanite woman (Gen 38:2). Tamar tried unsuccessfully to have children with each of them. The Canaanites were considered by God to be impure and Israelites were not permitted to marry them. If Tamar was only concerned about preserving the blood lineage which God loved, why did she at first try to multiply the Canaanite lineage which God hated?
Nowhere in scripture is the fornication of Tamar explicitly praised or condoned. In fact, the curses uttered by the midwife during the birth of Tamar’s son give the incident a violent and gruesome connotation. The legitimacy of her action and the saintly status thus accorded to her by Tamarists, therefore, is derived solely from the supposed legitimacy of Judah which is derived from Genesis 49:10. But the legitimacy of Judah’s elevated status and sovereignty, as has been shown, is a contrivance.
As Genesis 49:22-24 shows, the one to inherit the blood lineage of Israel is Joseph who, together with Sarah and Rebekah, actually prevailed over Satan and established the foundation for the Messiah.
This leaves Tamar’s virtue, the Tamarists and the Unification Movement resting solely on the word of Reverend Moon. Reverend Moon’s words have proven so far to be less than completely reliable.
Divine Principle, which explains ‘the sexual nature of the Fall’, allows us to see how God consistently placed providential figures in a position to undo the Fall by having them encounter the same temptations that Adam and Eve faced in the garden. When these providential figures repeated the failure of Adam and Eve, the Providence was set back and had to be prolonged. From this perspective we can see that many providential figures who are traditionally considered to be victorious champions of faith, such as Abraham, Jacob and David, each of whom fell into the sin of adultery, were only partial victors at best. In this light, its clear that those who rejected sexual temptation such as Sarah, Rebekah, Joseph and Boaz are the ones who defeated Satan, advanced God’s Providence and are the true ancestors of the Messiah. Tamarism, which is a perversion of Divine Principle, obscures this view and leads back to the realm of the Fall.
Five of the Many Ways in Which the Principle View of the Fall Is Nonsensical
The Divine Principle explanation for the fall is not just wrong but entirely nonsensical.
1. The Principle interpretation is biblically nonsensical. When God gives the commandment to be fruitful we must assume that God knows the meaning of the words he is using. From a botanical standpoint, an organism can only be fruitful after sexual reproduction has taken place. If God were to use the phrase “be fruitful” in the context of a commandment to not have sex until after attaining perfection then God would be demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of basic botany.
Eve says the Tree of Knowledge is “in the middle of the garden.” If she herself were the tree, why would she speak of the tree as being located in the middle of the garden?
Divine Principle says that Lucifer seduced Eve and Eve then seduced Adam. However, the Bible says (Gen 3:6) that Adam was with Eve at the time she first tasted the fruit. Adam then tasted the fruit immediately afterwards. This makes nonsense of the Principle’s claim that Eve repented after “eating the fruit” with Lucifer and then later had sex with Adam from a desire to return to her original place.
2. The Principle interpretation is historically nonsensical. Even if the Divine Principle account were a solid interpretation of the Genesis story the latter would still be only a story and not an actual historical event. Let’s look at the two explanations that Unificationists give of how the story came to be: 1) it is an ancient oral tradition that has been passed down from Adam and Eve’s family; 2) it is a revelation received directly from God at a later date.
It is impossible for an ancient oral tradition to have been preserved from the time of Adam and Eve for the simple reason that any original ancestors would have had to have lived at least 125,000 years ago, and probably over 400,000 years ago. We know that because control of fire by early humans was already prevalent 125,000 years ago and seems to have existed for several hundred thousand years before that. Control of fire is not something that animals are capable of, not even the most intelligent animals. In fact even today most educated people would not be able to successfully create and control fire if they were dropped alone into a remote wilderness. Could you? Unless you have been in the armed forces, or at least the Scouts, you probably could not. The control of fire is a complex set of behaviors that has to be learned. If there were such a thing as the human spirit then it would have to go back at least to the time when humans first learned to control fire. Can you imagine an oral history remaining intact for 125,000 years in the absence of any sort of writing? It is preposterous. And then, who decided to pass it on in a symbolic form? Perhaps Adam and Eve decided that the whole tale was too shameful to be explained clearly and yet realized that it would some day be needed by Divine Principle lecturers and so they cleverly disguised it with symbols. Not likely is it?
Neither is the Genesis account a revelation. If God were going to give the Divine Principle story by revelation in symbolic form he would surely get the order of events correct, make the symbols clear, and not mistakes about basic botany that could be spotted by an intelligent ten year old. And why would God talk about himself walking in the garden as if he were a human? Moreover, according to the documentary hypothesis (look that up!), Bible scholars have found that the Genesis story was not originally a single story but two, three, or more earlier stories that have been somewhat haphazardly edited together. This is why, for instance, Genesis repeats the story of creation of man in Genesis 1: 26-28 and then in Genesis 2: 5. Notice how there are no plants in Genesis 2: 5 despite the fact that God has already created them in Genesis 1: 11. Why would God give mutually contradictory revelations and then leave it to a tribe of uneducated ancient Israelites to create a coherent narrative out of the parts?
3. The Principle interpretation is nonsense from the standpoint of science. There are literally millions of pieces of evidence that creatures evolved gradually over hundreds of millions of years. Why all the dinosaur bones? There never were such people as Adam and Eve. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Would it make any sense for God to create all the different life forms by evolution and then cap it off by creating Adam and Eve as special creations? Why not use special creation for all the animals if that were the case? But let’s say that God did use special creation for humans only, then why did he also create so many transitional forms between the ape and man? Why Australopithecus? Why the Neanderthals? Why the Denisovans? Why would God create humans as special creations and then leave a long trail of evidence to make it seem as if they had evolved? And if God was just practicing when he made the earlier hominins, as some Divine Principle lecturers say, then why does Unification Thought declare that God already had the perfect image of Adam and Eve in mind before he began the creation?
Then there is this whole problem of angels. How exactly did they help God create the world? What do they do today? Do they help the True Children with their homework? Have you ever seen one? How do they get on with the pixies and the fairies? Why do spiritualists disagree on basic facts such as what sex the angels are and whether or not they really have wings? Are you so sure about these angels?
4. The Principle interpretation is nonsense from the standpoint of psychology. Would you make the whole success of your global master plan contingent on the ability of a sixteen-year-old girl to outsmart the brilliant archangel who co-created the universe? That’s what the Divine Principle God, Hananim, did.
Apparently, Hananim didn’t think through the relationships he was setting up at all carefully, and he didn’t even have any back-up plan. He just figured that he could leave a really hot teen-age girl alone with a very lonely male caretaker, who had no other sexual or romantic outlet, and that nothing could possibly go wrong. Even the worst parents in today’s world tend to be at least a little bit careful whom they leave their children with. But not Hananim, apparently. Not only did Hananim skip Botany but he flunked Common Sense 101 too.
Remember, all Eve had to go with was the commandment. The punishment for failure was the creation of hell, plus tens of thousands of years of suffering for the whole human race. And yet Divine Principle mocks Christians for saying that God threatened his children with death. The punishment in Divine Principle is far worse than the mere death of an individual. By its own standards, doesn’t the Principle deserve far greater mockery?
5. The Principle interpretation is nonsense from the standpoint of theology. The glaring problem here is that it does not explain how sin comes into the world or how it is passed from generation to generation. In the Unification Church there are as many different explanations for how sin is transmitted as there are members who are willing to venture a suggestion. Some people think sin is passed on socially. Others think it has something to do with the sung sang of the blood. Some think it is more of a legal predicament resulting from Satan’s claim over humankind – a bit like if you accidentally sign up with AOL and then find it impossible to cancel your membership. And then there are those who think it is connected with being deprived of the life element from God. Moon was never able to clearly explain it in spite of having over sixty years and tens of thousands of hours of sermonizing during which to do so. He left it up to the members because he didn’t actually have an answer. It’s like a criminal who gives a different account of his actions every time he is questioned; then, when he is put up for trial and asked which version is the truth, he shrugs his shoulders and suggests that the jury pick whichever story they find most believable.
If sin is simply passed on socially then why do we need a wine ceremony (with those special ingredients!) to change the lineage? Why did infertile couples always have to adopt from other blessed couples? Why did we have a True Family? Why all that sex in the early days of the movement? Clearly the view that sin is merely passed on socially cannot be considered an orthodox Unificationist position.
The notion of sin as a legal predicament certainly has some roots in Christian theology, where Christ is our advocate and God is our judge, and where Christ takes our punishment upon himself. But sin cannot only be a legal formality. There is certainly an element of inner corruption, of falling short of the glory, of concupiscence, too. Take away the devil and all his works and we are still sinners, from a Christian standpoint. There must be more to it.
What about deprivation of the life element inhibiting our spiritual growth? That sort of leaves it up to God. We are like an engine that doesn’t have enough gas. Hananim has the gas but he won’t put enough in the tank, or he can’t because Satan won’t let him, or something. How do we get to the point where Hananim is going to allow us enough gas? We go to the blessing but our gas allowance remains the same as before; perhaps it goes down a little. If we can’t get the gas how can we be blamed for not going the extra miles?
Most Unificationists would deny that sin is a material thing like a disease that is passed down from generation to generation. They would reject the notion that we ought to be able to identify it substantially in the blood, even if we had a really good microscope. Some would say that sin is a collection of “evil elements” that stained Eve’s spirit in some way. But are fear and jealousy transferable from one object to another in the same way that energy is? Is there a conservation of depravity that works like the conservation of momentum? Perhaps we can imagine ways that these emotions could have been transferred between individuals, but how do they then get into the “blood” and affect future generations?
I think the most common belief among Unificationists who even attempt to make sense of their own teachings is that sin is a corruption of some invisible inner essence (sung sang) of the blood, or the DNA — a spiritual condition that has a material effect in terms of our failure to unite mind and body. But, how did this come about? Can we really believe that it was somehow passed from Lucifer to Eve through his sperm, which was entirely spiritual, and then passed to Adam through Eve’s kisses or whatever, and then passed to the children through the blood? How did it go from the Luciferian sperm to the human blood? No answer. Perhaps we can think of a drop of ink spreading in a container of pure water. No, that is an analogy not an explanation. There is no real explanation, just a bunch of vague mumbo jumbo that every Divine Principle lecturer is free to make up as he goes along. Really, how does any of this work? What is the mechanism? It is not that the Unification Church has a poor explanation for sin: it has no explanation whatsoever. And yet its Messiah has already come and gone, and the removal of sin was supposed to be his main mission.
Graham C. Lester
Also by Graham C. Lester: