There Is No Bride And There Is A Bride – Were Ahn Sahng Hong’s Teachings Temporary (Special Measures Law)?

In a previous article, we provided proof that Ahn Sahng Hong’s teachings about the non-existence of a “god the mother” in his book Problems With the New Jerusalem, the Bride and Women’s Veils, could not have been temporary and therefore still apply to Zahng Gil Jah. In order for the World Mission Society Church of God’s argument that Ahn Sahng Hong’s teaching about women in the church was temporary and only applicable to Um Soo In, all of the teachings in Ahn Sahng Hong’s book would have to meet the same criteria. Ask yourself how the World Mission Society Church of God come to the sweeping conclusion that Ahn Sahng Hong briefly wrote this book in order to “conceal the truth until the appointed time” after only reading the Preface? Some members have said on social media that Ahn Sahng Hong only wrote his book to expose a false prophet (Um Soo In). Does the WMSCOG do that with any of Ahn Sahng Hong’s other books? Why doesn’t the WMSCOG encourage members to read the entire book and decide for themselves if Ahn Sahng Hong’s teachings apply to Zahng Gil Jah (Jang Gil Ja) as well?

Was Ahn Sahng Hong’s “scandalous” teaching about Isaac marrying his mother temporary?

In his book, Ahn Sahng Hong claims that Um Soo In believed that he was Isaac, and therefore Jesus. In disproving Um Soo In’s interpretation of Galatians 4:22-24, Ahn Sahng Hong concluded that it was “scandalous” to believe that the Heavenly Jerusalem represented a “god the mother” because that would mean that Isaac, or Jesus, married his mother. Ahn Sahng Hong wrote:

Nevertheless, Um Soo In claims that she is the Heavenly Jerusalem and that she has come down to earth.  According to the prophecy of Galatians 4:22-24, Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem.  However, if the New Jerusalem is Um Soo In, she has then married her son.  The reason for this is that Isaac is the son of Sarah, and it is said that Isaac is also Christ. (Gal. 3:16)

Um Soo In has then become the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ.

Um Soo In states that I am Isaac with weakness of sight while claiming that she is Sarah, who is the Heavenly Jerusalem.  She is then saying that she will live with Isaac who is her son.  How extremely scandalous is this?  With this type of misguided delusion, she has become a false prophet and has attempted to gain power.  Please think of what will become of her sin and the sin of those who follow after her. (Isa. 9:16)

Chapter 7 The Jerusalem in Heaven is Our Mother

What happens when you substitute Um Soo In with Zahng Gil Jah?

You can easily replace Um Soo In’s name with Zahng Gil Jah’s name and see that the meaning of the above paragraphs remains the same.

Nevertheless, Zhang Gil Jah claims that she is the Heavenly Jerusalem and that she has come down to earth.  According to the prophecy of Galatians 4:22-24, Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem.  However, if the New Jerusalem is Zhang Gil Jah, she has then married her son.  The reason for this is that Isaac is the son of Sarah, and it is said that Isaac is also Christ. (Gal. 3:16)

Zhang Gil Jah has then become the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ.

Zhang Gil Jah states that I am Isaac with weakness of sight while claiming that she is Sarah, who is the Heavenly Jerusalem.  She is then saying that she will live with Isaac who is her son.  How extremely scandalous is this?  With this type of misguided delusion, she has become a false prophet and has attempted to gain power.  Please think of what will become of her sin and the sin of those who follow after her. (Isa. 9:16)

Setting aside that Ahn Sahng Hong believed that the New Jerusalem was not a person, when replacing Um Soo In’s name with Zahng Gil Jah’s name, the overall meaning of Ahn Sahng Hong’s words does not change. How could Ahn Sahng Hong’s scriptural interpretation change just because the name of the woman changes? It cannot, because whoever claims to be the Heavenly Jerusalem, would still be marrying her son in the above scenario. The Bible warns that incest is a sin (Leviticus 18:6-7, specifically between a mother and son). If Ahn Sahng Hong’s claims in this book were supposed to be a “temporary measures law,” why would he include claims, that when changed in the future for Zahng Gil Jah, would not only directly contradict the Bible, but would also be sinful? This is just one of the many reasons why Zahng Gil Jah, a divorced woman, cannot be god.

The World Mission Society Church of God’s “temporary measures law” explanation would also mean that Ahn Sahng Hong was deceitful in his writings about the non-existence of a “mother god.” Ahn Sahng Hong could not have been the Second Coming of Jesus because Jesus was without sin and no deceit was found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22).

You might also like

Leave A Reply

Please be aware that the WMSCOG reads this website. Unless necessary, please refrain from adding any information that they can use to identify you or your family in the comments.

Your email address will not be published.