Christianity

Christianity: The Bridal Office of the Second Israel in Unification Doctrine

기독교 · 基督敎 · The Bride Religion, The Second Israel

What Is Christianity?

Christianity is the religion founded on Jesus of Nazareth that, in Unification teaching, holds the providential office of bride: the community prepared across two thousand years to receive the returning Lord and, with him, to restore the True Parents lost at the Fall. Its distinguishing feature is not doctrinal complexity but relational vocabulary. Alone among the world’s faiths, it addresses God as Father, names its founder the only begotten Son, and calls its members the bride of a coming bridegroom.

The Exposition of the Divine Principle places Christianity at the head of the providence of restoration because that vocabulary is the vocabulary of a family, and the family is the unit through which God restores the world.

This entry argues that Christianity holds its central place in Unification doctrine by office rather than by essence. It is the bride religion, and every claim Rev. Sun Myung Moon makes about its supremacy over other faiths follows from that single functional assignment rather than from any intrinsic superiority of its members, its institutions, or its theology. The reading has a testable consequence: an office can be forfeited and reassigned, and so the same corpus that calls Christianity the king among religions can, without contradiction, speak of Christianity as a religion that needs to be saved. That is precisely what the corpus does, and the chronology of the Korean archive shows when it began to do so.

the main philosophy of Christianity is the philosophy of the bride

— Sun Myung Moon (11/24/1992) Cheon Seong Gyeong

The sentence is compressed enough to skim past, but it is a definition, not an image. Rev. Moon is not saying that Christianity uses bridal imagery among other images; he is saying that the bridal relation is the organising principle from which the rest of Christian teaching is derivable.

Everything established below about Christianity’s rank, its homelessness, and its late-period crisis follows from that claim, grounded in the Exposition of the Divine Principle’s account of the Second Coming as a marriage rather than a descent.

Methodology Note

This entry reads the official English Cheon Seong Gyeong compilation, the title-level index of the Korean speech archive of Rev. Sun Myung Moon covering 6,118 addresses from 1956 to 2010, and the Exposition of the Divine Principle. The canonical texts are read as authoritative within the tradition, attending to their historical and rhetorical setting; the aim is doctrinal clarification, not external evaluation. The entry does not attempt a history of Christianity itself, an assessment of particular denominations, or an account of Unification relations with individual churches. Korean etymological and homiletic material attested in the preaching corpus but not verified against a named archive file is reported in prose rather than quoted, and no serial reference is claimed for it. All blockquotes are drawn from the official English Cheon Seong Gyeong and cited by the date of the underlying address.

The Hanja of 기독교 names an office, not an essence

Korean did not receive the word "Christianity" from English but as a Sino-Korean compound whose three characters carry independent meaning, and Rev. Sun Myung Moon read those characters doctrinally across decades of preaching. The reading is where the thesis first takes shape, because it locates Christianity’s dignity in an assignment rather than a possession.

The compound is 基督敎. The first character, 기 (基), means foundation or ground. The second, 독 (督), means to superintend or take charge; Rev. Moon glossed it as overseeing, commanding, and governing alike. The third, 교 (敎), teaching, is built from 孝, filial piety, and 父, father. Read straight through; 기독교 is the teaching that superintends the foundation, and the teaching in question is the one in which a son stands rightly before a father.

Moon delighted in this and said so, remarking more than once that he would like to decorate whoever coined the Korean word, since the coiner had said more than he knew. He pressed the point by contrast: Korean also possesses 야소교 (耶蘇敎), a straightforward phonetic rendering of the name of Jesus, and that would have been the obvious choice.

If the religion is the religion of Jesus, why not call it that?

He answered that the choice of 기독교 was revelatory rather than lexical. Someone reached past the founder’s name to a description of the founder’s mandate.

The gloss on 독 (督) went further in some addresses. Rev. Moon broke the character apart, noting that its upper element with the water radical yields 淑, the character of the gracious woman, and that an eye sits beneath. From this he drew an image rather than an etymology: Christianity was to fill the world with water until it stood level, and the eye set over that levelling looks across three ages.

Homiletic wordplay should not be pressed into technical doctrine, but the image points the same way. A religion charged with levelling the world is a religion under orders.

The same procedure governs Rev. Moon’s reading of 종교 (宗敎), the Korean word for religion. The character 종 (宗) denotes the ridgepole, the beam running along the peak of a Korean roof: religion is ridgepole teaching, and Christianity is the religion at the ridge. Rev. Moon read the 교 of 종교 exactly as in 기독교, so that religion in the highest sense is not a body of doctrine at all, but a relation, and any religion failing to produce that relation has missed the definition of its name.

Two consequences follow. The first is that the movement’s own Korean name runs on the same logic: Rev. Moon insisted that the 통 of 통일 (統一) is not the 통 of following along but the 통 of gathering and leading under a centre. The Unification Church was named for an act of governance, not an act of merger, and it does not propose to dissolve Christianity into itself but to gather what Christianity was given to gather.

The second is that Moon’s most startling remark about persecution becomes intelligible. He told Korean audiences that a religion standing on the ground of oversight is a religion worth persecuting, invited opponents to strike without mercy, and added the image of a drum that turns on the stick beating it. That is not resignation but a claim that the office is really enough to draw fire and that fire directed against an office rebounds.

The classical background reinforces the point rather than supplying it, since Confucian teaching treats instruction and filial piety as one act and holds that the person rightly ordered toward a parent and elder brother will rarely be disposed to disorder (Analects 1.2, Legge).

If the name is a job description, the next question is what the job actually is.

Christianity restored the realm of the adopted son

The job has a precise designation, neither the highest nor the lowest available. Unification teaching assigns Christianity the restoration of the adopted-child position, and grasping that dissolves most of the apparent tension in Moon’s language about Christian greatness.

The providence of restoration proceeds by rank. In the Old Testament Age, humanity stood before God as a servant, a real relation but a distant one. With Jesus, a higher position opened: believers could address God as Father and wait, in Paul’s phrase, for adoption as sons (Rom 8:23).

Adoption is genuine since the adopted child lives in the house, bears the name, and inherits in the absence of a direct heir. What adoption does not do is change lineage, and lineage is what the Fall corrupted.

Christianity restored the realm of the adopted son

— Sun Myung Moon (08/30/1972) Cheon Seong Gyeong

The same address supplies the contrast that sharpens the claim: religions apart from Christianity undertook the servant realm, which is why the most devout among them were so often required to hold nothing and marry no one. Celibacy is thus not a spiritual failure but an accurate expression of a servant’s position, since a servant under a bad master cannot securely keep a spouse. Christianity, one rank higher, could permit marriage but could not sanctify lineage.

This is why Rev. Moon can say that Christianity is the religion of the heart without contradicting himself when he says that Christians remain adopted children.

Christianity is a religion of heart.

— Sun Myung Moon (05/01/1960) Cheon Seong Gyeong

Five words, spoken in the first year of the Holy Wedding, carrying the doctrinal weight of shimjeong (the irrepressible impulse of the heart to seek joy through love).

A religion of law can be obeyed at a distance; a religion of heart cannot, because heart requires a counterpart who is present. Rev. Moon treated the early Christian address of God as Father as a genuine discovery and located Christianity’s advantage there. An adopted child who calls the master Father has crossed a threshold no servant crosses, and that the threshold is not the last one does not make the crossing small.

Christianity is the second rung of an eight-stage ladder of religions

The adopted-child designation belongs to a fuller scheme, and setting Christianity inside it is the clearest way to see that its rank is positional. Moon taught a graded sequence of religions, publicly and provocatively.

In the Last Days, there will appear the religion of True Parents

— Sun Myung Moon (01/23/1983) Cheon Seong Gyeong

The same address lays out the ladder in full: the religions of the world occupy the positions of servant of servants, servant, adopted child, child by a concubine, child of direct lineage, mother, father, and finally True Parents. Eight rungs, ascending. Rev. Moon added, before interreligious audiences, that antiquity confers nothing here and that the older a religion is, the more likely it occupies a servant rung.

That is not an insult to age but a claim that each rung became available only when the providence had prepared it.

The Korean preaching supplies a second, complementary sequence cast in the vocabulary of the wedding rather than the household. Religion begins in the archangelic realm, since angels were created before Adam. From that base a bride religion emerges, and Rev. Moon names it without hesitation: Christianity is the bride religion and the mother church, the body whose reason for existing is to be ready when the bridegroom comes.

After it comes the bridegroom religion; when the two actually meet, at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, a religion of the married couple appears for the first time, and from that couple comes the religion of parents, which is the terminus.

Side by side, the two schemes agree. In the household ladder, Christianity is the third rung from the bottom; in the wedding sequence it is the second stage of five.

Either way it stands well above the servant religions, well below the terminus, and is defined by what comes after it. Rev. Moon drew the pastoral conclusion himself: every religion whose members have attended a founder has been in training to attend parents.

This is the strongest single piece of evidence for the office reading. A tradition central by intrinsic property cannot be assigned a rung, because rungs are relative positions and sequences move. The ladder makes Christianity’s greatness real and provisional in the same breath.

Christianity is defined by what it must receive, not by what it possesses

If Christianity is the bride religion, its content is oriented toward a reception that has not yet occurred, and this shapes everything about it, including its failures.

The Exposition of the Divine Principle grounds the bridal structure in the structure of the Fall. Because the first parents fell as a man and a woman, failing to become husband and wife under God, restoration must run through a man and a woman succeeding at precisely that point. The Messiah therefore comes as a bridegroom and requires a bride, and the body that prepares her is the indispensable counterpart rather than one participant among many. Jesus set the terms himself at the close of his ministry, naming himself bridegroom and his followers bride, which in Unification reading is instruction rather than consolation: the assignment he could not complete he handed forward.

Christianity, centering on Jesus, inevitably became a global religion.

— Sun Myung Moon (03/20/1972) Cheon Seong Gyeong

The force lies in the adverb. Christianity did not become global because its missionaries were braver or its empires larger, but because it carried four relational requirements no other tradition carried together: to become God’s child, to become one body with God, to meet as bride and bridegroom under God’s will, and to form a new family. A religion carrying those four cannot stop at a family (CSG, March 20, 1972).

What it could not do was give that expansion a body.

it achieved the realm of the second Israel spiritually but not physically

— Sun Myung Moon (06/19/1966) Cheon Seong Gyeong

Half a restoration is a diagnosis, not a complaint. Jesus refused a bride and a nation, established a spiritual foundation, and left the substantial one unbuilt.

Hence, the church that grew from it inherited a spiritual Israel without an earthly one. The consequence is that the historical fact Moon is treated as doctrinally significant rather than incidental.

Hence, Christianity has no nation of its own.

— Sun Myung Moon (02/18/1971) Cheon Seong Gyeong

There are many countries with Christian populations, and none whose sovereign holds office as a Christian pastor, and Rev. Moon read that vacancy providentially. Judaism had a land and lost it as indemnity for the crucifixion; Christianity never received one, because a bride does not build the house. Two thousand years of Christian martyrdom follow from the same gap, since a people with no sovereign has no shelter. It is at least an explanation that takes the martyrs seriously rather than treating their deaths as an accident.

Christianity’s mission is the mission Judaism forfeited

The three-age framework locates Christianity exactly, and the location explains both its authority and its exposure.

In the Old Testament Age, Israel was raised as the chosen people, and Judaism was the body prepared to recognise the Messiah. When recognition failed and Jesus went to the cross, the mission did not lapse; it transferred. Christianity became the Second Israel, carrying the same assignment forward on a worldwide rather than a national scale, and the Completed Testament Age begins when the returning Lord is received and the Third Israel is constituted.

The three Israels are marked by three gates, and Rev. Moon named them precisely. The First was entered by circumcision, a mark on the body. The Second by baptism, a washing that reaches the spirit. The Third by the Blessing, because only marriage reaches lineage. Read as a series, the gates track the ladder exactly, each rite doing what the previous one could not.

Moon also read the transfer as an exact structural repetition, which yields the sharpest claim in the whole doctrine. If the returning Lord appears in a nation now standing where Israel stood, the Christianity of that nation stands where Judaism stood, and the test is administered a second time under the same conditions. He said this of Korea in the plainest terms: should Korea be chosen as the Third Israel, Korean Christians occupy the position of the Jews of the first century, facing a figure who arrives in human form while their expectation has been shaped for centuries around clouds. The persecution would then come from three directions at once, as before: from the churches, the state, and the people.

There is nothing triumphalist in this. It is a warning delivered to the tradition Moon regarded as highest and the clearest statement that possession of an office guarantees nothing about its discharge.

It was my intention to win over world Christianity within seven years.

— Sun Myung Moon (12/15/1985) Cheon Seong Gyeong

Seven years, not seventy, and stated as intention rather than achievement. In the Korean preaching, Rev. Moon developed the arithmetic: had Christianity and the movement united at the outset, the will would have been realised directly, and because they did not, a two-thousand-year course had to be re-indemnified in a compressed span of twenty years from the early 1960s. Compression of that kind is the signature of indemnity, and it names what the Second Israel left undone.

Whether the archive bears out this reading of Christian crisis is a question it can answer directly.

The corpus foregrounds Christianity by name in the 1970s and by office after 2000

The Korean archive supplies a test the doctrinal statements alone cannot, and it delivers its first result through an absence.

A scan of sermon titles returns twenty addresses containing 기독교, the earliest dated October 23, 1973 (Moon 1973, vol. 69). This is striking. Christianity is doctrinally foundational from the beginning of Rev. Moon’s ministry in 1956, and the Exposition of the Divine Principle is unintelligible without it, yet across the first seventeen years of the corpus, roughly a thousand addresses, the word never rises to title level. Those years foreground Jesus, the cross, the Second Advent, and Israel as a providential category instead. Christianity as such becomes a topic only when Moon begins addressing it in America as an institution whose future is in question.

The office vocabulary tells a complementary story. Titles containing 이스라엘 begin in 1958, and eighteen of the twenty-four concern the numbered Israels rather than the modern state. Charting the two together separates the name of the tradition from the name of its office, which is the distinction the thesis turns on.

The shape of the two registers is the argument in miniature. The name spikes in the 1970s and again after 2000; the office is present from the beginning, quiet through the middle decades, then overwhelming at the end. An intrinsically supreme religion would not produce that pattern. An assignment under review would.

The granular record for the name register repays inspection, because the vocabulary of the titles changes as decisively as their frequency.

Read down the list, and the register shift is unmistakable. The first two years speak of a future: the future of Christianity, then the new future of Christianity, the latter delivered five times between March and December 1974 as Rev. Moon toured American cities (Moon 1974a, vol. 70).

The term then nearly vanishes for a decade and a half, surfacing in 1980 beside Jesus and the will of God and in the early 1980s beside the movement’s own institutional tradition, before returning in June 1991 in the register of resurrection (Moon 1991, vol. 217).

From 2000, the term becomes frequent again, and the vocabulary turns to “rescue.” Half of the twenty titles fall in the final seven years, speaking of the way for Christianity to live, of saving Christianity and America, of revival joined to purity, of re-education, and of the mission of Christianity as reported from the spirit world. This is not the vocabulary of a tradition being celebrated but of one being resuscitated.

The Unification Church restored through indemnity the failure of Christianity

— Sun Myung Moon (10/04/1985) Cheon Seong Gyeong

Set against the chronology, the sentence describes a division of labor rather than boasting. An office left undischarged does not evaporate; the work falls to whoever will pay for it. Rev. Moon’s account of the four decades after 1945 is an account of that transfer, and the late titles about saving Christianity state the same thing from the other side.

For a Blessed Family, Christianity is kin, not competition

The office reading has an immediate consequence for daily life, and not the one a triumphalist reading would produce.

If Christianity’s rank rests on an office not yet discharged, then Christians are not rivals to be defeated but relatives standing one position back in the same sequence. Rev. Moon’s guidance is consistent with this and occasionally startling in its warmth. He instructed members to answer the question of who Jesus is by naming a family relation: an elder brother, nearer than any object of veneration could be, received as the subject of one’s daily life rather than merely the object of one’s faith.

Witnessing to Christians is framed as work inside the family rather than across a boundary, and the October 2000 address joins the evangelism of one’s own clan to the evangelism of Christians in a single breath (Moon 2000c, vol. 338).

Christian holy days are kept rather than abandoned, and Christmas addresses recur in the archive from 1957 onward, several asking what Jesus himself wants of the day. Where a local church opposes the movement, the standing guidance is to absorb the opposition rather than return it, on the principle that God’s method is to be struck first and recover afterward.

Moon was equally direct about what is owed in the other direction. He pressed hard on denominational self-enclosure, noting that the best-known verse in Christian preaching says God so loved the world and not that God so loved a denomination (John 3:16 KJV), and as hard on the reduction of salvation to assent, asking whether belief without a bond of love could carry anyone out of the fallen realm. Both criticisms are internal: they hold Christianity to its text. That is what one does with kin.

The posture is more demanding than it looks. It asks a Blessed Family to hold two things at once: that Christian teaching on salvation is incomplete, since entry into the Third Israel runs through the Blessing rather than through belief; and that the Christian who holds it is an elder sibling to whom honor is owed.

Inter-Religious Resonance

Christianity is here both the subject of the entry and one of the traditions compared, so this section reads its scriptures first. Rev. Moon’s comparative criterion is consistent across the corpus and is not one of doctrinal sophistication: he ranked traditions by how near they bring God to human beings and specifically by whether the God they present can be addressed as a person.

Christianity. The bridal office is not a Unification imposition on the New Testament; it is the New Testament’s own closing image. The Revelation to John sets the consummation of history as a wedding rather than a verdict.

the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready

Paul makes the same move structurally, calling the union of husband and wife a great mystery spoken concerning Christ and the church (Eph 5:32) and describing his ministry as presenting a congregation as a chaste bride (2 Cor 11:2). Alongside this stands the filial address Rev. Moon treated as Christianity’s discovery, the Spirit by which believers cry, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15).

The unification doctrine affirms both and diverges on one point: the wedding is a literal event on earth from which a lineage proceeds, not a figure for the church’s spiritual union with a heavenly Christ.

Judaism. The Tanakh supplies the biblical grammar the New Testament inherits. The prophets describe the covenant itself as a betrothal, with God as husband to a people who are his wife.

And I will betroth thee unto Me for ever

Isaiah names the maker of a people as its husband (Isa 54:5 JPS), and rabbinic tradition preserves the same reading in its treatment of the Song of Songs.

The unification doctrine affirms the continuity and adds a providential claim: the betrothal language belongs to the First Israel, and its passage to the Second after the crucifixion transfers an office rather than inventing one.

Islam. The Qur’an honors Jesus as a word from God and a messenger of high standing (Q 3:45, Pickthall) and notes a particular nearness in affection between Muslims and Christians (Q 5:82, Pickthall), while firmly refusing the language of divine Sonship.

In the corpus, Rev. Moon placed Islam at a distance from the bridal structure on the ground that it joins revelation to temporal governance rather than to family relation, a judgment stated from within his tradition and offered here as such. The refusal of Sonship is nonetheless instructive: Islam guards an absolute distinction between creator and creature that Unification doctrine also affirms in its account of God as the vertical parent. The two part over whether that distinction forbids a literal parent-child relation, and Unification teaching holds that it does not, the relation being one of heart and lineage rather than of shared divine nature.

Confucianism. The strongest East Asian parallel is structural rather than doctrinal, and it sits inside the Korean word itself. Confucian teaching makes filial piety the root from which the moral order grows (Analects 1.2, Legge) and locates the way of the noble person in the ordinary relations of the household (Doctrine of the Mean 12, Legge). That is the logic of 敎 as Rev. Moon read it, and it explains why the Korean rendering of Christianity could carry his doctrinal weight so readily. What Confucianism does not supply is the object of that filiality: a Father who is a person with heart, and a marriage that restores a lineage. Moon put the deficit in those terms, observing that in the classics Heaven rewards the good but remains indefinite, an order rather than a father.

What is distinctive in the Unification account is therefore neither the bridal image nor the filial structure, both of which are shared, but the insistence that the two be completed in a single event. Judaism holds the betrothal, Christianity the bridegroom, Confucianism the filial order, and Islam the absolute creator. The unification doctrine claims these converge in an earthly marriage of a restored son and daughter under God and that Christianity was assigned the task of being ready for it. The traditions are not thereby flattened; they are read as holding, separately, parts of a structure Christianity was given to assemble.

Analytical Synthesis

The thesis was that Christianity’s centrality in Unification doctrine is an office rather than an essence. Five lines of evidence converge. The Korean name reads as a job description. The doctrinal definition specifies Christianity by what it must receive rather than by what it holds. The eight-rung ladder and the five-stage wedding sequence both place it at a relative position defined by what comes after.

The three gates show each Israel receiving a rite the previous one could not use. And the chronology shows the name rising to the title level only when the discharge of the office is in doubt.

The strongest internal objection runs the other way and deserves a full statement. Rev. Moon says that Christianity alone revealed a personal God, that the early Christian address of God as Father was a genuine discovery, and that Christianity therefore serves as the global religion able to unite the world. On the essence reading, these are claims about what Christianity possesses: Jesus is the only begotten Son by nature and not by appointment, and the religion founded on him inherits a standing no failure of its members can revoke. The late language of rescue would then be pastoral concern for a body whose rank remains secure.

The objection is real, and it preserves something the office reading must not lose, since Rev. Moon’s praise of the Christian discovery of the Father is unfeigned and grounded like God. But three features of the evidence favor the office reading where the two diverge.

The first is the treatment of Judaism. The First Israel possessed in seed everything the essence argument attributes to Christianity and lost the mission anyway. If possession secured rank, the transfer would be inexplicable. It is not a marginal doctrine but the load-bearing precedent for the entire teaching on the Second Advent, and it establishes that in this system missions move.

The second is that the sequence does not stop where the three-age scheme suggests. From August 2003, the corpus carries a run of titles announcing a Fourth Israel, joined in the same months to the founding of a peace United Nations and, by January 2004, to Cheon Il Guk itself (Moon 2003b, vol. 416; Moon 2004, vol. 430). Whatever else it designates, its appearance shows the enumeration of Israels to be an open series rather than a closed triad. An open series is what one expects of offices and is difficult to explain of essences.

The third is Moon’s explicit statement of insufficiency.

Uniting Christianity will not suffice.

— Sun Myung Moon (10/04/1978) Cheon Seong Gyeong

Four words the essence of reading cannot easily absorb. If Christianity’s rank were intrinsic, its unification would be the providential goal; Rev. Moon states plainly that it is a stage since the Buddhist and Islamic cultural spheres must also be brought in. An office is defined by the work it serves, and this office serves a purpose larger than Christianity. The same logic drives the late interreligious institutions, where Rev. Moon gathered representatives of the major traditions and declared not a Christian victory but the arrival of the religion of the True Parents.

What the argument does not entail should be stated plainly, because the office reading is easy to misapply. It does not entail that Christianity has been superseded; the office is unfulfilled, not withdrawn, which is why the corpus turns to its rescue rather than its replacement. It does not entail that Christian faith is spiritually inert, since the adopted-child position is a genuine relation to God, and Rev. Moon treated the Christian martyrs as having built something the providence still stands on. It does not entail a low view of Jesus, whose standing is untouched by the observation that the community bearing his name holds its rank by assignment. And it does not entail that other traditions are worthless, since the ladder that puts Christianity on the third rung puts every religion somewhere on the same ladder, in the same house, under the same Father.

The claim is narrower and more demanding. Christianity’s greatness in this doctrine is a greatness of vocation, and a vocation is measured by whether it is answered.

Key Takeaway

• Christianity holds its central place in Unification doctrine by office rather than by essence, as the bride religion is prepared to receive the returning Lord.
• The Korean name 기독교 (基督敎) reads as the teaching that superintends the foundation, and Rev. Sun Myung Moon treated that etymology as a doctrinal job description rather than a linguistic curiosity.
• Unification teaching assigns Christianity the restoration of the adopted-child realm, one rank above the servant realm restored by the older religions and one rank below the direct child.
• Christianity occupies the third rung of an eight-rung ladder of religions that ascends from servant of servants to the religion of True Parents.
• In the wedding sequence of religions, Christianity is the bride religion and the mother church, followed by the bridegroom religion, the religion of the married couple, and the religion of the parents.
• The three Israels are entered by three gates: circumcision for the first, baptism for the second, and the Blessing for the third, because only marriage reaches lineage.
• Across the 6,118-sermon Korean archive, 기독교 appears in only twenty sermon titles, none before October 1973, and half of them fall after the year 2000 in a vocabulary of rescue and revival.
• A Fourth Israel enters the corpus in August 2003 alongside the founding of Cheon Il Guk, showing that the enumeration of Israels is an open series rather than a closed triad.

References

Cheon Seong Gyeong: Selections from the Speeches of Sun Myung Moon. 2003. 2nd ed. Seoul: Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.

Exposition of the Divine Principle. 1996. New York: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1958. “하나님의 선민인 택한 이스라엘이 되자.” Sermon, February 9, 1958. vol. 3, sermon 21.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1960. “재림주와 제3이스라엘.” Sermon, October 14, 1960. vol. 10, sermon 14.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1973. “기독교의 장래.” Sermon, October 23, 1973. vol. 69, sermon 7.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1974a. “기독교의 새로운 장래.” Sermon, March 10, 1974. vol. 70, sermon 10.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1974b. “기독교의 새로운 장래.” Sermon, December 9, 1974. vol. 74, sermon 9.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1987. “제3 이스라엘 나라.” Sermon, November 1, 1987. vol. 169, sermon 8.

Moon, Sun Myung. 1991. “미국과 기독교의 재부활.” Sermon, June 12, 1991. vol. 217, sermon 10.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2000a. “기독교 부흥운동과 여자 동원.” Sermon, April 20, 2000. vol. 321, sermon 4.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2000b. “기독교의 살길과 유 피 아이 통신사 인수.” Sermon, May 27, 2000. vol. 323, sermon 1.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2000c. “일족과 기독교인들을 전도하자.” Sermon, October 28, 2000. vol. 338, sermon 2.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2002a. “기독교와 미국을 살리자.” Sermon, July 26, 2002. vol. 388, sermon 2.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2002b. “제2이스라엘 백성의 책임과 사명.” Sermon, December 19, 2002. vol. 399, sermon 2.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2003a. “영계 메시지와 기독교의 사명.” Sermon, March 7, 2003. vol. 406, sermon 5.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2003b. “제4이스라엘국 창건시대.” Sermon, August 17, 2003. vol. 416, sermon 1.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2004. “천일국과 제4이스라엘국, 평화유엔.” Sermon, January 3, 2004. vol. 430, sermon 7.

Moon, Sun Myung. 2006. “기독교 문화권은 구라파가 문제.” Sermon, July 17, 2006. vol. 532, sermon 9.