P'ikareun is a Korean term meaning "cleansing of the womb". It is described as a special sexual practice of a fringe Korean church where the minister had ritualized sexual intercourse with selected married women of his congregation. The sexual rite is believed to "purify the womb" of the woman, enabling her to give birth to children free from sin. The special properties of this rite are believed to be transferred to the husband by a similar sexual rite with the wife. It is believed that Rev. Moon was exposed to such ideas and incorporated them into his early understanding and teaching of Divine Principle. It is also believed that he may have practiced this form of sexual rite himself (The Tragedy of the 6 Marias) and "hidden" the practice in the 3-day ceremony which is a sexual ritual of the Unification Church.

I am investigating this concept out of the exercise of my human responsibility to "see", "ask" and "knock" in order to uncover the truth by which I should live my life. The topic of P’ikareun has come up on several occasions and deserves to be investigated. The first occasion being the original accusations in Korea levied against Rev. Moon concerning sexual activity between he and some of his female disciples. The second being the accusation that Rev. Moon had an "illegitimate" son named Sam Park through the influence and practice of such theology. Again the issue comes up when Clophas (the "Black/African Heung Jin Nim) supposedly impregnated the wife of a Unification Church missionary in Africa, claiming that such action would produce a new "messianic lineage". There were also the claims in Nan Sook's book (In the Shadow of the Moons) that Hyo Jin appealed indirectly to the doctrine of P'ikareun to justify his extramarital affairs. Finally, direct statements by Rev. Moon, seem to allude that P’ikareun is a theory and practice he believes in. For example, his belief that Jesus' special ability and position are a result of a sexual relationship between Jesus' mother Mary and the high priest Zacahrias, that the reason why Solomon became a great king of Israel was due to the fact that David (his father) stole Bathsheba from another man as indemnity for the Fall. Finally, there are comments from Rev. Moon himself indicating that sex with a concubine can produce "better" children than sex with your own wife.

The purpose of this essay is to clarify the belief and practice of P’ikareun, analyze it to see if it has any merit or validity and suggest a course of action and recommendations based on the findings.

We first find mention of this practice as it relates to the Unification Church in the essay "The Tragedy of the 6 Marys". This is an essay written by a disciple of Rev. Moon named Chung Hwa Pak. Below is an excerpt from an English summary of the essay. [Chung Hwa Pak later said that he had lied when he wrote "The Tragedy of the 6 Marys". He said that it was not true, and that he had done it because he could sell it -- he needed the money.] It is not a direct quotation, but nonetheless relates the basic notions relevant to this discussion:

Unknown Divine Principle

"Mr. Pak was simultaneously a prisoner and a supervisor in Hungnam prison when he met Rev. Moon. After he met him, Mr. Pak used his position, to arrange private meetings with Rev. Moon, frequently, for the next year and half in the prison. At those meetings, Rev. Moon taught Mr. Pak an early version of the Principle. Mr. Pak writes that he later discovered that much of the theology, that Rev. Moon was teaching, had been copied from the ideas of two other Christian ministers. These two ministers were: Mr. Young Do Lee (church unknown) and Mr. Baek Moon Kim of the Israel Church in South Korea, where Rev. Moon had attended Bible study with his first wife, Ms. Song Gil Choi, beginning in 1945. According to Mr. Pak, Mr. Kim had written the books, "Theology of Spirituality," and "Basic Principles" the contents of which closely match the principles Rev. Moon was teaching. Mr. Pak asserts that these writings included the Principles of Creation, the Fall, and Restoration. Mr. Pak describes what he claims was Rev. Moons early teaching about the uncompleted mission of Jesus. This is absent from current Unification doctrine, but an important element during the late 1940s and early 1950s, according to Mr. Pak. He states that he was taught by Rev. Moon that because Eve had fallen due to a sexual relationship with Satan, Jesus, as the second Adam, was supposed to physically (i.e., sexually) "restore" six "Marys" (married women) including his mother and five other women mentioned in the Gospels. Supposedly, Jesus was crucified because he failed to accomplish this task, partly due to the failure of his mother (and others) to understand his mission. Therefore, a Second Coming of Christ became necessary. Rev. Moon purportedly told Mr. Pak that this information had been revealed by the spirit of Jesus, himself.

According to Mr. Pak's description of this alleged early doctrine, the Second Messiah, as the third Adam, would first have to fulfill this unfinished task of sexually "restoring" six married women. Then he would be able to choose a virgin as his bride in the "marriage of the lamb" who would become the True Mother of mankind.

Rev. Moon is purported to have told Mr. Pak that this sexual restoration process would purify the fallen blood lineage inherited from Satan and change it to God's blood lineage. According to Mr. Pak, Rev. Moon told him that the Six Marys would be able to sexually "restore" men, who would in turn "restore" other women, etc. until the entire population of the world was restored--by a form of sexual relay. The change of blood lineage would be accomplished for each individual through a three-stage process, (i.e. three acts of sexual intercourse).
Mr. Pak states that he questioned Rev. Moon at length as to the practicality of such a plan since extramarital sex is against the laws and moral standards of society, and since the Bible refers to fornication and adultery as sins. Mr. Pak claims that Rev. Moon told him that human psychology and societal ethics would soon liberalize to the extent that extramarital sex, multiple sex partners, and even sex in public would become acceptable. Rev. Moon also told him that this course was unavoidable because it was the only way to reverse the Fall of Eve, according to Mr. Pak.

Mr. Pak states that a large number of people were taught lectures based on this doctrine. Upon agreeing to join, each person purportedly would be encouraged to have sexual intercourse three times with the person who invited him/her or (in some cases) with Rev. Moon. The doctrine of the Six Marys is currently unknown and definitely not included in the Divine Principle that is published and taught. Mr. Pak does not discuss how such a radical change came about. He only indicates that as the movement grew larger, it became impractical to practice the teachings in the old way."

Reverend Moon in North Korea

According to Mr. Pak, Rev. Moon told him the following stories about his work in North Korea while they were together in Hungnam Prison.

Rev. Moon purportedly told Mr. Pak that when he first went to North Korea, he met a woman there by the name of Dok Young Chong who told him about her many spiritual experiences. She believed their meeting had taken place by divine guidance. This was the first woman he met in Pyongyang. They conversed easily and agreed to work together to establish the "Second Israel" in Pyongyang. Ms. Chong told Rev. Moon that she was the Holy Mother because she had had (a dream of having) sex with God. Therefore, if Rev. Moon would have sex with her, he then would be in the same position as God. Ms. Chong instructed Rev. Moon to have sex with her three times with Rev. Moon on the bottom and her on top. After this alleged sexual ceremony, she told him that he was qualified to go restore the women of the
world, according to Mr. Pak's story. Ms. Chong's inspiration purportedly matched the revelation that Rev. Moon said he had received from Jesus. Mr. Pak asserts that Rev. Moon told him that he later met a couple with three children who were very interested in his teachings. He allegedly moved into their home and shared a room with the wife of the couple, while the husband and the children slept in the next room. At this time, early followers were having loud prayer meetings at that house and were preparing for the holy wedding (of Rev. Moon) that had been predicted. There was a lot of noise from these meetings which disturbed the neighbors. They complained to the police. Supposedly, these complaints caused the police to begin an investigation which led to Rev. Moon's arrest and sentencing to five years in Hung Nam Prison for adultery and disturbing the peace."

Let me re-iterate that this is merely an English summary of that essay and that Chung Hwa Pak later recanted his story and re-joined the Unification Church. At this point Pak’s story can not be confirmed or denied. I have only reproduced this excerpt here to illustrate the original source for the P’ikareun controversy. [6 Marys was never published outside of Japan. Japan was the only country whose libel laws were loose enough to permit its publication.] Personally, it does not matter to me how many women Rev. Moon has mated with. We know by his own admission that he has had three wives. The point of this essay is not to defame or belittle Rev. Moon. The purpose of this essay is to examine a relevant concept (i.e. P’ikareun) and either finally discredit the practice or whole heatedly embrace the practice or give some account for the multitude of rumors.

Another source for discussing the P’ikareun concept comes from Nan Sook Hong’s book, "In the Shadow of the Moons". In this book Nan Sook talks about the rumors and how her husband apparently appealed to the doctrine as justification for his own sexual affairs:

"His [Rev. Moon’s] wife’s departure coincided with the first published reports of sexual abuse in the Unification Church. Rumors were rife that the Reverend Moon required female acolytes to have sex with him as a religious initiation rite. Some religious sects at the time did practice ritual nudity and reportedly forced members to have sexual intercourse with a messianic leader in a purification rite known as P’ikareun. The Reverend Moon has always denied these reports, claiming they were part of efforts by mainstream religious leaders to discredit the Unification Church." (In the Shadow of the Moons, p. 25)

"The record of those early days became even more confused in 1993 when Chung Hwa Pak, the disciple whom the Reverend Moon is reputed to have carried on his back to South Korea in 1951, published a book entitled The Tragedy of the Six Marias. In it Pak states that the Reverend Moon did practice P’ikareun and contends that the Reverend Moon’s first wife left him because on his sexual activities with other women. The Reverend Moon is said by Pak to have impregnated a university student, Myung Hee Kim, in 1953 while he was still married."

"My own parents saw no evidence of sexual misconduct when they were each recruited independently to join the church in Seoul." (In the Shadow of the Moons, pp. 26-27) 

"Hyo Jin refused to take responsibility for his adultery, the single worst sin of the Unification Church. He told me, as I later learned he had told Annie and his inner circle, that the church’s sexual prohibitions did not apply to him. Father had been unfaithful; as the son of the Messiah, he could be too.

I told her (Mrs. Moon) that Hyo Jin said his sleeping around was ‘providential’ and inspired by God, just as Father’s affairs were. ‘No. Father is the Messiah, not Hyo Jin. What Father did was in God’s plan.’ His infidelity was part of her course to become the True Mother. ‘There is no excuse for Hyo Jin to this,’ she said. Mrs. Moon told Father what Hyo Jin was claiming and the Reverend Moon summoned me to his room. What happened to his past was ‘providential,’ Father reiterated. It has nothing to do with Hyo Jin." (In the Shadow of the Moons, pp. 196-197)

Again, this is Nan Sook’s account. However, with such a delicate point being published world wide in Nan Sook’s book and even broadcast on 60 Minutes (a national American TV news magazine). You would think there would be some discussion or rebuttal from the Unification Church either denying the claims of sexual misconduct or explaining them. This should be expected because the single most "worst" sin in the Unification Church is adultery. If it were discovered that Rev. Moon committed adultery, it might discredit the ideological foundation of the Unification Church and with it the basis of the church's power structure. However, the only response to Nan Sook’s allegations (that I am aware of) is Rev. Moon’s statement that he did not "misuse his sexual organs", a statement made soon after Nan Sook’s appearance on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace. Such a statement is very vague and does not address the issue of whether Rev. Moon had sexual intercourse with other women. The statement seems to imply that if he did do such a thing, that he did not believe it to be a crime or a violation of the Principle.

Finally there is the account of Cleophas (the African Heung Jin Nim) having practiced P’ikareun. [After being told to stop his activities Cleophas returned to Africa and continued his work. Ignoring instructions from the Unification Church to stop.] A member recounts:

"Things had been very bad under Cleophas' regime for some time. On his return to Zimbabwe he was able to obtain the full co-operation of the local Japanese missionary couple, who felt that he still had the authority of Heung Jin Nim. His power-base was significantly enhanced by a large transfer of funds from the Japanese church businesses for the purpose of setting up a machine-tool plant. He used part of this money to buy influence on the national political level, and brought his brothers in to help run the business set up with Japanese capital. He began to teach the members that Father had somehow gone into the position of a new Moses, in that he had brought a higher revealed truth, but would not himself be able to enter Canaan, because of mistakes made during his ministry. Cleophas seems to have been able to cite some examples here. He succeeded in gaining the adherence of most of the members to this new line (as well as at least some of the missionaries). It has to be said that most of the local members were (black) African, and that the phenomenon of an authoritative black leader after years of obedience to missionaries from elsewhere must have seemed attractive to them. Then he began to teach that the main Japanese missionary couple were in the position of Mary and Joseph (Eve/Archangel), and that the wife should submit to having sexual relations with him (in the position of Adam/Zachariah) in order to produce a new messianic lineage.

Unfortunately, the Japanese couple were persuaded by this line of argument (with what degree of coercion I don't know) and in due course a child was born of that union. The relationship continued for some time, with the Japanese husband accepting the situation in blind faith as giving his family some special providential status, and later on Cleophas became involved with other sisters. It ended up with violent sexual assaults, as a result of which the couple I first mentioned began to make plans to leave the country secretly, together with another Japanese missionary couple, who were equally afraid. This Japanese brother received a warning in prayer which he felt came from Jesus, that their lives were in real danger".

So we can see ample evidence that the philosophy of P’ikareun has been believed by a number of people and led to the actual practice of P’ikareun. Hence it behooves us to at the very least examine the thinking behind these actions so as to either explain them or discredit them at their ideological roots.

Again, the practice appears to be having sex with a MARRIED woman in order to "indemnify" Lucifer’s sex with Eve. There appears to be some ritual prescriptions such as you need to have sex at least three times and the woman should be on top for the first two times. However, the details of how P’ikareun is practiced is irrelevant at this point. We have already heard enough evidence to show that this is an active belief in the minds of many people. What we want to get at is WHY it is practiced and HOW did that belief originated in the minds of these people. Then we need to ascertain if the belief is true and most importantly is it something that we should practice ourselves.

 I tried to get some clearer historical account of what that particular church in Korea believed or used as their theoretical justification for practicing P’ikareun. I have not been able to get direct testimonies of people from that church nor have I read any testimonies from members of that church. However, the practice of P’ikareun has been mentioned enough times to ascertain that there must be a "theology" behind the actions. Hence, we can work "backwards" from the actions to ascertain the ideology that most probably produced those actions. Thus, I am able to put together a possible theoretical explanation for the practice of P’ikareun based on salient circumstantial evidence.

A theoretical justification for P’ikareun can easily be constructed by combining the sexual interpretation of the fall with the concept of indemnity as "reversal".

For example, Unification Church members believe that the Fall of man was due to the action of certain elements that Eve inherited from Lucifer by means of sexual intercourse. For example:

"According to the principle that men were created to exchange elements with the objective being with whom they have become one body through love, Eve received certain elements from Lucifer when she joined into one body with him through love… Adam, by becoming one body with Eve, inherited all the elements Eve had received from Lucifer…these elements were then transmitted to their descendants." (Divine Principle, p.79-80)

From this statement it can be derived that special mind-altering "evil" elements can be transmitted by means of the sexual organs. One may further reason that "good" elements can be transmitted in the same way. In addition, some Unification Church members view indemnity as "reversal". This means (loosely applied) that if some wrong was done, then to restore the problem the "reverse" must also be done. For example:

"An indemnity condition achieves this by being the reversal of the process which led to the loss on the original position or state." (Outline of the Principle, Level 4, p. 107)

So, without very much thinking it is very easy to rationalize that to restore the sexual fall a "counter-fall" is needed where a person on "God’s side" steals the wife of someone on "Satan’s side". Sound far-fetched? Really? Well this is EXACTLY what Rev. Moon claims. For example, Rev. Moon states:

"Actually, the mother of King Solomon was Bathsheba, originally the wife of Uriah before King David *stole* her. Then how could a child from that ["adulterous"] union become King Solomon? Bathsheba was in the providential position of Eve in the Garden of Eden, before the fall. David was in the position of Adam, and Uriah was in the position of the archangel. The archangel distracted the spouse of Adam with love and stole her away, making her fall. A reversal course is *needed* to restore that; therefore the person in the position of the archangel's wife *had* to be restored to the position of Eve. Therefore, the child who was born on the foundation of that reversal could be born a child of heavenly love, a child of glory. Solomon was such a child of glory." (Change of Blood Lineage: The real experience of salvation by the Messiah. October 13, 1970, Seoul, Korea. Found in the book "God's Will and the World", p. 45)

It is very clear from this quote that Rev. Moon believes that "wife stealing" for "providential" reasons is a perfectly legitimate way to restore the fall of man. This quote is evidence that Rev. Moon may have been exposed to the philosophy of P’ikareun which would explain why he came to such a conclusion about David and Bathsheba. More importantly though, this quote indicates that Rev. Moon believes (or believed) that "great" children can be born from such apparently adulterous process…a concept that he will later use to explain Jesus’ special-ness (i.e. that Mary had an adulterous relationship with some man other than her husband and this enabled Jesus to become the messiah). Rev. Moon goes on to give further evidence for his theory:

"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 the providential position and she was able to establish the proper condition of heart. With such a heart she has a relationship with her father-in-law" (God’s Will and the World, p. 45)

Here again, Rev. Moon alludes to adulterous sexual practices as the means of preserving God’s lineage. Rev. Moon goes on to suggest in the same chapter that the reason Jesus could be born as the Messiah was because Mary had a similar kind of sexual relationship with Zechariah the high priest. In fact, Young Oon Kim goes on to elaborate that:

"Throughout the ancient Near East (and India) a ‘sacred marriage’ ceremony was often conducted in which either the high priest or king played the part of a divine messenger. During these rites, he was married to a virgin symbolizing the holy union of the sun god and earth goddess. The offspring of such a mating was regarded as a divine incarnation.

Now Zacharias was the priest on duty in the temple when Mary had a mystical experience in which she agreed to be a ‘slavegirl of the Lord.’ Though and elderly man, Zacharias was not impotent, for he had just made his wife Elizabeth pregnant in spite of the fact that she was past the normal time of childbearing.

When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would give birth to the Messiah, she replied, ‘How can this thing be, seeing that I know not a man?’ The angel then told her that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Lk. 1:35).

As soon as the young girl heard that she had been chosen to give birth to the Son of God, she ‘went with haste and entered the house of Zacharias’ (Lk. 1:39). By giving herself [sexually] to the aged priest, Mary would prove that she was truly a hand-maiden of the Lord. Such an act of total surrender, far from being considered immoral in the ancient world, revealed the highest degree of spiritual dedication. By uniting with the priest, Mary ‘found favor with God’ (Lk 1:30). Dr. Weatherhead concludes: If one rejects the virgin-birth hypothesis, a [sexual] union of the priest Zacharias and the utterly devout young girl Mary in something like the traditional holy marriage rites provides a solution which meets such evidence as we possess in the scriptures." (Unification Theology, p.197)

A few points on Young Oon Kim’s theory before moving on: One, such sacred prostitution and adultery were considered highly immoral to the Israelites! For example: "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife---with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10) Likewise there are numerous admonitions for Israel to AVIOD the pagan sexual rituals of the Canaanites, how then is it that Young Oon Kim cites such rituals as the very means for Jesus’ conception? It seems unlikely that Zechariah would hold such pagan beliefs. Two: this theory of "sacred marriage" seems to have originated with Dr. Weatherhead and not with Rev. Moon whereas Rev. Moon claims to have been the only one to have reveal this "heavenly secret". 

Finally Rev. Moon confirms his belief in the practice by stating:

"The world society is chaotic because one man has many different wives. They have their original wife, concubines and second wives. All kinds of divorce and separation is happening in this society. Actually concubines, or second wives, should be in front. Many of the world leaders have been born through the concubine, not from the original marriage. Why? Because when it comes to the degree of love between husband and wife, usually there is more passion and a greater degree of love with the concubine. That is why they produce even stronger lineage." (1/1/96 midnight speech)

Here it appears that it is not the "adultery" that produces great children, but rather the degree of passion between the two lovers and that somehow such level of passion can only be achieved between secret/illegitimate lovers. Rev. Moon continues:

"Leah's mother and her mother-in-law (Rebecca) should have united with Jacob and helped him reverse the positions of Leah (the legal wife) and Rachel (the concubine). Once Leah's position was corrected the 10 elder brothers and the youngest brother (Benjamin) had to follow Joseph, who was supposed to be Abel. If the 10 brothers were united with Leah they could be restored. Thus the order of love was to be established centered on Leah and then connected with Rachel as the center." (1/2/97 speech)

"In the Last Days, children from second wives, or concubine lineage, will become leaders of the world. Originally, Rachel, the second wife, was supposed to produce the elder son of Jacob. However, because of the conflict between Leah and Rachel, she lost that right." ( 2/13/97 speech)

So it is very clear that Rev. Moon either currently holds or previously held a belief that closely resembles if not directly mimics the concept of P’ikareun. That is: sexual relationships with a woman (other than your primary wife) has some kind of beneficial result such as producing great children and a substantial restoration of the fall of man. In short, Rev. Moon believes or believed that adultery, fornication and polygamy can be a good thing (contrary to the theory of the Fall of man).

 So what’s the point? The point is, if this is true, how can we reconcile P’ikareun belief and activity with the notion that adultery is the worst sin in the Unification Church? At the very least, there must be some explanation for this. It is my contention however that no explanation is necessary because the Fall had nothing to do with sex; hence adultery is not the "worst" sin at all. However, for the fundamental Unification Church member, such quotes about concubines and wife-stealing would be quite disturbing and hard to reconcile with the belief that adultery is the worst sin. For example, church members have been bombarded with messages such as:

"…the root of human sin stems from sexual immorality….the root of sin in found in lustful desires….Even in the most outstanding people, the root of sin—illicit sexual desire--- is constantly active in their souls, sometimes without their conscious awareness" (Exposition of the Divine Principle, p 61)

"You must keep your purity and chastity. You must think of it as more valuable, more important, than your own life, The fallen act of love will kill your descendants"

"Chastity and keeping pure is the greatest thing in our group."

"The spirit of a person who engages in free sex is so distorted that it even seems non-human. That kind of spirit body is most hideous, dirty human form in the world. There is a medicine to cure stomach problems, but there is no cure for the damage that free sex does to your spirit. It will only destroy you." (Rev. Sun Myung Moon, The Way of Tradition Vol. III, p. 8, 9, 16)

"The thing God hates most is immorality, lust and adultery." (The Way of Tradition, Vol. III, p. 4)

"That kind of carnal, unprincipled love should be wiped out."(The Way of Tradition, Vol. iii, p. 17)

"If one knows the Divine Principle, that kind of act is not permissible, not forgivable at all." (The Way of Tradition, vol. III, p. 14)

"Anyone who dirties this most valuable love with cheap, carnal things is the worst kind of criminal in the universe. Regardless of whether you are a man or woman, anyone who seeks to contaminate your love in an impure way is your worst enemy. Because love is greater than life, that person would be committing a crime worse than that of taking your life." (The Way of Tradition, Vol. III, p.18)

"The worst kind of crime or sin in the sight of God is the violation of true love. That is Article One in the constitution of the Kingdom of Heaven. What kind of punishment is deserved by the men and women who violate this article? Should their act be ignored, or is there no room for negotiation and compromise? Is their sin greater than that of murder? The violation of the law of love in the Kingdom of Heaven is the worst crime and EVEN EXCECUTION would not be adequate retribution….When God created law for His Kingdom, He made violation of love the worst crime." (The Way of Tradition, Vol. III, p.28)

"Loosing your purity is far worse even than dying" (The Way of Tradition, Vol. III, p. 29)

These and other such messages were broadcast widely within the Unification Church. Any member who tells you that adultery was not the worst sin in the Unification Church is either lying or was simply not a member. It was impossible to be a member of the Unification Church and not have this point drilled into you. Hence it is such a big contradiction to hear Rev. Moon at one point say that adultery is the worst sin and then at another point say not only that it is not a sin, but actually has great benefits! So what is the story? Either adultery is good or it isn’t. How can the Unification Church member explain this contradiction? Personally for me, there is no problem since I do not believe that the fall was about sex or that adultery is the "worst sin". If anything, the worst sin is not taking responsibility for your own perfection….but that’s in another essay (Was the Fall really about Sex?). The root of the contradiction lies in the sexual interpretation of the fall, which I believe to be an erroneous interpretation. However, our discussion is about the philosophy of P’ikareun and our task is to ascertain if this theory is true and effective. Hence, since we’ve seen the evidence for P'ikareun, let’s look at the evidence against the philosophy and practice of P'ikareun.

When we look at the evidence offered on favor of the P’ikareun theory we see a number of holes. For example, Rev. Moon seems to indicate that the thing that made these acts of adultery "holy" was the "pure", selfless motivation of its participants. For example he says of Tamar:

Since she loved that blood lineage, she stood in the providential position and she was able to establish the proper condition of heart. With such a heart she has a relationship with her father-in-law" (God’s Will and the World, p. 45)

And then of Mary….

"She regarded God’s will as the highest priority. That girl was Mary. Mary maintained the standard of victory and Satan could not accuse her. So on the foundation established by Mary, Jesus was conceived." (God’s Will and the World, p. 46)

This has come to be known as the "pure motivation theory". That is, because Tamar and Mary’s motivation was "pure" (i.e. centered on something other than themselves) that the action resulting from that motivation was automatically "good". There are two points at issue here. First, an action is not "good" simply because you are centered on something other than yourself. Second, we see evidence that the men’s motivation and quite possibly the women’s motivation too was anything but "pure".

Let’s take the first issue, that to be centered on something other than yourself, makes the action resulting from such a motivation "good". For example, the German Nazis and SS who fought in World War II were not fighting for themselves; they were fighting for the ideal of Nazism and the Nazi god to whom Hitler was the high priest. Likewise the Japanese (the champions of self-lessness and self-effacing) were fighting for the emperor, they were not fighting simply for themselves. Would we call their actions good simply because they had a "self-less" motivation? But you might be saying to yourself, "well, the Germans and the Japanese were centered on false god’s, Rev. Moon is talking about the True God". Really? How can you tell the difference? Weren’t the Jews supposedly following the "True God" when they invaded Canaan and slaughtered its inhabitants? So why would the Jews actions be good, while Hitler’s actions evil? The point is, ANYTHING can be justified by saying, "God told me to do it". Simply because your motivation was something other than yourself or "god told you to do it", does not make an action desirable and good. In fact, some of the worst and most horrendous crimes and atrocities have been committed by people with such "selfless" motivations". So the fact that Tamar and Mary’s motivation may have been "selfless" does not necessarily make the action right.

The second issue is that their motivation may not have been really selfless at all! For example, in the case of Tamar, Judah thought she was a prostitute and had sex with her thinking that she was a prostitute:

"When Judah saw her, he thought she [Tamar] was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, ‘Come now, let me sleep with you.’…

So he gave them to her and slept with her and she became pregnant by him…

Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her. He asked the men who lived there, ‘Where is the shrine prostitute who was beside the road at Enaim?’ ‘There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here’, they said….

About three months later Judah was told, ‘Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.’ Judah said, ‘Bring her out and have her burned to death!" (Genesis 38: 15 – 24 New International Version)

So clearly from the text we see that Judah thought that Tamar was a temple prostitute and he slept with her thinking that she was a prostitute. How then could such thinking on Judah’s part comprise a "pure" motivation? Pure lust maybe, but certainly not selfless.

Or how about King David. Was his motivation selfless? David was stimulated by lustful sight and even contemplated murder to cover up the result of his lust:

"One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, ‘Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him and he slept with her. Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word back to David, saying, ‘I am pregnant.’…

David then calls Uriah (Bathsheba’s husband) back from a military campaign. He hopes to get him to go to his wife and have sex with her so that when people notice that Bathsheba is pregnant, they will assume it was Uriah who did it. In this way David hopes to cover up his actions. However Uriah refused to go to his wife while his men were fighting in the field. It is at this point that David plans Uriah’s murder….

"In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it he wrote, ‘Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.’…

"When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD." (2 Samuel 11: 1-27)

The story continues as the prophet Nathan tells a story of a rich man who stole the lamb of a poor man. King David becomes angry and says that such a person who would do such a horrible thing is worthy of death! Nathan reveals that the story is actually an analogy of David’s own actions saying…..

"Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own. This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’ Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ (2 Samuel 12: 1-13)

Finally, the child that Bathsheba had for David, died. So according to the Bible, David’s actions were not inspired by God, were not self-less and in fact were condemned by God and even resulted in the death of their son. Hence, this damages Rev. Moon’s theory that David’s theft of Bathsheba was necessary to restore the fall of Eve. Hence Rev. Moon could only (or most probably) have developed such a theory under the influence of some other source…i.e., the philosophy of P’ikareun.

Now let’s turn our attention to the women, Tamar, Bathsheba and Mary. Did these women really have "pure" self-less motivations? The one thing that was common to all of these women is that they seduced and went after high-status men. They did not seek out men of low status and stature which would really be a show of self-lessness. It is a fact of human sexual psychology that women are attracted to men of high social status. In fact John Townsend, author of the text "What Men Want – What Women Want" states that women would rather be the concubine or mistress of a high status male than the legitimate wife of a low status one. For example:

"…women’s attraction to higher-status males and aversion to dating and marrying down are strong, and many women are currently choosing to have sexual relationships with higher status, polygynous men rather than having monogamous relationships with lower status men." (What Men Want – What Women Want, p. 126) 

 I think you also know from your own experience that women are generally attracted to men with money and status. They could be old crusty men in their 80’s but this would not prevent such women from sleeping with them in order to get to the money and prestige of such men.

Hence, it is quite possible that these women were merely seeking better resources, higher status and or better "genes" for their offspring rather than being motivated by some noble vision or mandate from God. It is a common feature of the female sexual psychology for women to be attracted to high status men. Whether it be the leader of a clan, a king or a high-priest, all of them have the attraction of being high status males and it is here where we may find the true motivating factor for Tamar, Bathsheba and Mary women seeking out and sexually seducing these men.

Another contradiction for the theory of P'ikareun is the lack of consistent examples of this practice. For example, Rev. Moon points to David and Bathsheba as biblical evidence for his theory of "wife-stealing-to-restore-the-fall". However, as we have seen, this act was in fact condemned by God. So we must ask if "wife-stealing" is the true way of restoration, why don’t we see all the central figures engaging in this activity? Abraham doesn’t do it, Isaac doesn’t do it, Jacob doesn’t do it, even Joseph had the perfect opportunity to "steal" Potipher’s wife, but he refuses to do so, Moses doesn’t do it, Jesus doesn’t do it. So if this "wife-stealing" is really a true method of restoration, why isn’t it more wide-spread? 

Likewise Rev. Moon later says that the reason why Jesus was great was because of the P’ikareun-like sexual activity between Zechariah and Mary. We have already shown that Mary could quite possibly been motivated by her sexual psychology to seek a high-status male instead of a lowly carpenter to be the father of her baby. In fact John the Baptist (son of Zechariah with his lawful wife) was ALSO great. This could indicate something in Zechariah’ genes rather than in some ancient pagan sex rite as the source for the excellent quality in his children.

In addition, if as Young Oon Kim states that there was a common belief in a "sacred marriage ceremony" that is designed to produce "divine" children. If this is true, then why didn’t Zechariah set up a "messiah factory" and start pumping out messiah children? [no pun intended]. If this was truly a legitimate belief, then why not continue the practice and create an entire race of messiah children? Likewise, what was a high priest of Judaism doing practicing pagan rituals on the side??? 

Also, if David’s theft of Bathsheba was supposedly good, then Solomon’s marriage to 700 wives and 300 concubines should have been even better and should have produced a race and nation of messiah-like children, but rather we see that it actually led to the destruction of his kingdom! (1 Kings 11:1-3)

All of this evidence cast serious doubt on the belief that P’ikareun (wife-stealing) is the way of restoration. In fact when we look at the preponderance of the evidence we find the exact opposite. We see how such activity actually leads to family breakdown, the loss of a kingdom and punishment by God.

In light of this new evidence against the theory of and practice of P’ikareun, we need to ask ourselves how this theory ever got started in the first place! As I mentioned earlier, the theory is based on a loose syllogism combining the sexual interpretation of the Fall with the concept of indemnity as "reversal". Hence it is here that we will find the source of this corrupted ideology. I will first address the sexual view of the fall and then touch on the concept of indemnity.

In short the Fall was not about sex and the worst sin you could commit has nothing to do with sex. Rev. Moon relates that Eve had a sexual relationship with the archangel. He then states that this constituted a "blood relationship". However he never clearly defines what a "blood relationship" actually is. He states that through this relationship certain elements were transmitted to Eve. She then transmitted these elements to Adam and together they transmitted these elements to their children. It is these elements which constitute Original Sin and are the supposed elements that keep humans enslaved under satanic influence and dominion:

"According to the principle that men were created to exchange elements with the objective being with whom they have become one body through love, Eve received certain elements from Lucifer when she joined into one body with him through love….Adam, by becoming one body with Eve, inherited all the elements Eve had received from Lucifer…these elements were then transmitted to their descendants." (Divine Principle, p.79-80)

The problem here is what Rev. Moon identifies as the "root" of sin. He say that the root of sin is illicit sexual desire:

"…the root of human sin stems from sexual immorality….the root of sin in found in lustful desires….Even in the most outstanding people, the root of sin—illicit sexual desire--- is constantly active in their souls, sometimes without their conscious awareness" (Exposition of the Divine Principle, p 61)

It is here that the fundamental error is made. Rev. Moon saw sexual desire as the root of the Fall. However, upon closer examination we find that the real root of sin was Adam’s failure to take responsibility to perfect himself and in such negligence failed to love the archangel as the representative of God. This is why the angel felt a lack of love and was then motivated to supplement his love by pursuing Eve and using her to gain dominion over Adam. Hence the Fall had very little to do with excessive sexual desire but rather had everything to do rather with the lack of love. Love which a mature Adam should have supplied to the angel.

When we see the Fall in this light, the "worst sin" then becomes not taking responsibility to perfect oneself and not loving the angel as a result. This is the worst sin. This is why we see throughout ALL the central figure’s courses the re-enactment of this Adam/Lucifer scenario in the form of Cain and Abel relationships. Such relationships are repeated in every major central figure's course and even in most if not all minor courses as well. Hence the true root of sin that needs to be reversed in the failure to love the angel. Had Rev. Moon clearly seen this as the root of sin, then he would have never sought a way to justify wife-stealing and instead would have focused his efforts on developing the method for human perfection so as to enable us to gain the qualification to love the angel and other "Cain" people of the world.

The second source for the P’ikareun theory is the loose interpretation of indemnity as "reversal". Indemnity (Tan Gam) actually focuses on the sincere attitude of the repentant person. It has very little to do with some external act. The internal attitude is the most important aspect. Also, reversal could mean to do the opposite of what happened to damage the relationship. However Rev. Moon and others have used the term "reversal" to mean "do the same thing, but in a different direction" (i.e. centered on "God"). Hence through this line of thinking (i.e. indemnity as reversal) it was only natural that Rev. Moon and others arrived at the P’ikareun theory of restoration.

Also, even if we did accept the sexual view of the fall, the focus of that theory isn’t really the sex act, but rather the ELEMENTS that were supposedly transmitted. Hence to avoid sex as a means to restoration is like only avoiding hypodermic needles so as to avoid the HIV virus. The needle is just ONE means of transmitting the virus. It is not the only means. The problem is the element, not the means of transmission. So likewise, any efforts of restoration based on the sexual interpretation of the fall should naturally focus on the ELEMENTS and not the supposed means of transmission. It is my assertion that the elements that were transmitted during the Fall could very well have been transmitted in non-sexual ways. For a more detailed account see the essay "Was the Fall really about sex?"

Hence the bulk of our efforts should be spent finding out how to perfect ourselves or finding out how to remove these "evil elements" that were supposedly transmitted from Lucifer to Eve. It seems that the P'ikareun doctrine was seen as the way to "remove" these elements. However, the question still remains….does P’ikareun get rid of these "evil elements" that were supposedly transmitted from Lucifer to Eve and if so how? Also is P’ikareun the ONLY way to get rid of these elements? To answer that, we need a clear understanding of what these elements are, how they got into human beings, how they affect human beings and where in the human body these elements reside. For a detailed account of the removal of the "evil elements" see the essay "What is Original Sin?"

It is very clear that P’ikareun is not a true method of restoration. The reason we can conclude this is because we have no evidence that such extramarital sex has caused sinless children to be born who have the natural tendency to be good and righteous. However a difficult question remains and that is how do we explain all of these adulterous relationships in the Bible? First of all, there is not much to explain. Whenever a sexual relationship was wrong, it was clearly condemned as wrong. For example, David’s theft of Bathsheba and Amnon’s rape of Tamar (a different Tamar than the one who mated with Judah. This Tamar was the daughter of King David). (2 Samuel 13). The accounts we feel compelled to explain are the accounts that were not overtly condemned in the Bible.

These other accounts are easy to explain. First of all, most of the other accounts were the practice of polygamy not P'ikareun. They were not the stealing of another man’s wife, but rather the marriage of one man to several unmarried women. For example, Abraham and Hagar, Jacob and his four wives, Esau and his many wives, King Saul and his wives, King David and his many wives, Gideon and his many wives, etc. Polygamy was never condemned in the Bible as some hideous sin. In fact it was quite accepted and may even still be a legitimate form of family relationship for some males today.

It also seems that these patterns of polygamy in the Bible follow a natural principle that successful males should spread their genes so as to transmit the positive elements of their genealogy. Very rarely does a low status male become polygamous, simply because women do not want the genes of a man who is seen as a looser. Such genes would not be as beneficial for her future offspring or the human species as a whole.

So when we see these polygamous relationships in the Bible, we should simply see them as the natural operation of human sexual psychology at work and hence they need no special theological explanation or justification.

I think Rev. Moon’s error may have been his view that sex is somehow inherently sinful, a notion he may have inherited from Christianity. As such we should not condemn or criticize Rev. Moon, but rather understand and forgive him if in fact we find out at a later date that this is in fact the mistake Rev. Moon made. If Rev. Moon should admit this at a later date, we should approach the matter with an understanding heart.

Based on our investigation, we can see no concrete evidence to support the belief and practice of P’ikareun. The supposed desirable results of "wife-stealing" such as "better" children can be explained in terms of the "better" genes of the higher-status males. We can also explain the motivating force for such women to pursue these males as the natural tendency for women to be attracted to higher-status males in hopes of securing better genes for their offspring and perhaps higher status for themselves as well. If P’ikareun were truly a self-sacrificing act, we should rather see beautiful women seeking out low-status men. However this is never the case. The P’ikareun ideology was either created to rationalize the sexual practices in the Bible (which really need no rationalization) or created as a theological device to seduce the wives of other men. Either way, there is no theological evidence to support its validity. In fact the theological evidence weighs heavily against the practice. The polygamous relationships in the Bible were not for the purpose of restoring the fall, for as we have seen the fall was really about Adam’s failure to love the archangel. Rather the polygamy in the bible is more the natural course for some males who have achieved an unusually high status to spread the benefit of their genes. We see no conclusive evidence that P’ikareun action brings about any desirable results. To the contrary we have seen where it actually brings about broken homes, broken families, murder and the loss of a kingdom. Hence I recommend that we abandon the theory of P’ikareun by abandoning the sexual interpretation of the Fall. And in it’s place embrace the "resbonsibilism" view of the fall which states that Adam had the responsibility to perfect himself and in so doing gained the ability to represent God and love the archangel.

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home