Refuting the Shepherd’s Chapel Doctrine of British Israelism

The Shepherd’s Chapel, founded by Arnold Murray, promotes a doctrine known as British Israelism, which asserts that the Anglo-Saxon peoples, particularly the British and their descendants in countries like the United States and Canada, are the true descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This belief is a cornerstone of their teachings, often tied to interpretations of biblical prophecy and history. However, British Israelism lacks credible support from scripture, history, archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, and it has been widely refuted by scholars and theologians. This article examines the key claims of the Shepherd’s Chapel’s British Israelism and provides a critical refutation based on evidence and reason.

Understanding British Israelism in Shepherd’s Chapel Teachings

British Israelism, as taught by the Shepherd’s Chapel, posits that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, which were taken into captivity by the Assyrians around 722 B.C., migrated to Europe and became the ancestors of modern Anglo-Saxon peoples. According to this doctrine, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, in particular, are identified with Britain and the United States, respectively, inheriting the biblical promises made to Israel. The Shepherd’s Chapel uses passages such as Genesis 48:19–20 and 1 Chronicles 5:1–2 to argue that these tribes received a special birthright blessing, which they claim manifests in the historical and modern prominence of Britain and the United States. Additionally, the doctrine is linked to the Shepherd’s Chapel’s broader teachings, including the serpent seed doctrine and a form of pre-adamism, which further complicate their theological framework.

Biblical Refutation

Misinterpretation of Key Scriptures

The Shepherd’s Chapel often cites Genesis 48:19–20, where Jacob blesses Ephraim and Manasseh, stating that their descendants will become a “multitude of nations” and a “great people.” They interpret this as referring to Britain and the United States. However, this interpretation ignores the historical and biblical context. The blessings given to Ephraim and Manasseh were fulfilled within the framework of ancient Israel, as their tribes became prominent in the northern kingdom before its fall in 722 B.C. There is no scriptural indication that these blessings extend to specific modern nations or ethnic groups. Furthermore, the New Testament redefines the concept of Israel in spiritual terms, emphasizing faith over physical descent. Galatians 3:29 states, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise,” indicating that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in all believers, not a specific ethnic group.

The Unity of Israel and Judah

British Israelism hinges on the idea that the Ten Lost Tribes remained distinct from the southern kingdom of Judah after the Assyrian captivity. However, the Bible indicates that after the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.), the terms “Israel” and “Judah” were used interchangeably to refer to the Jewish people who returned from exile (e.g., Ezra 2:1; Nehemiah 7:6). Prophecies in Ezekiel 37:15–22 speak of the future reunification of Israel and Judah under the Messiah, not as separate ethnic groups in modern nations. The Shepherd’s Chapel’s claim that the Ten Tribes migrated to Europe lacks any direct biblical support and relies on speculative interpretations of prophecy.

Historical and Archaeological Refutation

No Evidence of Tribal Migration to Europe

The Shepherd’s Chapel’s claim that the Ten Lost Tribes migrated to Europe and became the Anglo-Saxon peoples is unsupported by historical or archaeological evidence. The Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. resulted in the assimilation of many Israelites into Assyrian society, with some evidence suggesting that remnants of these tribes remained in the Middle East. For example, historical records and archaeological findings, such as those noted by Asahel Grant in 1835 A.D., indicate that groups like the Nestorians in Mesopotamia may have descended from the Lost Tribes, as they maintained Jewish traditions and Aramaic language. There is no credible documentation of a mass migration of Israelites to Europe, nor do Anglo-Saxon histories, such as those recorded by Bede or in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, mention any connection to Israel.

The Scythian Connection Debunked

British Israelism often relies on the theory that the Lost Tribes became the Scythians, a nomadic people in Central Asia, who then migrated to Europe. However, archaeological and historical research shows no connection between the Scythians and the Israelites. The Scythians were an Indo-European people with distinct cultural and linguistic traits unrelated to Semitic Israelite culture. The Shepherd’s Chapel’s reliance on pseudo-historical genealogies and folklore, such as Irish legends of Milesian descent, has been criticized as unreliable by historians, who note that these stories were written centuries after the supposed events and lack corroboration.

Linguistic and Genetic Evidence

Linguistic Discrepancies

Proponents of British Israelism, including the Shepherd’s Chapel, have argued that similarities between English, Celtic, or Germanic words and Hebrew words indicate a shared origin. For instance, 19th-century advocate John Wilson claimed that British and Irish words derived from Hebrew. However, modern linguistic analysis demonstrates that English, Welsh, and Gaelic belong to the Indo-European language family, while Hebrew is a Semitic language within the Afro-Asiatic family. In 1906 A.D., T.R. Lounsbury stated, “No trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered” between English and Hebrew, a view reinforced by Michael Friedman in 1993 A.D., who described the evidence for such a connection as “hardly any weaker.”

Genetic Refutation

Genetic studies further undermine British Israelism. Research into the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA of European populations, including Anglo-Saxons, shows no significant genetic link to Middle Eastern populations, including modern Jews or ancient Israelites. The genetic makeup of British and European populations aligns with Indo-European migrations, not Semitic ones. In contrast, Jewish populations worldwide share genetic markers consistent with their Middle Eastern origins, supporting their historical continuity with ancient Israel. The Shepherd’s Chapel’s claims lack any genetic basis and rely on outdated racial theories rather than modern science.

Theological and Ethical Concerns

Ties to Christian Identity and Racism

While the Shepherd’s Chapel denies explicit racism, British Israelism, as noted in sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center, has been associated with the Christian Identity movement, which often promotes antisemitic and racist ideologies. The doctrine’s emphasis on Anglo-Saxon peoples as God’s chosen can foster a sense of ethnic superiority, even if not overtly stated. For example, Arnold Murray’s teachings distinguish between a “sixth-day Adam” (non-whites) and an “eighth-day Adam” (Anglo-Saxons), implying a racial hierarchy. Such distinctions lack biblical grounding and have been criticized for fueling division and prejudice.

Misalignment with Christian Orthodoxy

The Shepherd’s Chapel’s British Israelism is intertwined with other unorthodox doctrines, such as modalism (denying the Trinity) and the serpent seed doctrine, which claims that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan, with his descendants (Kenites) posing as Jews today. These teachings deviate from mainstream Christian theology and have been labeled heretical by organizations like the Christian Research Institute. The reliance on British Israelism as a “key” to understanding biblical prophecy, as promoted by figures like Herbert W. Armstrong, distorts the gospel message by prioritizing ethnic identity over faith in Christ.

Conclusion

The Shepherd’s Chapel’s doctrine of British Israelism is unsupported by scripture, history, archaeology, linguistics, or genetics. The Bible does not indicate that the Ten Lost Tribes migrated to Europe, nor does it assign their promises to modern Anglo-Saxon nations. Historical and archaeological evidence points to the assimilation of the tribes in the Middle East, with no credible link to European peoples. Linguistic and genetic studies further debunk the notion of a shared origin between Anglo-Saxons and Israelites. Theologically, the doctrine risks promoting division and aligns with problematic ideologies like Christian Identity. Christians are encouraged to focus on the New Testament’s teaching that all believers, regardless of ethnicity, are heirs to God’s promises through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:28–29). For those seeking to engage with Shepherd’s Chapel adherents, emphasizing the sufficiency of the gospel and the lack of empirical support for British Israelism can provide a constructive path forward.

Refuting the Serpent Seed and Kenite Doctrine

The Serpent Seed Doctrine and the associated Kenite Doctrine taught by Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel are controversial teachings that deviate from mainstream Christian theology. These doctrines claim that the Serpent (Satan) had a sexual relationship with Eve in the Garden of Eden, resulting in the birth of Cain, whose descendants are the Kenites, a group portrayed as inherently evil and often linked to modern Jewish people or other groups. Below is a concise refutation of these doctrines based on biblical texts, theological reasoning, and critical analysis.

1. The Serpent Seed Doctrine Lacks Biblical Support

The Serpent Seed Doctrine hinges on an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 3, particularly the interaction between Eve and the Serpent. Proponents claim that the "fruit" Eve ate and the term "beguiled" (2 Corinthians 11:3) imply a sexual act with Satan. However, this interpretation is unsupported by Scripture for the following reasons:

• Genesis 4:1 explicitly states, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD" (KJV). This verse clearly identifies Adam as Cain's father, with no indication of Satan's involvement. The Hebrew word for "knew" (yada) refers to sexual relations between Adam and Eve, and Eve attributes Cain's birth to God's help, not Satan.

• The Hebrew word for "beguiled" in 2 Corinthians 11:3 (Greek: exapatao) means "deceived" or "misled," not "sexually seduced." This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Romans 7:11, 1 Corinthians 3:18) to denote deception, not physical seduction.

• Genesis 3:15, often cited to support the doctrine ("And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed"), refers to spiritual enmity between Satan's followers (those who reject God) and God's people, not a literal biological lineage. The "seed" of the Serpent is fulfilled in Christ’s victory over Satan (Romans 16:20, Hebrews 2:14), not a physical race descended from Cain.

• The narrative of Genesis 3 describes the Serpent tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, leading to spiritual death (separation from God), not a sexual act. The text does not mention or imply physical relations, and such an interpretation requires eisegesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing from the text).

2. The Kenite Doctrine Misinterprets Biblical Genealogies

The Kenite Doctrine claims that the Kenites are the descendants of Cain, who survived the Flood and continue as an evil lineage, often associated with Jewish people or other groups. This teaching is problematic for several reasons:

• Genesis 4 and 5: The Bible separates Cain’s genealogy (Genesis 4:17-24) from the lineage of Seth leading to Noah (Genesis 5). There is no biblical evidence that Cain’s descendants survived the Flood, which wiped out all humanity except Noah’s family (Genesis 7:21-23). The Kenites mentioned later in Scripture (e.g., Numbers 24:21-22, Judges 1:16) are not linked to Cain but are a distinct tribal group, some of whom (e.g., Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law) are depicted positively (Judges 1:16, 1 Samuel 15:6).

• The claim that Kenites are "counterfeit Jews" or responsible for Christ’s crucifixion lacks scriptural backing. John 8:44 ("You are of your father the devil") refers to spiritual opposition to Christ, not a literal biological lineage. Jesus acknowledges the Jewish leaders as Abraham’s physical descendants but spiritually aligned with Satan due to their unbelief (John 8:37-39).

• Genealogies in the Old Testament are often selective, omitting non-pertinent names (e.g., Abel is not listed in Genesis 5, yet no one disputes he was Adam’s son). The absence of certain names does not support the idea of a surviving evil lineage.

3. Theological and Ethical Concerns

The Serpent Seed and Kenite doctrines raise significant theological and ethical issues:

• Racism and Division: These teachings foster an "us vs. them" mentality, often used to demonize specific groups (e.g., Jews or non-whites) as inherently evil. While Arnold Murray publicly disavowed racism, his teachings have been criticized for promoting "soft resentment" against Jews by labeling them as Kenites. This aligns with the Christian Identity movement, which has historical ties to white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

• Contradiction of Core Christian Doctrine: The Bible teaches that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve (Acts 17:26) and that sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience (Romans 5:12). The Serpent Seed Doctrine undermines this by suggesting a separate, inherently evil lineage, contradicting the universality of sin and salvation through Christ (John 3:16, Revelation 5:9).

• Dismissal of Critics as Kenites: Arnold Murray and his followers often label critics as Kenites, creating a divisive tactic that stifles honest debate and fosters paranoia. This approach lacks biblical humility and violates the call for unity among believers (Galatians 5:22-23).

4. Historical Context and Origins

The Serpent Seed Doctrine is not a historic Christian teaching but a modern heresy rooted in 19th-century fringe movements. It was revived by figures like Daniel Parker and later integrated into Christian Identity theology by Wesley Swift and others, who used it to justify racial segregation and antisemitism. Arnold Murray, ordained by Swift’s associates, incorporated these ideas into Shepherd’s Chapel, despite denying explicit racism.

Early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.), condemned similar ideas as Gnostic heresies, and mainstream Christianity has consistently rejected the notion of a literal sexual union between Eve and the Serpent.

5. Biblical Alternative: Spiritual, Not Physical, Seed

The Bible consistently uses "seed" metaphorically to describe spiritual allegiance, not physical lineage:

• 1 John 3:9-10 distinguishes between the "children of God" (those who practice righteousness) and the "children of the devil" (those who do not), based on behavior, not biology.

• Matthew 13:38-39 (the Parable of the Tares) explains that the "tares" are the "children of the wicked one," sown by the devil, referring to those who reject God’s kingdom, not a specific race or lineage.

• All people, regardless of race or background, can be saved through faith in Christ (Revelation 5:9), and no group is inherently damned due to supposed ancestry.

Conclusion

The Serpent Seed and Kenite doctrines are unbiblical, relying on eisegesis, misinterpretation of Hebrew and Greek terms, and selective use of Scripture. They contradict clear biblical texts like Genesis 4:1 and foster division, prejudice, and an "us vs. them" mentality that is antithetical to the gospel. Christians are called to test all teachings against Scripture (Acts 17:11) and to pursue unity and love (John 13:35). The Bible affirms that all humanity shares a common origin in Adam and Eve, and salvation is available to all through Christ, not restricted by fabricated lineages.

For further study, see Genesis 3-4, John 8:37-44, and 1 John 3:9-12, and consult reputable Christian apologetics resources like the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) or GotQuestions.org.

Daniel's 70 Weeks: A Partial Preterist Interpretation

The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is a cornerstone of biblical eschatology, interpreted through various lenses. The Partial Preterist perspective views much of this prophecy as fulfilled in the first century A.D., particularly around the life of Jesus Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, while allowing for some future fulfillment. Below is an exposition of this interpretation.

The Text and Its Context

Daniel 9:24-27 outlines a period of "seventy weeks" (or "seventy sevens") decreed for Israel to accomplish six divine purposes: to finish transgression, end sin, atone for iniquity, bring everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, and anoint a most holy place. The Partial Preterist view holds that these "weeks" represent 490 years (70 x 7), with each "week" equating to seven years.

Breakdown of the Seventy Weeks

The prophecy divides the seventy weeks into three segments: seven weeks (49 years), sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one final week (7 years).

1. Seven Weeks (49 Years): The prophecy begins "from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:25). Partial Preterists often anchor this starting point to the decree of Artaxerxes I in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26), which authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The first seven weeks (49 years) cover the restoration period, culminating around 408 B.C., aligning with the completion of Jerusalem’s walls and temple restoration.

2. Sixty-Two Weeks (434 Years): Following the initial seven weeks, sixty-two weeks (434 years) lead to the arrival of an "Anointed One" (Messiah). From 408 B.C., this period extends to approximately A.D. 26-27, coinciding with the baptism and public ministry of Jesus Christ, whom Partial Preterists identify as the "Anointed One." This timeframe marks the presentation of Jesus as the Messiah, fulfilling the prophecy’s promise of an anointed leader.

3. The Final Week (7 Years): The final week is described in Daniel 9:26-27, where the "Anointed One shall be cut off" and a "prince" brings destruction. Partial Preterists see the first half of this week (3.5 years) as encompassing Jesus’ ministry (c. A.D. 27-30), culminating in His crucifixion ("cut off") around A.D. 30, which atones for sin and fulfills several of the prophecy’s purposes (e.g., ending sin, atoning for iniquity). The second half of the week extends to roughly A.D. 33-34, potentially marked by events like the martyrdom of Stephen or the early persecution of the church, which further "seals" the prophecy’s fulfillment.

4. Destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70): The latter part of Daniel 9:26-27 describes a "people of the prince" who destroy the city and sanctuary, with "desolations" decreed. Partial Preterists interpret this as the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 under Titus. The "abomination of desolation" (Daniel 9:27) is seen as fulfilled in the Roman siege and desecration of the temple, echoing Jesus’ warnings in Matthew 24:15.

Key Theological Points

• Fulfillment in Christ: Partial Preterists emphasize that the six purposes of Daniel 9:24—especially atonement for iniquity and bringing everlasting righteousness—are primarily fulfilled through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. His sacrifice establishes the new covenant, rendering the temple’s sacrificial system obsolete.

• A.D. 70 as Climactic Judgment: The destruction of Jerusalem is viewed as God’s judgment on Israel for rejecting the Messiah, fulfilling the "desolations" prophesied. This aligns with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), which connects the temple’s destruction to Daniel’s prophecy.

• Partial Future Fulfillment: While most of the prophecy is seen as fulfilled by A.D. 70, Partial Preterists allow that some aspects (e.g., the ultimate consummation of "everlasting righteousness") may await Christ’s second coming, maintaining a future eschatological hope.

Historical and Biblical Alignment

The Partial Preterist view ties the prophecy to specific historical events:

• Starting Point (457 B.C.): Artaxerxes’ decree is favored over other decrees (e.g., Cyrus in 538 B.C.) due to its focus on Jerusalem’s restoration.

• Messianic Fulfillment (A.D. 27-30): The timing aligns with Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion, central to the prophecy’s redemptive purposes.

• Destruction (A.D. 70): The Roman siege fulfills the prophecy’s judgment imagery. Partial Preterism avoids speculative date-setting (e.g., dispensationalist views projecting the 70th week into the future) by grounding the prophecy in first-century events, offering a historically coherent interpretation.

Conclusion

The Partial Preterist interpretation of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks sees the prophecy as largely fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus Christ and the events culminating in A.D. 70, with the Messiah’s atonement and Jerusalem’s destruction as central fulfillments. This view balances historical fulfillment with a hope for Christ’s ultimate return, providing a framework that is both biblically rooted and historically grounded. 

Refuting the False Teachings of Shepherd’s Chapel

Shepherd’s Chapel, based in Gravette, Arkansas, and led by the late Arnold Murray, has gained a significant following through its television broadcasts and online presence. While the ministry claims to teach the Bible verse-by-verse, many of its doctrines deviate significantly from orthodox Christian teachings. This article examines key false teachings of Shepherd’s Chapel, including the Serpent Seed doctrine, denial of the Trinity, and British Israelism, providing biblical refutations for each. The aim is to clarify these errors and guide readers toward sound biblical understanding.

1. The Serpent Seed Doctrine

Shepherd’s Chapel Teaching

Shepherd’s Chapel promotes the Serpent Seed doctrine, which claims that Eve had sexual relations with Satan in the Garden of Eden, resulting in the birth of Cain, who is considered Satan’s biological offspring. This teaching further asserts that Cain’s descendants, called "Kenites," are a distinct lineage of evil people who secretly control global affairs through political, religious, economic, and educational systems. According to Murray, these Kenites are the "tares" in the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13) and are identified with modern Jews, fostering an "us versus them" mentality.

Biblical Refutation

The Serpent Seed doctrine lacks biblical support and relies on speculative interpretations of Scripture. Genesis 4:1 clearly states, “Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ‘With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.’” This verse explicitly identifies Adam as Cain’s father, with no indication of Satan’s involvement. The Hebrew word for “made love” (yada) refers to sexual relations between Adam and Eve, leaving no room for an alternative father.

The doctrine also misinterprets Genesis 3:15, which states, “And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” Shepherd’s Chapel claims the serpent’s “offspring” refers to Cain and the woman’s “offspring” to Abel. However, this passage is a messianic prophecy, with the woman’s offspring ultimately pointing to Jesus Christ, who defeats Satan. The “offspring” here is not about literal biological descendants but spiritual alignment—believers versus unbelievers (1 John 3:10). Additionally, Eve’s conception of Cain occurs after the expulsion from Eden (Genesis 3:24, 4:1), contradicting Murray’s claim that she was pregnant in the Garden.

The Kenite theory further collapses under scrutiny. The Kenites in the Old Testament (e.g., Numbers 10:29, Judges 1:16) are descendants of Midian, not Cain, and are often depicted positively, such as Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law. Linking them to a supposed satanic lineage is baseless and breeds division, often with antisemitic undertones, as it falsely equates modern Jews with Kenites.

2. Denial of the Trinity (Modalism)

Shepherd’s Chapel Teaching

Shepherd’s Chapel teaches modalism, a heretical view that denies the Trinity. Instead of one God existing eternally in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), Murray taught that God operates in three “modes” or “offices” (Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit), not as distinct persons. He reportedly stated, “His spirit is holy and he is the Holy Spirit,” implying that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit, not a separate person.

Biblical Refutation

The Bible affirms the doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons. Matthew 3:16-17 describes Jesus’ baptism, where the Son is baptized, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven, demonstrating all three persons simultaneously. John 14:16-17 shows Jesus praying to the Father to send the Holy Spirit, indicating distinct roles and relationships. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 commands baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” affirming their distinct yet unified nature.

Modalism fails to account for the personal interactions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Scripture. For example, Jesus prays to the Father (John 17:1-5), and the Spirit intercedes for believers (Romans 8:26-27). These interactions require distinct persons, not a single God switching modes. By denying the Trinity, Shepherd’s Chapel undermines the nature of God and the deity of Christ as the eternal Son, a core tenet of Christian orthodoxy.

3. British Israelism and Pre-Existence

Shepherd’s Chapel Teaching

Shepherd’s Chapel subscribes to British Israelism, the belief that the British (and sometimes Americans) are the true descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Additionally, it teaches that humans pre-existed in spiritual bodies during a “first earth age” before the creation of Adam. In this supposed first age, Satan rebelled, and some souls sided with God (the “elect”), while others followed Satan or were undecided. This present earth age is allegedly a testing ground to choose between God and Satan.

Biblical Refutation

British Israelism lacks historical and biblical evidence. The Bible traces the tribes of Israel through their dispersion (2 Kings 17:6) but never identifies them with modern Western nations. Galatians 3:28-29 emphasizes that in Christ, “there is neither Jew nor Gentile,” and all believers are Abraham’s heirs through faith, not physical descent. The theory’s association with the Christian Identity movement has historically fueled racial prejudice, though Shepherd’s Chapel denies explicit racism.

The pre-existence doctrine is equally unbiblical. 1 Corinthians 15:46-47 states, “The spiritual did not come first, but the physical, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.” This refutes the idea of a pre-existent spiritual age, affirming Adam as the first man (Genesis 2:7). Zechariah 12:1 and Isaiah 44:2 further confirm that God forms the spirit of man at creation, not before. The notion of a first earth age and a “Katabole” (catastrophic destruction) stems from the Gap Theory, which inserts a speculative period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, unsupported by sound Hebrew exegesis.

4. Other Problematic Teachings

Annihilationism

Shepherd’s Chapel denies eternal punishment in hell, teaching annihilationism—the belief that the wicked are destroyed rather than consciously tormented forever. This contradicts Matthew 25:46, which states, “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life,” using parallel language for both eternal states. Revelation 14:11 and 20:10 further describe eternal torment for the wicked, undermining annihilationism.

Kosher Food Laws

Murray taught that Christians must uphold Old Testament kosher food laws, despite New Testament teachings to the contrary. Mark 7:18-19 declares all foods clean, stating, “For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” Romans 14:17 and 1 Timothy 4:3-4 affirm that food does not affect spiritual standing, emphasizing freedom in Christ.

Aggressive and Divisive Rhetoric

Arnold Murray’s teaching style often included harsh criticism of those who disagreed with him, labeling them as tools of the devil or ignorant. This approach lacks the love and compassion commanded in Galatians 5:22-26 and fosters an un-Christlike attitude among followers. His claim that only churches teaching the Kenite doctrine possess the “Key of David” (Revelation 3:7) is a misapplication of Scripture, as the Key of David refers to Christ’s authority, not a specific doctrine.

Conclusion

Shepherd’s Chapel’s teachings, while presented as biblical, deviate significantly from orthodox Christianity. The Serpent Seed doctrine, modalism, rejection of the rapture, British Israelism, and other beliefs rely on speculative interpretations that twist Scripture out of context. Christians are urged to test all teachings against the Bible (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1) and to seek sound doctrine rooted in the clear teaching of God’s Word. The gospel is about Christ’s finished work on the cross (Galatians 3:2), not speculative theories or divisive rhetoric. For those seeking truth, Scripture remains the unchanging foundation, offering clarity and redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

Summary of Partial Preterism

Partial Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets many biblical prophecies, particularly those in the New Testament, as having been fulfilled in the first century, especially around the events of A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the Second Temple were destroyed by the Romans. Unlike full preterism, which holds that all prophecies, including the Second Coming and final judgment, have already occurred, Partial Preterism maintains that some prophecies remain unfulfilled and await a future consummation.

Core Beliefs of Partial Preterism

1. Historical Fulfillment of Prophecies

Partial Preterists believe that many of the apocalyptic prophecies in the New Testament, such as those found in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) and parts of the Book of Revelation, were fulfilled in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This includes:

• The "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15), often interpreted as the Roman armies desecrating the temple.

• The "great tribulation" (Matthew 24:21), seen as the intense suffering during the Jewish-Roman War (A.D. 66–70).

• The "coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:30), understood not as the physical return of Christ but as a symbolic judgment event, often tied to the fall of Jerusalem as a divine act of judgment against Israel.

2. Future Eschatological Events

While Partial Preterists see many prophecies as fulfilled, they maintain that certain events are still future, including:

• The Second Coming of Christ.

• The bodily resurrection of the dead.

• The final judgment.

• The establishment of the new heavens and new earth. These events mark the ultimate consummation of God's kingdom and are distinguished from the historical judgments of the first century.

3. Interpretation of Revelation

In Partial Preterism, much of the Book of Revelation (especially chapters 1–19) is seen as describing events that occurred in the first century, particularly the persecution of Christians under Nero or Domitian and the fall of Jerusalem. However, chapters 20–22 are often interpreted as referring to future events, such as the millennial reign of Christ (variously understood) and the final state of the new creation.

4. Distinction from Other Views

• Full Preterism: Partial Preterists reject the idea that all prophecies, including the Second Coming and resurrection, have been fulfilled, viewing full preterism as heretical because it denies a future bodily return of Christ.

• Futurism: Unlike futurists, who place most prophecies in the distant future, Partial Preterists emphasize historical context and first-century fulfillment for many passages.

• Historicism: Partial Preterists differ from historicists, who see Revelation as a continuous unfolding of history, by focusing on specific first-century events.

Key Biblical Texts

Partial Preterists often focus on passages like:

• Matthew 24:34: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," which they interpret as referring to the generation of Jesus’ disciples, thus pointing to a first-century fulfillment.

• Revelation 1:1, 3: The emphasis on events that "must soon take place" and "the time is near" supports their view of imminent first-century fulfillment.

• Daniel 9:24–27: The prophecy of the seventy weeks is often seen as culminating in the events of A.D. 70.

Theological Implications

• Covenantal Shift: Partial Preterists often view the destruction of Jerusalem as marking the end of the old covenant order and the full establishment of the new covenant in Christ.

• Optimistic Eschatology: Many Partial Preterists hold to a postmillennial or amillennial view, believing that the kingdom of God is advancing through the church, with Christ’s return occurring after a period of gospel influence.

• Contextual Interpretation: This view emphasizes the historical and cultural context of biblical texts, particularly their relevance to first-century audiences.

Strengths and Criticisms

Strengths:

• Provides a historically grounded interpretation of apocalyptic texts, aligning them with known events like the fall of Jerusalem.

• Maintains continuity with orthodox Christian belief in a future Second Coming and resurrection.

• Offers a framework for understanding difficult passages without requiring speculative future scenarios.

Criticisms:

• Some argue it overemphasizes first-century fulfillment, potentially downplaying future eschatological hope.

• Critics from futurist perspectives claim it misinterprets passages like the Second Coming as symbolic rather than literal.

• Requires careful distinction from full preterism to avoid theological confusion.

Conclusion

Partial Preterism offers a balanced approach to biblical prophecy, blending historical fulfillment with future expectation. By rooting many New Testament prophecies in the events of A.D. 70, it provides a framework that respects the original context while preserving core Christian doctrines about Christ’s return and the final consummation of God’s kingdom. It appeals to those seeking a historically informed eschatology but remains a subject of debate among theologians and biblical scholars.

Understanding New Covenant Theology

 

What is New Covenant Theology?

NCT emphasizes the centrality of the New Covenant, as described in passages like Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Hebrews 8:8–13, where God promises a new relationship with His people through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Unlike other theological systems, such as Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism, NCT views the New Covenant as the lens through which all Scripture should be understood, prioritizing the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Key Principles of New Covenant Theology

1. Christ-Centered Interpretation: NCT holds that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises, laws, and prophecies. The Old Testament is read in light of Christ's work, with the New Testament providing authoritative guidance for Christian doctrine and practice.

2. Discontinuity of the Mosaic Law: NCT teaches that the Mosaic Law (the Old Covenant) has been fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant. While the moral principles of the Law reflect God's eternal character, the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic Law are no longer binding on Christians.

3. The Law of Christ: Christians are under the "Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2), which emphasizes love for God and neighbor, as taught by Jesus and the apostles. This new standard supersedes the Mosaic Law, guiding believers in ethics and conduct.

4. Progressive Revelation: NCT recognizes that God's revelation unfolds progressively throughout Scripture. The New Testament provides the fullest revelation of God's will, clarifying and completing the partial revelation of the Old Testament.

5. Unity of God's People: NCT views the church as the fulfillment of God's covenant community, encompassing both Jews and Gentiles who trust in Christ. There is no separate plan for ethnic Israel apart from the church under the New Covenant.

How NCT Differs from Other Systems

• Covenant Theology: While Covenant Theology sees continuity between the Old and New Covenants under an overarching "Covenant of Grace," NCT emphasizes greater discontinuity, particularly regarding the Mosaic Law's applicability.

• Dispensationalism: Unlike Dispensationalism, which often maintains a distinction between Israel and the church with separate plans in God's redemptive history, NCT sees the church as the continuation of God's covenant people, with no future restoration of Old Covenant practices.

Implications for Christian Living

NCT encourages believers to live under the guidance of the New Testament's teachings, focusing on the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and the example of Jesus. It promotes a life of faith, love, and obedience to Christ's commands, free from the ceremonial and civil requirements of the Mosaic Law. For example, practices like Sabbath-keeping or dietary laws are not obligatory, though the moral principles underlying them (e.g., rest and stewardship) remain relevant.

Conclusion

New Covenant Theology offers a Christ-centered approach to understanding Scripture, emphasizing the fulfillment of God's promises in Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant. By prioritizing the teachings of the New Testament, NCT provides a framework for Christians to navigate their faith and practice in a way that honors the finished work of Christ. While it shares similarities with other theological systems, its unique focus on the New Covenant sets it apart as a compelling lens for interpreting God's Word.

Are people who follow Shepherd's Chapel going to hell?

Refuting Shepherd's Chapel: Angel and Humans

Here is a very brief video I did using Hebrews chapter 1 and 2 to refute the idea that we were the angels in the "first earth age".

There is amble evidence in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 to disprove the notion that we were angels from the first earth age that simply were born into flesh bodies in this earth age.  Here are some of the verses in discussion:

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? (Heb. 1:14 NKJV)

For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. (Heb. 2:16 NKJV)

Jeremiah Chapter 4 and the Myth of the "World That Was"

Shepherd’s Chapel teaches a doctrine known as the Katabole, or the "Three Earth Ages," which includes the concept of a "world that was" before the current age. According to this teaching, Satan fell in this prior world, leading one-third of the angels (whom they claim were humans in a previous form) to follow him, one-third to align with God (earning the status of "elect" in this age), and one-third to remain undecided. However, a close examination of Scripture reveals no evidence to support this narrative. Shepherd’s Chapel points to Jeremiah 4:19–31 as describing the Katabole—the alleged destruction of this earlier world. A verse-by-verse analysis of this chapter, in its proper context, demonstrates that it refers solely to God’s judgment on Judah and Jerusalem, not a prehistoric earth age.

Context of Jeremiah 4: God’s Judgment on Judah

Jeremiah 4:5–6 sets the stage clearly:

“Declare in Judah, and proclaim in Jerusalem, and say, ‘Blow the trumpet in the land; cry aloud and say, “Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the fortified cities!” Raise a standard toward Zion, flee for safety, do not stay, for I bring disaster from the north, and great destruction.’” (Jer. 4:5–6, ESV)

This passage explicitly describes God’s impending judgment on Judah and Jerusalem, with the “disaster from the north” referring to the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. The context is unmistakable: God is addressing the immediate future of Judah, not a distant primordial event.

Verse 9 reinforces this focus:

“And it shall come to pass in that day, declares the Lord, that the heart of the king shall fail, and the heart of the princes; the priests shall be appalled, and the prophets amazed.” (Jer. 4:9, ESV)

The phrase “in that day” refers to the time of Judah’s destruction, not a speculative prior age. Similarly, verses 11–12 state:

“At that time it will be said to this people and to Jerusalem, ‘A hot wind from the bare heights in the wilderness toward the daughter of my people, not to winnow or cleanse, a wind too full for this comes for me. Now it is I who speak in judgment upon them.’” (Jer. 4:11–12, ESV)

The repeated phrases “in that day” and “at that time” anchor the prophecy to God’s judgment on Judah, leaving no room for an interpretation involving a previous earth age. Verses 13–18 further emphasize warnings of destruction and calls for repentance, urging Judah to turn back to God.

Jeremiah’s Anguish and Judah’s Rebellion

In verse 19, the prophet expresses personal anguish over the coming judgment:

“My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain! Oh, the walls of my heart! My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent, for I hear the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.” (Jer. 4:19, ESV)

Jeremiah’s emotional response reflects the severity of the judgment on Judah, which he feels deeply. Verse 22 explains why this judgment is necessary:

“For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.” (Jer. 4:22, ESV)

This echoes Proverbs 1:7, which states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Judah’s rejection of God, described as moral and intellectual folly, has led to their impending punishment, foretold in Jeremiah 3:19 and throughout the book.

The Misinterpretation of Jeremiah 4:23–26

Shepherd’s Chapel points to Jeremiah 4:23–26 to support their Katabole theory:

“I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.” (Jer. 4:23–26, ESV)

The phrase “without form and void” (Hebrew: tohu wabohu), also found in Genesis 1:2, is central to their argument. They claim this imagery describes the destruction of a prior world. However, the context of Jeremiah 4 clearly ties these verses to Judah’s judgment. The imagery of tohu wabohu is not a literal description of a past event but a poetic depiction of God’s judgment as a reversal of creation. The earth becomes desolate (“without form and void,” Gen. 1:2), the heavens lose light (Gen. 1:3), mountains quake (Gen. 1:9–11), and humanity and birds vanish (Gen. 1:20–31). This vivid language underscores the totality of Judah’s destruction, portraying it as if creation itself were undone.

Hope Amid Judgment

Despite the severity of this judgment, God offers hope:

“For thus says the Lord, ‘The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end.’” (Jer. 4:27, ESV)

This promise of a remnant points to God’s faithfulness, ultimately fulfilled in the New Covenant through the Christian Church.

Conclusion: Exegesis, Not Eisegesis

Shepherd’s Chapel’s interpretation of Jeremiah 4:19–31 as evidence for a “world that was” relies on eisegesis—reading preconceived ideas into the text—rather than exegesis, which derives meaning from the text itself. The context of Jeremiah 4 is unambiguous: it describes God’s judgment on Judah and Jerusalem, not a mythical prior earth age. By ignoring the chapter’s clear historical and theological focus, this teaching distorts Scripture to fit a preconceived narrative. Sound biblical interpretation requires letting the text speak for itself.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Refuting Shepherd's Chapel - The Elect

I briefly went over my history with Shepherd's Chapel in this post. I stated that what first brought some doubts to my mind about the truth of Shepherd's Chapel was their doctrine of election. As I studied what Shepherd's Chapel claimed about election and then compared that to what the Scriptures teach about election I learned there was an irreconcilable contradiction between the two. When their doctrine of election was refuted by Scripture the whole system collapsed. I knew, at that point, Shepherd's Chapel was a non-Christian cult.

Pastor Arnold Murray always said to "check him out" so I encourage you to do that. Unfortunately when you do check him out his interpretations are far from Biblical and some are actually heretical. I believe the most heretical teaching from Shepherd's Chapel (other then denying the Trinity) is their doctrine of election. I will explain why I believe that as we examine the Biblical texts, especially Romans chapter 8 and Ephesians chapter 1.

So what is Shepherd's Chapel view of election?

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that, millions of years ago, there was a first earth age in which we all lived and we were in spiritual bodies. At some point Satan rebelled against God and convinced a third of the angels (us in spiritual bodies) to follow him. Others followed faithfully after God, and still others were undecided. God then destroyed the first earth age with the Katabole and created this present earth age. (See Shepherd's Chapel's studies: #30417, "Elect"; #30146, "Genesis, Chapters 1-6")

According to Shepherd's Chapel we are all now being born into this earth age so that we can choose to follow God or follow Satan. The ones that followed God, in the first earth age, are what the Bible calls elect and they were justified and glorified in the first earth age (see Arnold Murray's study in Romans chapter 8). They earned the right to be the elect of God in this earth age and are the only ones that can discern the deeper truths of Scripture. These elect have no free will, but all others have free-will to follow God or follow Satan. This sets a hard distinction between Elect Christians and Fee-Will Christians.

Does the Bible actually teach this version of the doctrine of election?

There is quite a heated debate among Christians as to the nature of the elect. Yet both sides of the argument (Arminian and Calvinist) agree that when the Bible speaks of the elect it is talking about all true believing Christians. I take the Calvinist (Reformed) understanding of the nature of the elect but I'm not specifically defending that view in this post. I'll be focusing on Romans chapter 8 to see if Shepherd's Chapel's view of election contradicts Scripture.

Romans 8:29 is one of the verses Shepherd's Chapel will use to substantiate their peculiar doctrine of election. Before we look at Romans 8:29 to see if it is speaking of all Christians or just a group chosen in the world that was we must look at the context of Romans 8 and follow Paul's thought.

Romans chapter 8 follows after Paul's writing about our struggle as Christians with sin in Romans chapter 7. Romans 8:1 is very important to our discussion as it sets the context of the whole of Paul's argument in Romans chapter 8.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)

Paul states here that there is no condemnation (no fear of judgment) for those who are in Christ Jesus. This sets to context of what follows and show that we are talking about all believers in Christ and not just some separate group of special Christians.

Paul goes on in verse 9 to say:

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

Again pretty clear language that the whole subject of this chapter is about ALL that belong to Christ.

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,  and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:16-17)

Paul is talking about those that are the children of God.. ALL Christians are the children of God! I cannot stress enough that if you simply read Romans chapter 8 you see it is talking about ALL Christians and not just a sub-group of elect Christians.

Now let's take a look at the verse in question:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

Shepherd's Chapel will claim the "those whom he foreknew" means those God knew in the first earth age (see also this post). Yet look at what the verse is actually saying. God foreknew (new beforehand who he would choose). He predestined this group for a purpose. What is the purpose? "to be conformed to the image of his Son"(verse 29). Compare this to Phil. 3:21, 1 Cor. 15:49, Col. 3:10, 1 John 3:2. The predestined or elect group talked about here is all Christians. This group is foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. Those terms, when taken in context to Romans 8, are talking about all believing Christians. There is no distinction in the text between a group of free-will believing Christians and elect believing Christians.

Christians are justified by the predestined choice of God and not by any action we performed in this earth age or any fabricated previous earth age.

Shepherd's Chapel has to force this separation of the body of Christ by saying there are two types of Christians, an elect group and a free-will group. They then read this unscriptural concept back into the Bible when the Bible does not teach that concept at all in the first place!

As if we needed any more proof that this is talking about all Christians Paul continues:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:31-33)

 Paul very bluntly proclaims that God's elect are all Christians.

It has been shown that in the full context of Romans chapter 8 that the Shepherd's Chapel view of election is completely false and heretical.

Another part of Scripture that Shepherd's Chapel uses to defend their false belief is Ephesians chapter 1. Let us take a quick look at what it has to say.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:(Eph. 1:1)

Here we see the context and to whom the book is written to. It clearly states that Paul is writing this letter to the the saint who are faithful in Christ Jesus. That is Christians, all Christians.

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,(Eph 1:4-7)

Ephesians 1:4-5 is very common verses used by Shepherds chapel to try and prove their view of election. If you read verses 4-7 very carefully you will see the context and meaning extremely clearly and it is at odds with the teachings of Shepherd's Chapel.

First off God chose us before the creation of the world, for a fuller explanation of katabole and that teaching of Shepherd's Chapel see my post here. Notice what is says next after it shows we are chosen. The text says we were chosen to be holy and blameless before Him (God). That is all Christians not just some sect of special elect Christians chosen in a first earth age.

now in verse 5 it says we were predestined. What does it immediately say after predestined? The text explains itself. We were predestined FOR adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. The purpose of being chosen and predestined is to be HOLY and to be adopted as SONS. That is descriptive of ALL Christians.

The next statement gives how. "according to the purpose of his will". That is God's will. It goes on to state that those that are chosen and predestined are the ones that have redemption through his (Christ's) blood.

Romans chapter 8 and Ephesians chapter 1 does not teach that there is a special group of "elect" Christians that were chosen in a first earth age because they sided with God. Both Romans and Ephesians proclaim very loudly that it is ALL true believing Christians that are Elect and Predestined. The purpose of Election and Predestination is clearly taught in Ephesians chapter 1 to be chosen for holiness and predestined for adoption as Sons (in other words to be Christians!).

Shepherd's Chapel false teaching of election is thoroughly refuted by Scriptures.

But how do we know we are Elect? How can you have confidence that you are an Elect? Is it by knowing some special eschatological position? Thankfully God has provided an answer for that in 2nd Peter chapter 1:3-12

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2nd Peter 1:3-12)

Peter tells us the way a Christian can know he is an elect is by following the qualities he outlines in verse 5-7! Notice it doesn't mention anything about making sure you know Satan is coming first..

Soli Deo Gloria!!

Shepherd's Chapel Kenite & Serpent Seed Refuted!!

In this brief podcast I deal with Shepherd's Chapel Kenite doctrine. Listen and share.




Download Here

Refuting Shepherd's Chapel - Kenites

One of the defining false doctrines of Shepherd's Chapel is their twist on the Serpent Seed heresy. I have dealt with this topic in other posts in one form or another (See: here, here, and here). My desire for this post, Lord willing, is to expand on what I've already posted and make as concise a refutation as I can.

If one orders Shepherd's Chapel's free introductory CD called The Mark of Beast they will be introduced to the Kenite doctrine. Shepherd's Chapel also has several study CD's that deal with this doctrine in more depth, see their studies entitled Seed of the Serpent #30461, Genesis, Chapters 1-6 #30146, and Kenites #30436. I will give a brief definition of this doctrine, as they believe it, but feel free to order the material from Shepherd's Chapel to get a fuller explanation from their point of view.

So what is this doctrine of the Kenite? Simply put, Shepherd's Chapel teaches that Eve had sex with Satan. Eve then conceived and gave birth to Cain. Cain's biological father was Satan, and Cain's offspring are what the Old Testament identifies by the term Kenite. Jesus, in the New Testament, identifies the scribes and Pharisees as these same literal sons of Cain. Kenites are still in the world today claiming to be Jews. Behind the scenes they control the world by, what Shepherd's Chapel calls, the four hidden dynasties (political, religious, economic, and education). Utilizing their control of these four hidden dynasties, Kenites will bring about the one world system. Only churches that teach the true identity of these Kenites hold the Key of David, know the truth, and will not be deceived in the end-times.

Can any of that be substantiated from the Bible? Shepherd's Chapel does, of course, try to defend these beliefs by selectively utilizing Scripture. I will examine these proofs and show that the doctrine of the Kenite cannot hold up to close scrutiny.

In reality the whole doctrine hinges on the interpretation of Genesis chapter 3. Does this chapter describe a sexual encounter between Satan and Eve? A straight read-though of this chapter would not lead to that conclusion, thus Shepherd's Chapel is forced to take a completely allegorical interpretation of Genesis 3. We read the following in Genesis 3:3-6:

but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:3-6 ESV)

Shepherd's Chapel claims that this eating of the fruit is used here as an analogy for sex. They claim this is describing sex between Satan and Eve; I suppose Adam as well sense it states he took the fruit too. There are, however, some serious problems with this interpretation.

The serpent is using what God said in Genesis chapter 2.

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17 ESV)

Now if we are to take that eating of the fruit of the tree is an analogy for sex then we would be forced to conclude that God gave Adam permission to have sex with anything in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is simply not true. We see from this text that God is giving Adam permission to literally eat of any tree in the garden he wishes. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, however, is forbidden. Sex is not the topic of discussion. Even if one takes the scene in the garden of Eden as allegory we see that sex is not in view here.

You would also have to identify the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as Satan for Shepherd's Chapel's view to work. The problem is Satan is not identified as the tree but as the serpent, see Revelation 12:9. Even if sex was in view it was not with Satan. There are other problems as well. Take a look at Genesis 3:17.

And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (Genesis 3:17 ESV)

We have read in Genesis 2:16 that God gave permission for Adam to eat of any tree. Now that Adam has sinned in eating the forbidden tree, God curses the ground. Since he ate fruit he wasn't allowed to eat, Adam will have to work hard for his food. We see how the analogy of eating the fruit = sex simply does not work with the point God is making in Genesis 2 and 3.

The most serious and heretical problem with the view of Genesis 3 describing sex is in Genesis 3:22.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23 ESV)

Arnold Murray, in his study #417 Elect, states that the tree of life is Jesus and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is Satan. Now in verse 22 God states that eating of the tree of life brings eternal life. This verse specifically says "and take also" which means the same action that was done to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must also be done with the tree of life in order for someone to have eternal life. Are we really to conclude that God is talking about having sex with the tree of life instead of sex with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? That we are to have sex with the tree of life in eternity, see Revelation 2:7? Of course Shepherd's Chapel would deny that, but that is the logical conclusion to their interpretation of Genesis chapter 3.

It is quite obvious from reading the passages in Genesis 2-3 that sex is not in view. The scene in Genesis 3:3-6 is not describing a sexual encounter with Eve and Satan. The point of the story in Genesis 3 is to show the disobedience of Adam & Eve, the fall of mankind, and the consequence of that disobedience.

A student of Shepherd's Chapel may raise the objection that Genesis 3:15 does prove the Serpent Seed doctrine.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15 ESV)

It has been shown by reading the texts that it was not the serpent that Eve took the fruit of but rather the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So even in their own view of eating the fruit = sex it was not the serpent that Even could have had sex with.

We see in Genesis 3:15 the enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of Eve. It is clearly shown that the serpent has a seed completely separate from Eve, not coming from Eve. Eve has no part in the serpent's seed and does not give birth, in any way, to the serpent's seed.

We read in Genesis 3:14-19 God hands down his punishments to the Serpent, Eve, and Adam. So literally serpents are cursed after the fall to no longer be as cunning and must go in shame on their bellies eating dust. Serpents and humans will always be at odds with each other with humans having the victory over them.

Allegorically we read in Genesis 3:15 what is called the Protoevangelium, the first announcement of the Gospel. The serpent would be identified as Satan, see Revelation 12:9 and 20:2. His seed would be that of anything that opposes the Gospel and Christ. The ultimate seed of the Eve would be Christ. The statement "he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" would be Christ's victory over the Devil and death at the Cross.

We see this dual-seed and its meaning most clearly presented in 1st John 3:8-10:

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
(1 John 3:8-10 ESV)

Again sinners are the children of the devil and believers are the children of God. This alludes back to Genesis 3:15 so its meaning is very clear. Genesis 3:15 is not and cannot be talking about literal physical seed of Satan produced by a sexual encounter with Eve. If you read 1st John 3:1-3 you see believers being called the children of God set against the world of unbelievers (children of the devil).

So who is Cain's father? It is claimed by Shepherd's Chapel to be Satan. We see in Genesis 4:1 who Scripture claims Cain's father to be.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” (Genesis 4:1 ESV)

The statement "Adam knew Eve" is a figure of speech for sex. We see, very clearly, that Adam consummated his marriage with Eve and she conceived and bore Cain. The statement "and she conceived and bore Cain" coming directly after the statement "Adam knew Eve his wife" proves the conception of Cain is in view. Cain was not conceived at some prior time before this.

Shepherd's Chapel will claim that Genesis 4:2 shows that Cain and Abel were twins. Abel was born at the same time as Cain with Cain being conceived at a prior point. This was already refuted in Genesis 4:1 but we will take a look at this claim.

And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. (Genesis 4:2 ESV)

Shepherd's Chapel will claim word "again" used in Genesis 4:2 means "to continue to do a thing". In other words Eve continued in labor and bore Able. The Hebrew word here is yacaph and its meaning is to add, increase, do again. Here are a couple more verses, from Genesis, that use yacaph in a similar context:

And she called his name Joseph, saying, “May the LORD add to me another son!” (Genesis 30:24 ESV)

Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judah was in Chezib when she bore him. (Genesis 38:5 ESV)

The bold words are the Hebrew word yacaph. It does not mean to continue in labor, but is a connector word indicating two separate events. Not the same event.

Shepherd's Chapel also claims that since Cain isn't listed in the genealogy of Adam in Genesis chapter 5 then he is not Adam's son.

Cain could be included, in sorts, in Genesis 5:4 when it says of Adam "he had other sons and daughters". More importantly the genealogy of Genesis 5 starts with Seth so it is perfectly normal to leave Abel and Cain out.

Genealogies in Old Testament times were often deliberately truncated to remove cursed generations or included only those of note. In the case of the Genesis 5 genealogy only those descendants leading to Noah are mentioned because only those are pertinent to the story. That the Bible does not list every single twig on a family tree does not mean that Kenite theory is a valid doctrine.

Also note in Genesis 5 Abel is not listed either yet Shepherd's Chapel doesn't say he wasn't Adam's son. Cain's genealogy is listed separately because he’s not part of the lineage or Noah, not because he’s the literal biological son of the devil. Like I said before the genealogy starts with Seth and leaves out both Abel and Cain!

It has been fully shown that Genesis 3 is not talking about sex between Satan and Eve, Genesis 4:1 shows exactly who Cain's father is, and Genesis 3:15 is not talking about a Kenite seed set loose in the world.

That leaves us with one question. Who are the Kenites? They are mentioned in 10 verses in the Old Testament and never mentioned in the New Testament.

(Genesis 15:19, Numbers 24:21, Judges 1:16; 4:11; 4:17; 5:24, 1 Samuel 15:6; 27:10; 30:29, 1 Chronicles 2:55)

Nowhere in the Bible are Kenites identified as descended from Cain. We do, however, see in two of these verses how they can be identified.

And the descendants of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, went up with the people of Judah from the city of palms into the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the Negeb near Arad, and they went and settled with the people. (Judges 1:16 ESV)

Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh. (Judges 4:11 ESV)

We read from these texts that Kenites are the descendants of Moses' father-in-law, see Exodus 3:1. Kenites are part of the Midianites and came out of Rachab. The name Kenite is probably derived from the name of Kenan the son of Enosh (the grandson of Seth and the great grandson of Adam).

We have already refuted the possibility that Cain was the biological son of Satan. Now we have shown that there is no warrant at all to identify Kenites as sons of Cain. It is known that Cain fathered children, but they all would have died in the flood of Noah. 2nd Peter 2:5 makes the statement that only eight people survived the flood; only Noah and his family.

No we will turn our attention to the New Testament. Shepherd's Chapel uses several New Testament texts to try and prove their Kenite doctrine. One of these texts is what is commonly called the Parable of the Tares and is located in Matthew 13:24-30. Shepherd's Chapel claims that the tares, or weeds, in this parable are identified as Kenites. Lucky for us Jesus explains this parable in Matthew 13:36-43.

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 13:36-43 ESV)

Here Jesus does give us the true interpretation of the dual-seed or, if you will, serpent seed doctrine. The good seed is planted by the Son of Man (Jesus). The good seed are the sons of the kingdom. These sons of the kingdom are believers. They are called the righteous in verse 43. The good seeds are Christians, not the literal seed of Jesus. The field where the seeds are sown is the world. The tares, or weeds, are sown by the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, what we would call judgment day (Rev. 20:11-15). Verse 41 identifies the seed of the devil as "all causes of sin and all law-breakers". So the seed of the devil is unbelievers, not the physical descendants of Cain. This is basically the same thing we see in 1st John 3:1-10.

Simply put, the Parable of the Tares describes the activity of God’s kingdom in the world. The enemies of the kingdom (weeds) will always coexist with the sons of the kingdom (good seed). It is talking about believers and unbelievers not physical offspring.

John 8:44 is also a popular text that Shepherd's Chapel uses in an attempt to prove the Kenite theory. Jesus is speaking to the Jews when He says this:

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44 ESV)

Shepherd's Chapel claims this text teaches that these Jews are literally the sons of Satan (via Cain). The contrast is being "of the devil" or being "of God" (see verse 47). Jesus is, however, speaking that the spiritual father of these Jews is the devil, not their physical father. Jesus identifies who their physical father is a few verses up in John 8:37.

I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. (John 8:37 ESV)

These are the same Jews Jesus is speaking to in verse 44. Jesus here identifies them as being offspring of Abraham not Cain. So Jesus in John 8:37 identifies who their physical father is and then in John 8:44 identifies their spiritual father. Later in this chapter (John 8:56) Jesus again identifies who these same Jews physical father is.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56 ESV)

These passages clearly teach that Jesus did not think these Jews were literal, physical sons of Satan. What they do teach, however, is that the works of these Jews proved that they were spiritually the offspring of the devil. Jesus specifically identifies them as Abraham's physical offspring (twice) and not Cain's!

One New Testament text that Shepherd's Chapel will claim proves a sexual encounter happened between Satan and Eve is 2nd Corinthians 11:3.

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3 ESV)

The Greek word for deceived used here (beguiled in the KJV) is claimed by Shepherd's Chapel to mean sexually seduced. So, to Shepherd's Chapel, this verse says the serpent sexually seduced Eve in the garden of Eden.

The Greek word used here is exapataō, and simply means to deceive. Interpreting the word exapataō sexually brings up problems in other passages written by Paul. 1st Corinthians 3:18 uses the same word in a similar context.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
(1 Corinthians 3:18-19 ESV)

The word deceive in this verse is the same Greek word exapataō. You can read by the context that exapataō has no sexual meaning whatsoever. Just try replacing deceive in this verse with sexually seduce and you see how ridiculous the assertion by Shepherd's Chapel is. Paul also uses exapataō in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3.

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, (2 Thessalonians 2:3 ESV)

The word deceive is also the Greek word exapataō and shows that it is not used in a sexual manner. Again try to replace deceive with sexually seduced in this verse, it won't work. In fact the Greek word exapataō is only used 5 times in the New Testament, all by Paul, and it is never used in a sexual context to describe sexual seduction. (See: Rom. 7:11; 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:18, 2 Cor. 11:3, 2 Thes. 2:3)

These kinds of arguments are common with Shepherd's Chapel. They will take a Greek word and using a Strong's Concordance try and redefine what the word means, twisting it to fit their doctrines. Although Arnold Murray claimed to be a Greek scholar he was not. It has been shown that he did not know how Greek or Hebrew grammar works and deceived his students by twisting the meaning of Scripture. This is the same kind of tactic that Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, used.

Another claim one may hear from Shepherd's Chapel is that there are only 2 churches that Christ's finds no fault with and those are the churches that teach the Kenite doctrine. To defend this view Shepherd's Chapel will quote Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Let's take a look at one of these texts.

“‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9 ESV)

Jesus is speaking to the church of Smyrna, see verse 8. Smyrna was known as the crown of Asia where the Greeks held to strong emperor worship. They also had a large Jewish community and both the Romans and the Jews strongly persecuted Christians in this city. Although these Jews were Jews physically they spiritually aligned themselves with the Greek pagans in putting Christians to death. This is similar in the church of Philadelphia (briefly named Caesar’s New City) in Revelation 3:9. The Roman imperial cult and a large synagogue were known to be in Philadelphia around this time. Both Smyrna and Philadelphia were dangerous places for Christians to be.

Jesus' statement "they say they are Jews and are not" is not Jesus denying their Jewish genealogy but rather their spiritual genealogy. Romans 2:28-29 declares "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly... But a Jew is one inwardly...". These Jews denied the Messiah and aligned with the emperor worshipers; thus Judaism became a "synagogue of Satan". The New Testament defines God's people in relation to Jesus, not genealogy. The "key of David" mentioned in Revelation 3:9 is simply Jesus' authority to admit to or exclude from God’s kingdom (see Isaiah 22:22, Mark 16:19).

Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 does not teach or promote the Kenite or serpent seed theory.

We have shown from Genesis to Revelation that the Kenite or serpent seed theory is not taught in the Bible. Cain was the physical son of Adam not Satan (Genesis 4:1). Yet we are to head the warning of 1st John 3:12 and "not be like Cain, who was of the evil one". Yes Cain's spiritual father is Satan, just like our spiritual father is God. Our righteous seed is from God and unbeliever seed is from the Devil just as 1st John 3:10 states "By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother". The point of all these Scriptures (starting with Genesis 3:15) is to differentiate believers from non-believers, not physical sons of Cain from sons of Adam.

Shepherd's Chapel does not condone racism and claims not to teach racism. The fact is, however, the Kenite doctrine breeds this us versus them mentality. Saying that the people we identify as Jews are really literal sons of Cain will, inherently, cause racism and hatred. There are many evil people today in power but it is not Kenites behind the scenes controlling the world.

The Kenite false doctrine of Shepherd's Chapel is dangerous and heretical. It needs to be avoided and Christians warned against it. I pray that if you are stuck in the false teachings of Shepherd's Chapel that you will take serious these warning and that the Lord will open your eyes.

** Addendum 5/3/2017 **
I've had some feedback and criticisms that I did not deal with the "trees" in Daniel chapter 4 and Ezekiel 31 and how they relate to the attributes of Satan and that links Satan to the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden. Here is a very quick addendum and hopefully I can do a proper post dealing with these texts explicitly.

First let's look at Daniel Chapter 4:
you will see in verses 4-18 Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and wants it to be interpreted. He has as dream about a tree that grew and became strong. Somehow I suppose SC students seem to think this links back to Satan. However we see Daniel interpret the dream in verses 19-27 and Daniel specifically says in verse 22 that the Tree was Nebuchadnezzar. Let's look at the passage

 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth. (Daniel 4:20-22 KJV)

We see specifically in verse 22 that Nebuchadnezzar is the "tree" in his dream.

 Ezekiel Chapter 31 is a very popular chapter that SC students love to quote and show some of the attributes of Satan. Ezekiel 31 (also 28) is about judgment on nations. Context begins in chapter 25 about judgment on nations (chapter 26 about King/Prince of Tyre specifically) and Chapter 31 begins the judgment on Pharaoh and Assyria.

The context (starting in chapter 25) is judgment on nations (Ammon 25:1, Moab and Seir v.8, Edom v. 12, Philistia v. 15, Tyre chapter chapter 26-27, prince of Tyre in 28 and Pharaoh/Assyria in Chapter 31 )

The Prince/King of Tyre in chapter 28 is described using Hebrew Poetic imagery which is common in the Hebrew prophetic books. “in Eden” simply shows that the king of Tyre owes his entire existence to the Sovereign God. “Guardian cherub” shows the ordained purpose of a King is likened to the cherub in Eden guarding the way to divine Presence. We see in the prophetic books in the OT use these vivid Hebrew Poetic devices to describe people and nations all the time.

We see similar language used in Chapter 31 to describe Pharaoh and Assyria. The context is clear if you read Ezekiel 31:1-3

And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. (Eze 31:1-3 KJV)

And again poetic allusion in Ezekiel likens Assyria to the trees in Eden. It is not saying Satan was the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But if you go the last verse in this chapter it makes it absolutely clear who this prophecy is talking about:

To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord God. (Eze. 31:18 KJV)

Even if there is a dual meaning in these verses that is attributed to Satan (although I see no contextual reason for that interpretation) they still in no way prove a sexual encounter with Eve. Again even if Satan was the serpent and the tree in Eden it is a long way from saying Eve had sex with him.



Soli Deo Gloria!

"Pastor" Ben Heath, and the Serpent Seed doctrine.

* * Please note Ben Heath contacted me and asked that I remove this article. He stated he has changed his beliefs on this subject. I am leaving this article up because it still deals with the issue of serpent seed and Heath's former arguments are still used by Shepherd's Chapel students**

I have been out of the blog-o-sphere and forum discussions for a bit so I'm a little behind on the current events going on at Shepherd's Chapel. I learned that Arnold Murray passed away back in February of this year. Dennis Murray has taken over the teaching full time. Unfortunately he teaches the same heresies as his dad did. I pray Dennis repents before it is too late for him as well. I find it odd that the Shepherd's chapel website doesn't mention Arnold Murray's passing and most of his students don't seem to want to talk about it.

Also I have noticed a new Murrayite named "Pastor" Ben Heath, I put his title in quotations because he is not a Christian pastor. He seems to teach most of the same errors as Shepherd's Chapel does. He is a strong proponent of the serpent-seed doctrine heresy and has many articles that deal with it. I wanted to take a minute and look at some of his errors.

In his article called The Serpent Seed, Mr. Heath lays out a brief argument trying to prove the Serpent Seed doctrine heresy. He labors the point that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. I tend to agree with that, it was probably Satan in some form or manifestation. Then he goes with Genesis 3:15 (I will use the KJV since that is what he is using)

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15, KJV)

Ben Heath labors to try and prove that this verse is teaching a literal seed of the serpent. In other words, Eve had sex with Satan and produced Cain and Cain's offspring are with us today known by Shepherd's Chapel students as "Kenites". They teach that these Kenites pretend to be what we call Jews today.

Ben is right, this is a prophecy. This verse is often called the “Protoevangelium,” the first announcement of the gospel. The seed of Satan isn't the Kenites or Jews, it is anybody that denies Jesus as Christ. And Christ destroyed the power of Satan and his seed on the Cross!

Of course this is all very easily cleared up if one simply reads Genesis 4:1. We see very clearly who Cain's daddy is:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Genesis 4:1, KJV)

The KJV uses the euphemism of "knew" his wife to refer to sexual intercourse. So we see quite clearly and Biblically that Cain is the literal, physical son of Adam. 

Next Mr. Heath tries to prove the serpent-seed doctrine by twisting some New Testament texts. He starts with the Parable of the Tares and states the children of the wicked one spoken of in Matthew 13:36-38 are literally Satan's literal offspring. Let us take a look at the texts in question, and in context:

Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:36-43, KJV)

We see the great reaping of the world at the last day here in these verses. We clearly see that all unbelievers are cast into the furnace of fire and all believers remain in the Kingdom of God! Now let us take a closer look at verse 38:

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (Matthew 13:38, KJV)

We see that the good seed are the children of the kingdom. This is obviously not talking about literal seed but the same type of seed John speaks of in 1 John 3:9. So the children of the wicked one are not literal kids of Satan but rather all unbelievers. The context is extremely clear if one reads the passages.

Mr. Heath goes on to state that this interpretation is refuted by Matthew 13:35. The secret or mystery spoken of there, though, isn't the seed of Satan but the mystery of the Gospel of Christ that the Jews simply didn't understand.

Ben Heath then goes on to other texts to try and prove Jesus taught serpent-seed doctrine. One of the texts he uses is a favorite of Shepherd's Chapel, John 8:44. 

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44, KJV)

Jesus is speaking that the spiritual father of these Jews is the devil because he earlier identified them as literal sons of Abraham in John 8:37.

 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you (John 8:37, KJV)

 Afterward, in John 8:56, Jesus again identifies that these Jews of John 8:44 are literal sons of Abraham. The context is clear.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. (John 8:56, KJV)

From these passages we can clearly see that Jesus did not think these people were literal, physical sons of Satan, but rather their works proved that they were spiritually the offspring of the devil. Jesus specifically identifies them as Abraham's offspring not Satan's!

In the last section of the Ben Heath's article he claims the Apostles taught serpent-seed and again twists some scripture to try and prove it. One text he uses is again one I've heard Arnold Murray use a lot to prove the sexual union between Satan and Eve. The text is 2nd Corinthians 11:3

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2nd Corinthians 11:3)

The word beguiled used in this verse is claimed by Ben Hearth  to mean sexually seduced. The Greek word used here is exapataō. Interpreting the word exapataō sexually brings up problems in other passages written by Paul. 1st Corinthians 3:18 uses the same word in a similar context.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. (1st Corintians 3:18, KJV)

The word deceive in this verse is the same Greek word exapataō. It is obvious this isn't speaking of anything remotely sexually.

 Romans 16:18 also uses the same word in context with the word kardia, meaning inner self.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Romans 16:18, KJV)

Again in this verse the word deceive is the Greek word exapataō and proves the word has no sexual connotation with it. The attempt to force this serpent-seed sexual meaning of exapataō into 2nd Corinthians 11:3 makes no more sense than it would in those two passages. 2nd Corinthians 11:3 is simply stating that Eve was deceived by the serpent.



If Ben Heath ever reads this I would love to have a discussion with him about these things. If he would like to I encourage him to contact me. In the meantime I will pray for his repentance and hope that he leaves these doctrines of demons.



*For a fuller refutation of the Kenite theory see my post here.



Soli Deo Gloria!