Saturday, July 12, 2014

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

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 exapataōInterpreting 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!

4 comments:

  1. The affirmation of one fact is not necessarily the negation of another.

    All you have done is illustrate what Pastor Heath did in his Revelation teaching, assuming that you have seen it: those that claim to be Jews but do lie can be the sons of Cain AND / OR people who deny Christ.

    DID YOU KNOW THAT?

    Did you investigate his teaching in Revelation? It is very recent.

    If Pastor Ben Heath is a "Murrayite", accurately, then how do you explain that Pastor Ben Heath DENIES many of Pastor Murray's most profound teachings?

    Do you know any more about what Pastor Ben Heath teaches with regard to the Synagogue of Satan than what you read on one web page?

    If not, why not?

    Do you understand that by putting the word "Pastor" in quotes that you are engaged in a form of pseudo-reasoning? Readers who assume that you will see the quotes and immediately assume "He is not a Pastor", or "He is a fake Pastor". This is called Poisoning the Well.

    Therefore, we have Guilt by Association and Poisoning the Well.

    How will you justify this reasoning to your readers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings LogicalBible! I agree, affirmation of one fact does not necessarily negate another fact. The fact is no form of literal serpent seed can be documented in the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Heath claims this “and/or” meaning but it cannot be documented and it shows his extreme presuppositions applied eisegetically into the texts of Scripture. Rev 2:8, 3:9 is simply stating that the church’s opponents may “say that they are Jews” but they have no legitimate claim to that name (cp. John 8:39-44, Romans 2:12-29) only by using this serpent seed heresy as a presupposition and not using a proper, Biblical hermeneutic does one come up with such a twisted view as Heath’s. I never stated that Heath’s teachings were identical to Murray’s, but it is quite obvious Heath’s theology was derived from Murray’s and hence the moniker “murrayite”. Just like I am called a Calvinist even though there are several things I disagree with John Calvin on. I was not using pseudo-reasoning by putting “Pastor” in quotations. I was simply making sure people understand he is not a Christian Pastor, I updated my post to reflect that view. I justify what I post because Ben Heath is a False Pastor, a False Prophet and his false heretical doctrines prove it.

      Delete
    2. Then I can only submit that you have not seen all of his documentation on the matter.

      What you need to make sure is that people understand that they are reading your opinion, with some Scriptural references.

      The Bible is a large scroll. Anybody who thinks that they know everything that needs to be known from it is not wise.

      That imperfect knowledge does not make you "false" anymore than anybody else.

      COUNT 1: on the top of this page is a reference to "Saturday". Why do you invoke the name of Saturnus?

      "The English language days of the week are named after gods and mythological figures..."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week

      COUNT 2: One of your login options is for the Google account. Don't you know that Google openly supports homosexual pride?
      http://searchengineland.com/google-supports-gay-pride-month-rainbow-colored-banner-lgbt-related-searches-193999

      Therefore, I charge that you are a false prophet. How do you plea?

      Delete
    3. Hello again LogicalBible! People can read my blog and the Scripture and decide for themselves if what I am saying is false or if Ben Heath is false. We both cannot be right. There is but only one Truth not many truths my friend. That new age philosophy you seem to promote is inherently self-contradictory.

      I don’t invoke the name of any pagan god on my blog, the blog software automatically puts in the date. Saturday may have been named after a false god but our society demands its use as a name of a day of the week. It would be hard to communicate in this country without using the name for the days of the week and months.

      As for your second point, I do not agree with how Google supports gay rights and I have thought about moving my blog to another host. Just because I use Google to host my blog does not mean I support gay rights no more than when Jesus preached at the Pharisees’ synagogues made Jesus a Pharisee.

      Your argument is as invalid as me saying that “since the internet is full of ungodly and sinful things, and you use the internet, that makes you ungodly and sinful”. That is guilt by association and a logical fallacy.

      But I know that all you are doing is trying to divert the topic from the fact that Ben Heath preaches a false gospel and damnable heresies.

      Delete