Refuting Shepherd's Chapel's Katabole, Three Earth Ages, and Gap Theory

The Shepherd's Chapel, led by Arnold Murray, promotes a distinctive interpretation of biblical creation, centered on the concepts of the "Katabole," the "Three Earth Ages," and the Gap Theory. These teachings suggest a pre-existent earth age destroyed due to Satan's rebellion, followed by a recreation described in Genesis. This article critically examines these doctrines, arguing that they lack biblical support, misinterpret key scriptures, and conflict with sound theological principles.

The Katabole: A Misinterpretation of Biblical Language

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that the "Katabole" refers to a cataclysmic destruction of a supposed first earth age, caused by Satan's rebellion. They base this on the Greek word katabolē (Strong's #G2602), which they claim means "overthrow" or "destruction." However, this interpretation is flawed and unsupported by biblical usage.

The word katabolē appears in the New Testament 11 times (e.g., Matthew 13:35, Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 4:3) and consistently means "foundation" or "beginning," referring to the establishment of the world, not its destruction. For example, Ephesians 1:4 states, "He chose us in Him before the foundation [katabolē] of the world." Here, katabolē clearly denotes the world's creation, not a catastrophic event. Similarly, Hebrews 11:11 uses katabolē in reference to Sarah's conception of Isaac, stating she "received strength to conceive [katabolē] seed." The term here refers to the act of founding or initiating life, not destruction. This usage directly undermines Shepherd's Chapel's claim, as it aligns katabolē with creation and generation, not an overthrow. Standard Greek lexicons, such as Thayer’s or BDAG, define katabolē as "a founding" or "beginning," and Shepherd's Chapel's reliance on E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible to redefine it as "overthrow" is a misapplication unsupported by scholarly consensus. This misuse distorts the biblical narrative to fit a preconceived theology.

The Three Earth Ages: Unbiblical Speculation

The Three Earth Ages doctrine posits that human souls existed in a spiritual "first earth age" before the current age, with a third age to follow in the millennium. According to Shepherd's Chapel, during the first earth age, souls chose to side with God or Satan, and those loyal to God became the "elect" in the current age. This view lacks scriptural grounding and contradicts clear biblical teachings.

First, the Bible does not support the pre-existence of human souls. 1 Corinthians 15:46–47 explicitly states, "The spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy." This passage affirms that Adam, the first man, was created from the earth, not pre-existent as a spiritual being. Similarly, Zechariah 12:1 describes God as forming "the spirit of man within him," indicating the spirit is created at the time of physical formation, not before. The idea of a pre-existent soul conflicts with these texts and resembles speculative philosophies like Mormonism's pre-mortal existence, not orthodox Christianity.

Second, the claim that the "elect" were chosen based on actions in a first earth age undermines the biblical doctrine of election. Romans 8:29–30 and Ephesians 1:4–5 teach that election is based on God's sovereign grace, not human actions in a supposed prior age. Shepherd's Chapel's teaching that individuals earned "elect" status by siding with God introduces a works-based salvation, contrary to the New Testament's emphasis on grace (Romans 11:5–6).

The Gap Theory: A Flawed Attempt at Harmonization

The Gap Theory, embraced by Shepherd's Chapel, posits a vast time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which a pre-Adamic world was created, populated, and destroyed, leaving the earth "formless and void" (Genesis 1:2). This theory, popularized by Thomas Chalmers in 1814 A.D. and later by the Scofield Reference Bible (1909 A.D.), attempts to reconcile Genesis with geological ages proposed in the 19th century. However, it faces significant biblical and logical challenges.

Biblical Issues with the Gap Theory

1. Hebrew Grammar and Syntax: Shepherd's Chapel argues that the Hebrew word hayah in Genesis 1:2, translated "was," should be "became," suggesting the earth "became formless and void" after a cataclysm. However, Hebrew scholars note that hayah typically means "was" in this context, and the verse uses a waw-disjunctive construction, indicating a description of the earth's initial state, not a subsequent change. Translating it as "became" is grammatically possible but contextually unlikely, as it imposes an interpretation not supported by the text. The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation from 250–200 B.C., also supports the traditional reading, showing no evidence of a "ruin-reconstruction" scenario.

2. Theological Inconsistencies: The Gap Theory implies death, disease, and suffering existed before Adam's sin, as fossils are attributed to the pre-Adamic world. Yet, Romans 5:12 states, "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin." This clearly ties death to Adam’s fall, not a prior age. Similarly, Genesis 1:31 declares all creation "very good," which is incompatible with a fossil record of death and violence predating Adam. Exodus 20:11 further confirms that God made "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" in six days, leaving no room for a prior creation.

3. Lack of Scriptural Support: Proponents cite passages like Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 34:11, which use "formless and void" (tohu wabohu), to suggest a parallel to Genesis 1:2. However, these verses describe God’s judgment on Israel and Edom, respectively, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm. Their context is unrelated to creation, and applying them to Genesis is an eisegesis that reads modern assumptions into ancient texts.

Logical and Scientific Problems

The Gap Theory was developed to accommodate 19th-century geological claims of an ancient earth, but it fails to align with modern uniformitarian geology, which rejects a global "Lucifer’s flood" or any break between a supposed prior and current world. Moreover, a cataclysm rendering the earth "formless and void" would obliterate geological evidence of prior ages, undermining the very fossil record the theory seeks to explain. Young-earth creationists argue that Noah’s flood better accounts for the fossil record, while old-earth creationists reject the need for a gap, favoring alternative interpretations like day-age or framework theories.

Historical Context and Shepherd's Chapel's Errors

The Gap Theory emerged in the early 19th century A.D. as theologians like Chalmers sought to harmonize Genesis with emerging geological theories, influenced by uniformitarianism. Shepherd's Chapel builds on this by incorporating speculative elements like the Three Earth Ages and Katabole, largely drawn from Bullinger’s Companion Bible and other dispensationalist sources. However, prior to the 1700s A.D., biblical scholars consistently interpreted Genesis as describing a young earth (~6,000–10,000 years), with no gap or pre-existent ages. The rise of uniformitarianism, not biblical exegesis, drove the adoption of the Gap Theory.

Shepherd's Chapel exacerbates these errors by adding unorthodox teachings, such as the pre-existence of souls and a modalistic view of the Trinity, which further deviate from historic Christianity. Their claim that dinosaurs existed in a first earth age lacks any biblical or scientific basis, as the fossil record is better explained by post-Fall events like Noah’s flood or old-earth models without requiring speculative pre-Adamic races.

Conclusion

The Shepherd's Chapel’s teachings on the Katabole, Three Earth Ages, and Gap Theory are not supported by sound biblical exegesis or theological reasoning. The misinterpretation of katabolē as "destruction," despite its clear usage as "foundation" or "conception" in texts like Ephesians 1:4 and Hebrews 11:11, distorts its meaning. The Three Earth Ages doctrine introduces unbiblical concepts of soul pre-existence and works-based election, contradicting passages like 1 Corinthians 15:46–47 and Romans 8. The Gap Theory, while historically significant, fails to align with Hebrew grammar, biblical theology, or modern geology, rendering it an inadequate attempt to reconcile Scripture with 19th-century science. Christians are encouraged to approach Genesis with a commitment to its plain meaning, recognizing that God’s creation, whether understood as young or old, does not require speculative gaps or pre-existent ages to affirm its truth.

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.