Shepherd's Chapel Serpent Seed Doctrine

[TK]

Probably about once a month I have a member of our congregation come up and ask me about some off the wall teaching that they heard on 'Christian' television. This month it was a question about Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel and his 'serpent seed' doctrine. I had never done any research on this guy, so I listened to him teach on the issue.

Basically, he teaches that Cain is the biological child of satan. He uses 5 key passages and I thought I'd share my response to this absurd doctrine in case anyone else runs into this sort of teaching

.......................

Genesis 3:15
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.

ARNOLD MURRAY
Murray speculates that the serpents’ seed is Cain and Eve’s seed is Abel.

THE TRUTH
There is a MAJOR problem here in that Murray’s teaching demands that Eve was already pregnant at this point (he says she got pregnant at the time she took the fruit), but God’s teaching says she didn’t conceive until after her and Adam were kicked out of the Garden of Eden (they are kicked out in 3:24 and she conceived in 4:1).

The New Testament teaches us that Christ is the fulfillment of this passage, it has nothing to do with Cain and Abel (Romans 16:20, Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8).

Genesis 4:1-2a
Adam lay with 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." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

ARNOLD MURRAY
Murray tries to dismiss this verse quickly by saying the Hebrew wording indicates they were twins but had different fathers.

THE TRUTH
This is just absurd. It is no wonder he doesn’t talk at length about this passage considering it destroys his entire argument. He’s wrong about the Hebrew wording. If what he were saying was true, I’d expect at least one translation to support that rendering, but none do. He is the only teacher I’ve ever heard make such a statement and that should raise a red flag. Eve said ‘the LORD’ gave her Cain.

2 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.

ARNOLD MURRAY
He says the Greek word that the KJV renders as ‘beguiled’ means that the Serpent ‘sexually seduced’ Eve

THE TRUTH
The Greek word in question, “Exapatao”, occurs 4 other times in the Bible.

Romans 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Romans 16:18 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.

1Corinthians 3:18 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.

2Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Clearly, every other time the word is used, it simply indicates deception, not sexual seduction.

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.

ARNOLD MURRAY
He says we must interpret the phrase ‘your father’ in a biological sense

THE TRUTH
The word ‘father’ in both Greek and English can be understood in 2 different ways depending on context
1. Biological- Most often, the term is used of a biological father. For example, I can state that my father is Jerry Rose.
2. Founder- Often, we call an ‘founder’ of something a father. For example, we call George Washington a Founding Father of our country. That doesn’t mean, of course, that he is a biological ancestor of every U.S. citizen! It simply means we follow the example of what he started.

Our job when interpreting John 8:44 is to decide which meaning is intended based on the context. The question becomes: “In John 8:44, is Jesus discussing the biological father or a founding father?” The answer is simple because Jesus discusses BOTH types of father’s in the context of the passage so that there is no confusion. In John 8:33 the crowd declared “We are Abraham's descendants”. If Murray is right, we should expect Jesus to reply, “No! You are Satan’s descendants.” But Jesus didn’t respond that way. Instead, He said, “I know you are Abraham's descendants.” Either Arnold Murray is wrong or Jesus is wrong.

Since Jesus is right, John 8:33 establishes that the crowd were biological descendants of Abraham (which proves they were not biological descendants of Satan or Cain). Therefore, John 8:44 must be referring to the 2nd type of fathering. This fits the teachings of Scripture perfectly. John 8:44 is simply saying that Satan is their ‘founding father’ because they follow his example just like George Washington is our ‘founding father’ because we follow his.

Matthew 13:37-38
He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one

ARNOLD MURRAY
Even though the term ‘father’ isn’t used here, Murray treats this passage in the same way as John 8:44 and interprets the ‘sons’ as biological sons.

THE TRUTH
I preached on this text a couple months ago and so I’ve done a lot of research on this passage. Once again, Murray is the ONLY teacher I’ve ever come across that interprets the ‘sons’ as biological sons. The passage is clearly not talking about biological sons. If Murray is right to interpret ‘sons of the evil one’ as biological children then he MUST also interpret ‘sons of the kingdom’ as biological descendants of the ‘Son of Man’ (Jesus). Are we biological ‘sons’ of Jesus? Of course not! The passage isn’t talking about biological descendants. We become God’s children by submitting to His authority. It’s not a biological process, it is a spiritual one. The reverse is also true. We are children of Satan if we follow his example.

CONCLUSION
I did a little extra research on Arnold Murray. I found an audio clip where he ‘jokes’ about shooting a young man in his congregation because the young man disagreed with Murray’s teaching. Murray also denies the orthodox view of the Trinity. He falsely teaches that America and Britain are lost tribes of Israel.

[Guest]

Thanks for posting this Matt.

What are your thoughts on Romans 7:23 "the law of sin which is in my members."

I agree almost totally with your response escept there is something to the matter of Jesus statement "Your father the devil"

How does that relate to indwelling sin?

[TK]

Hey Roger

I think Romans 7 is talking about the sinful nature . That is a human condition. We don't need satanic genes to sin.

There certainly is something to the phrase 'your father the devil'. It indicates, to me, that they were spiritual descendants of satan, not physical descendants. We call God our 'Father' not because He is our biological father, but b/c He is our spiritual Father.

[Guest]

Matt, I'm just exploring the topic with you further here. I think it is a very good topic to explore. I agree with you . We do have a sin nature. Paul used the term " the law of sin which is in my members". Is that our physical body or more then that? And how did this sin get there in the first place? Is "sin" in the body?

Roger

[TK]

Oh, I see where you're going

Well. I've always thought of 'sin' not as a 'thing'. In other words, I don't think a doctor could locate the 'sin nature' in our bodies no matter what tools he had. It's a moral flaw. It is a spiritual problem. How it gets passed from parents to a child isn't, to me, a biological process but a moral one. It is passed b/c all parties are human, not via DNA.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not sure the Bible clarifies the 'how' involved. It certainly makes some sense that it could be something physically passed down. The only passage that comes to mind is when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Somehow, it seems to me, that prevented the sin nature from being passed on to Jesus. But I could be wrong about the meaning of that passage.

[Guest]

Do you think that new born babies have the sin nature at birth or is it something that comes after the first sin is committed?

[TK]

I tend to agree with most that we're born with a carnal nature. I don't think the issue matters as much as some seem to think it does b/c whether we are sinners from birth or from our first sin forward, we all end up sinners anyways.