[Editor’s note: One of our former members asked me to watch the television program, The Shepherd’s Chapel, which comes on every day of the week–usually at some strange hour, such as 5:00 A.M. I told him I would oblige him and proceeded to tape the show for the next five days–and watch it. Although I have had notes from these broadcasts for over two months, he has yet to stop at the office and discuss the content with me, as he indicated that he would. I have no idea why he became interested in Pastor Arnold Murray, who presents the material–or why he continued watching it, but following is my analysis of the messages I heard.]
The format of The Shepherd’s Chapel is for “Pastor” Murray to exegete the Scriptures for about 40 minutes, after which he answers letters that viewers have sent in. He occasionally makes statements with which we all should agree, such as:
“Think for yourself.”
“Do you listen to this man or some other man without checking him out in God’s word?”
“Have you read it [the Bible, gws], or do you listen to some pompous, would-be, so-called teacher of God’s Word?”
These are certainly good admonitions. The Bible does instruct us to evaluate all things and in particular what someone teaches us from the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). Nowhere is this advice more relevant than with respect to the teachings of Arnold Murray.
Eschatology (the doctrine of end things) dominates all of his teaching and just about dwarfs everything else. He is not, however, the typical premillennialist. He does not believe in the “rapture,” which he claims is a doctrine of false religion–one that supports the theology of “the Antichrist.” But he does teach that the New World Order is coming: “that’s the one-world-ism prophesied from long ago, that it would come to pass in the generation of the fig tree. That’s to say, after the good and bad fig would return to Jerusalem, which happened in the year of our Lord 1948.”
Later, in that same program, Murray affirmed: “In Zechariah 9:10 He comes with a white steed, as King of kings and Lord of lords.” We have no idea what he is talking about. That verse does mention a horse: “I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem….” The verse preceding it prophesies of Jesus as King coming to Jerusalem, but He is “riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zech. 9:9). Both passages combined, however, do not have Jesus traveling on a white steed, unless Murray has a new translation that is excessively loose. At times Murray can become abusive with those who might disagree with him:
You would think that anyone was intelligent enough to know that the subject and object of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is the appearance of the false Christ before the true Christ returns.
That fact is presented, but it is in the text which speaks of events occurring before the destruction of Jerusalem (observe Matthew 24:1-3).
Alluding to the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in Rome’s conquering of Jerusalem, he chides: “They let some tinhorn Roman general named Titus pull it off for them? You talk about ignorance!” Perhaps Mr. Murray ought to read (or reread) Josephus’ account of the destruction before concluding that the first part of Matthew 24 was not fulfilled. He might also consider the context.
In response to the question: “What does living in the last days mean?” Murray replies: “Living in the generation of the fig tree, which began in 1948.” What does he mean by “the generation of the fig tree”? Those who believe in a literal 1000-year reign of Christ upon the earth must find some way to get around the fact that Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 24:34: “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled.” In other words, all that was foretold about the destruction of Jerusalem was not something that would occur a number of years in the future. It would happen within a generation’s time. Just as the fig tree reveals that summer is near when it puts forth leaves, so when the signs Jesus gave came about, the destruction of Jerusalem would be near (Matt. 24:32-33).
But if all of those things refer to A.D. 70 (the year Titus destroyed Jerusalem), there goes a great portion of millennial doctrine. So they say that Jesus was not speaking about the first century but the century in which all of these things are fulfilled by “the Anti-Christ.” Since Israel was established as a state in 1948, they term our era “the fig tree generation.” Not once in all of Murray’s allusions to this theology did he ever quote or explain John 6:15 and 18:36. Jesus refused to be a king and said His kingdom was not of this world. Such facts never deter millennialists from their doctrine, however, because the truth is not nearly as exciting as speculation.
Murray evidently believes that he and the Holy Spirit are very close. He makes several statements that imply that the Holy Spirit deals directly with everyone. He tells viewers: “If the Spirit moves and you have a question, won’t you share it?” Is this Calvinism, that the Spirit would put a thought into someone’s head to ask a question?
Murray is teaching along certain lines, and he is suddenly reminded of a related passage of Scripture which he quotes and expounds. Afterward, he comments: “It’s just something that the Spirit moved me to bring up at this time.” Those in the Lord’s church who are insisting on this same, direct, Spirit-on-spirit theology might consider trying to explain how it is that denominationalists experience the same phenomena that they do. Thoughts come into their minds, also–even while they are speaking, and they attribute it to the Holy Spirit.
Although we were assured that Murray taught the truth on salvation, he gave no indication of it on the five programs we scrutinized. In a comment on John 3:5, he claimed that the water portion of the new birth (being born of water and the Spirit) referred to the water sac of physical birth. No one who knows the part that baptism plays in salvation could possibly hold such an interpretation. Even denominational commentators acknowledge that John 3:5 refers to baptism. Barnes, the Presbyterian scholar, observes: “By water, here, is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph. v. 26; Tit. 3:5″ (9:2:202). The noted Methodist commentator, Adam Clarke, wrote:
To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a Jewish proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised in the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of Divine law. But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit (5:531).
He goes on to encourage the reader to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, with which we would disagree, but the point is that he knew that, when John used the word water, he was referring to baptism. The Pulpit Commentary spends an entire page refuting the notion that water baptism is essential to salvation (despite the fact that John said it was), but it is clear that they know that Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5. Now commentaries are not infallible, but they are more scholarly than Murray. It would have been foolish for the Lord to have said, “Unless a man be born the first time (of water) and the second time (of the Spirit), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” If he was not born the first time (of the flesh), what is the need of talking about the second time?!
“Being born of the water and the Spirit,” however, is describing what it means to be born again (John 3:3). Both elements (water and spirit) are part of the new birth. To attempt to make either one of them refer to one’s fleshly entry into the world is absurd. At any rate, it is clear that Murray does not think baptism is involved in the salvation of man.
In Murray’s exposition of 2 Peter 1:22, which mentions “obeying the truth,” he said nothing about the blood of Christ or baptism for the remission of sins. Since he was willing to spend a long time on every verse and phrase that was important to him, this omission is significant. Furthermore, he used the phrase, being born again, a number of times but never once connected it to baptism or Acts 2:38. Furthermore, he talked about being “born from above” and implied that such a birth was a mystical experience: “When you were begotten from above, you felt that touch. You knew it was true.” This is nothing but subjectivism.
To make it even clearer that Murray does not believe that baptism is necessary to salvation, one needs only to consider his answer to a viewer’s question: “Will ‘faith only’ get you to heaven?” Murray said: “Yes, but you’ll have an empty bag.” Our response to the latter part of the comment is, “So what? Making it to heaven sure beats any other alternative.” But the part of his answer that relates to salvation is the word yes. “Faith only” saves. Whatever else he might say about the positive benefits of repentance, baptism, and living a faithful life is superfluous. According to him (and so many others), a person is saved regardless of those considerations.
Murray affirmed that the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19 is that Jesus “went to those prisoners and preached to them while He was even in the tomb, after the crucifixion, and preached to them and gave them that opportunity of that salvation.” This is the doctrine of the second chance (something the rich man of Luke 16 never got). If God is no respecter of persons (concerning salvation), then why do some get a second chance while others are denied it? Who, having been made aware of the realities of God and life after death, would possibly say to a second chance, “Well, I don’t know; let me get back to you on that”? Those who had been blessed, as Lazarus was, would not dream of giving it up, and those who were suffering torment would be foolish beyond measure to desire to remain there if given a chance to depart.
What about during the so-called “millennial age”? Will some be able to have a second chance? Murray answered both yes and no. “During the millennium we will be able to help our relatives that are in trouble, which means they probably didn’t quite make it. That doesn’t give them a second chance….” What kind of gobbledegook is this? How does someone not quite make it? A person has either had his sins cleansed by the blood of Jesus, or he has not. He has either lived faithfully afterward, or he has not. How, exactly, can someone help his relatives without giving them a second chance? Jesus said that relieving their suffering was not possible (Luke 16:24-26).
Murray, apparently, is an annihilationist (one who believes that the punishment for evil people is that they cease to exist). “Do you think a spiritual body can feel the torment of flames? Of course not.” He symbolizes it to mean the flame of embarrassment. “There is a lake of fire…. It is the place that dissolves souls.” No wonder this guy has a following. “Faith only” saves, people get a second chance, and failing that, the worst that can happen is that you cease to exist. What a deal! Accountability has been done away with entirely. One can get to heaven more easily than he can buy a new car, and he can live as wickedly as he knows how and be punished less than a 7th grader for writing a Halloween story.
Murray held some peculiar views concerning Jesus, also. He mentioned Jesus saying, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” which is a quote from Psalm 22:1. He then added: “Not that God had forsaken His Son.” What? If God did not forsake Jesus, then Jesus lied or misrepresented the facts. Murray also alleges: “The cup He asked to have removed was the cup of wrath He would have to pour out in vengeance–not avoiding the cross.” Really? How does that apply to James and John, of whom Jesus said, “You will indeed drink of the cup…”?
Murray has the answer for some of our brethren who agonize so diligently trying to explain away Matthew 19:3-9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15. Of the latter, Murray says of the woman married to an unbeliever: “She can boot him out.” The former passage is dismissed with: “God erases a marriage when you’re saved.” One wonders if that means that all people must remarry as soon as they are saved, or does God only erase unhappy and inconvenient marriages? Are children no longer children and parents no longer parents, either? We would also like to know: “If a person robs a bank the day before he is saved, does God erase that debt?”
Murray is trying to revive a false doctrine that was popular over 50 years ago. It was discredited then and shown to be false. The idea, briefly, is that God created a world before this one, which ended in a huge battle, and most of the earth was destroyed and laid waste. This doctrine is important to Murray. He says: “You’re not going to understand the full plan of salvation if you don’t understand the three world ages.” Probably he means the “pre-Adamic” world, the current world, and the millennial world, but he did not spell it out.
Murray says some peculiar things about Satan: “He was foreordained as Savior before God destroyed the earth age that was and brought this one into being.” If Satan was foreordained as Savior during the first earth age (that never was), then how is it that the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8)? Did God foreordain two Saviors before He made the earth?
This theory holds that dinosaurs roamed the earth during the first world age, which is a concession to the theory of evolution. It also holds that fallen angels intermarried with human beings (Gen. 6). All of these are fanciful, speculative theories with nothing to substantiate them (except erroneous definitions of Hebrew words). Paul says clearly that Adam was the first man; there was no pre-Adamic race (1 Cor. 15:45-47). Murray sets forth the best description concerning himself: a “pompous, would-be, so-called teacher of God’s Word.”