Introduction
Four months ago, God Loves Mormons posted a YouTube video with the title 4 Reasons the Great Apostasy is a False Doctrine of Mormonism, in which they explored critical perspectives on a fundamental belief held by the Latter-day Saint Faith. The video purports to delve into how the idea of a falling away (apostasy) of the primitive Christian faith is false biblically, historically, and theologically.
There is a key logical fallacy the speaker approaches in the video. The introduction assumes the conclusion it attempts to prove. It is committing an often-used logical fallacy of begging the question. Evidence for this is the very assertion made: That the Christian Church never fell into apostasy. The speaker of God loves Mormons attempts to frame the discussion with their already established conclusion. The speaker claims that such conclusion is supported by biblical, historical, and theological support.
Begging the Question - Establishing the Conclusion without proper Evidence
What is the conclusion Bradley Campbell is providing their audience? Three specific statements that are necessarily true. Namely, Joseph Smith never would have needed to restore the true church of Christ; second the first vision account would have to be false because Jesus would not say that all the churches were wrong if they really weren't and third, Joseph Smith would be a false prophet.
The claim that Christianity fell into apostasy after the time of the Apostles is false biblically, historically, and theologically and I want to show you why. If the Christian Church really never fell into apostasy, then these three statements are necessarily true. First, Joseph Smith never would have needed to restore the True Church of Christ. Second, the first vision account would have to be false because Jesus wouldn't say that all the churches were wrong if they really were not. And third, therefore, Joseph Smith would be a false prophet.
Not only is Campbell begging the question, where the claim is assuming the conclusion for the listener, it speaks to the confirmation bias of the speaker. By assuming the conclusion, the speaker risks the tendency to favor information that confirms their own preconceptions and prejudices. God Loves Mormons, like all other counter-cult ministries, seek out and give weight to evidence that support their existing perspectives.
By committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, Campbell, speaking for God Loves Mormons, does so where consideration of evidence is presented as seemingly to confirm what they already believe. They sometimes do so where they do not consider, or even recognize, the circularity of their presuppositional argument. It is their confirmation bias they attempt to lead others toward the same conclusion they already have established. And sometimes it is used to accept a premise without question.
Maintaining Confirmation Bias and Circular Reasoning
Through begging the question, confirmation bias, and circular reasoning, the speaker reinforces their presupposition through what is called a reinforcement loop. Not only is Badley Campbell showcasing selective reasons to question and denounce the Latter-day Saint faith understanding of the Apostasy - but he is also reinforcing reasons to reject Joseph Smith and the first vision account. Within this reinforcement loop, Campbell hopes those who listen (or watch) the video remember selective evidence that seems to enhance said argument. Through this selective perspective Campbell seems to create a circular argument. One where it appears to be quite convincing. Quite convincing to himself and quite convincing to his audience.
Because of this, Bradley Campbell does not perceive any counterarguments or evidence that may challenge his assumption. It leads to a lack of critical thinking and analysis. Since he engaged in begging the question, there is a notion he does not feel a need to explore any evidence that may counter his confirmation bias. Most likely due to the belief already established. in essence, confirmation bias ensures selective evidence supportive of their claim. Never presenting any rational and sound reason to question the validity of their claim.
Bradley Campbell of God Loves Mormons uses the logical fallacy of begging the question. This is exacerbated by his apparent confirmation bias. By employing this technique, he presents a predetermined conclusion, where he seeks and interprets evidence in a way that confirms his assumption. And the hope is that the audience does not question the validity of his argument.
Furthermore, Campbell provides further evidence of begging the question, circular reasoning, and confirmation bias by the following statement:
So, this matters tremendously. It is one of the most foundational claims of the LDS Church and a point where Christianity profoundly disagrees with LDS teaching.
I agree, it matters tremendously as to what the Latter-day Saint Christian faith teaches and how modern Christians profoundly disagree with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. What matters is how one approaches such discussions. According to the about section on GLM's YouTube Channel:
The GLM YouTube Channel is designed to provide helpful and thought-provoking content for Mormons who are trying to better understand the Christian faith, and for Christians who are wanting to lovingly engage their Latter-day Saint neighbors and friends.
Approaching such discussions where there is a mutual respect of understanding is what matters. Specifically, when it comes to questioning someone's deeply held religious faith. Is there a true sense of bringing about understanding? Or is it about causing doubt, confusion, and even a crisis of faith based on manipulative techniques? If a true desire of mutual respect and understanding leads toward thoughtful and respectful dialogue - that is honorable. However, if it is based on utilization of deceptive and manipulative tactics, it is committing intellectual dishonesty.
It is apparent that Bradley Campbell of God Loves Mormons appears to engage in deceptive and manipulative tactics that do not foster mutual respect and understanding. This is evidenced by the established confirmation bias where he begs the question and engages in circular reasoning:
But before we get to why the Great apostasy is false biblically, historically, and theologically, we need to understand what the LDS Church says about it.
He further exacerbates his confirmation bias and circular reasoning by establishing a straw man argument. This further enhances the employment of begging the question. Beginning with the official website, Campbell engages in quote mining and cherry picking to build up what is perceived to be a fundamental belief of the Latter-day Saint Christian faith.
Straw manning the Argument through Quote Mining and Cherry-Picking Strategies
Quote mining is another tactic used by critics of the Latter-day Saint Christian faith where they selectively take quotes out of context (cherry picking) in order to support their viewpoint. Through this process of highlighting specific statements - they are attempting to align their confirmation bias as a sound and reasonable explanation of truth. Critics tend to ignore, or dismiss entirely, any evidence that contradicts their perspective. The hope is to reinforce the established confirmation bias.
By misrepresenting quotes, Bradley Campbell appears to support the preconceived notion that the Latter-day Saint position is weakened. In doing so, regarding the Apostasy of the primitive Christian faith, he communicates a distorted opposition. On the one hand, the assumption of his position comes across as valid and true. Whereas the Latter-day Saint position is seen as weak and invalid. Again, the hope is the audience accepts the confirmation bias and prejudicial view without critical analysis and examination. This includes investigating the full context of quotes that were mined and cherry-picked.
This distorted opposition, or a straw man argument, manipulates and misrepresents the Latter-day Saint viewpoint on the apostasy. Here, Campbell attempts to offer his preconceived notion of a weak position that is presumed indefensible. Superiority is given over to the confirmation bias that there was no apostasy in contrast to the inferior and weak position that there was an apostasy. It is a black and white assumption known as false dilemma or false dichotomy.
Bradley Campbell further distorts, through cherry picking quotes, the Latter-day Saint position in order to easily defeat a constructed argument. Furthering his confirmation bias and assumptive conclusion. It dismisses the nuanced complexities and rational responses that counters the established confirmation bias presented. It is a manipulative process that avoids challenging preconceived notion. In this case, Campbell leads his audience into accepting his confirmation bias that there has not ever been a historical, biblical, or theological premise for an apostasy.
Sadly, it leads Bradley Campbell, and audience, to develop an illusion of satisfaction. He attempts to refute the straw man argument through deception. He guides the audience by manipulation into believing the LDS position is adequately refuted. Not only does it appear satisfying, but it also promotes an embrace of his own confirmation bias and prejudicial viewpoint.
Quote mining not only exacerbates the confirmation bias of his perspective - but it also validates his circular reasoning to maintain said confirmation bias. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where Campbell essentially proves his point through the very evidence, he has chosen to support. Campbell cites the official website of the Church and quotes from past and present leaders of the LDS Faith. And it becomes circular because the evidence he attempts to present centers on questioning the apostasy. By questioning the validity of the apostasy, he reasons, therefore, that Joseph Smith is false. Without any external validation or challenge.
Through this circular validation, Bradley Campbell misleads his audience by arguing against a distorted and misrepresented view of the LDS Teaching regarding the Apostasy. In essence, it is claiming a decisive victory in proving their point. Unfortunately, it is a hollow victory. Reason for this is critics like Campbell are not actually engaging in a real debate and counterarguments. Instead, he is comfortable deceiving and misleading people by defeating something he created. Supporting his initial premise without real debate.
This results in an echo chamber effect. And in this case, enhances information and interpretation aligning with his existing beliefs. Projecting his own confirmation bias onto the audience. Campbell also creates an environment where dissent is ignored. Instead, it fosters fertile ground where the audience develops their own confirmation bias and prejudice.
Not only does Bradley Campbell, from God Loves Mormons, engages in quote mining and cherry-picking; he does so in a shot gun manner.
Shotgun Fallacy (also known as Argumentum ad Lapidem) is a technique employed to overwhelm the audience with either numerous arguments or numerous evidence. Typically, disregarding quality or relevance. Here, the hope is that something may stick. It is also used to overwhelm the audience, and any opponent, with several quotes. Doing so may prevent anyone from questioning or taking the time to examine each quote independently for validity and accuracy of truth and relevance.
The result is overwhelming the audience with numerous quotes. Causing potential confusion or exhaustion for any dissent or criticism. Making it difficult to address the proper context of each quote effectively and properly. Not only may it overwhelm the audience and prevent any critical analysis and investigation, but it also distracts from the core issue raised.
Thus, quote mining and cherry picking amplifies misinformation that is presented in a shotgun manner. Doing so, Campbell seems to support his straw man argument. However, taken the time to dissect and investigate each quote in proper context, engage in proper analysis and research, and employing appropriate critical thinking skills - such arguments do not hold any validity and credibility. It also challenges the confirmation bias reinforcing his views. Furthermore, challenges the confirmation bias of the audience who may be predisposed to agree - regardless of the quality or integrity of the argument.
One of the issues raised concerning quote mining is the application of the false dichotomy, or false dilemma, fallacy. In this instance, Bradley Campbell attempts to argue that a potential contradiction exists within the spectrum of Latter-day Saint views on the Apostasy. Specifically, he seems to create a perceived conflict by contrasting how he interprets statements made by earlier leaders of the Church with more recent statements, as if these are mutually exclusive or irreconcilable.
This approach oversimplifies the issue and misrepresents the nature of Latter-day Saint teachings. The spectrum of views within the Church on the Apostasy reflects an evolving understanding and contextual emphasis rather than an inherent contradiction. Earlier leaders often emphasized certain aspects of the Apostasy, such as the loss of priesthood authority and the corruption of key doctrines, while more recent teachings might focus on the spiritual consequences of the Apostasy or the global need for Restoration. These perspectives complement rather than contradict each other, highlighting different dimensions of the same foundational belief.
By framing this as a contradiction, Bradley Campbell imposes a false dilemma, forcing the audience to choose between two interpretations that are not inherently at odds. This tactic disregards the nuanced and holistic nature of Latter-day Saint teachings, which allow for growth in understanding while remaining rooted in core doctrines. Additionally, such reasoning overlooks the possibility that different leaders addressed unique circumstances or audiences, tailoring their messages accordingly without undermining the overall coherence of the doctrine.
In summary, the claim of contradiction relies on a flawed logical framework, misrepresenting the harmony within the evolving discourse on the Apostasy. A more accurate analysis would acknowledge the contextual richness of Latter-day Saint teachings and resist the temptation to oversimplify complex theological discussions into false dichotomies.
What then is the straw man argument? Bradley Campbell highlights these six points:
- Christianity lost priesthood authority
- Christianity lost prophetic revelation
- Doctrine was corrupted
- The Gospel of Christ was lost
- The Canon was closed
- Scripture was corrupted
Not only do these highlight the straw man argument employed, but it also highlights the confirmation bias the speaker has established. This confirmation bias - through begging the question and circular reasoning - is this:
Regardless of where people land on the spectrum. The common core of this doctrine is this: Truth was distorted, and true authority was lost. So, the question is why do Christians think that this doctrine is false?
Eisegesis Interpretations to Support Confirmation Bias and Circular Reasoning
The final tactic observed in God Loves Mormons' video is the heavy reliance on eisegesis in how Bradley Campbell approaches and interprets scripture. Eisegesis is an interpretive method where one imposes personal ideas, biases, or contemporary viewpoints onto the biblical text, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself—a practice known as exegesis. By prioritizing preconceived notions over the original context and intent of the scripture, critics not only reinforce their confirmation bias but also engage in circular reasoning, ultimately begging the initial question posed: that the doctrine of the Apostasy of primitive Christianity is false. This flawed interpretive method is further used to construct and counter a strawman argument, misrepresenting Latter-day Saint teachings on the Apostasy.
Eisegesis reinforces confirmation bias by enabling selective reading of the Bible. Critics highlight passages that appear to support their preexisting beliefs while disregarding or reinterpreting those that challenge or contradict their views. By reading contemporary issues or personal experiences into the text, they "find" support for their beliefs, even when such ideas were not part of the original scriptural context. This misinterpretation creates a false sense of divine or historical endorsement for their views, reinforcing their bias without engaging in genuine analysis.
Additionally, eisegesis often leads to circular reasoning. Self-validating interpretations emerge when the individual or group imposes their belief onto the text, then uses that distorted reading as evidence to support their belief. For example, a critic might interpret a passage as rejecting the concept of Apostasy, claim that the text validates their belief, and then present that interpretation as proof against the need for Restoration. This circular logic closes off external critique, leaving little room for alternative interpretations or historical context.
Mechanisms such as cultural imposition and the neglect of historical context further exacerbate this issue. Critics may project modern norms, controversies, or personal biases onto ancient texts, ignoring the linguistic, cultural, and historical background that shaped the original message. By doing so, they extract meanings that align with contemporary viewpoints but deviate from the text’s intended meaning. For instance, arguments against the Latter-day Saint perspective on Apostasy often rely on these imposed readings to dismiss the concept, without addressing the nuanced scriptural and historical evidence that Latter-day Saints present.
Countering eisegesis requires a commitment to more rigorous interpretive methods. Exegesis—focused on understanding the historical, cultural, and linguistic context of the text—provides a framework for uncovering the scripture's original meaning. Engaging in dialogue with diverse communities of scholars and believers can also broaden perspectives, challenging confirmation biases and fostering a more balanced understanding. Critical thinking, which includes questioning one's interpretations and remaining open to new insights, is essential for avoiding the pitfalls of circular reasoning.
In summary, the reliance on eisegesis not only reinforces confirmation bias and circular reasoning but also undermines the integrity of scriptural interpretation. By imposing modern biases onto ancient texts, critics claim biblical support for their arguments while avoiding the deeper, contextual meaning of the scripture. A more honest and thorough approach to scripture would seek to understand its original context and meaning rather than using it to validate preconceived conclusions.
Part One: Addressing the Biblical Evidence through Proper Exegetical Commentary
Bradley Campbell, speaking on behalf of God Loves Mormons, asserts that the idea of an apostasy is completely contrary to what the Bible supposedly teaches.
You might even be wondering why I as a Protestant who is not Roman Catholic would not say that the Church fell into apostasy. I'm going to give you four reasons why. First, the claim of a great apostasy is unbiblical. The Bible simply does not allow for a great apostasy where the Gospel was lost. Where truth was distorted. And where Christ's church ceased to exist on the earth.
This assertion sounds reasonable. After all, if the Bible is solely sufficient for our understanding (Sola Scriptura) then certainly all who come to understand the particular nuance of scripture may arrive to the same conclusion. That conclusion being the Bible emphatically denies any claim supportive of an apostasy.
Matthew 13 and the Parables Christ Gives
Speaking to the audience, Campbell makes an audacious and bold claim:
In Matthew 13, Jesus tells a set of three Parables which absolutely decimate the notion that there could be a great apostasy.
Here is where the eisegesis manipulates the text. Matthew 13 offers eight parables. Two of which are actually interpreted by Christ himself. Each parable is given as a mystery pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is quite important to understand. Only five of these parables are exclusive to the Gospel of Matthew.
The disciples pressed the Savior as to the reason for speaking in parables. His answer is regarding fulfillment of scripture and providing revelation pertaining to the mystery of the kingdom of Heaven.
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered them and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I unto them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears for they hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. (Matthew 13:10-17, KJV).
This particular exchange comes after the parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-9) and before Christ gives the interpretation of the parable (Matthew 13:19-23).
The other parables Christ presents are:
- Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30)
- Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Matthew 13:31-33
- Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)
- Parable of the Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46)
- Parable of the Net (Matthew 13:47-50)
Matthew 13:34-36 reiterates the purpose of Christ speaking in parables as fulfillment of scripture. It is only when the disciples came to Christ, after the multitude were sent away, where they asked for another interpretation. This time, Christ gives an interpretation of the parable of the wheat and weeds.
Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds
Bradley Campbell offers his interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the weeds, suggesting that Christ emphatically denies the possibility of a universal, or total, apostasy of the Church. Campbell argues that this parable affirms the perpetual existence of Christ’s Church and Gospel, enduring unbroken until His second coming, which has yet to occur. While his perspective highlights the enduring nature of Christ's work, it is important to examine the broader context of Matthew 13 to fully understand the message of this parable. Additionally, it is critical to evaluate how the historical and theological framework of Christ's earthly ministry informs a proper interpretation of this teaching.
A pivotal passage for this discussion is Matthew 13:10-17, where Christ explains to His disciples why He teaches in parables. He highlights that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are revealed to some but remain hidden from others, emphasizing a spiritual blindness present in His audience. This passage sets the stage for interpreting the parables, including the wheat and the weeds, in the context of Christ's message to the people of His time.
Campbell’s interpretation sees the parable as emphasizing the unbroken continuation of the Church throughout history. However, this reading does not adequately address the immediate context of Christ's words or their significance for the generation to whom He was speaking.
The first of these parables begins like this: The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while his men were sleeping his enemy sowed weeds among the weeds among the wheat and went away. In the parable, the servants come to the master saying hey our enemy has sewn weeds in our field and the Master says let both the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest.
When Jesus disciples came to him and asked what this parable is mean, here is what he said: 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 seeds are the sons of the evil one and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The Harvest is the end of the age. So, Jesus is teaching that from the time of his ministry until the time of his return at the end of the age; there will be both wheat and weeds. Wheat being the righteous who will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their father and weeds who are the sons of the evil one who are separated from the God in that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus was teaching that both his Church and unbelievers would exist together until his return. It's not as though the wheat grew a little bit at his coming and then died for 1800 years and then came back when Joseph Smith restored Christ's true church. No, from the time of Jesus first coming till the time of his second coming there will always be both wheat and weeds.
The parable of the wheat and the weeds, specifically, speaks to the kingdom of heaven as declared by both Jesus Christ and John the Baptist where they proclaimed it to be "at hand." (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15) and that appointed period of time is thusly fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. The call was for these religious leaders to bring forth fruits met for repentance. Such a call held urgency as Matthew 3:7-10 describes:
But when he [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ' We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Even now the axe is laid at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (ESV).
Matthew 12:38-45 helps us to further understand the context of the parables Christ gives in Matthew 13. These verses are where Christ gives the sign of Jonah as it pertains to his death, burial, and resurrection:
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (ESV)
Commenting on this, J. Stuart Russell provides us with this insight:
This passage is of great importance in ascertaining the true meaning of the phrase 'this generation' (genea - γενεά). It can only refer, in this place, to the people of Israel then living - the existing generation. No commentator has ever proposed to call 'genea' here the Jewish race in all ages. Our Lord was accustomed to speaking of His contemporaries as this generation. (The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's Second Coming, Fwd. by R. C. Sproul; pp 17-18
Published in 1878, Russell's book offers intriguing insight where Christ's words do not offer dual fulfillment. One of the great theologians of his time, Charles H. Spurgeon, who did not hold to a preterist view, shared his thoughts on the Parousia. He stated how it "throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable for all"
This posits an intriguing question: What does this have to do with the Parable of the Wheat and Weeds? Here is where exegetical provides a better understanding.
Exegetical Commentary and Fulfillment of Prophecy
In this parable, Christ describes a field where wheat and weeds grow together until the harvest. The wheat represents the righteous, and the weeds symbolize the wicked. At the harvest—symbolic of divine judgment—the weeds are separated, gathered, and burned, while the wheat is collected into the barn. While Campbell interprets this as a reference to the ongoing presence of the Church and Gospel in the world, a closer exegetical analysis suggests a more immediate and contextually relevant meaning tied to Christ's earthly ministry and the subsequent judgment upon first-century Israel.
Christ’s use of the parable must be understood in light of His frequent condemnation of the religious leaders of His time, including the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. These groups, whom He called "a wicked and adulterous generation," were representative of the spiritual corruption that had infiltrated Israel. Christ’s ministry consistently called out their hypocrisy and refusal to recognize Him as the Messiah. The parable, therefore, serves as a prophetic declaration of the impending judgment upon that generation—a judgment that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. This catastrophic event marked the end of the Old Covenant age and the fulfillment of many of Christ's warnings to the Jews of His time.
Commenting on Matthew 13:36-47 (which includes the parable of the net) - J. Stuart Russell provides us with this insight:
We find in the passages here quoted an example of one of those erroneous renderings which have done much to confuse and mislead the ordinary readers of our English version. It is probable, that ninety-nine in every hundred understand by the phrase, 'the end of the world,' the close of human history, and the destruction of the material earth. They would not imagine that the ' world ' in ver. 38 and the 'world' in ver. 39 40, are totally different words, with totally different meanings. Yet such is the fact. Koinos in ver. 38 is rightly translated world, and refers to the world of men, but aeon in ver. 39, 40, refers to a period of time, and should be rendered age or epoch. Lange translates it aeon. It is of the greatest importance to understand correctly the two meaning of this word, and of the phrase 'the end of the aeon, or age.' aion is, as we have said, a period of time, or an age. It is exactly equivalent to the Latin word aevum, which is merely aion in a Latin dress; and the phrase, (Greek- coming), translated in our English version, 'the end of the world,' should be, 'the close of the age.' Tittman observes: (Greek - coming), as it occurs in the New Testament, does not denote the end, but rather the consummation, of the aeon, which is to be followed by a new age. So in Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49; xxiv. 3; which last passage, it is to be feared, may be misunderstood in applying it to the destruction of the world.' It was the belief of the Jews that the Messiah would introduce a new aeon: and this new aeon, or age, they called 'the kingdom of heaven.' The existing aeon: therefore, was the Jewish dispensation, which was now drawing to its close; and how it would terminate our Lord impressively shows in these parables. It is indeed surprising that expositors should have failed to recognize in these solemn predictions the reproduction and reiteration of the words of Malachi and of John the Baptist. Here we find the same final separation between the righteous and the wicked; the same purging of the floor; the same gathering of the wheat into the garner; the same burning of the chaff [tares, stubble] in the fire. Can there be a doubt that it is to the same act of judgment, the same period of time, the same historical event, that Malachi, John, and our Lord refer?
Russell further highlights, succinctly, that Christ spoke of an impending judgment that will culminate the end of the Jewish Age. Not a distant future coming judgment that is yet to be fulfilled. This is not what the Disciples understood. And it is not what Christ prophesied.
Malachi's Prophecy
According to J. Stuart Russell - it speaks to the heart of impending judgment spoken from the lips of John the Baptist, prophecy of impending destruction as described by the imagery of the axe lying at the root of the trees and fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy:
For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. “You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the LORD of hosts. “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.” (Malachi 4:1-6, NASB1995).
Here, we see Malachi speaking of the day of the Lord, impending judgment, and the separation of the righteous from the wicked. This parallel's Christ's teaching in parables, specifically the parable of the wheat and weeds of Matthew 13:24-43. Both hold significant eschatological undertones in how prophecy is fulfilled. Malachi's prophecy is partially fulfilled with the inauguration of Christ's mortal ministry. Partially fulfilled because John the Baptist is the prophesied spirit of Elijah that comes to proclaim the fulfillment of the promised Messiah.
Pronouncing judgment upon the Pharisees and Scribes, John the Baptist rhetorically mentions how they (the religious leaders) viewed themselves as the children of Abraham. This view held a specific religious piety and superiority that they are beholding of the Abrahamic covenant. According to Coffman's commentary:
Think not to say … Here Christ answered an alibi and destroyed a refuge of these ancient sinners. They supposed themselves safe because they were the seed of Abraham to whom the promises of old had been truly certified. However, in this place John blasts their complacency and opens the door for the "spiritual sons" of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29). Here in the preaching of John the Baptist was the beginning of that truth so fully expounded by Paul in which it appears that "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly …." (Romans 2:28-29).
Albert Barne's Notes on further stresses how John the Baptists rhetoric referred to the false notion the religious leaders held - being children of the Abrahamic Covenant:
And think not to say ... - They regarded it as sufficient righteousness that they were descended from so holy a man as Abraham. Compare John 8:33-37, John 8:53. John assured them that this was a matter of small consequence in the sight of God. Of the very stones of the Jordan he could raise up children to Abraham. The meaning seems to be this: God, from these stones, could more easily raise up those who should be worthy children of Abraham, or be like him, than simply, because you are descendants of Abraham, make you, who are proud and hypocritical, subjects of the Messiah’s kingdom. Or, in other words, mere nativity, or the privileges of birth, avail nothing where there is not righteousness of life. Some have supposed, however, that by these stones he meant the Roman soldiers, or the pagan, who might also have attended on his ministry; and that God could “of them” raise up children to Abraham.
Between Coffer's commentary and Barne's notes - John Calvin's commentary elucidates a proper understanding we ought to consider:
Matthew 3:9.And think not to say within yourselves. Luke 3:8.And begin not to say within yourselves. As the import of both phrases is undoubtedly the same, it is easy to ascertain what John meant. Till hypocrites are hard pressed, they either sleep in their sins, or indulge in licentious mirth. (268) But when they are summoned to the tribunal of God, they eagerly seek for some subterfuge or concealment, or some covering to interpose between God and them. John’s address to the Pharisees and Sadducees amounts to this: “ Now that I have sharply upbraided you, do not, as persons of your stamp are wont to do endeavor to find a remedy in an empty and deceitful title.”
He thus tears from them the wicked confidence, by which they had been bewitched. The covenant, which God had made with Abraham, was employed by them as a shield to defend a bad conscience: not that they rested their salvation on the person of one man, but that God had adopted all the posterity of Abraham. Meanwhile, they did not consider, that none are entitled to be regarded as belonging to “the seed of Abraham,” (John 8:33,) but those who follow his faith, and that without faith the covenant of God has no influence whatever in procuring salvation. And even the little word, in yourselves, is not without meaning: for though they did not boast in words, that they were Abraham’s children, yet they were inwardly delighted with this title, as hypocrites are not ashamed to practice grosser impositions on God than on men.
Calvin intersperses his commentary, which is interesting to point out here regarding how Bradley Campbell appears to distance himself as a Protestant Christian from Roman Catholics regarding any notion of an apostasy of the Early Christian Faith. Calvin's polemic is definitive and problematic for Campbell because of the contrast between the first century Jews who thought of themselves as children of the cut covenant of Abraham and Roman Catholics as the choice children of an enduring Christian faith.
God is able. The Jews flattered themselves with nearly the same pretenses, as are now brought forward insolently by the Papists. “There must be some Church in the world; because it is the will of God that he be acknowledged, and his name invoked, in the world. But the Church can be nowhere else than among us, to whom God has entrusted his covenant.” (269) This arrogance was chiefly displayed by the high priests, and by others who had any share of government or authority. The common people were treated by them as profane and “ accursed,” (John 7:49,) and they looked upon themselves as the holy first-fruits; just as, in our own day, mitred Bishops, Abbots, Canons, Monks, Sorbonnists, and every description of Priests, glorying in the proud title of Clergy, regard the Laity with contempt. This error, of relying too much on the promise of God, John exposes and refutes, by saying that, though God passes by them, he will not want a Church.
Calvin furthers his thoughts concerning the everlasting covenant made between God and Abraham. And how it relates to John the Baptist's rhetorical declaration of judgment upon the first century Jewish religious leaders.
The meaning of the words, therefore, is: “God has made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed. In one point you are mistaken. While you are worse than bastards, (270) you imagine that you are the only children of Abraham. But God will raise up elsewhere a new seed of Abraham, which does not now appear.” He says in the dative case, children To ABRAHAM, (τῶ ᾿Αβραὰμ,) to inform us, that the promise of God will not fail, and that Abraham, who relied on it, was not deceived, though his seed be not found in you. Thus from the beginning of the world the Lord has been faithful to his servants, and has never failed to fulfill the promise which he made to them, that he would extend mercy to their children, though he rejected hypocrites. Some imagine, that John spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. This appears to me to be without foundation: but as proud men did not believe it to be possible that the Church should be removed to another place, he reminds them, that God has in his power ways of preserving his Church, which they did not think of, any more than they believed that he could create children out of stones.
(268) “Ils s’endorment toujours en leurs vices, ou s’egayent comme chevaux eschappez.” — “They sleep always in their sins, or indulge in merriment, like horses let loose.”
(269) “D’autant que le Seigneur nous a ordonnez gardiens de son alliance.” — “Because the Lord has appointed us guardians of his covenant.”
Calvin highlights the nature of Abraham’s covenant as pointing toward the promise of a spiritual seed rather than one rooted in direct lineage or outward religious piety. This spiritual seed refers to those who would, through faith, be raised up unto God as true heirs of the covenant. Calvin’s perspective aligns with Christ’s rebuke of the religious leaders in John 8:39-59, where He challenges their reliance on physical descent from Abraham as the basis for their righteousness.
In John 8:39-59, the Pharisees and other leaders claim Abraham as their father, asserting that their heritage establishes their standing before God. Christ, however, sharply rebukes this assumption, declaring that being Abraham’s children is not about biological lineage but about doing the works of Abraham—namely, faith and obedience to God. He accuses them of failing to reflect Abraham’s faith and instead identifies their actions as aligning with their true spiritual father, the devil. This passage underscores the distinction between external markers of religiosity and the internal transformation that defines the true children of God.
Calvin’s interpretation emphasizes that the covenant with Abraham was always intended to be fulfilled through faith, rather than mere descent or ritual observance. Abraham’s role as the father of many nations (Genesis 17:5) was never limited to a physical lineage but pointed to the broader spiritual family of God, encompassing all who share in his faith. This spiritual dimension of the covenant is echoed throughout Scripture, such as in Romans 4:16-17, where Paul writes that the promise comes by faith, so that it may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those under the law but also to those who share Abraham’s faith.
By addressing this spiritual fulfillment, Calvin underscores the error of the religious leaders in Christ’s time, who placed their confidence in their heritage and adherence to the law while neglecting the transformative faith that Abraham exemplified. Their outward piety masked an inward rebellion against God, demonstrated by their rejection of Christ, the very fulfillment of the covenant.
This understanding of Abraham’s covenant as pointing to a spiritual seed has profound implications for the nature of God’s redemptive plan. It reveals that salvation is not confined to a specific ethnicity or lineage but is open to all who respond in faith. This inclusiveness fulfills God’s promise that through Abraham, all nations of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). Furthermore, it highlights the centrality of faith as the defining characteristic of God’s people, rather than outward religious practices or cultural identity.
In conclusion, Calvin’s view of Abraham’s covenant shifts the focus from physical lineage and external religiosity to the spiritual reality of faith and obedience to God. Christ’s confrontation with the religious leaders in John 8:39-59 serves as a powerful reminder that true membership in God’s covenant family is not about heritage or ritual but about living in the faith and works of Abraham. This interpretation invites believers to reflect on their own faith and alignment with God’s covenant, emphasizing that the true children of Abraham are those who follow in his footsteps of trust and obedience to God’s promises.
Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant: Messianic Prophecy of Christ and the Atonement
The Abrahamic Covenant is quite significant because of the deep and rich symbolism of its messianic prophecy. Not only because of the significant messianic prophecy - it is the covenant made between YHWH and Abraham that is a blood covenant. Here is what John W. Ritenbaugh taught:
In Abraham's day, covenants were sometimes agreed to by preparing a sacrifice, cutting it in two pieces and halving it exactly. They would lay the pieces out on the ground. Then those making the covenant had to pass between the divided carcass. This symbolized the seriousness of their intentions to keep the covenant, because the divided carcass represented what would happen to them if they did not keep their oaths. They were committing themselves to be cut in two if they broke their word.
That was not the way every covenant was agreed to, only rather more serious covenants. They placed their lives at risk. If either party did not keep that covenant, they were pledging their life. Then after they passed through, the carcass was burned, symbolizing their acceptance.
What is interesting here in this case is that God is the only one shown passing between the divided carcass. First, this shows God's seriousness to meet the requirement of the covenant. It also shows that God was not holding either Abraham or his descendants to the same stringent requirement to the covenant as He held Himself. This promise therefore would be met by God's grace, and not by man's works. Nobody will meet the terms of the covenant on the basis of works, but by grace.
This cutting of a covenant between God and Abraham, as Ritenbaugh points out, reflects how God takes seriously such oaths. It is also pointed out how it ties into the consumption of fire upon the initiatory sacrifice of the Tabernacle and inauguration of the Levitical Ministry and Priesthood.
The smoking oven and the burning torch symbolize God in many instances in the Bible. In the Old Testament especially, God represents Himself through the image of fire: the burning bush and the pillar of fire in the wilderness. It is likely that, as He passed through the divided sacrifice, the fire consumed it, showing His acceptance. The burning of the sacrifice by fire means "fire out of heaven" from an invisible source. Whoom! It just appeared there, and turned it into a charred mess. God has done this in the past, too. When the Tabernacle was built, God ignited the first sacrifice. When the Levitical ministry and the priesthood under Aaron were consecrated, God ignited the sacrifice, as He did in Genesis 15:10. God consumed it out of heaven.
Furthermore, Ritenbaugh highlights how this covenant is ratified by God in relation to the Israelites freedom from bondage of Egypt. Here, it is noted that God shows his faithfulness to Israel in keeping His very oath and covenant made with Abraham.
Abib 14 thus symbolizes the ratification of the promise by sacrifice, and Abib 15 symbolizes what it accomplishes by giving visible evidence of God's faithfulness as the Israelites go free. He is keeping His promise, and here is the evidence.
When Israel left Egypt on the night of Abib 15—The Night To Be Much Observed—it marked the beginning of the fulfillment of the physical aspects of that promise. God's promise included “race”—national promises—and “grace”—spiritual promises. Abraham's descendants left Egypt with great substance, exactly as the promise says, and Christ's sacrifice marks the beginning of the spiritual fulfillment.
This covenant that was cut between Abram and Jehovah included a promised blessing of posterity, lands of inheritance, and one of priesthood and Gospel authority given unto his posterity:
The first Old Testament example of cutting covenants comes from the middle part of Abram’s life (about 1900 BC). Jehovah had promised to give Abram and his seed certain lands forever, make his posterity innumerable, and cause the priesthood and the gospel to continue in his family in order to bless all nations (see Abraham 2:6, 9–11, 19; Genesis 12:7; 13:14–17). However, Abram had no children and was concerned that his steward would become his heir. When he expressed this, the Lord reaffirmed that he would give Abram a land forever and innumerable posterity (see Genesis 15:3–7). Abram “believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). (Jared T. Parker, “Cutting Covenants,” in The Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, The 38th Annual BYU Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009)
Parker goes further and provides insight in how The Sinai Covenant was one where the Lord cut a covenant with the nation of Israel through Moses:
The Sinai covenant. Many times in the Hebrew Bible we read that the Lord cut a covenant with Israel at Sinai. Significantly, echoes suggesting this was a literal covenant cutting are recorded in Exodus 24, before the Lord revoked the fulness of the gospel from Israel (compare Joseph Smith Translation, Exodus 34:1–2), thereby giving us another example of gospel covenant cutting. We read that Moses wrote down the Lord’s commandments, built an altar, and instructed that oxen be slaughtered for burnt and peace offerings (see Exodus 24:4–5). Then he took “half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made [cut] with you concerning all these words” (Exodus 24:6–8; emphasis added).
The messianic prophecy of this cut covenant between Abraham and Jehovah - and Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai - reflects the fulfillment of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross. Parker expounds his thoughts as follows:
Since an intensive form of the Hebrew root kpr means “cover over” and is often translated “make an atonement,” the sprinkling of the people with the sacrificial blood seems to indicate they were “covered” with the blood of Christ and protected by his Atonement. In addition, the sprinkling of half of the blood on the altar and the other half on the people reminds us of the animals divided in half in Genesis 15. It appears this was “a symbolic action in which the people were identified with the sacrificed animal, so that the fate of the latter is presented as the fate to be expected by the people if they violated their sacred promise (i.e., it is a form of self-curse).” Therefore, the sacrificed animal can be seen as typifying Christ, who blesses the obedient by vicariously taking the curses of disobedience upon himself (that is, he becomes the sacrificed animal), and also typifying the disobedient, who will suffer the curses themselves (that is, they become the sacrificed animal). Thus the symbolism of the covenant ritual appears to have been twofold—blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. This idea is consistent with the many blessings and curses of the covenant recorded later (see especially Deuteronomy 28). Not surprisingly, one of these curses echoes the slaughtered animals: “And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth” (Deuteronomy 28:26).
It is noteworthy that the covenant curse came upon the generation of Israelites who were led out of Egypt. After these people had provoked the Lord numerous times (see Numbers 14:11, 22–23), Jehovah finally enforced the curses of the covenant by causing them to wander forty years in the wilderness so they would die there and not inherit the land he promised to Abram. The Lord said, “Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness . . . Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein. . . . And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness . . . and ye shall know my breach of promise. . . . I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:29–30, 33–35; emphasis added).
It is interesting to note here the numerous instances where the Nation of Israel entered in various stages of apostasy and spiritual rebellion. Direct disobedience to the very covenant the Lord had made with them. Not only is it interesting to note - but it is also quite relevant when considering the lamentation of Christ in Matthew 23 over the generation of religious leaders and the condemnation of that generation.
Jewish Rebellion and Spiritual Apostasy
In essence, the Jews of the first century where in spiritual darkness and apostasy prior to the arrival of John the Baptist and Christ's mortal ministry. Consider what Kaufmann Kohler and Richard Gottheil shares at Jewish Encyclopedia concerning Apostasy and Apostates from Judaism:
Terms derived from the Greek ἀποστασία ("defection, revolt") and ἀποστάτης ("rebel in a political sense") (I Macc. xi. 14, xiii. 16; Josephus, "Contra Ap." i. 19, § 4), applied in a religious sense to signify rebellion and rebels against God and the Law, desertion and deserters of the faith of Israel. The words are used in the Septuagint for : Num. xiv. 9; Josh. xxii. 19, 22; for : II Chron. xxviii. 19, xxxiii. 19; for : Isa. xxx. 1; and for : I Kings, xxi. 13; Aquilas to Judges xix. 22; I Sam. xxv. 17. Accordingly it is stated in I Macc. ii. 15 that "the officers of the king compelled the people to apostatize," that is, to revolt against the God of Israel; and Jason, the faithless high priest, is "pursued by all and hated as a deserter of the law" (τοῦ νόμου ἀποστάτης; II Macc. v. 8). As the incarnation of rebellion against God and the Law, the serpent is called apostate (LXX., Job xxvi. 13; and Symmachus, Job xxiv. 13; compare II Thess. ii. 3; Revelation of John xiv. 6; Gen. R. xix.,)
This spiritual apostasy and rebellion historically proceeded the ministry of John the Baptist and that of the promised Messiah - Jesus Christ. Approximately 400 years between Malachi and the writings of Gospels. A period known as the intertestamental period -or the silent years where no prophets led the nation of Israel. Not only was this a period of spiritual apostasy - but it also seems to parallel the 400 years Israel was in bondage to Egypt. While Israel was not in spiritual apostasy during Egyptian enslavement, this was not the case for the years between Malachi and the Gospel of Matthew. The people, as a nation and heritage, were in spiritual rebellion, apostasy, and under Roman Empirical rule.
It is also during this period of time where the Maccabean Revolt occurred. This Jewish rebellion, led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and Hellenistic influence upon Jewish Life, took place between 167-160 BCE. And it was not until 63 B.C.E when Rome conquered and brought Jerusalem (and Israel) under Roman jurisdiction and rule. It was not until 37-34 B.C.E when Herod the Great became a Jewish Roman ruler over the land of Israel.
Malachi 4:1-6 and Matthew 13:24-44 - Eschatological Fulfillment and the Day of the Lord in First Century Jewish Context
A proper exegetical interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the weeds acknowledges its primary focus on the immediate historical and spiritual realities of Christ’s audience. The parable does not explicitly address the concept of apostasy within the Church. Rather, it speaks to the separation of the righteous and the wicked in the context of the kingdom of heaven that was inaugurated during Christ’s mortal ministry. The "harvest" points to the coming judgment upon first-century Israel, where the faithful remnant—those who recognized Christ—were preserved, while the unfaithful faced divine wrath.
Malachi 4-16
- Judgement and Purification: Speaks to the coming of the "day of the Lord" which will be like a burning oven, where the "arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble". The passage uses metaphorical language to express divine judgment to come
- The Sun of Righteousness: Messianic in that the passage speaks to the promise of a "Sun of Righteousness" with healing in its wings. Christians tend to interpret this as pointing to Christ where he brings salvation and healing in God's name.
- Spirit of Elijah: Malachi ends with the promise of Elijah's return to reconcile the fathers to children and vice versa. This promise links to preventing a curse on the land and traditionally attributed to John the Baptist (see Matthew 11:14)
Matthew 13:24-43
- Parable of the Weeds: Speaking in Parables, and providing an interpretation thereof, Jesus reveals the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. He likens it unto a man sowing good seed in his field. However, the enemy comes in and sows' weeds among the wheat. Interpreted as a coexistence of good and evil within the world - or in a proper interpretation within Israel - until the time of Judgment.
- Harvest Time: The time of the harvest at the end of the age is described where the weeds are gathered and separated from the wheat. These weeds are then consumed by fire while the wheat is safely gathered into the barn. Typically interpreted with regards to final judgment where righteous and wicked are separated.
- Christ's Explanation: Offering an interpretation - Christ explains to his disciples how the field is the world, the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom, the weeds represent the sons of the evil one, and the harvest is the end of the age.
Both passages, properly interpreted and understood, who significant parallels. For one, each passage speaks on the nature of judgment and separation. Judgement upon the wicked and the disobedient "Sons of the Enemy" or the "Sons of the Devil". Whom Christ identified as those Jews who perceived that they have Abraham as their father. Separation of the disobedient and rebellious in relation to the salvation and separation of the righteous from among them (cf. Matthew 25:31-46).
Secondly, each passage respectively speaks to the end of a specified era. The connotation here is the phrase end of the age or in the day of the Lord. Another common phrase used is that great and terrible day. The mention of such phraseology expounds our understanding that this was fulfilled in 70 C.E. when Rome came against Jerusalem, laid siege, and destroyed the city and temple thereof. This becomes important as a historical reality pertaining to the apostasy of the primitive Christian faith. Matthew and Malachi reflect that judgment will come upon the present generation of the Jewish people where it ends their national inheritance and identity. Another concept to take note of here regarding the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Since the Jewish age ended, and the reason for the Jewish Diaspora that resulted in 70 C.E., judgment upon that generation was fulfilled in its entirety.
Third concerns the messianic fulfillment. Christ is identified as the Sun of Righteousness. In the Johannine Gospel - Christ is referred to (either by John himself or through the recorded words of Christ explicitly) as the Light Bearer or Light of the World. Christ fulfills the messianic prophecies, like Malachi, in that he not only brings light, but he also brings healing and judgment.
Finally, it speaks to the nature and role prophets play in relation to the message of the Gospel and the power and seriousness of the covenants God had made. Elijah is used figuratively in Malachi and manifested by the Gospel of Matthew as that of John the Baptist. Christ himself confirmed that John the Baptist fulfilled the promise of Elijah to come. Here is where the parallel between John the Baptist and Elijah causes intrigue. Both figures have significant cultural and social aspects where they existed outside of religious expectations and social norms of their respective times. They challenged the status quo in fearlessly proclaiming the message of repentance, an invitation to return to faithful obedience, and an unwavering to God's eternal truths. Coupled with profound judgments upon those who are disobedient, unfaithful, and wicked. They confronted societal injustices among their respective community.
Elijah confronted and challenged the priests of Baal - even to the point of mockery. He called the nation of Israel unto repentance, condemning them of their adultery from God due to idol worship. This culminated the incident that occurred on Mount Carmel. Along with this is how Elijah was taken up into Heaven by God and his mantle falling on Elisha - who stood and witnessed the whirlwind and chariot that took Elijah away.
John the Baptist, though not raptured as Elijah was, challenged the spiritual rebellion and idolatry of the religious leaders who were in a state of apostasy. The scribes, pharisees, and Sadducees engaged in a form of idolatry. They made up the ruling council known as the Sanhedrin where religious and judicial aspects of Jewish customs, rituals, and observances were established. While the Pharisees held to strict Jewish traditions and devotion to written and oral law of the Torah, the Sadducees were more of the Elite and aristocrats of Jewish Nobility. They oversaw the Second Temple and possessed authority over much of Jewish life. Typically, the High Priest was from the Sadducees.
Contextualization of Matthew 13:24-43 and the End of the Jewish Age in 70 C.E
From a proper exegetical interpretation and historical context - the parable of the weeds indicates that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple was a fulfillment of judgment. An event symbolizing the ending of the old covenant era and full transition into the new covenant under Christ. The culmination of this judgment that came upon the unrighteous generation fulfilled Old and New Testament biblical prophecy.
While Campbell’s interpretation underscores the enduring nature of Christ’s Church and Gospel, it overlooks the immediate and historical context of Matthew 13. The parable of the wheat and the weeds primarily addresses Christ's contemporaries, warning of the judgment that would soon come upon the unfaithful generation of Jews who rejected Him. This interpretation does not deny the possibility of apostasy within the Church but instead highlights the specific fulfillment of judgment in the first century as part of God’s redemptive plan. By situating the parable within its proper historical and theological framework, we gain a deeper understanding of Christ’s teachings and their relevance for both His audience and future generations.
Bradley Campbell's eisegetical interpretation, in which he claims that the parable of the weeds completely disproves the possibility of a great apostasy, lacks both credibility and truth. His assertion falls apart under closer scrutiny and fails to align with a sound exegetical approach to Scripture. When the parable is properly examined within its context, it becomes evident that it speaks not to the impossibility of apostasy but to the prophetic fulfillment of judgment upon first-century Jews, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 AD.
This parable, found in Matthew 13, portrays a field where both wheat and weeds are allowed to grow together until the time of harvest. Campbell’s claim that this imagery represents the perpetual endurance of the Church without the possibility of a great falling away misinterprets both the historical and theological context of the passage. Instead, a careful exegetical analysis reveals that the "end of the age" referenced in the parable does not pertain to the end of the world or a final, universal judgment. Rather, it signifies the end of the Jewish age—the conclusion of the Old Covenant era marked by the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
The harvest, in this context, represents a twofold process: first, the message of the Gospel was preached to the Jews, offering them the opportunity to repent and accept Christ as their Messiah. As Jesus declared, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). However, the rejection of Christ by many in that generation led to the judgment He repeatedly warned about, such as in Matthew 24. This judgment culminated in the devastating events of 70 AD, when the Roman army destroyed the Temple, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that “not one stone here will be left on another” (Matthew 24:2). Following this, the Gospel message was extended to the Gentiles, as Paul emphasized when he wrote, "First to the Jew, then to the Gentile" (Romans 1:16).
The parable of the weeds underscores the patience and sovereignty of God as He allows both the righteous and the wicked to coexist until the appointed time of judgment. In the first-century context, this judgment was directed at the unfaithful generation of Jews who rejected Christ and clung to outward religiosity rather than true faith and repentance. The separation of the wheat and the weeds symbolizes the division between the faithful remnant—those who embraced Christ and His message—and those who resisted Him, ultimately facing divine wrath.
Conclusion
In light of this interpretation, Campbell's assertion that the parable decisively negates the idea of a great apostasy is not only unsubstantiated but also misdirected. The parable does not address the endurance of the Church in a universal or eschatological sense but rather the specific historical realities of Christ’s ministry and the judgment that followed. It affirms God’s faithfulness in preserving His true people while executing judgment on the unfaithful, a theme consistent with the broader narrative of Scripture.
Furthermore, the reader is presented with an exposition on the nature of how Bradley Campbell, like many other critics of the Latter-day Saint Christian Faith, use typical rhetoric and logical fallacies in order to present misleading information. Sometimes with deceptive malice and disregard for honest and respectful dialogue.
In conclusion, a proper understanding of the parable of the weeds reveals it as a profound statement about God’s redemptive plan and His justice. It does not support Campbell’s conjecture that apostasy is impossible but instead highlights the prophetic fulfillment of judgment upon first-century Jews and the transition from the Jewish age to the age of the Gospel extended to all nations. By interpreting this parable within its historical and biblical context, we gain a clearer and more faithful understanding of its meaning and significance.
Your Support Matters
"Thank you for taking the time to explore this deep dive into scripture, theology, and apologetic insights. If you found this article thought-provoking or helpful in your study of faith and scripture, we invite you to take a moment to support my efforts.
Like this post to show your appreciation, share it with others who would benefit from engaging discussions on faith, and subscribe to stay connected with future articles that inspire mindful Latter-day Saint Christian living and apologetics. Your support fuels more scripture-focused studies and commentary to help others strengthen their faith.
If you'd like to go a step further, consider leaving a tip or donation to help sustain this work. Your generosity allows us to continue creating thoughtful, faith-centered content and to share the hope of the gospel with a wider audience. Use the QR Code below to make a donation.
Together, we can foster meaningful conversations and enrich lives through scripture and truth.
Thank you for being a part of this journey. Let’s grow in faith together!"
.jpg)