Sabbath study, xx: an introductory guide to Grand Unified Chiasm (GUC) studies

Is the entire biblical narrative from cover (Book of Genesis) to cover (Gospel according to John) a single macro-chiastically gigantic self-contained mirror?

As far as this author (selfsame E.G.) has deduced, the answer increasingly points toward a solidly affirmative “yes!” While the journey it would undertake to validate this theory into a theorem has only barely just started (words alone fail to suffice toward describing exactly what it shall take to arrive to the glorious destination), is not this project perhaps the most crucial endeavor to vindicating in proven verity the righteousness of our God and Savior Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ?

Once the GUC is proven to be an undeniable fact, the inerrancy of the Sanctified Spirit’s (not simply “Holy Spirit,” but more precisely, “Sanctified Spirit” or “[the] Spirit [of] Sanctity” as a better and wholesomely proper rendition of רוּחַ קָדְשׁ (rûªch qäd’sh)) inspiration becomes an inescapable corollary: all the human beings who compiled the books comprising the two Testaments, writing in different ages throughout centuries and centuries, were all inspired by the same Spirit of the God of Heaven, whose mind purposed from everlasting the structure that the Bible would be written according to down to every last word, letter, and yea, apparently even unto diacritic marking!

Did Moses write Genesis knowing that John the Apostle would exist over a millennia later to write his gospel account that comprises the parallel bookend to Genesis? Did even the prophets Daniel and Ezekiel know that the specific non-chronological way they ordered their written accounts was for the purpose of at-large chiasms in the context of their own books, let alone a GUC? And even on the converse: did Jude know that his brief letter heavily borrowed the Petrine apocalyptic motifs from II Peter in order to form an apparent GUC parallel to the second at-large chiasm of the Book of Joel, just as II Peter forms a parallel to Joel’s first at-large chiasm?

With nearly solid conspicuity, the answer is largely “no.” Each human writer who contributed to the biblical canon themselves were focused in their “local” context, writing down simply what Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ’s Spirit had bidden them. The prophet Daniel, for instance, is spoken of as incredibly magnified in intellectual stature and wisdom,1 and yet he failed by his own mortal human accord to understand the visions and accompanied heavenly glory detailed in the Hebraic second at-large chiasm of the prophetic book ascribed to his name!2 How much less, would you suppose, that the other prophets of old—who sometimes ran away from the presence of Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ,3 continually disbelieved Him,4 and wanted to discontinue their ministry because of enbeared earthly persecution by human empirical authorities for His name’s sake5—would have understood the GUC in their human lifetimes, when they grappled at understanding the purpose of continuing their ministry, just as Christians called to preach the oracles of truth in the New Covenant have for nearly two millennia now?

Committing oneself in the fullness of heart and mind to faith in Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ is no easy matter—even those spiritually resurrected (“sorry,” no, not the same thing as the earthly Ancien Régime “ba’ath” of Iraq and Syria—maybe some Saddam and Assad memes another time soon though) according to the righteousness of God can faint and backslide very incredibly easily when faced with earthly troubles detaching (read: Anbaring) them from continuing to spiritually walk with God. (I know this with robust certainty because of personal experience 💀)

Anyhow—the apostle Paul spoke of the Mosaic Old Testament era as “examples” (translation variants differ—the YLT’s rendition as “types” is outstandingly excellent IMO) for the New Covenant believer redeemed by the shed atoning blood of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:6

And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea; and all the same spiritual food did eat, and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ;

but in the most of them God was not well pleased, for they were strewn in the wilderness, and those things became types of us, for our not passionately desiring evil things, as also these did desire.

Neither become ye idolaters, as certain of them, as it hath been written, ‘The people sat down to eat and to drink, and stood up to play;’ neither may we commit whoredom, as certain of them did commit whoredom, and there fell in one day twenty-three thousand; neither may we tempt the Christ, as also certain of them did tempt, and by the serpents did perish; neither murmur ye, as also some of them did murmur, and did perish by the destroyer.

And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come, so that he who is thinking to stand—let him observe, lest he fall.

And the apostle and elder James spoke of the prophet Elijah:7

Elijah was a man like affected as we, and with prayer he did pray—not to rain, and it did not rain upon the land three years and six months; and again he did pray, and the heaven did give rain, and the land did bring forth her fruit.

Just as in type, so too in antitype—for 1,260 literal days in the prototypical example, the Elijah prophesied that literal rain would be withheld. So too in antitype, the spiritual doctrinal rain was withheld for 1,260 prophetic days in the 538-1798 A.D. time period.8 The yet-future unfulfilled nature of the antitypical latter rain, therefore, signifies a need for the faithful adherent of Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ to backturn from their sinful ways and paths, and backturn unto God toward doing His will,9 that the body of Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ’s believers may no longer way astray as spiritual infants beguiled astray by the serpentine winds of earthly deception, but rather matured unto a measure of stature of Jesus Christ’s fullness.10

My cemented guess for the outer A/A’ branch correspondence of the Grand Unified Chiasm is this:

• A.i: Book of Genesis (I Moses)

  • A.ii.I: Book of Exodus (II Moses)

  • A.ii.II: Book of Leviticus (III Moses)

  • A.ii.III: Book of Numbers (IV Moses)

    • A.iii: Book of Deuteronomy (V Moses)

      • … [???] …

    • A’.iii’: Book of Revelation

  • A’.ii’.I: First Epistle of John (“I John”)

  • A’.ii’.II: Second Epistle of John (“II John”)

  • A’.ii’.III: Third Epistle of John (“III John”)

• A’.i’: Gospel according to John (“John”)

The first five books of the Bible (the Five Books of Moses, a.k.a. the Torah/Pentateuch) comprise the A branch of the GUC supra-menorah, and the last five books of the Bible (the Five Books of John, a.k.a. the “Johannine Writings”) comprise its mirroring/primed A’ branch, delineating down to the sub-branch almonds like so:

• A.i (Genesis) / A’.i’ (Gospel of John)

• A.ii (Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers) / A’.ii’ (I John-II John-III John)

• A.iii (Deuteronomy) / A’.iii’ (Revelation)

Note that when understood in “linear chronological” order, the implicated corollary is that Revelation must have been the first Johannine book written, and then came the three Epistles of John, and finally the Fourth Gospel account. While appearing at face value to spuriously contradict the mainstream church-history and general “scholarly” reckoning, there are some internal clues that help guide the diligent Bible student toward a perhaps objectively sound understanding of the matter. First off, take note that Revelation’s general Hellenistic Greek grammar is choppy and messy in contrast to the other four Johannine writings. Juju “higher critics” of various dualistic varieties will rush to seize upon this discrepancy as an instant lightning rod to insist that the “John of Patmos” who compiled Revelation was a different individual from the person or “Johannine community” who wrote the epistles and gospel account, but the much simpler explanation is that Revelation was the first Johannine writing, because the apostle John hitherto simply did not accustom himself with writing with pen and ink on manuscripts. He says this himself literally twice:11

(II Jn.) Many things having to write to you, I did not intend through paper and ink, but I hope to come unto you, and speak mouth to mouth, that our joy may be full;

(III Jn.) Many things I had to write, but I do not wish through ink and pen to write to thee, and I hope straightway to see thee, and mouth to mouth we shall speak.

Why is that in II and III John, the apostolic presbyter plainly asserts his inherent lack of inclination to write the letter in the first place, instead pointing out his preference for direct face-to-face communication? The very simple answer is that John the Apostle was—at the time of writing II and III John—in a condition where he was physically unable to meet face-to-face. Why? Apparently the “higher critics” didn’t realize this obvious connection, but maybe it had something to do with the fact that John was still stuck in Patmos exile. If II and III John were written while still he was in exile, then I John was also written during exile, and the sequential ordering of the Johannine books makes far more sense:

• Revelation of Jesus Christ: written first in Patmos exile, when John was in a visiated ecstatic state of mind and rushed to record his testimony of the visions, hence why the Koine Greek grammar is not terrifically outstanding

• First Epistle: written while still stuck in Patmos exile, in a comparably calmer mood after recording the Revelation of Jesus Christ and outsending it to the seven churches of Asia Minor—this explains why I John is more grammatically refined than Revelation while sharing underlying motifs

• Second Epistle: likewise written while still stuck in Patmos exile, as the apostle states plainly to the specific lady he writes to that he does not wish to write with pen and ink, and instead to communicate face-to-face, indicating that he hoped to return from exile

• Third Epistle: likewise also written while still stuck in Patmos exile, telling Gaius practically the same thing as he told the “choice Kyria” in the previous letter

• Gospel according to John: written after John returned to Ephesus from Patmos exile, in a far more restored condition of calmness to write the very last book of the biblical canon

In III John, the apostolic elder said:12

I did write to the assembly, but he who is loving the first place among them—Diotrephes—doth not receive us; because of this, if I MAY come, I will cause him to remember his works that he doth, with evil words prating against us…

Note right here that John stated as-a-matter-of-fact that he previously wrote a letter to the assembly (church) at-large—yea! even though he didn’t want to write with pen and ink to begin with. That either must have been the Book of Revelation or First Epistle (I assume the latter?)—he already sent the letter with instructions for assembly couriers (or equivalent messengerial persons) to ensure its contents would be read aloud to the entirety of the Christian assemblies. Additionally, he says “if I MAY come,” hinting that he wasn’t even sure if he would be able to arrive in-person to sort out the problem instigated by Diotrophes (probably implied as an antitype of Balaam). That right there demonstrates that John must have almost certainly written the letter while still in Patmos exile, because he wasn’t even sure at that specific time being if he even would ever be permitted by the Roman Empire’s civic authorities to return alive to Asia Minor. The context plainly is screaming, “John is still stuck in exile at the island of Patmos,” but apparently all those theological scholarly jeniuses missed this and instead contrive assumptions about “lost letters” and concurrently speculative/presumptuous garbage ambiguous hypotheses. (what else is new beneath the sun?)

It can additionally be demonstrated that Revelation was written prior to the First Epistle of John, based on a close look at the shared Christocentric motifs—note what is recorded in the visionary account of the Second Coming in the former:13

…and he is arrayed with a garment covered with blood, and his name is called, The Word of God.

Here, the apostle John simply records what he saw in vision—Jesus’s name was seen emblazoned or otherwise ascribed as “the Word of God.” In that Revelation passage, John wasn’t himself declaring Jesus to be “[the] Word”—rather, the prophet simply testifies his observation as a witness.

In I John, by contrast, John himself explicitly and directly refers to Jesus as Logos.14 The most simple and logical explanation is that the apostle first in revelatory vision saw Jesus’s ascribed name as Logos, and only afterwards understood that connection to assert it himself when writing I John, after finishing the written record of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Hence, with the following premises established:

• Revelation was written on Patmos exile cir. 95-96 A.D., and the Fourth Gospel account written likely at Ephesian post-exile cir. 97 A.D.

• I John was written after Revelation

• II and III John were written while the apostle was still in Patmos exile

…the pieced-together picture is inescapable—the chronology of the Five Johannine Writings in linear order are:

1. Revelation (written first on exile in the island of Patmos upon receiving the visions, in a visiated, mind-draining, ecstatic condition)

2. I John (written on exile some time after Revelation, in a comparably calmer, non-visiated, or otherwise non-ecstatic condition)

3. II John (written after I John, still during exile, either after some time or concurrently, as a brief note sent to the choice Kyria)

4. III John (written after II John, still during exile, either after some time or concurrently, as a brief note sent to Gaius)

5. Fourth Gospel (written last, after John returned to Ephesus from Patmos exile)

Now, as far as concerning the actual internal parallel correspondences: I must admit for the very time being (as of typing) that I have not yet been able to come even nearly close (uhh… very barely at all, lol) to piecing together the correspondences together. For instance, the GUC identification of Exodus with I John appears to point toward liberation from the bondage of sin as the antitype of liberation from the bondage of Pharaoh’s Egypt, and Numbers with III John appears to indicate that Balaam served as the type in the early Mosaic era and Diotrophes as the corresponding antitype in the early New Covenant time period, etc. In the case of any apparent GUC-implied Deuteronomy/Revelation parallel link, I don’t know the details as of yet, neither am I certain on the details of a GUC-implied parallel link between Leviticus and II John.

The most patently obvious connection is of course between Genesis and the Gospel of John in the common reference toward the same beginning:15

(Gen. 1:1) In beginning, create [did] Eʟᴏʜɪᴍ selfsame the heaven and selfsame the land…

(Jn. 1:1) In beginning, was the Lᴏɢᴏs, and the Lᴏɢᴏs was with Tʜᴇᴏɴ, and Tʜᴇᴏs was the Lᴏɢᴏs…

The Biblical Hebrew term for “in beginning” is בְּרֵאשִׁית (B’rëshiyt), and it is exactly synonymous with the Biblical Greek term for the same translated phrase “in beginning” in John 1:1 that is Ἐν ἀρχῇ (En arché), because the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of Genesis 1:1’s בְּרֵאשִׁית (B’rëshiyt) renders that phrase the same as Ἐν ἀρχῇ (En arché). (cf. this also—I don’t fully know if the original manuscripts for the Gospel of John and Genesis 1 LXX listed the leading Greek letter as “ἐ” or if “Ἐ” is rather an anachronistic rendition)

(note additionally that there the original text does not include a definite article; it does not read “in the beginning,” but rather simply: “in beginning”—if the Mosaic Hebrew text intended to include a definite article, there would be an interposed “ha” prefix in between the B’ preposition and rëshiyt noun, but there isn’t one, hinting that the plain and literal reading does NOT include a definite article)

As King Solomon declared:16

The honor of God [is] to hide a thing, and the honor of kings to search out a matter.

In biblical parallel implication, do “kings” refer purely to literal earthly monarchs? Not so, for the apostle John asserts in the opening doxology of Revelation:17

…to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood, and did make us kings and priests to his God and Father, to him [is] the glory and the power to the ages of the ages! Amen.

And the closing chapter of Proverbs states what is required of a (biblical) king:18

Not for kings, O Lemuel, not for kings, to drink wine, and for princes a desire of strong drink.

Wine, of course, is symbolic for joy19—heavenly wine is the joy of experiencing redemptive salvation unto purified sanctification toward eternal life, in contrast to earthly wine that leads to drunkenness and perdition.20

In the very end—if you survive even unto that point to make the choice in the final, eternal separation—you must choose between drinking one of those two wines: either the unfermented pure wine of Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ or the fermented wine of this world. There will come to pass no fenceriding nor “opt-out,” “sorry.”