Friday, July 24, 2020

Thoughts on the Pre-Trib Rapture by Baron Congleton


"Those who truly constitute the church of God, both the living and the dead, will be 'caught up,' for so it is written in the Word. 1 Thess. 4:16-17." —Baron Congleton

"Nothing prevents the rapture [that is, the catching up] of the church but God's longsuffering towards the world. 2 Pet. 3:9."  —Baron Congleton (brackets his)

John Parnell, Baron Congleton, The Rapture of the Church; or, Are any events to be expected before the rapture of the church?...Second edition. London, J.K. Campbell, 1853. 24 pages. Xerox copy. 13702. https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/special-collections/guide-to-special-collections/christian-brethren-collections/printed-material/catalogue/p/  

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

The Amplified Bible and "Free Grace"

1965 Amplified Bible
Did you know that the Amplified Bible Classic Edition (1965) contains the phrase "free grace" in Ephesians 2:8? I just noticed it today; it's interesting to find a version of the Bible that uses the phrase "free grace". 

But then I did a little more research and I found out that the word "free" in Ephesians 2:8 was removed in the Amplified Bible Updated Edition (2015); it says "grace" but not "free grace". Personally, I like the phrase "free grace" and I'm glad that the Amplified Bible I have is the Classic Edition that says "free grace"! 

Here's a comparison of Ephesians 2:8-9 in the Amplified Bible Classic Edition and in the Updated Edition:

Ephesians 2:8-9
Amplified Bible, 1965, 1987 Classic Edition (AMPC): 

"For it is by free grace (God’s unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God; Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law’s demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]" 

 Ephesians 2:8-9
Amplified Bible, 2015 Updated Edition (AMP): 

"For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God; not as a result of [your] works [nor your attempts to keep the Law], so that no one will [be able to] boast or take credit in any way [for his salvation]."

Sunday, July 12, 2020

THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2


ABSTRACT

When John the Baptist and Jesus preached “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matthew 3:2, 4:17), what did they mean? How do we understand the word “Repent”? Unfortunately there’s a lot of confusion today about the meaning of repentance. Curtis Hutson writes: “The problem is not preaching repentance; it is giving a wrong definition to the word. Down through the centuries ‘repent’ has come to mean a far different thing than when it was spoken by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, and Jesus Christ Himself.”1 

The Greek word for repent in Matthew 3:2 and 4:17 (the first two occurrences of the word in the NT) is metanoeite. The Roman Catholic Church has translated it: “Do penance”. But in the 16th century a Roman Catholic philosopher and scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) wrote against the Catholic interpretation of repentance as penance. Some of the things he wrote are very helpful in regards to understanding the true meaning of repentance. He concluded that repentance is not “pious tears and obligatory duties” but is instead “a change of mind”. Erasmus was influential in shaping Martin Luther’s understanding of repentance and paving the way for the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, one author goes so far as to say: “The Reformation could not have happened without Desiderius Erasmus”.2 It is Erasmus’ Annotations on “repent” in Matthew 3:2 that is the focus of this article. 


 EDITOR'S PREFACE. 

Some Protestants may be tempted to think that since Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, therefore his writings are irrelevant. But thank God that Martin Luther didn’t feel this way! It was the writings of Erasmus as understood by Luther which sparked the Protestant Reformation. And in particular it was what Erasmus wrote about the word “repent” in Matthew 3:2 and 4:17 that opened Luther’s eyes to the truth of the Gospel. 

Never before, to my knowledge, have these Annotations of Erasmus on Matthew 3:2 been translated into English. If an English translation was ever made, it does not appear to be widely available, and at the time of this writing I have yet to find it. I was able to locate a few translated fragments, but even in these few cases, I did my own translation from the Latin and only used the other English translations to check my own work. In these few instances where other English translations are available, this information is cited in the notes. 

I painstakingly checked and rechecked my translation using several critical Latin-English dictionaries, as well as using other language tools that are available online. It took several hundred hours of intense research and analysis to work through this translation and reconstruct the sentences into English. I thank the Lord that He gave me the opportunity and ability to do this important work. 

May God be pleased to use this translation to open the eyes of those who sit in darkness, and may they come to see, as Luther did, the truth of the gospel and of God’s amazing grace!

— J. PERREAULT. 

 
THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2. 

Metanoeite [in Greek]. Which is usually translated [in the Latin Vulgate], Do penance. I imagine that Poenitete [Repent], or Poenitemini [Be repentant], seemed insufficient Latin [to Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate]: although it changes elsewhere. But our common people consider do penance to be a prescribed punishment which somehow atones for faults that have been committed, because concerning Christians, those who had sinned publicly, having been cast out of the fellowship, they were openly afflicted. And that satisfaction, or punishment, began to be called penance. Indeed with reference to these circumstances, [there was] a not small error by some theologians, because of something Augustine said about repentance, that is, public satisfaction, he wrote [in City of God, book 21, chapter 9], spiritual pain, which they call contrition, they distort [this]. In any case metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, from perceiving afterwards: when someone having made a mistake, finally after the fact, recognizes his error. Which according to a proverb of Homer, The wisdom of fools. Also look at another proverb [Hippolytus, 436], Second thoughts are better. And hence we read, I repent having made man, Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 24, instead of repented read reflected upon [or thought over], according to the reliable oldest codex. It is similarly called metameleia [in Greek]: when we are heedless in taking action, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own suffering. Of the Greek word [for repentance] Tertullian elegantly commented in Against Marcion book II: Now in Greek, he says, the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind. In my judgment it [Metanoeite] can be properly translated Recover your senses, or Return to a right mind. For indeed he comes to his senses, whose former life is displeasing to him. But [the Latin Vulgate says] to do penance, instead of to be led to repentance, I refuse to pronounce a barbarous solecism, and not remember to read the writings of good authors. Act of repentance, instead of touched by repentance, [occurs only] once in Suetonius. And Pliny [the Younger] in his Letters [7.10], repent of its former repentance, is found, not to mention an additional case from his uncle [Pliny the Elder]. Thus to say, to do penance, instead of to repent: [is similar to] how we say, to conduct your life a certain way, instead of [simply] to live. Valerius Maximus put it perfectly in the chapter Wise Words and Deeds: [Socrates] responded, whichever you choose, you will repent, and from these statements which immediately precede, it is easily seen, what repentance is. Just as when we say, I have married the woman, but repent. Fabius [Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory], book 9 [chapter 3.12], indicates that Sallust wrote, not intending to repent, for not intending to do penance. Moreover, I am not very favorable to periphrasis [such as], Repent of your former life, or Repent of your failings. And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined. Although it was not this way at the very outset and thus [by this custom of doing penance] the wholesome satisfaction is destroyed, which accompanies a return to a right understanding, and puts an end to pious tears [and] ceremonial duties, & which [it is thought] somehow pay for the offense, but if the Greek word, [is] not derived from punishment, as it seems to some, [who translate it] penance, whereas more likely it would be derived from comprehending afterwards, and indeed by coming to one’s senses, it is described as a change of mind


THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2.
A LINE-BY-LINE TRANSLATION WITH NOTES

Poenitentiam agite. Metanoeite. Quod plerumque vertit, Poenitentiam agite. Opinor quod Poenitete, sive Poenitemini, parum Latinum videretur: quanquam & sic vertit alicubi. 

“Do Penance.” Metanoeite [in Greek]. Which is usually translated [in the Latin Vulgate], Do penance. I imagine that Poenitete [Repent], or Poenitemini [Be repentant], seemed insufficient Latin [to Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate]: although it changes elsewhere. 

Notes: None


At nostrum vulgus putat esse poenitentiam agere, praescripta poena quapiam luere commissa, 

But our common people consider do penance to be a prescribed punishment which somehow atones for faults that have been committed, 

Notes: Wengert translates it: “But our crowd considers ‘do penance’ to mean paying some prescribed penalty imposed [on them]” (Timothy J. Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event” Lutherjahrbuch 85 [2018], p. 46, brackets his). Rummel translates it: “Our people think that poenitentiam agite means to wash away one's sins with some prescribed penalty...” (Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations, p. 152, ellipsis hers.)


quod apud Christianos, qui publice peccassent, ejecti e consortio, propalam affligerentur. Eaque satisfactio, sive poena, poenitentia vocari coepta. 

because concerning Christians, those who had sinned publicly, having been cast out of the fellowship, they were openly afflicted. And that satisfaction, or punishment, began to be called penance

Notes: Wengert gives this translation: “because concerning Christians who sinned publicly, they were cast out of the fellowship and openly afflicted. And that satisfaction or punishment began to be called penance.” (Timothy J. Wengert, “The 95 Theses as a Template for Lasting Liturgical Reform,” Institute of Liturgical Studies Occasional Papers [Fall 11-2017], p. 6; cf. Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event” Lutherjahrbuch 85 [2018], p. 46.)


Qua quidem ex re, non mediocris error Theologis quibusdam, 

Indeed with reference to these circumstances, [there was] a not small error by some theologians, 

Notes: Wengert translates it: “Indeed, from this fact there was a not small error by some theologians [...]”. The phrase “a not small error” is attributed to Wengert. (See Timothy J. Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event” Lutherjahrbuch 85 [2018], p. 46.) Literally in English the phrase would be “not a mediocre error”.


qui quod Augustinus de poenitentia, hoc est, publica satisfactione, scripsit, 

because of something Augustine said about repentance, that is, public satisfaction, he wrote [in City of God, book 21, chapter 9], 

Notes: Wengert translates it: “[...] who twisted what Augustine wrote about penance (that is, public satisfaction) into a sorrow of the soul, which they call contrition.” (Timothy J. Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event” Lutherjahrbuch 85 [2018], p. 46.)
 

ad animi dolorem, quam contritionem vocant, detorquent. 

spiritual pain, which they call contrition, they distort [this]. 

Notes: Commenting on Mark 9:43-48; 2 Cor. 11:29; Isa. 51:8, Augustine wrote: “it is absurd to suppose that either body or soul will escape pain in the future punishment,—yet, for my own part, I find it easier to understand both as referring to the body than to suppose that neither does; and I think that Scripture is silent regarding the spiritual pain of the damned, because, though not expressed, it is necessarily understood that in a body thus tormented the soul also is tortured with a fruitless repentance.” (Augustine, City of God, book 21, chapter 9.) 


Alioqui metanoia dicta est a metanoein, hoc est, a posterius intelligendo: 

In any case metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, from perceiving afterwards: 

Notes: Wengert translates it: “However, metanoia is derived from metanoein [...]” (Timothy J. Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event,” Lutherjahrbuch 85, [2018], p. 46, ellipsis his). Rummel translates it: “...yet metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, to come to one's senses afterwards -” (Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament [University of Toronto Press, 1986, JSTOR], p. 152, ellipsis hers). The Latin phrase posterius intelligendo means “perceiving afterwards”. The Latin phrase can be variously translated into English as: “recognizing afterwards,” “understanding afterwards,” “realizing afterwards,” “discerning afterwards”. 


ubi quis lapsus, re peracta, tum demum animadvertit erratum suum. 

when someone having made a mistake, finally after the fact, recognizes his error. 

Notes: Rummel translates it: “- when someone who sinned, finally, after the fact, recognizes his error.” (Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament [University of Toronto Press, 1986, JSTOR], p. 152.) Literally, “when someone having slipped (having lapsed, having fallen, having erred, having sinned), [and that] being done (accomplished, completed, finished), then finally he observes (notices, perceives, discerns, sees) his error.” The Latin verb animadvertit (“recognizes”) means “to direct the mind or attention to a thing, to attend to, give heed to, to take heed, consider, regard, observe,” also: “To mark, notice, observe, perceive, see, discern”. (Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary [New York: American Book Company, 1890], p. 59.) 


Quae juxta proverbium Homericum, Prudentia stultorum est

Which according to a proverb of Homer, The wisdom of fools

Notes: Rummel writes: “Regarding poenitentiam agere (to do penance), the Vulgate translation of metanoeite (repent), Erasmus noted that the Greek word referred to a mental process, not a rite. He illustrated this by quoting Homer.” (Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 46.)


Eodem spectat alterum proverbium, δευτερών φροντίδων αμεινόνων

Also look at another proverb [Hippolytus, 436], Second thoughts are better

Notes: Cf. Liddel and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon entry for the word φροντίς. Under the meaning “thought, reflection, meditiaton” the lexicon says: “prov., αἱ δεύτεραί πως φ. Σοφώτεραι Id. Hipp. 436.” This can be literally translated: “proverb, the second thoughts are wise (ones), Hippolytus, 436.”


Unde quod nos legimus, poenitet me fecisse hominem, Augustinus de Civit. Dei libro decimo quinto cap. Vigesimo quarto pro poenituit legit recogitavit, juxta fidem vetusissimi codicis. 

And hence we read, I repent having made man, Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 24, instead of repented read reflected upon [or thought over], according to the reliable oldest codex. 

Notes: This is a reference to Genesis 6:6, quoted by Augustine in his book City of God. See the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 6:6, which says: “It repented him that he had made man on the earth.” The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation based on the Latin Vulgate. Interestingly, for Genesis 6:6 the Latin Vulgate has poenituit (“repented”), while the older Vetus Latina has recogitavit (“thought over”). The Vetus Latina are the Old Latin manuscripts that predate the Latin Vulgate. For Genesis 6:6, the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) says: “Et cogitavit Deus quia fecit hominem super terram, et recogitavit” which can be translated: “And God considered the consequence of the fact that He made man on earth, and He thought [it] over.” Cf. “Vulgata + Vetus Latina” (http://vulgate.net/vt/gn6-6). The Old Latin manuscripts are Latin translations of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which was produced in the mid 3rd century BC. For Genesis 6:6, the Brenton LXX translates it: “then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply.” The Bible affirms that it is wise to give thought to one’s ways: “The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception” (Proverbs 14:8, NIV).


Indidem dicta est metameleia: 

It is similarly called metameleia [in Greek]: 

Notes: Or, From the same place is the word metameleia. The Latin word Indidem means “From the same place, stock, origin”. The comparison that Erasmus is making is somewhat unclear. He seems to be comparing metameleia to the other Greek word metanoeo (repent), or possibly to the Latin word poenitet (repent). Erasmus uses both words in the immediate context.


cum socordes in re peragenda, sero incipimus esse attenti, jam admoniti nostris malis. 

when we are heedless in taking action, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own suffering. 

Notes: Brendan Cook gives the following translation: “While the wise avoid mistakes in the first place, the foolish must feel the painful consequences of their choices before correcting themselves. ‘For when we are heedless in taking action,’ Erasmus says, clarifying why he feels the original Greek is best expressed by resipiscere, ‘we become aware too late, admonished by our own suffering.’” (Brendan Cook, “The Uses of Resipiscere in the Latin of Erasmus: in the Gospels and Beyond.” Canadian Journal of History, Volume 42, Number 3, Winter 2007.) The Latin word socordes means “foolish, blockish, stupid, thoughtless, senseless, etc.” (see Charlton T. Lewis, A New Latin Dictionary [New York: 1907], p. 1716). And the Latin word malis (the plural of malus) means “evils” or “wrongs”. So a more literal English translation of Erasmus’ statement would be: “when something is done foolishly, stupidly, thoughtlessly, or senselessly, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own wrongs (bad choices).” Think of the regret (metamelētheis) of Judas in Matthew 27:3, for example.


Graecae vocis elegantiam annotavit Tertullianus libro adversus Marcionem secundo: Nam & in Graeco, inquit, sono poenitentia nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione compositum est. 

Of the Greek word [for repentance] Tertullian elegantly commented in Against Marcion book II: Now in Greek, he says, the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind. 

Notes: Cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion, ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY: TRANSLATIONS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS DOWN TO A.D. 325., 24 Volumes, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868), p. 107.


Meo judicio commode verti poterat Resipiscite, sive Ad mentem redite

In my judgment it [Metanoeite] can be properly translated Recover your senses, or Return to a right mind

Notes: This statement has been variously translated. James Simpson translates it as follows: “By my judgment it would be more properly translated ‘recover one’s senses,’ or ‘reflect’” (Simpson, Burning To Read: English Fundamentalism and Its Reformation Opponents [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007], p. 74.) Timothy Wengert translates it: “In my judgment, it could be properly translated ‘Recover your senses!’ or ‘Return to a right mind!’” (Wengert, Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015], p. xxxiii.) Also see the article “The Ninety-Five Theses: The Little Spark That Grew Into A Reforming Fire” by James F. Korthals, who translates the same phrase: “In my judgment, it [that is, metanoeite] could be properly translated ‘Recover your senses!’ or ‘Return to a right mind!’” (Korthals, “The Little Spark that Grew into a Reforming Fire,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 114, No. 3 [Summer 2017], p. 177, brackets his.) Korthals is apparently quoting Wengert whom he cites in the footnotes (Ibid, see footnote 49).


Siquidem resipiscit, cui vita superior displicet. 

For indeed he comes to his senses, whose former life is displeasing to him. 

Notes: Or, “…the man who comes to his senses is displeased with his former life.” (Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 152.)


Caeterum, poenitentiam agere, pro affici duci-que poenitudine

But [the Latin Vulgate says] to do penance, instead of to be led to repentance

Notes: For the phrase to be led to repentance, cf. Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9. The phrase can also be translated: to be moved to repentance (cf. Prov. 21:1; 2 Cor. 3:14-16).


ut nolim pronunciare barbarum ac soloecum, 

I refuse to pronounce a barbarous solecism, 

Notes: Or, I refuse to recite a badly formed expression and incorrect speech. No doubt Erasmus is referring to the phrase "Do penance".


ita non memini legere apud probos Auctores. 

and not remember to read the writings of good authors. 

Notes: None


Actus poenitentia, pro ductus poenitudine, semel est apud Suetonium. 

Act of repentance, instead of touched by repentance, [occurs only] once in Suetonius. 

Notes: This work of Suetonius may be lost to history because I could find no reference to the phrase “actus poenitentia” in his extant writings. The other Latin phrase that Erasmus uses here is “ductus poenitudine”. How is this phrase to be translated into English? What are some possible English translations? Interestingly enough, the same Latin phrase is also found in the Latin Vulgate in Deuteronomy 30:1. The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, which is basically just an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, translates the phrase “ductus poenitudine” in Deuteronomy 30:1 as “touched by repentance”. The Brenton Septuagint (a Greek translation from the Hebrew) says “call to mind” (see Deut. 30:1, Brenton LXX). Deuteronomy 30:1 in the King James Version also says “call them to mind” (the word “them” is supplied by the translators). Some other Bible translations of Deuteronomy 30:1 read: “call them to mind” (ASV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, Webster's), “take to heart” (NLT), “take them to heart” (NIV, Darby), “come to your senses” (CSB, HCSB), “realize” (CEV), “remember” (GNT), “reflect upon” (NET), “bethink thyself” (JPS Tanakh 1917), “brought them back unto thy heart” (Young’s Literal Translation), and Tyndale, in his translation of the Pentateuch, translates it: “turn unto thine heart”.


Et apud Plinium in Epistolis, poenitentia poenitentiam egit, reperitur, sed addito casu paterno. 

And Pliny [the Younger] in his Letters [7.10], repent of its former repentance, is found, not to mention an additional case from his uncle [Pliny the Elder]. 

Notes: None


Sic enim dixisse videtur, poenitentiam agere, pro poenitere: quemadmodum dicimus, vitam agere, pro vivere

Thus to say, to do penance, instead of to repent: [is similar to] how we say, to conduct your life a certain way, instead of [simply] to live

Notes: The Latin phrase vitam agere is literally translated: "to act life" (see B. L. Ullman, Elementary Latin [New York: MacMillan, 1923], p. 69.) The phrase vitam agere can also be translated: "To LIVE: —accordingly as one professes" (William Robertson, A Dictionary of Latin Phrases [London, 1824], p. 618). The other word vivere can also be translated: to be alive. So vivere can either be translated to live, or to be alive


Absolute posuit Valerius Maximus cap. De Sapienter dictis ac factis: Respondit, utrum horum fecisse, poenitentiam acturum, quod ex iis, quae mox praecedunt, facile liquet, cujus rei sit poenitudo. 

Valerius Maximus put it perfectly in the chapter Wise Words and Deeds: [Socrates] responded, whichever you choose, you will repent, and from these statements which immediately precede, it is easily seen, what repentance is. 

Notes: See Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings, book 7, chapter 2: Wise Words and Deeds


Veluti quum dicimus, duxi uxorem, sed poenitet.  

Just as when we say, I have married the woman, but repent. 

Notes: This statement by Erasmus refers back to Socrates’ response. In the original context, Socrates is answering the question of a young man who asked him if it is better to marry or to remain single. 


Fabius lib. nonus [9] indicat Sallustium scripsisse, non poeniturum, pro non acturum poenitentiam. 

Fabius [Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory], book 9 [chapter 3.12], indicates that Sallust wrote, not intending to repent, for not intending to do penance

Notes: Cf. Alexander Adam, A Compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue (Edinburgh: 1805), p. 345; E. A. Andrews, A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1851), p. 1155; also see the comments by Philip N. Shuttleworth, Not Tradition, But Scripture (London: 1839), p. 97. The Latin phrase non acturum poenitentiam can also be translated “not intending to do repentance”.


Caeterum non admodum arrisit periphrasis, Vitae prioris poenitentiam agite, aut, Delictorum poenitentiam agite. 

Moreover, I am not very favorable to periphrasis [such as], Repent of your former life, or Repent of your failings. 

Notes: Periphrasis is defined as the “use of a longer phrasing in place of a possible shorter form of expression” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) or similarly, “the using of several words to express the sense of one” (Alexander Adam, A Compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue [Edinburgh, 1814], p. 516). The Latin word caeterum (also spelled ceterum; masculine ceterus, feminine cetera, neuter ceterum), which I have translated as "Moreover," can be variously translated, depending on the context. Harper's Latin Dictionary gives this definition: “[...cf. heteros], the other, that which exists besides, can be added to what is already named of a like kind with it; the other part" also: "the remainder, the rest". (Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Harper's Latin Dictionary [New York: American Book Company, 1907], p. 323.) Another Latin dictionary gives this meaning for CETERUM: “In other respects, as to what remains, however” also: “in all other respects…as for the rest of the time…otherwise, in other things.” “After a negation: Although, yet, but”. (Peter Bullions, A Copious and Critical Latin-English Dictionary [New York: Sheldon and Company, 1882], p. 163.) 


Et tamen errant hominess pii juxta ac erudite, quibus circumitio magis placuit, ne quis calumniaretur, ut nunc sunt mores ac tempora, poenitentiam ab Evangelio profligatam. 

And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined. 

Notes: An alternate translation is given by Rummel: “Erasmus comments that ‘there were men, both pious and erudite, who preferred the circuitous poenitentiam agite – [I am saying this] lest someone slander me, as often happens in this day and age, saying that I eliminate penance from the Gospel.’” (Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 153, brackets hers.)


Quanquam non protinus ideo profligatur salubris illa satisfactio, 

Although it was not this way at the very outset and thus [by this custom of doing penance] the wholesome satisfaction is destroyed, 

Notes: None


quae comitatur resipiscentiam, 

which accompanies a return to a right understanding, 

Notes: The Lexico online dictionary gives this helpful information on the Latin word resipiscentia: “post-classical Latin resipiscentia repentance from classical Latin resipīscent-, resipīscēns, present participle of resipīscere to regain consciousness, to become sane again, to recover one's reason, to come to one's senses again, to see reason”. Compare the following translation of Lactantius: “For he who repents of that which he has done, understands his former error; and on this account the Greeks better and more significantly speak of metanoia, which we may speak of in Latin as a return to a right understanding [resipiscentiam].” (The Works of Lactantius, translated by William Fletcher [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871], 2 Vols., Vol. 1, p. 416.) 


ac lachrymis piis que officiis delet, 

and puts an end to pious tears [and] ceremonial duties, 

Notes: None


& quodammodo pensat delictum, 

& which [it is thought] somehow pay for the offense, 

Notes: Or, somehow compensates for the wrong. In other words, it is thought by some people that pious tears and obligatory duties pay for the offense, in some measure. 


si Graeca vox, non a poena

but if the Greek word, [is] not derived from punishment

Notes: None


ut quibusdam videtur, ducta poenitentia

as it seems to some, [who translate it] penance

Notes: None


quum probabilius sit ductam a pone tenendo, 

whereas more likely it would be derived from comprehending afterwards

Notes: Or, re-comprehending, reconsidering, rethinking. See E. A. Andrews, A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1851): the entry for the Latin word teneo, I. A. 1., “comprehend a thing which is palpable or evident” and also entry I. B. 1., “To hold, contain in the mind, to conceive, comprehend, know” (pp. 1528, 1529). The Latin word pone means after, backward, back, behind. The Latin phrase pone tenendo can be literally translated “comprehending afterwards” or in other words, “to understand a thing after it is done”. (Cf. The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, translated from the original Latin, by the Rev. G. W. Williard [Cincinnati: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888], p. 469.)


sed a resipiscendo

and indeed by coming to one’s senses

Notes: Or, recovering one’s senses, returning to a right mind, returning to a right understanding. The Latin verb is resipisco which is translated: “to recover one's senses, come to one's self again; to revive, recover and also: “are returned to your senses, become reasonable” (Charlton T. Lewis, A New Latin Dictionary [New York: 1907], p. 1579). Professor John Hey, in his Lectures in Divinity delivered at the University of Cambridge in the late 18th century, gives the following definition: “resipiscere: from re and sapesco, as it were; to recover one's sense; one's right mind.” In a footnote he goes on to explain that “Resipisco is used, in Suetonius, for recovering from a fainting-fit: resipiscentia was coined, from metanoia, in the time of Lactantius, (Ainsworth); there is no idea of conduct in either resipisco or metanoeo, except as far as reformation may be supposed to follow, of course, from recovering one's right mind, or reforming one's principles [beliefs];metamelomai, to be uneasy, is only a step toward such change of mind; as has been observed at St. Mary's by Mr. Dixon of Bene’t College.” (John Hey, Lectures in Divinity Delivered at the University of Cambridge [Cambridge: 1822], Vol. 3, p. 459, emphasis his.) Cf. Bede, Commentary on Genesis. See Bede’s comments on Genesis 3:8b where resipiscendo is translated “repentance”: “They hide themselves from the face of God, not in such a way that the inward Judge does not see their conscience, but that they may never see the glory of His face except by repentance.”


mutataque sententia deducitur. 

it is described as a change of mind

Notes: Or, change of opinion, feeling, thought, vote, sentence. Martin Luther also affirmed that the Greek word metanoia means “a change of mind”. In a letter to Staupitz, dated Trinity Sunday, 1518, Luther wrote: “Afterwards, by the favor of the learned, who are so zealously transmitting to us the Greek and Hebrew, I learned that the same word in Greek is metanoia, so that repentance or metanoia is ‘a change of mind.’ This corresponded so aptly with the Pauline Theology, that, in my judgment, scarcely anything can more aptly illustrate Paul.” (Martin Luther, quoted by Henry E. Jacobs, Elements of Religion [Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran church in North America, 1913], p. 281.)


Nos igitur utrunque vertimus, ut omnibus quantum licet gratificemur. 

Therefore we translate both of the two [words], so that I may oblige everyone as much as possible. 

Notes: I.e. both words. This seems to be either a reference to metanoeo and poenitentia, or to metanoeo and resipiscendo



ENDNOTES

1 Curtis Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1986), p. 3.

2 Katherine Little, “Before Martin Luther, there was Erasmus – a Dutch theologian who paved the way for the Protestant Reformation,” The Conversation, October 29, 2019, https://theconversation.com/before-martin-luther-there-was-erasmus-a-dutch-theologian-who-paved-the-way-for-the-protestant-reformation-124861. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Erasmus, All the Works of Desiderus Erasmus, Reading the Greek New Testament, with translation by Desiderus Erasmus of Roterdam, Professor of Theology. Notes on Matthew 3:2. Note 1 on Poenitentiam agite and Metanoeite, pp. 17-18.
     
Erasmus, Annotations on the Gospel, Matthew 3:2. Note 2 on Metanoeite, pp. 84-85. 
    
Erasmus, Annotations on the New Testament (1527), Matthew 3:2. Note on Poenitentiam agite and Metanoeite, pp. 17-18.


Desiderius Erasmus
(1466-1536)

Monday, July 6, 2020

Is the United States Prophesied in Ezekiel 38:13?


Some Bible teachers say that the United States of America isn't found in the Bible or in Bible prophecy. But recently it struck me that that's like saying the Rapture of the Church isn't found in Bible prophecy! It may not be mentioned using those exact words, but the Rapture is clearly described in other ways. Similarly, the word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible either. Are we to conclude therefore that the Trinity is not Biblical or is not found in the Bible? Of course not. Yet unfortunately this is the reasoning which some have in regards to the United States in Bible prophecy. We need to correct our thinking in this area and really study God's Word and compare Scripture with Scripture to find the truth: "Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of Truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). 

Yesterday I was listening to Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries as she and a co-host talked about Bible prophecy in light of current events. The co-host commented that if the United States is "the young lions of Tarshish" mentioned in the Bible, then our country can be found in Bible prophecy. Jan agreed that Ezekiel 38:13 does appear to be a reference to the United States.

I immediately started to do more research on this topic, and I must say that it's a fascinating study! Many Bible scholars believe that "the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof" (Ezek. 38:13, KJV) is a reference to Great Britain and its colonies ("the young lions thereof")—one of which is the United States of America. The key Bible verses that I came across which mention "Tarshish" or "the ships of Tarshish" are: 
  • Genesis 10:4; 
  • 1 Kings 10:22; 
  • 2 Chron. 9:21, 
  • 2 Chron. 10:36; 
  • Psalm 72:10; 
  • Isaiah 2:16, 
  • Isaiah 60:9; 
  • Jeremiah 10:9; 
  • Ezekiel 27:12, 
  • Ezekiel 38:13; 
  • Jonah 1:3. 
  • Also see Ezekiel chapter 19 where "lions" and "young lions" clearly refer to kings and nations. 

Let's look carefully at several of these key verses:

JONAH 1:3

"But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD."

This is probably the most familiar reference to "Tarshish" in the Bible. Notice how well the historical account supports the conclusion that the biblical "Tarshish" is the present-day British Isles, or in other words, "Britain is the land of Tarshish":
   "When Jonah, also, arose up to flee unto Tarshish, he sailed from Joppa on the coast of Syria, and the circumstances mentioned (in Jonah 1,) imply that his voyage was of some length, and coupled with the intention which led him to undertake it, makes it probable that the Tarshish he sought was the Cassiterides, or Tin Islands, the most distant and least known colony of Tyre. The account of this portion of his history is as follows: 'But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish, from the presence of the Lord, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.'
   The circumstance of his paying the fare being mentioned, coupled with his attempting to fly from the presence of the Almighty, leads to the supposition that his voyage was one of more than ordinary length, and for which the amount paid for the fare would be considerable: whilst the very idea of fleeing from the presence of the Almighty, would suggest to his mind the necessity of seeking the most distant asylum:—Britain, in the furthest known west, beyond the bounds of knowledge to any nation except the Phoenicians and for ages afterwards regarded as beyond the borders of the earth. ('divisos orbe Britannos.'—Horace.) This unknown spot appears to have been considered by Jonah as the one most secure from the penetrating search of the Almighty." ("The Churchman's Monthly Review and Chronicle" [January, 1842], pp. 62-63.)

Similarly, Pastor Chuck Smith (1927-2013) comments: 
Jonah was arising and seeking to flee from the presence of the Lord, heading for Tarshish. Biblical scholars are divided as to the location of Tarshish. Some say it is a part of Spain; others say it is England. The preponderance of scholars seem to favor England. Wherever Tarshish was, it was the furthest outpost of the known world at that time. It was the jumping off. You can't go any farther than Tarshish from the civilized world. It was the end. It was as far as you could go. Beyond Tarshish lay that wild, boisterous Atlantic, and out there somewhere that precipice, that chasm, that just the ships dropped off into oblivion. No ships ever came back from their voyages on the Atlantic. They surely must have gone over the edge of the world someplace and disappeared. So Tarshish was as far as you dared to go, and that is where Jonah was heading. "I'm going to get as far away from God as I can. I'll head for Tarshish. I'll hide from the call of God, from the presence of the Lord." (Charles Smith, "Commentary on Jonah 1:1-17". Chuck Smith Bible Commentary. 2014.)

PSALM 72:10

"The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts."

Commenting on this portion of text, C. H. Spurgeon identifies ancient Tarshish with Britain. He writes: "Psalm 72:10 The Kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: Britain and some of her sister islands shall do homage to this great Solomon."

ISAIAH 60:9

"Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee."

The English Puritan John Trapp (1601-1669) writes:
And the ships of Tarshish first,] i.e., With the first, or, In the beginnings, as the Vulgate hath it. The islands were converted as soon as any, as this of Britain is said to have been....Omnium provinciarum prima Britannia publicitus Christi nomen recepit ["Of all the provinces Britain first publicly accepted the name of Christ"], saith Sabellicus [Ennead. 7, lib. 5], Of all provinces, Britain first embraced the faith of Christ. From the which also, as we first of all the ten kingdoms [Revelation 17:7; Revelation 17:12] revolted to the Pope, so we were the first that shook off that yoke; our Henry VIII being the first that broke the neck of the Pope’s usurped authority.

The English preacher John Shawe of Christ's College, Cambridge, also affirmed this same history as authentic in a sermon preached to the English barons at York on Sunday, March 24, 1650. The words of Shawe are as follows:
"Very ancient historians call this our nation primogenitam ecclesiarum, the first begotten of all the churches, and tell us that though Christ was preached in some other nations before this, yet that this was the first wherein the christian faith was publicly entertained by prince and state; omnium provinciarum prima Britannia publicitus Christi nomen recepit; and they add that Lucius king of Britain was the first christian king in the world...[which was about] in the year after Christ, 169". (Yorkshire Diaries and Autobiographies in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, pp. 400-401.)

John Gill (1697-1771), the English Bible scholar and theologian, also understood "the ships of Tarshish" (Isa. 60:9) to be in reference to the ships of Great Britain. Gill writes: "what ships can be better understood than ours of Great Britain, so famous for shipping, and which claims the sovereignty of the seas?"

EZEKIEL 38:13

"Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?"

In a book titled "The Merchants of Tarshish, and the Young Lions Thereof," Are They Not England and Her Colonies?, Henry Smith Warleigh of England writes the following in regards to Ezekiel 38:13 and "the merchants of Tarshish" (pp. 32-34):
Let Americans look at this oracle. It mentions not only "the merchants of Tarshish," but "the young lions thereof." Now if the young progeny be lions, the old progenitor must be a lion too. The difference is only in age, not in kind. The symbol is an old, but not decayed lion, and a numerous and vigorous progeny. Plainly we must understand here a nation and her colonies. And who has not heard of the British Lion? and who is not acquainted with her numerous and flourishing colonies?
Let me here observe, that the inspiring Spirit often employs some of the known national heraldic emblems in setting forth the duties and destinies of that nation. Thus Daniel was taught to foretell the rise of the Medo-Persian empire, under the symbol of a ram, with one of its horns higher than the other; and Faber tells us of the observations of travellers, that to this day just such a ram may be seen carved on the pillars of Persepolis. The same Daniel foreshews the rise of the Grecian empire under the symbol of a goat; and I need not remind all here, that the Macedonians were called Ægeadæ, or the goat people; their city was called Ægæ, the goat city. Alexander, the founder of this empire, called his son Alexander Ægus; and who does not know where the Ægean sea is. Our Lord Himself alluded to the national standard of the Romans when He said, "Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together." And who will take upon him to affirm that the prescience of God had no reference to our national heraldry when He spoke of "the merchants of Tarshish, and the young lions thereof." In our national arms we have a lion rampant and three lions couchant. The third of these last was added by our brave Richard, who fought and conquered in Palestine, and bore the title of king of Jerusalem, and he adopted it because he believed he was fighting the battles of the "Lion of the tribe of Judah." I found no distinct argument on this fact; but it must be acknowledged to be worthy of observation, that it should be borne by the "merchants of Tarshish," the friends of the Jews....
The British Lion is old, but not decrepit. He is as strong and vigorous as ever, and his roar is not less terrible than it was. And America is one of our young lions, only, being the oldest, and not liking a pat or two from the paw of the old mother, she determined to walk alone, and cater for herself. And as she roars and roams abroad, we look on with pride, and think she does credit to her paternity. But though she is jealous of her independence, and very properly will not allow the old country to interfere, yet once let the old mother be hardly treated by the rest of the beasts of the field, and the "young lion" will claim her relationship, and spring to her help. When, the other day, there was a talk about a certain country invading us, what did she say through one of her chief organs of public expression? The words were few, and worthy of a young British Lion: "If the battle be between despotism and free institutions, America can show that she has money, and power, and soldiers, and ships, and sailors too; and it need not be told on which side America will be." A good roar that: the old lion could hardly have made a better. And after such a roar as this, can we, even in a lecture, wish to exclude our cousins in the new world? Nay, we cannot do without them, we do not wish to do without them, and let them understand that what we predicate of ourselves we predicate of them.

Samuel Minton of Oxford University wrote a book on the same topic titled "The Merchants of Tarshish," or England, America, and Russia in the Last War. Minton writes the following in regards to England and the United States in Bible prophecy (pp. 29-30): 
Further: in Ezekiel [27]. 12, we find Tarshish applied to a country that dealt largely in metals. And in Jeremiah x. 9, we find it also applied to a country that deals largely in manufactured articles, whether of metal or of clothing.
If, then, on looking round the nations of the earth at this moment, there shall be found one, and one only, upon which all these Scripture marks without exception are visible, why should we doubt it to be the nation intended by this prophecy of Ezekiel? And such a nation there is. England is the greatest mercantile and maritime nation in the world. England has ships of Tarshish such as no other people in the world have, even yet. England commands in great measure the East Indian trade. England is celebrated not only for her trade in metals, but especially for her trade in manufactured metals, and still more in manufactured clothing. England is a "merchant" in her love for peace, but a "lion" in her strength for war. And what country in the world can boast of such "young lions?" What country can claim to be the mother of a people, so young, so mercantile, possessing so many of her own characteristics, so fond of trade, so enterprising, and yet so ready and powerful for war, as the United States of America? They are, I believe, first and foremost, the young lions of Tarshish. I believe that "the merchants of Tarshish and all the young lions thereof," represent this British Empire with her colonies and dependencies, and also that great Transatlantic nation, our own flesh and blood, one with us in race, in language, and in religion—the United States of America. I believe it is mainly the combined power of England and America, that will be put forth in that last war, on the side of God's ancient people, against the huge confederacy by which they will be threatened, and on which the Lord himself will inflict the last decisive and terrific blow.

The Presbyterian minister J. P. Weethee, Principal of Madison College, Uniontown, PA, gives these insights in his book The Eastern Question, In Its Various Phases (p. 293):
Let us now turn to Spain, France, and England, as those countries identified with the Tarshish of the past and future. The ancient Phoenicians extended their commerce as far as England. This will scarcely be questioned; for England has the greatest tin mines. The ships of Tarshish traded as far north, therefore, as England. Tarshish is not now the name of those countries of western Europe, nor of any other country; but Ezekiel could not give them any other name than that by which they were then known; the name known in prophetic history. England, France, and Spain would still be called in prophecy by that ancient prophetic name, Tarshish. The prophecy contains an explanatory clause: "With all the young lions thereof (of Tarshish). The expression is this—"the merchants of Tarshish, with the young lions of Tarshish." Assuming, what we have proved, that England was the ancient Tarshish, and that Great Britain is the Tarshish of Eze. xxxviii. 13, or the chief of both the ancient and the future Tarshish, Who are "her young lions?" Tarshish of Ezekiel xxxviii. 13, has young lions. This is what Ezekiel says only in another form of expression—"with the young lions thereof." Tarshish had her "merchants," and her "young lions," her merchants and young colonies.

There is also an interesting article in The Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman titled "The Ships of Tarshish; or Great Britain in Unfulfilled Prophecy" written by E. J. Hytche. In the article, Hytche concludes that "Great Britain is the prophetic Tarshish". (Hytche, Alfred Edersheim, Editor, The Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman [1882], p. 91.)

M. R. DeHaan (1891-1965), the famous Bible teacher and founder of the Radio Bible Class, concurs with the above analysis. In his booklet Russia and the United Nations in Prophecy, DeHaan writes on pages 22-25:

THE SHIPS OF TARSHISH
   Now this pattern of things appears perfectly clear from the Scriptures, if one will study it carefully. We wish to call your attention especially to Ezekiel 38 and verse 13. After Russia comes to take the spoil of Palestine and has subjected the defenseless countries to her communistic rule, she will be opposed by certain nations which will stand in her way. Let me quote the verse again:
  "Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?"
 Ezekiel 38:13
   We see from this verse that Russia's advances are protested and opposed by these armies and her motives questioned, and these countries are called Dedan, Sheba, Tarshish and her young lions. Now Sheba according to the Bible expositors referred to the Arabian tribes in the south of Arabia, and Dedan refers to a people in the same area, and from the context it seems very, very evident that they are the African colonies which are associated with Tarshish in this last final battle. But when we come to the name, Tarshish, we have but little difficulty in identifying many of the United Nations who will defeat Russia in that day.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE
   The name, Tarshish, occurs about twenty times in the Scriptures. A careful study of these passages reveals some very interesting things. I have had a most profitable time looking up each one of these passages in its setting and context, and some wonderful truths have been brought to light. I mention a number of them which point very definitely to one nation, and her allies.
   1. The Jews spake of Tarshish as the uttermost land in their knowledge, the land which was farthest west from Palestine. In those days, of course, nothing was known of the western hemisphere and to the Jews in Palestine the land to uttermost west could, therefore, mean only England and the British Isles.
   2. We are further told that Tarshish was a merchant nation. Its pre-eminence lay in the fact that it was a nation of traders. Ezekiel speaks of the "merchants of Tarshish" in verse 13 of chapter 38, and it is also mentioned in other passages of Scriptures, especially in [Isaiah] 23, from 1 to 14.
   3. Tarshish was a maritime nation, its chief means of trading was by ships because of its island location. In 2nd Chronicles 9, verse 21; 2nd Chronicles 20:36; in Psalm 48:7; in Isaiah 2:16; and in Isaiah 23:6; as well as in Jonah, we have mention made of ships in connection with the country of Tarshish, so that the expression "ships of Tarshish" has become proverbial. In this connection remember that Britain has been the outstanding maritime nation of history. The slogan, "Britannia rules the waves" is too well known to all of us to leave any doubts in our minds.
   4. Tarshish is identified as an island nation. The Bible speaks of the "isles" beyond the sea. By this the Israelite understood the islands beyond the Mediterranean. The word, "the Sea" or "Great Sea" was the Hebrew expression for the Mediterranean Sea. The only isles which are found there are the British Isles. (See Jeremiah 25:22)
   5. Tarshish is also a nation with many colonies. Notice Ezekiel's words very carefully. Ezekiel says in the verse which we quoted, "the merchants of Tarshish with all the young lions thereof." Tarshish has cubs, called young lions, and we all know the familiar figure of a lion as the symbol of Britain. We speak of the British lion, and the figure of the lion on her banners is too well-known. We speak of the Lion of England, and know just exactly to what it refers.
   But this lion has cubs, according to Ezekiel. Britain's colonization has produced a litter of mighty cubs: the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, and all her English-speaking allies, and her colonies in Africa, represented by Sheba and Dedan. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind, therefore, after a diligent and exhaustive research that Dedan, Sheba and Tarshish in Ezekiel 38 can be nothing else than the Western Empires headed by Britain and her healthiest cub, the United States.
   In passing may I remind you that these countries, Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and the other English-speaking nations have always been the defenders of Israel, have always been kind to the Jews: over and over again they have given them haven, and protected them against their enemies, and defended them, even though in the handling of the Palestine problem many mistakes have been made for which God in turn will also judge these nations. We refer specifically to the terrible mistake of seeking to divide the land of Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews. But generally speaking, they are the ones who have befriended Israel, and so we are not surprised to find in Ezekiel 38 that it will be these nations who will contest and question Russia's attempt to take Palestine, and under God defeat Gog and Magog when they come down in the tribulation period.

More recently, Dr. Henry Morris also saw a connection between "the merchants of Tarshish and their young lions" (Ezek. 38:13) and England and America. In his book The Revelation Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Prophetic Book of the End Times (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1983, pp. 109-110) he writes:
The sudden invasion of Israel will be restricted verbally, though not militarily by "Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, and the young lions thereof" (Ezek. 38:13). Sheba and Dedan were in Arabia, and this passage suggests that the wealthy Arab oil states, themselves the objects of Russian cupidity [insatiable greed], may still at that time be outside Russian control. Tarshish is probably the same as Carthage, founded by the Phoenicians. "Tarshish" means "smeltry," and the ancient Phoenicians, the first great mariners, founded iron smeltries, mines, and settlements in many lands, including at least Spain and England, and quite possibly even in America. Thus "the merchants of Tarshish and their young lions," in modern equivalence, most likely are the western nations in general.
 
The Institute for Creation Research in their New Defender's Study Bible (Nashville: World Publishing, 2006), written by Dr. Henry Morris,  has this note on Ezekiel 38:13:
38:13 Tarshish. Tarshish was a grandson of Japheth through Javan (Genesis 10:4). Javan was ancestor of the Greeks and Tarshish seems to have migrated still farther west. His name is always associated with a far-flung merchant marine, possibly allied somehow with the Phoenicians. In the context of the last days, however, Tarshish and “the young lions thereof” would seem to represent nations of Japhethites (which would mean primarily Europeans and Americans) with widespread economic and maritime activities. Many scholars believe the city-state of Tarshish was originally in either Spain or Portugal or England, and it was these nations, of course, that primarily settled the Americas also. Thus, England, the United States and other Euro-American nations are probably the ones who will remonstrate with Gog over the projected invasion of their friend, Israel. The invasion will be so sudden and large, however, that they will not have time to send military aid to Israel, even if they want to.

Similarly, Dr. David Jeremiah shares the following thoughts on Ezekiel 38:12-13 from his New York Times best-selling book What in the World is Going On? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers [2008], pp. 171-173):
In a verse that follows this prophecy, Ezekiel spoke of some nations that will not be involved in the invasion of Israel: "Sheba, Dedan, the merchants of Tarshish, and all their young lions will say to you, 'Have you come to take plunder? Have you gathered your army to take booty, to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to take great plunder?'" (v. 13). Most Bible scholars believe that Sheba and Dedan refer to the peoples of the Arabian Peninsula, including modern-day Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and the Gulf countries of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
Tarshish was a term that in ancient times described the western-most part of human civilization. Many scholars believe that "the merchants of Tarshish" and its "villages" and "young lions" refer to the market-based economies of Western Europe. Some scholars have even dared to be more specific. Dr. David L. Cooper wrote, "When all the historical statements are examined thoroughly, it seems that the evidence is in favor of identifying Tarshish as England." Another scholar, Theordore Epp, agrees with this identification. He points out that the lion is a symbol for Britain and suggests that Britain's colonies, many of which have spun off to become nations of their own, are the cubs, or "young lions" in Ezekiel's prophecy. He said, "Great Britain's young lions, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the African colonies, and the United States are strong enough to make an exhibit of disfavor in that day."
If Theodore Epp and Dr. Cooper are right, it seems that the West in general will not participate in the invasion of Israel. What interests us in this study is that Ezekiel's prophecy of the alignment of nations, showing which ones will and which will not rise to crush Israel, squares very closely with the alignment of nations we see shaping up in the world right now. Thus we find that Ezekiel's ancient prophecy, written some twenty-six hundred years ago, informs us as to what is going on in the world today right before our very eyes.

Here are some other resources that I've found on the subject:
There are many more articles online!