The biblical phrase "(the) ends of the earth" functions idiomatically to express maximal geographic scope. This study tests whether, in certain prophetic and salvation-historical contexts, the phrase can also function as the terminal horizon of the redemptive sequence being described. The study distinguishes three levels of meaning: (1) lexical sense (geographic extremity), (2) contextual function (terminal boundary of an unfolding mission/salvation sequence), and (3) theological implication (horizon of fulfillment). The argument operates at Level 2, not Level 1: it does not claim the phrase lexically means "time," but that a spatial boundary phrase can, in specific discourse environments, serve as a horizon-marker. The study grades thirty-two passages: sixteen primary passages, three falsification controls, and a thirteen-passage appendix corpus. Special attention is given to four Isaianic passages where "ends of the earth" converges with additional geographic markers (east, islands, far country) and eschatological context: Isaiah 41:1–20, Isaiah 24:15–16, Isaiah 62:11–12, and Isaiah 43:5–6. The Isaiah 49:6 → Acts 1:8 → Acts 13:47 trajectory is identified as the strongest intertextual backbone, defended against the competing Acts-as-closed-at-Rome reading by the structural argument of Pao (2000) and the open ending of the Lukan narrative. Revelation 7:2–3 is treated as a New Testament thematic parallel rather than a strict confirmation, since the phrase "ends of the earth" does not appear explicitly in that passage; the parallel rests on the convergence of east-direction language with sealing-before-judgment structure. The methodology incorporates three features designed to reduce author bias. First, the rubric uses a floor-to-ceiling rating system: every passage receives both a floor grade (the lowest a competent scholar arguing against horizon function could defensibly assign) and a ceiling grade (the highest defensible reading). The floor is treated as the operationally primary number, removing bias in the direction of the author's thesis. Second, the rubric was applied independently by three reviewers recruited through an online survey platform with filtering for active Christian practice and self-reported working knowledge of the Old Testament; reviewers worked from a brief that did not include this paper or its conclusions. The three rater outputs are reported in §6.4 with consensus floors and ceilings tabulated. Third, a falsification battery (§4.6) uses passages that should grade low if the convergent-marker hypothesis is correct. The convergent-marker hypothesis survives the falsification design: the primary-passage block grades substantially above the falsification controls (Deut 28:49, Ps 72:8, Zech 9:10) and above the appendix-block military and concrete-historical passages (Isa 5:26, Jer 6:22, Mt 12:42). The aggregate floor of the primary block is approximately B; the aggregate floor of the falsification controls is C−. This separation supports the claim that horizon function is a recognizable contextual feature, not an artifact of primary-passage selection.
Paul Joshua Stirba (Mon,) studied this question.