|
Thank you for the excellent question, S. My grammatical analysis indicates the "two witnesses" are likely but two individuals. If the research is found to be inaccurate, I ask that it straightway be brought to my attention. My answer is written from the view that Revelation ch.11 is yet future. Feel free to share the following information in your discussion.
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture is from the King James Version.
- - - - - - -
The Two Witnesses: Two, Four, or More?
Revelation 11.3-14 contains three masculine plural demonstrative pronouns ("these"):
(Revelation 11.4-) These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks,
(Revelation 11.6-) These have power
(Revelation 11.-10-) these two prophets
The identity of "these" can be determined by exchanging an interrogative pronoun ("who?", "which?", or "what?") for the demonstrative and following the text back to the antecedent:
Who are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks?
(Revelation 11.-3-) My two witnesses
Who have power?
(Revelation 11.3-) And I will give power unto My two witnesses
Which two prophets?
(Revelation 11.3-) And I will give power unto My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
The majority of MSS for Revelation 11.3-14 contain 20 masculine 3rd person plural personal pronouns. By asking the question, Who? or Whose? we find the antecedent of these 20 personals is, like the demonstratives, "My two witnesses", the which we have just determined to be identical with "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks" of v.4 and the "two prophets" of v.10.
Revelation 11.5:
"hurt them" - Hurt who?
"their mouth" - Whose mouth?
"their enemies" - Whose enemies?
"hurt them" - Hurt who?
Revelation 11.6:
"their prophecy" - Whose prophecy?
Revelation 11.7:
"their testimony" - Whose testimony?
"against them" - Against who?
"overcome them" - Overcome who?
"kill them" - Kill who?
Revelation 11.8:
"their dead bodies" - Whose dead bodies?
"[their] Lord" - Whose Lord?
Revelation 11.9:
"their dead bodies" - Whose dead bodies?
"their dead bodies" - Whose dead bodies?
Revelation 11.10:
"over them" - Over who?
Revelation 11.11:
"into them" - Into who? The "two prophets" of v.10. But the antecedent of the demonstrative "these" is "My two witnesses".
"their feet" - Whose feet?
"saw them" - Saw who?
Revelation 11.12:
"unto them" - Unto who?
"their enemies" - Whose enemies?
"beheld them" - Beheld who?
Focus on vv.7-10 whilst I reiterate. Each of the masculine 3rd person plural personal pronouns in Revelation 11.3-14 takes the antecedent "My two witnesses". "My two witnesses" of v.3 "are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks" of v.4. Thus any of the above questions -- including those for vv.7-10 -- can be answered with "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks". This is destructive to the opinion that "only the two prophets are killed, not the churches."
But are "the two candlesticks" really two churches?
One argument in favor of this interpretation is that "critical" texts (which are based upon the so-called best MSS) read Revelation 11.8-9 with the singular "ptoma" ("dead body") two of three times instead of the plural "ptomata" ("dead bodies"). Some proponents interpret the singular here to mean the Body of Christ, i.e., the Church. Such an interpretation cannot possibly stand if the Rapture is pre-trib. If the Rapture is mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib, at least three problems still exist with this view:
1. First Thessalonians 4.15,17 seem clear that members of the Church, that is to say, members of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1.22-23, Colossians 1.18,24) will in fact be "alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord".
2. Throughout the NT the mystical Body is scribed as "soma," never "ptoma" (1Corinthians 12.27, Ephesians 1.22-23; 4.12, Colossians 1.18,24). Theological and spiritual applications to the flesh and blood body of Jesus use "soma," never "ptoma" (Matthew 26.26, John 2.21, Romans 7.4). Comparisons of the Body of Christ to the human body use "soma," never "ptoma" (Romans 12.4-5, 1Corinthians 12.12ff.). Every Bible occurrence of "ptoma" pertains to either a carcass (Judges 14.8, LXX), corpse (Matthew 14.12), fall, downfall, ruin, or calamity (Proverbs 16.18, LXX; Job 31.29, LXX; Isaiah 51.19, LXX). "Ptoma" and "soma" can be interchanged, but only in reference to a dead body (compare Matthew 24.28 to Luke 17.37).
3. Revelation 9.19 states that power is in the singular "stoma" ("mouth") of "the horses in the vision". Revelation 11.5 states that fire proceeds out of the singular "stoma" ("mouth") of "My two witnesses". Revelation 14.5 states that no guile was found in the singular "stoma" ("mouth") of the 144,000. This is the use of the collective singular. This is the apparent answer why some MSS read Revelation 11.8-9 with the singular "ptoma" ("dead body") instead of the plural. Collective singulars are common throughout Scripture. See Genesis 42.28, Psalms 5.9; 105.25, Ezekiel 34.10, Matthew 15.8; 17.6, Mark 6.52, John 10.39, Acts 2.37, Hebrews 8.10; 10.16, 1John 3.20,21, Jude 16, et. al.
Concerning the "and" of Revelation 11.4, it does not appear "the two olive trees" differ from "the two candlesticks" in the sense that any more than two individuals are analogized. Both phrases seem to function as coordinate predicates. The subject they modify is the demonstrative pronoun "these", the antecedent of which is "My two witnesses". The olive trees are emphasized no more than the candlesticks.
In all of Scripture the phrase "duo martus" ("two witnesses", Revelation 11.3) occurs only four other times. Each appearance refers to two and only two individuals (Deuteronomy 17.6; 19.15, LXX; Matthew 18.16, 2Corinthians 13.1). Two witnesses are the least to confirm the truth. But two are sufficient.
In all of Scripture the phrase "houtos ho duo" ("these -- the two", Revelation 11.10) occurs only four other times. Each appearance seems to refer to two and only two in number (Zechariah 4.14, LXX; Matthew 20.21; 22.40, Acts 1.24).
With most MSS the clause in question reads:
(Revelation 11.4-) "houtoi eisin hai duo elaiai kai hai duo luchniai"
(Revelation 11.4-) These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks,
Following "critical" texts, the syntax of the opening clause of 2Peter 2.17 is nearly identical:
(2Peter 2.17-) "Houtoi eisin pegai anudroi kai homichlai hupo lailapos elaunomenai"
(2Peter 2.17-, NASB) These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm
The 2Peter clause sheds light on how "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks" are probably to be understood. As we did with the demonstrative and personal pronouns in Revelation 11.3-14, the reader must trace the same here back to the antecedent -- the "false teachers" of 2Peter 2.1. Peter is not saying half of these false teachers are like "springs without water" and half are like "mists driven by a storm". No. He is saying false teachers are like dry wells. He is saying false teachers are like tempest-driven scud. The wells are emphasized no more than the scud. Each phrase paints the same subject, only with a different brush. See the similar comparison in Jude 12.
If Peter is saying:
"Springs without water and mists driven by a storm are what these false teachers can be compared to,"
then perhaps Revelation 11.4 is saying:
"The two olive trees and the two candlesticks are what these two witnesses can be compared to."
The definite article in each predicate seems to point to what is known. I leave it to the student to determine which two olive trees and two candlesticks the author may have in mind.
It is true that only four times in all of Scripture do we find the exact phrase "kai propheteusousin" ("and they shall prophesy") -- once in connection with "My two witnesses" (Revelation 11.3); thrice in connection with "your sons and your daughters", "My servants and . . . My handmaidens" (Joel 3.1,2, LXX; Acts 2.17,18). Intriguing as this is, if one wishes to argue the sons and daughters, the men-servants and maid-servants are the two witnesses, he must discredit the grammatical evidence indicating "My two witnesses", "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks," and "these two prophets" are but two individuals.
I hasten to add the Eternal does not fulfill His word according to man's interpretation of it. My understanding of the two witnesses may be far from the actual truth. Conviction, surety, and certitude of a matter does not necessarily mean the interpretation is correct. This is especially true when it comes to prophecy and the visions in the Apocalypse. For this reason I conclude that whatever opinion or conviction one may have of "My two witnesses", the view is not nearly as important as the applications from the passage we can and ought make to ourselves this very day. Let each redeemed soul examine him- or herself critically:
1. Am I an active, loyal, and unashamed witness of Christ?
2. Am I firmly planted and growing in the word of God that, through me, the Holy Spirit can enlighten others to His truth?
3. Am I continually bearing and holding up the light of the Gospel for all to see?
4. When necessary do I exercise the authority the Lord has given me?
5. Am I faithful in carrying out my Master's will in spite of opposition, mockery, and ridicule?
6. Am I so surrendered and committed to the Prince of Life that I am willing to die for Him, His work, and His kingdom?
7. Is my faith truly as such that I, like my brothers and sisters in Christ before me, will remain faithful under persecution and suffering, yea, even unto death?
To be sure, it is both well and good, even fun and exciting to study prophecy. It is indeed beneficial. But that study must not, it absolutely must not become so as to cause you to overlook the dear, precious souls within your own sphere of influence who even right now are perishing in their sins! These people need to hear about Jesus Christ -- from _you_. These people need to see Jesus Christ -- in _you_. Let us not fail to fulfill this great work, for God will fulfill prophecy _His_ way regardless of what interpretation we may come to or settle upon.
I hope this is helpful.
Thomas John Dexter
|