In the original Left Behind movie, the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11 are depicted as Rabbi-like old men in flowing robes, speaking cryptically to one of the main characters, and then spewing forth - let's face it - bad CGI fire from their mouths. This, unfortunately, is the image most of us have in our minds about who - or what - the two witnesses are. So, as always, let's read the Bible and try and keep an open mind as to what the Bible says, rather than what we think it should say:
So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."
I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for forty-two months. And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want to.
Now when they have finished their testimony, the Beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth (10:9 - 11:10).
Okay, so what did Left Behind get right?
1) It takes place in Jerusalem; 11:8 explicitly tells us that this happens in the city where the Lord was crucified.
2) Fire comes from their mouths and devours anyone who tries to kill them (11:5). However, it should be noted that this is a gruesome, violent thing to watch someone be consumed with fire. Don't be hardened by the CGI.
Some other things we know, for certain:
1) It takes place between the sixth and seventh trumpets:
But after three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here." And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on . . . The second woe has passed [see 8:13]; the third woe is coming soon.
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said. . . . (11:11-12; 14-15).
2) The Beast is already on earth, because he is the one who overpowers and kills them (11:7).
3) They resurrect, and are - literally - "raptured," or caught up in the air (11:11-12).
4)They have control over plagues, including turning water into blood (11:6).
5) Their "testimony" lasts for 1,260 days (11:3), and is given with an attitude of mourning (sackcloth represents mourning).
When you look at it, that isn't much. So let's veer for just a second and discuss, again, how debatable certain things really are. In my local church, we use a term: "open-handed issues." These are theological topics that, when it comes down to it, are disputable and shouldn't be used as a plumb line for heresy. While the list of these "open-handed issues" may very well be longer than is Biblically warranted, in a case like this, I truly believe anything else we may believe on this matter may be disputable. While I obviously lean towards certain interpretations, as you no doubt do as well, the real fact is that the Bible does not spell out much in regards to these witnesses. So any approach to this topic that says, "you must believe this, or else!" is, frankly, sinful. With that said, let's see some of these disputable matters.
1) Timing. Now, we know this takes place between the sixth and seventh trumpets, but what we don't know is what else is going on during this time. For example, does their 1,260-day period of testimony coincide with the 42 months of Gentile control in 11:2, or is there staggered timing on that? A straightforward reading of the text suggests they coincide, but that is an interpretative assumption.
Furthermore, does the 42-month period begin with the building of the temple, or has the temple been around for a few years, prior? Perhaps it begins with the dedication and opening of the temple? The text doesn't say, one way or the other.
Lastly, in terms of timing, where is this on the spectrum of the Beast Kingdom? We know the Beast is here, but has he risen from the dead yet? I would guess so, but it's unclear. Does he arrive during their period of testimony, or before it even begins? Also unclear. It's the first time he is mentioned in Revelation, but how long has he been on earth prior to this mention? Since the Fifth Trumpet? Before then?
2) The content of their testimony. Not much exposition on this, because all we're told is that they are witnesses (11:3), and they will eventually finish their testimony (11:7). It's probably a safe assumption that it's pro-Christ, perhaps even anti-Jerusalem [since Jerusalem is "figuratively called Sodom" here (11:8)], but exact words? None given.
3) The identity of the witnesses. Now, this is the big one, because there are a few different ways to reasonably take this, but since they contradict each other, we can safely say at least one of them is wrong; we just don't know which one. There are two main schools of thought here, and I want to look at each of them from a Biblical perspective.
The first is that these two witnesses are literal, living breathing men. A straightforward reading of the text allows for this:
They are called "witnesses" (3) - typically, people witness and testify.
They wear clothes (3)
They have mouths (5)
They can be harmed (5; 7)
They have bodies that lie in the streets of Jerusalem (8)
They are "two prophets" (10)
They have literal, physical feet (11)
A straightforward reading of this text gives the impression that these are two living, breathing people. They are not angels, as some suggest, because they can be killed. They are often called - quite literally - reincarnations of Moses and Elijah, but nothing in this text states that. However, since it is a popular idea, we should talk about that for a moment.
The real gist of the argument comes from the fact that it is both Moses
and Elijah who appear at the Transfiguration, and the "plagues" that the
two witnesses bring upon the earth are similar to those brought down by Moses and
Elijah. Truthfully, that's all pretty circumstantial. But what of the individual men themselves? Is there anything to support the idea that either Moses or Elijah will return?
In regards to Elijah, Malachi the prophet commented that Elijah would come again: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes" (4:5). However, Jesus clearly and without any ambiguity stated that John the Baptist "is the Elijah who was to come" (Matthew 11:14). He also said, when asked if Elijah would come before the Messiah, "'To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished.' . . . Then the disciples understood that He was talking to them about John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:11-13). While it's possible - I suppose - that Elijah will come a third time, there's no real reason to think that.
As far as Moses goes, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Moses will somehow return to be one of the witnesses. Not that I'm aware of, at least (but if you know of a passage that states that, let me know in the comments, please!). So Elijah's "return" has already happened, according to Jesus, and there's no talk in the Scriptures of Moses returning. Look, if you are someone who believes that Moses and Elijah will be the two witnesses in Revelation 11, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because the Bible simply doesn't state - but it also doesn't give any indication that this view is true.
I, personally, do not believe there's any evidence to support it, but the fact remains, the Bible does not identify them with specific people one way or the other, nor does it tell us, specifically, what is going on in the world at the time they appear, so identifying them with specific people alive here and now is also making large assumptions; maybe they're alive and preparing to witness, maybe not. Maybe they are Moses and Elijah, maybe not. Or . . . maybe they are symbols for something larger.
Look at verse 4: "These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth." So . . . any images of lampstands and olive trees anywhere else in the Bible? Because that would be great. Well, as it turns out, the very beginning of the Book of Revelation talks about seven lampstands:
"I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to His feet and with a golden sash across His chest . . . In His right hand He held seven stars. . . .
Then He placed His right hand on me and said . . . "The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in My right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches" (1:12-13; 16; 17; 20, emphasis mine).
Could the "lampstand witnesses" be symbolic of two churches? If so, which two? Moreover, what of the olive trees? Any passages that use "olive trees" symbolically? Well, Paul uses the image of an olive tree to depict the nation of Israel/Gentile church in Romans 11:
If some of the branches have been broken off [i.e., Israel], and you, though a wild olive shoot [i.e., Gentile believers], have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches (17-18).
Here, Israel and the Gentile world are both depicted as olive shoots. Paul, in context, is talking about Israel's rejection of Jesus and God's subsequent "grafting" of Gentiles into the Church, but the fact remains that he is most definitely referring to both Israel and Gentiles as two distinct olive branches. Elsewhere, Israel is depicted as an olive tree:
The LORD called you a thriving olive tree
with fruit beautiful in form.
But with the roar of a mighty storm
He will set it on fire,
and its branches will be broken (Jeremiah 11:16).
Hmmmm. So, lampstands stand for churches, and olive trees stand for both Gentiles and Jews. Of course, for me, the real test is whether or not a passage in the Bible actually puts these two images together. Turns out, Zechariah does just that:
Then the angel who talked with me returned and wakened me, as a man is wakened from his sleep. He asked me, "What do you see?"
I answered, "I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lights on it, with seven channels to the lights. Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left."
I asked the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?"
He answered, "Do you not know what these are?"
"No, my lord," I replied.
So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.
"What are you, O mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of 'God bless it! God bless it!'" . . .
. . . Then I asked him, "What are these two olive branches beside the two gold pipes that pour out golden oil?"
He replied, "Do you not know what these are?"
"No, my lord," I said.
So he said, "These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth" (Zechariah 4:1-7; 11-14).
Okay, as always, context is important, so it is truly in your best interest to go back and read Chapters 1-4. But the gist of them is this: God calls Israel to return from Babylon with a promise to restore Jerusalem and Israel, destroy the nations who mistreated her, and declare that His House would be rebuilt (Chapters 1-2). He also anoints Joshua as High Priest of the new temple (Chapter 3), and appoints Zerubbabel as the builder and chief architect (Chapter 4).
It appears, then, as if the two olive trees represent Joshua and Zerubbabel, the two men specifically anointed by God in order to build and maintain His House. It is interesting to note that John, in Revelation, references Zechariah 4:14 when he calls the two witnesses "The two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth" (Revelation 11:4).
So what do we have? We have lampstands that represent churches (Revelation 1), olive trees that stand for both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 11), and olive trees - anointing a lampstand - that stand for two men who serve God and build His Church, both physically and spiritually. In addition, John does spend time in Revelation differentiating between Jewish and Gentile believers. Even further, still, we have Joshua, who represents "the priesthood of God" in Zechariah, and Zerubbabel, the Governor, who represents the Kingship of Israel. One, in other words, represents the physical people of God, the other represents the spiritual people of God.
The possibility, then, is that these two witnesses stand for the Gentile and Jewish believers during this time period. Now, this interpretation has problems - most notably that "their bodies" lie in the streets of Jerusalem, a difficult feat if we're talking about a large group of hidden believers - but it is plausible. It is, for instance, plausible if the group of believers has massively dwindled by this point, because of the genocide of the Beast, but that idea is highly speculative, and should not, in any way, be taken as stated Biblical truth. My point is that interpreting the two witnesses as the two facets of the Church is plausible, but the most straightforward reading of the text still indicates that these are two actual men.
Bottom line: exactly how to take this passage is one of the unknowable parts of this book that I mentioned here. Of course, that begs the question: why bother to bring this up, if it is, indeed, "unknowable"? Because how we address this issue is reflective of how we view the urgency of the Gospel. Look, if we're studying this - and this applies to eschatology in general - if we're studying this with the purpose of knowing God and His Word, and of knowing how to identify prophetic events as they occur in order to be witnesses to those around us, then I'm all for it. If two men show up in Jerusalem and start testifying to the Gospel, and they are able to breathe fire from their mouths, then we (or Christians who come after us) can turn to this passage and show people that the Bible is true, and urge them to follow Jesus. It is a phenomenal witnessing tool.
But, if we treat this as some sort of riddle to be solved for our own intellectual curiosity, or a mystery to be decoded, and we start posting videos and websites making prophetic announcements that are unbiblical, then we have become false prophets, plain and simple. I've seen people who have tried to "identify" these witnesses, and they've claimed that we would see them by the end of 2014. Well, that failed, so the date changed to 2015. Well that obviously failed, too, so now they're saying we'll see the two witnesses emerge by the end of 2016. Folks, if someone is prophesying - not discussing, but actually proclaiming - future events, and it turns out their prophecies weren't true, they are false prophets. Stop following them.
We'll know the witnesses when - if - we see them. We know someone will see them; maybe we'll be here, maybe not. It may not happen for another fifty years. What I do know is that until it does happen, we still have the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These witnesses are meant to point back to Him, as is everything in the Bible, but if your gospel is dependent on your interpretation of these witnesses being correct, then you need to reorient yourself on the Good News of Jesus: He came, lived, died, and rose again because He loves sinners like you, me, and the rest of the world. I say all of this with the full disclosure that I have had to reorient myself to the Gospel, too. I just mentioned the fact that these two witnesses were prophesied to appear in 2014, right? I know that, because I was following that channel for a while, and it took the guy being dead wrong about his "Spirit-filled revelation" for me to return to the Scriptures.
My reasoning for bringing up debatable topics is always because I want us to return to the Scriptures. I want us to see what the Bible says about certain topics - especially the debatable ones - so that we don't get caught up in "proving" our viewpoint at the expense of our witness. And I certainly don't want any of us to get caught up, even momentarily, with believing false prophets. So my argument, as always, is this: read and know the Scriptures - all of them - but do not allow yourselves to be caught up in "passing judgment on disputable matters" (Romans 14:1), but, rather "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (14:19). In other words, let's proclaim the Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment