(Two Witnesses, A Biblical Perspective)
Two future prophets that will have literal physical bodies that die, and they will have power from God to bring literal plagues upon this literal earth as often as they will, a complete remake of Moses/Aaron against Pharaoh of Egypt
Jesus Is The Lord
(Future, Literal, Unfulfilled)
Revelation 11:3-18KJV
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
Chuckle!
Bud, you are doing exactly what I have been pointing out.
You put your interpretation in bold:
“Two future prophets.”
“Literal physical bodies.”
“Literal plagues.”
“Future, Literal, Unfulfilled.”
Then you quote Revelation 11 as though the passage itself said those words.
But it doesn't.
Where does Revelation 11:3–6 say:
“These are two future individual men with literal physical bodies”?
Please show me the verse.
You cannot, because that sentence comes from your flawed interpretive system, not from the text.
And now you say this is a “complete remake of Moses/Aaron against Pharaoh.”
Interesting! Because Revelation 11 doesn't say
Moses and Aaron either! Hello?
In fact, the imagery combines characteristics associated particularly with
Elijah and Moses.
“These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not…”
— Revelation 11:6
That recalls
Elijah.
“…and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues…”
— Revelation 11:6
That recalls
Moses.
So John is drawing upon Old Testament prophetic imagery. But you immediately turn those allusions into proof that two literal future men must reenact those miracles "physically."
That conclusion does not follow.
Let me use your own “simple, clear, literal” method consistently.
Verse 5 says:
“Fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies.”
Okay then.
Do you believe two future men will literally open their mouths and shoot physical flames like human flamethrowers?
If you say
yes, at least you are being consistent.
But if you say the fire represents the power or judgment of God's Word, congratulations—you have just acknowledged symbolic language in the very passage you insist must be literal.
And Scripture already gives us precedent:
“Behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.”
— Jeremiah 5:14
Did Jeremiah literally breathe fire?
Of course not.
God's
Word in the prophet's mouth was
described as fire because
His Word brought judgment.
So why is symbolic prophetic language suddenly forbidden when we reach Revelation 11?
Then verse 4 says:
“These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.”
Are these two men literally botanical olive trees?
No.
Are they literally metal lampstands?
No.
So before we even reach verse 6, your claim that this passage demands wooden literalism has already collapsed.
The chapter itself is speaking through prophetic symbols.
And Christ has already told us what candlesticks represent in Revelation:
“The seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”
— Revelation 1:20
That isn't my definition.
Christ gave it.
The witnesses also prophesy for
1,260 days, corresponding to the symbolic 42-month period used elsewhere in Revelation. They are clothed in
sackcloth. They are
olive trees. They are
candlesticks.
Fire comes from their mouths. A
beast rises from the bottomless pit and makes war against them.
Yet your method seems to be:
“Literal! Literal! Literal!”
Except, apparently, when literal becomes inconvenient.
That isn't consistent interpretation.
Revelation is apocalyptic prophecy saturated with Old Testament imagery. The Moses-and-Elijah characteristics tell us about the
nature and authority of the witnesses' testimony. They do not automatically prove that two individual men must appear in the future and physically duplicate Moses' and Elijah's miracles.
God's Church bears prophetic witness through the Word of God and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Christ said:
“Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me… unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
— Acts 1:8
There are Christ's witnesses.
Not merely two men standing somewhere in future Jerusalem, but Christ's Spirit-empowered witnesses carrying His testimony throughout the earth.
So respectfully, posting Revelation 11 again does not answer my argument.
I have Revelation 11 too.
The disagreement isn't over whether the passage exists. The disagreement is over
how apocalyptic prophecy should be interpreted.
You keep putting
“FUTURE, LITERAL, UNFULFILLED” above the passage as though those words were inspired Scripture.
They aren't.
That is your theological interpretation of the passage.
So instead of quoting the same verses again and writing
LITERAL in bold letters, demonstrate from Scripture why:
olive trees must represent two men,
candlesticks must represent two men,
fire from their mouths must be physical,
1,260 days must be literal calendar days,
and the witnesses must be two future individuals.
Until then, you haven't disproved my interpretation.
You have merely
repeated yours louder.
And repetition is not exegesis.
Selah.
