The two witnesses

Revelation chapter 11 introduces two witnesses whose story is one of the most debated in the book. Their identity is far from settled, but the debate itself uncovers a clear and searching lesson for anyone trying to follow Jesus faithfully.

You may want to read before

• The 3,5 years
• The two beasts

The call

The story begins with the measurement of the temple. The temple was the place of God’s presence, and in the Old Testament it functioned above all as the place of sacrifice — a function it no longer has, since Jesus is now the ultimate sacrifice. That raises the question the vision goes on to answer: what is the temple’s purpose now?

In the vision, some parts of the temple are measured and claimed by God, while others are left to the Gentiles to trample as they please. The measuring moves from the temple, to the altar, to the worshipers — from the largest space to the smallest — and in doing so narrows the focus down to the people themselves. It is the worshipers who matter, so the relationship with God is defined by worship. The reference to the altar reminds us of the suffering church in the fifth seal, which means the worship in view here is costly: loyalty to the point of death. That is exactly what gets reflected in the two witnesses.

The identity of the two witnesses

There is much dispute over who the witnesses actually are. The main candidates are:

• historical figures who embody the characteristics of prophetic figures such as John the Baptist or Elijah,
• ancient prophets brought back to life, or
• symbols rather than individuals at all.

The text itself gives us the clue we need. They are 'the two olive trees' and the two lampstands, and they stand before the Lord of the earth. This is a reference to the prophet Zechariah, where the same imagery is identified with the high priest Joshua and the Davidic descendant Zerubbabel, but it is also a reference to the seven churches, which are identified with the lampstands.

That reading is strengthened by the 3.5 years, which refers to the entire time between Jesus' first and second coming. A span that long fits uneasily with any single historical individual, which is why interpreters taking this approach conclude that the witnesses represent not a pair of individuals but the Church itself — one reading among several defended in the literature (others take them as two individual end-time prophets, a specific historical pair, or a succession of faithful witnesses through history). This is essentially the same amillennial framework laid out in premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism compared — a related but distinct question from how the rapture relates to the tribulation, which dispensational premillennialists, who read the 3.5 years as a literal future period tied to two individual end-time witnesses, tend to answer differently.

Still, there are many ways to associate the witnesses with specific figures, and the best-supported match is Moses and Elijah: their miracles line up closely. Consuming their enemies with fire from their mouths is very typical of Elijah calling down fire from heaven, as is stopping the rain, which reflects Elijah's ministry, while turning water into blood reflects the first plague under Moses. (A minority tradition pairs Elijah with Enoch instead of Moses, since Enoch did not experience death but was taken by God and neither did Elijah, who was taken up in a whirlwind — which fits a scene about witnesses who must finally die, since Hebrews 9:27 says it is appointed for everyone to die once, and, unlike Enoch, Moses did die a natural death.)

Notice, though, that the two witnesses are not depicted as a Moses and an Elijah working side by side, but as two figures acting as one. So what single reality are they reflecting together? The Church — since only the Church spans a life as long as the one described. The pairing can be read a couple of ways. One option is:

• Moses, witnessing to Egypt and Pharaoh, as a witness to the world, and
• Elijah, witnessing to Israel and Queen Jezebel, as a witness to the Church itself, calling it to restoration.

Another option is:

• Moses witnessing to Israel under the Old Covenant, and
• Elijah — who comes again as John — witnessing to the Church once the Old Covenant is fulfilled.

Either way, the point is the same: it is one church, whether viewed from the outside or the inside, whether addressed as Israel or as the extended Israel that the church now is.

That still leaves the question of why there are two witnesses rather than one, if there is only one church in view. The answer is that one witness has no legal value, and the two act in such close agreement that they function as a single testimony.

But there is one more thing about them that is genuinely strange.

The character of the two witnesses

The witnesses are clothed with sack clothes, a detail loaded with Old Testament meaning. Sackcloth is:

• a sign of individual mourning or national distress,
• a plea for mercy from a conquering king,
• an urgent lament and plea for deliverance in national crisis, and
• the characteristic clothing of prophets, as when Isaiah wore and then removed it as a prophetic sign.

Taken together, these associations show that the witnesses come to call a fallen world to repentance.

They are also able to perform signs and wonders. In the Old Testament background behind these plagues, such miracles served to teach people that there is only one God, and that relying on anything else is unreliable — the same lesson the trumpets teach. Yet the only power they use against their enemies is fire from heaven, and even in the Elijah story that fire was never Elijah’s own; it was God who sent it. Despite that power, in the end they are overcome.

Defeat turned into victory

They are overcome by the beast. How is this possible, given that Jesus said the Church would not be overcome? The two statements are not actually in tension. If you look at the text in Matthew, the word translated “overcome” there is different from the word used in Revelation. Revelation’s word (nikaō) describes a single, decisive victory within a particular contest; Matthew’s word (katischuō) speaks of the gates of Hades failing to prevail in the long run. The vocabulary difference is suggestive rather than conclusive, but it fits the larger point: a temporary, local defeat of the witnesses does not contradict Jesus’ promise that the church as a whole will not ultimately fall.

Most importantly, the witnesses are defeated only “after they finished their testimony.” Their mission is complete before their death, not cut short by it. The church seems, on the surface, to be defeated: the whole world celebrates because the witnesses are now silent, even humiliating them in death by leaving them unburied. But that defeat is turned into victory: after 3.5 days — a deliberate echo of the 3.5 years — they are resurrected and lifted up to heaven, just as Jesus was.

The location of their death matters too: the great city, where their Lord was crucified is historically Jerusalem, yet everywhere else Revelation uses the phrase “the great city” it means Babylon (Babylon the great city). Jerusalem and Babylon merging into a single symbol reinforces that the witnesses’ true opponent is not one city or empire but the whole world order in rebellion against God.

The whole story is full of surprises:

• Moses and Elijah are remembered for the powerful miracles that marked the turning points of their stories, yet here their powerful ministry changes nothing. It is their death as martyrs that makes the difference in Revelation — worth noting, since neither of them actually died as a martyr in the Old Testament. Their death is connected to Jesus' death on the cross: the true point of victory is his death and resurrection. Jesus is the faithful witness because he remained faithful even to death, and he therefore triumphs — and when the witnesses follow his example, they too conquer.
• This story is also a reversal of the story of Esther, where God’s people, threatened with genocide, are allowed to fight back and win a great victory (a victory still celebrated by Jews today, who send gifts to each other in its remembrance). In Revelation there is no such heavenly intervention: the witnesses are killed, and it is their enemies who send gifts to each other. In Esther, the victory was the killing of their enemies; in Revelation, it is the conversion of their enemies.
• The Old Testament pattern usually saves a remnant while the majority falls under judgment. Here that pattern is reversed. a tenth of the city falls and 7,000 people die in the earthquake — two distinct figures the text does not equate, but which together suggest that, unlike the flood or Sodom, judgment here falls on a minority while most survive. More than that, the survivors give God the glory. Elsewhere in Revelation, refusing to give God glory is treated as hard-heartedness (those struck by the plagues curse God and refuse to repent and give him glory), which at least suggests the response here is meant positively — though commentators, including Beale, are divided on whether this depicts genuine conversion or only a terrified, Pharaoh-like acknowledgment of God’s power.

The witnesses and the beasts

The two witnesses are not the only pair in the book: the two beasts of chapter 13 also work in tandem, and the way they are described follows a pattern strikingly similar to that of the witnesses — each beast, like each witness, acts in harmony with and complements the other.

The final row of the table forms another interesting chiasmus. “Here is” and “if anyone” create an equivalence between “who has understanding: count” and “he who has ears, let him hear” — that is, knowledge should lead to action, since to hear is to obey in Hebrew thought — and between “wisdom” and “the patience and faith of the saints,” showing that true wisdom is meant to result in patience and faith.

But otherwise the witnesses and the beasts are very different, as the following comparison shows.

Both, in their own way, try to reflect Jesus the overcomer — but the imitation is hollow. The differences make that plain:

• The source of the witnesses is the worship of God, while the source of the beasts is the vengeful defeat of the dragon.
• The actions of the witnesses are signs that invite repentance, while for the beasts they are signs demanding submission.
• The witnesses come in humility, allowing temporary defeat, while the beasts never allow a sign of weakness.
• The beasts use manipulation, fear, discrimination, and death to achieve their goals; the witnesses use none of these.
• The beasts act out of panic because time is short, while the witnesses act without fear, because they know that when their time comes, their work is done.

So when you look at your own life as a believer, which category do you fall into? Are you more like the beasts, or more like the witnesses — and what would it actually mean, or cost, to be like the witnesses?

Dig Deeper

Sources