The Two Witnesses - Glenn Conjurske

The Two Witnesses

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. . . . 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. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy, and have power over the waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.” (Rev. 11:3-6).

I do not much waste my brains about the identity of these two witnesses, as many have done for many centuries. We know assuredly that “Elijah indeed is coming” (Matt. 17:11, Gk.), but whether he is one of these two witnesses I know nothing. Nor am I called to traffic in possibilities, nor probabilities either, but in certainties. Let the identity of these two witnesses remain, then, where God has left it, among the secret things which belong to the Lord our God. What is revealed concerning them is not their identity, but their character, and that is revealed with a plainness not to be mistaken. What is not revealed is no concern of ours. What is revealed is of great importance.

Now the character of these two witnesses is one mark (among many) of the character of the time to which they belong. And this mark is plain, clear, and indeed, decisive. Their character marks them as Jews, not Christians. By this I mean, their character plainly marks them as belonging to the Jewish economy, not merely as Jewish converts to Christianity. Indeed, so far as blood and birth are concerned, they might in fact be Gentiles, but if so, they are proselytes to the Jewish economy, not converts to the Christian economy. They are of course Christians, in the sense that they are disciples of Christ, but they do not belong to the present Christian economy, but to the restored Jewish economy. Nothing can be more obvious than that they belong to an economy in which God is asserting his righteous claims to the earth, and not an economy in which he proceeds upon the principles of grace and forbearance. They conduct themselves, therefore, precisely as Moses and Elijah did under the same sort of economy. “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. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy, and have power over the waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will.”

Such conduct was altogether proper for Moses and Elijah. It was exactly in keeping with the character of the dispensation under which they lived, as it will be altogether proper for these two apocalyptic witnesses in their time. But it is altogether improper for a Christian of the present dispensation. The Scriptures are clear enough on that point. “And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did? But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” (Luke 9:54-56). Elijah knew what spirit he was of. He was acting exactly according to the mind of God when he slew the false prophets with the sword, and called down fire from heaven to devour his enemies. This was altogether right for a Jew, but it is not for a Christian. It was altogether right for the Jews to put the Canaanites to the edge of the sword, but it is not so for a Christian. It was of the Lord that the Jews of Esther’s day should take vengeance upon all their enemies in a day, but this is not the work of Christianity. There has been a change of dispensation. In the former economy God was bringing his righteousness to bear upon the earth, and judgement was therefore the character of the time. In the present economy God manifests his grace, and forbearance therefore characterizes the time. It is perfectly plain, then, that the two witnesses of the Apocalypse do not belong to the present dispensation. There must be, and will be, another change of dispensation ere they come on the scene.

That change of dispensation is plainly indicated in Revelation 11, but two verses before these two witnesses appear. There we are told, “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” Now observe, this measuring of the temple indicates that God again takes possession of it, and owns it as his. It is again “the temple of God.” And it is perfectly plain from the following verse that this is no heavenly or spiritual temple, but the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, the outer court of which is given to the Gentiles, while they still tread down the holy city. If that temple were standing today—-if the Jews were to build it tomorrow—-it would not be the temple of God. It would not be owned of God, any more than he owns the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, Utah. God cannot own that temple of the Jews until there is a change of dispensation. I insist upon this as a point of the first importance, for some post-tribulationists hold that the two witnesses belong to the church, or represent the church. And why? Only to thrust the church of the present dispensation into “the time of Jacob’s trouble.” Yet the obvious character of these two witnesses is a plain indication that they do not belong to the present economy. If they were on the earth today, and members of the church of God, they would be acting altogether out of character, and altogether against the mind of the Lord.

And understand, it is no question of whether these witnesses are Jews or Gentiles. It is no question of whether the rest of the apocalyptic saints are Jews or Gentiles, but under what economy do they live? It is no question of whether the Jewish religion existed alongside of the Christian during this dispensation, nor whether “the Christian religion” will exist alongside the restored Jewish economy at a future date. No—-the question is whether God owns both of those economies simultaneously. No one doubts that the Jews’ religion, the Jews’ culture, and the Jews’ national identity, remained for many years after the inauguration of Christianity—-any more than any one doubts that the Jews’ religion exists alongside of Christianity today. Nor need we have any doubt that “the Christian religion”—-as it is found in the ungodly false church—-will co-exist with Judaism during Daniel’s seventieth week, but it will not be owned of God. In the early days of this dispensation, the plain fact is that God did not own or acknowledge the Jewish economy, any more than he does today, though it still existed. And THIS is the only real issue. The shell of Judaism existed for forty years after the formation of the church, but it was not owned of God, and its temple was not the house of God. The shell of Christianity will exist after the rapture of the true church, but it will not be the household of God. God signified that he was done with the Jewish economy, when he rent the veil in the temple from top to bottom. The Jews no doubt did some scurrying to replace the veil which God had rent in twain. And they no doubt kept up all the service of the temple for another forty years, until Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. But during all of that forty years that temple was no longer the house of God, and the Jewish economy, though outwardly continuing, was cast off of God.

But the seventieth week of Daniel remains yet to be fulfilled. It is the last of those weeks determined upon Daniel’s people and Daniel’s holy city—-that is, upon the Jews and Jerusalem. That week belongs to the Jewish economy, not to the Christian. And one among many of the proofs of this is the character of the two witnesses. Supposing them to belong to the gospel dispensation, it is plain that they know not what spirit they are of. How should God exalt to such a place of eminence men who were such poor specimens of that testimony which they were called to bear? To the gospel dispensation it belongs to “resist not evil”—-to call upon God to forgive our very murderers. But these men kill those who would do them hurt—-and they do it by divine power, and so evidently with divine sanction. These are of the spirit of Elijah, who slew the false prophets with the sword, and called down fire from heaven to devour those who would do him hurt. They are of the spirit of Elisha, who cursed the mocking children to death by the she-bears. They are of the spirit of Ehud, who drove the dagger into the belly of the oppressor of Israel, and of the spirit of Jael, who drove the nail into the temple of Israel’s enemy. And this she did (note well) according to the mind of the Lord, and with his sanction and blessing. For this deed she received the unqualified commendation of God. “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent. … She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer, and with the hammer she smote Sisera; she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.” (Judges 5:24,26). Such are these two witnesses. But they are not of the spirit of Stephen or of Paul. They are not of the spirit of him who came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them—-who rebuked his disciples for the thought of calling down fire upon their enemies.

But note well, this same Jesus, who came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them, will come again—-and come not to save men’s lives, but to destroy them. “Behold, the Lord cometh, with ten thousands of his saints, to EXECUTE JUDGEMENT upon all.” (Jude 14-15). The Father says to the Son, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron: thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” (Psalm 2:8-9). The dispensation of judgement is as much of the Lord as is the dispensation of grace. Both of these dispensations belong to the same Christ, but they do not belong to the same time. The gospel dispensation, being an economy of grace and forbearance, produces that same character in its witnesses. The dispensation of judgement requires a different character in its witnesses.

But understand, when I speak of the character of the witnesses, I speak of the character of their conduct, not necessarily of the character of their feelings. The fact is, both the holiness which calls for judgement, and the love which calls for mercy, exist at all times in the bosom of God. And these same may exist at all times in his saints also, regardless of the character of the dispensation to which they belong. Yet in a day of judgement God denies himself the expression of that love which he nevertheless feels towards the objects of his judgement. And in a day of grace he restrains the expression of that indignation which he feels towards those to whom he extends his mercy and forbearance. The same may be the fact in his saints also. Who knows but that it may have broken the heart of Joshua to stone Achan? And what Christian—-not to say what human being—-can be without strong feelings of indignation towards those who slander and scatter and peel the little flock of God? Yet the character of the dispensation requires that those feelings of indignation be restrained, while we forbear and forgive. On the other hand, the character of the Jewish dispensation requires that those emotions of compassion, which a saint of God must naturally and unavoidably feel towards the wicked, should be restrained, and the judgements of God executed. That there is grace in every dispensation there is no doubt—-and judgement, too. But grace is the character of some dispensations, and judgement the character of others, and those who live under those various administrations must know what spirit they are of, and walk according to the character of the economy then in force, if they would walk according to the mind of God.

What doubt, then, can there be that the two apocalyptic witnesses belong to the Jewish dispensation? Those who hold those witnesses to belong to the same dispensation which is now in force understand nothing of the issues involved. What can be thought of the interpretation of (amillennialist) Albertus Pieters, who says, “These [two witnesses] symbolize the whole preaching activity of the church of that period, both to the Jews and to Gentiles”? But supposing these witnesses to be purely symbolic (as Pieters and all amillennialists hold), how can they think them symbolic of the gospel ministry, or of anything belonging to the church? Can they preach Christ’s doctrine of non-resistance, and represent the church by men who kill all who would hurt them? The figure is altogether unfitting, if figure it be. It is of the worst sort which could have been chosen, unless we were to represent the church by thieves and adulterers. If these witnesses are symbolic of the church, then surely, they know not what spirit they are of. Alas, amillennialists have a ready answer for this. The killing of their enemies, the shutting up of heaven that it rain not, the smiting the earth with every plague—-these are all symbolic—-and symbolic, forsooth, of the ministry of the gospel! Unsparing judgement, in other words, is symbolic of mercy. But this cannot be. If the ministry of these witnesses is symbolic, it is symbolic of judgement, not of mercy. And if the witnesses themselves are symbolic, they are not symbolic of anything or anybody which belongs to the present dispensation. A fitting symbol they might be of Israel, but not of the church. Their presence in the Apocalypse is one (among many) of the strong indications that that portion of the Apocalypse does not belong to the present dispensation.

Some post-tribulationists spiritualize these witnesses in the same manner as the amillennialists do, holding them to represent the testimony of the church, and failing to perceive the incongruity of it all. Others take them to be literal witnesses, but belonging to the present dispensation, they also failing to perceive the confusion which they thus introduce into the ways of God. Yet the more thoughtful among them have not failed to note how foreign the character of these witnesses is to the character of Christianity. Thus B. W. Newton says of them, “This however is the hour which God has selected for the mission of a new character of testimony”—-a testimony, that is, of a different character from the testimony of the church. Where, then, is the church while this new testimony is in progress? To this question, which Newton obviously felt, he gives this remarkable answer: “But when the last period arrives, and the 1260 days commence by the planting of the idol of the desolator, we find Christianity, not indeed extinguished in the earth, but withdrawn from Judah and Jerusalem.” Thus one of the most prominent of the fathers of modern (anti-Darbyite) post-tribulationism gives his unequivocal testimony that Christianity is no longer present when these two witnesses testify. True, he limits the absence of the church to the land of Israel, rather than to the whole earth, but his system necessitates this. It is true enough that when these two witnesses testify, the land of Israel will again be the center of God’s operations on the earth, but his operations there will not be of a different character from his operations throughout the rest of the earth. The church will be indeed “withdrawn from Judah and Jerusalem,” and from the whole earth besides. The testimony of God will again be committed to Israel. The character of that testimony is seen in the character of these two witnesses.

Glenn Conjurske