In attempting to
interpret Revelation 11, commentators have generally understood the two witnesses in one of four ways or as a combination of two or more of these ways: • as individuals appearing in the future, being either two returning biblical figures or two presently unknown figures; • as individuals who were contemporaries of the author of Revelation, such as
Peter and
Paul; • as a corporate and personal symbol, such as the martyrs or the totality of the Christian church; • as a non-personal symbol, such as the Old and New Testaments or mercy and grace.
As individuals appearing in the future The early Christian writer,
Hippolytus of Rome, concluded that the two witnesses would be
Enoch and
Elijah, the two individuals who did not experience death according to other biblical passages (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:10-11; Hebrews 11:05). This is the earliest proposed identification for the two witnesses. This view is evident outside of early interpretive or apologetical Christian literature. For example, the apocryphal books called the
Apocalypse of Elijah (also known as the Revelation of Elijah) and the
Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as
Acts of Pilate) state that those two witnesses who will appear in times of
Antichrist to engage in battle with him are Enoch and Elijah: Others have proposed
Moses, for his ability to turn water into blood and the power to send plagues on the earth (Exodus 7:17-21; 9:13-14; Revelation 11:6). His companion would be
Elijah the prophet, predicted to return (Malachi 4:5-6) and who prevented it from raining in Israel in the days of Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; Luke 4:25; James 5:17; Revelation 11:6). These two appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:28-36).
Victorinus of Pettau acknowledged the possibility of Moses being the companion of Elijah for the identity of the two witnesses, but he rejects Moses as one of the witnesses and proposes Jeremiah. Therefore, the earliest known espousal of the Moses-Elijah view appears to be in
Hilary of Poitiers's Latin commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Three notable defenses of the Moses-Elijah view are those by William De Burgh (1801-1866),
Robert H. Charles, and William Douglas Adamson. Others have proposed two people who are now unknown to the world who will appear in the future as the witnesses. They may be seen as coming “in the spirit” of the prophets of old. The earliest example of this identification seems to be an alternative interpretation of the witnesses from Francis Woodcock (ca. 1614–1651). Several years later, Richard Hayter (ca. 1611–1684) identifies the witnesses similarly, but not simply as an alternative. Four notable defenses of this view of the two witnesses are those by Donatus Haugg (1900-1943),
James Henthorn Todd, Isbon T. Beckwith (1843-1936), and Christine Joy Tan.
As symbols of the church The two witnesses have been interpreted as representing the Church or a similar concept. The earliest symbolic interpretation of the two witnesses along these lines is that proposed by the 4th century commentator,
Ticonius. He concludes the witnesses represent the church prophesying by means of the Old and New Testaments. Symbolic interpretations become more prevalent in the literature with the coming of the Reformation.
Heinrich Bullinger says that the witnesses are all the faithful preachers during a certain segment of church history. The
1599 Geneva Study Bible has asserted that the two witnesses are the exclusive purview of the church.
David Pareus says the witnesses are a succession of individuals, such as teachers or even princes, who uphold true religion. Later,
Matthew Henry's
Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible gives one church interpretation as consisting of believing Jews and that of the
gentiles.
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible interprets the two witnesses as the true Church in counterdistinction to the "antichrist system" of Roman Catholicism. More recently, some commentators follow the thought of Ticonius and conclude that the witnesses are the Christian church, during a certain period of history. A view along these lines is advocated by
Gregory Beale in his commentary on Revelation. A key point of evidence for Beale and others is that the two witnesses are identified as “two lampstands” and this symbol is used in Revelation 1:20 to refer to the “seven churches.” Similarly, the two witnesses have been identified as Israel and the Christian Church. "The olive trees" signify Israel. The "witness of the Church" is signified by "the two lampstands." It has also been proposed that the two witnesses are the
witnessing church, because Jesus sent out his disciples "two by two". The two witnesses are the true prophetic witness in Revelation (the church), and they serve as the counterpart to the false prophetic witness, the beast from the land, who has two horns like a lamb (Revelation 13:11; cf.16:13; 19:20; 20:10). Similar to this type of proposal is to see the witnesses as general symbols of
Christian testimony. A view along these lines is advocated by
Adela Yarbro Collins in her commentary on Revelation.
Other views The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the two witnesses will be two prophets who are raised up to the Jews in the modern
nation of Israel, possibly two members of their
Quorum of the Twelve or their
First Presidency, who are considered to be prophets by the church. These two prophets will represent both the ancient Northern and Southern kingdoms of Israel (the two olive trees) and be descendants of the two covenant sons from the tribes of Judah and Joseph (as the two lampstands). Some members have suggested that the martyrdom of
Joseph Smith and his brother
Hyrum Smith (Assistant President from 1841 to 1844) are prototypes and they represent the future two witnesses (stated in Revelation) who will be sent to Jerusalem and be killed for their testimonies. In traditional
Seventh-day Adventist interpretation, as found in
Uriah Smith and
Ellen G. White, the two witnesses are the
Old and
New Testaments. They believed that the
French Revolution was the time when the two witnesses were killed. Other
historicists also consider the two witnesses in this way. The
Bahá'í Faith identifies the two witnesses as
Muhammed, the founder of
Islam, and
Ali, the son of
Abú Tálib. They consider Muhammad as the root and Ali the branch, comparable to
Moses and
Joshua. They interpret "clothed in sackcloth" to mean that they initially appeared to be of no consequence and without a new revelation because the spiritual principles of Islam would correspond closely with those promulgated in Christianity and Judaism. They identify the "beast" to be the
Umayyads, who would wage spiritual war against them. The 1,260 days is interpreted as the 1,260 lunar years since the start of the Islamic calendar, corresponding to the Gregorian year 1844; the year the
Millerite movement also predicted the return of Christ. The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the significance of 1844 as the year of the declaration of the
Báb, bearing a new message from God and proclaiming the coming of
Bahá'u'lláh, the Prophet-Founder of the Bahá'í Faith and promised return of Christ.
Marshall Applewhite and
Bonnie Nettles (Do and Ti), the leaders of the
UFO religious cult
Heaven's Gate, initially claimed to be the two witnesses in the 1970s. According to their interpretation, they would be killed and resurrected before ascending to heaven in a spacecraft. They ultimately rebranded their "assassinations" as symbolic rather than actual death, owing to the ridicule they were subjected to by the media. ==In popular culture==