We all have some form of this 'discrepancy'

Let's look at this a bit closer:

The 144k do not appear as 144k elsewhere in scripture, but represented by un-numbered 'sons of the kingdom', little flock and monikers like these.

The two witnesses however DO appear represented metaphorically as Moses and Elijah, giving impetus to conclude that the Rev 11 vision is metaphorical, and a reference to the 'two witnesses' at the transfiguration (which I believe, was not literally Moses and Elijah).

Given the prophecy in Ezekiel 37 and Zechariah 12, and Romans 11 combined with the transfiguration vision, speaking about the rejoining of Jehovah's two 'olive trees', I don't think it's so easily dismissible!

On top of that:

The two witnesses are killed as the beast emerges from the abyss.

The holy ones are killed as the beast emerges from the abyss.

What are these two groups doing before the beast emerges?

WITNESSING!!

 

SingleCell, I would like your commentary on Zech 4:14.

“These are the two anointed ones who are standing alongside the Lord of the whole earth.â€￾ ​(Zech 4:14)

"These" / ’êl-leh = These

"Two" / Å¡ə-nê = Two

"Ones" / ḇə-nê- = Sons

"Anointed" / hay-yiṣ-hār; = Oil

"These" = Define a group of whom we are speaking of, in that of the two previous mentioned as Joshua and Zerubbabel.

"Two" = As a noun represents the number in this group. The group were already mentioned in the word "these".

"Ones" = Denotes (noun) their position as sons.

"Anointed" = Defines their responsibility and position as it pertains to Jehovah's organizational structure.

 

Does the Bible refer to groups in the singular?

(yes)

So there are two possibilities here:

Zechariah 4:14 is making a literal reference to two individuals.

OR

Zechariah 4:14 is making a figurative reference to two groups.

Neither is wrong. Which one is true? I believe they are groups, for the reasons already cited.

They may well be two individuals ... but I can't predicate my understanding on one verse, so I look for correlation with other concepts and events.

 

My thoughts:

There are 7 years of tribulation.

The first 3.5 are in sackcloth.

The last 3.5 are in the power of the spirit renewed, giving their witness as the beast reigns and implements it's 'final solution'.

The VERY last part will be the death of the two witnesses, AND the holy ones.

Are they the same group?

In my opinion, yes, they are the broken twig put back together - and the 'bunches of twigs' are the two groups that come out of re-grafted Israel and the Sons of the Kingdom in Christianity.

So the two witnesses are the two 'bunches of twigs' that emerge from the unification of the two trees.

 

Addendum:

If we are to conclude that Zechariah 4 means two literal individuals, then why aren't they Moses and Elijah? Isn't that the clearly revealed literal interpretation?

 

My basic problem with 'straight forward' conclusions from the Bible is how many times I've gotten into trouble with that method

I feel like I know about 1% of possible Bible knowledge - there are SO many connections and allusions that only become clear with deep study and meditation.

You may well be correct Joshua, but my modus operandi these days is "something more is happening here" - I believe the Bible is encrypted, basically.

 

The structure of the sentence itself clearly denotes two individuals, and it would appear the reason no one has answered this point is because it's very clear. Now the problem you have next is Rev 13:3,4; "And I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth. â€￾These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth." (Rev 11:3,4) So therefore at which point there is no way to separate the fact that John is clearly talking about the two in Zechariah, and that Zechariah without a doubt speaks of them as individuals.

Can an idea be based on one scripture, of course. Most every understanding comes down to a single scripture, for if that scripture was not there, there would be no understanding. "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." "We will not all fall asleep in death but will be changed." "There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city"

Do you have to understand scripture as a whole first, of course. Case in point: "I and the Father are one." "I pray for my brothers to be one with you just as I am one with you." So my point is, yes you need an understanding of all scripture, but one single scripture can define an entire understanding.

The two witnesses through history are all just a prophecy of the two to come. Just like the flood is an example of the end to come. Just as the Israelites leaving Egypt, Jerusalem in captivity to Babylon, on and on... They all were portents of the events that will occur in the time of the end. All the occurrences of 40 in the bible, is that some symbolic thing, or is it literally for a purpose in the time of the end. (Which I know what all the 40's represent if you were interested).

When Cornelius was baptized the new covenant was extended to all of mankind, from that point on race had nothing to do with prophecy. The Jews of today have no prophecy left in scripture to be fulfilled. The covenant to Abraham was fulfilled when Jesus was baptized, and that covenant was upheld for 7 years until Cornelius. The covenant to Israel ended when Cornelius was baptized. At the half at that "week=7 years" gift offerings were ceased when Jesus was killed. Do you understand?

Now after the physical fulfillment of Israel being destroyed in 70CE was complete, that was a portent for the end when the spiritual Israel would be destroyed. Jehovah fulfilled his promise to Abraham, starting the 70th week. At the end of that week, the Jews as a race ceased to become a people for a special purpose and now Israel became anyone who followed Christ.

The old covenant is no longer in place, so why would they have anything to do with the time of the end. And no, the faith of the Jews aren't all just one day going to as a group say we now believe in Jesus, and Christians start denouncing him, that's just ludicrous, and there is no precedence for that in the past. Everything, and I mean everything that happens in the time of the end has had a first fulfillment in the past.

Why have the identities of the two witnesses changed over time? Because they were all portents and first fulfillment of the two that will come at the end. Simple, the 144,000 are literal, just as the two are... You claim these two represent the 144,000 number as a whole, then show the direct scriptural connection, and if you can't you are simply trying to prove a theory, in which case you must come back to Zech 4:14.

Trust me, I've been down this road in the past. You can't come to an understand without exploring all options. There was a time when I did not know who the two were, and since my work has been chronology I didn't bother with figuring it out until they fell in line with chronology. Haven't you wondered why the 3.5 days fall after the 1260? "I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.â€￾ "When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them." It's because those two time periods can not be connected. So if you have the 1260 starting then ending, then the 3.5 days occur after they end, how do you explain that away?

All I'm saying brother is Everyone understands prophecy to a point, and at some point they can skew, just as I mentioned about Robert, then everything they understand about chronology from that moment on is wrong. It is so easy when understanding chronology to take a wrong turn, then your lost and off the path you intended. If you keep driving you can find yourself lost and further away. Sometimes you have to turn around get back on the road you know for a fact and take another turn to see if sights and landmarks look right and everything starts to fall in place. One must explore all options of an understanding until they find the one where there are no paradoxes. There can be no paradoxes. If there is one single scripture that discounts your understanding, you are wrong and you turn back and start over, period.

Scripture has no inconsistencies. There is not one single contradiction in scripture, I can only say that after years of wondering, because you would have an idea about something then a scripture contradicts it, you get frustrated and just want to know the truth, but I began to rejoice when I discovered I was wrong about something, that just meant I learned the truth!!!

The only way to understand what each event and prophecy is, is to know which one comes before or after another in the time of the end.

 

No, Zech 4 is clearly talking about the before mentioned two in that of Joshua and Zerubbabel. Moses and Elijah were just portents of these two, and all the two's were portents of the ones coming in the time of the end.

Jehovah hasn't changed, he's still going to send two against the world, just as he always has. The transfiguration was an example of Zech 4, and Rev 11, and since Zech compares them to Joshua-Zerubbabel. These men are all first fulfillment's of the two in the end, in the same way the flood was the first fulfillment of the end, the captivity to Babylon was a first fulfillment, the destruction of Jerusalem, and on and on... Moses-Elijah, Joshua-Zeruabbabel, future two-witnesses.

 

That's what I was trying to convey, that Moses and Elijah were a prophecy for Joshua and Zerubabbel. Am I using the word incorrectly? It seems I am using it correctly....

por·tent
pôrˌtent/
noun

"sign or warning that something, especially something momentous or calamitous, is likely to happen.

"they believed that wild birds in the house were portents of death"

synonyms: omen, sign, signal, token, forewarning, warning, danger sign, foreshadowing, prediction, forecast, prophecy, harbinger, augury, auspice, presage; More"

Sure, the connection is the transfiguration... Is it a coincidence that Moses and Elijah are seen along side the lord of the whole earth in that vision, just as Zechariah and Revelation describes Joshua and Zerubabbel doing so?

These examples are just types of those to come. Look at Malachi 4:4,6: “Look! I am sending to you E·li′jah the prophet before the coming of the great and awe-inspiring day of Jehovah. And he will turn the hearts of fathers back toward sons, and the hearts of sons back toward fathers, so that I may not come and strike the earth, devoting it to destruction.â€￾

So we know Jehovah is using these examples in the past to show you he will be bringing an individuals in the future in the "type" of those who followed. They will do the same type of work...

 

That scripture is showing us that these men in the past were a first fulfillment and would have another fulfillment in the future. We know that John the Baptist was a type of fulfillment in Jesus day: Mat 17:12 "However, I say to you that E·li′jah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did whatever they wanted with him."

We also know from Malachi that there will be another fulfillment of Elijah as one of the two witnesses because it will be just before the great day of Jehovah.

So again, Jehovah doesn't change. He has always done things the same way. John the Baptist was a single individual who fulfilled a future promised Elijah, it will be no different in the time of the end. One of the two witnesses will be a type of Elijah fulfilling as and individual in the same way John did, in the time of the end.

 

I started this topic in Galatians:

for these women mean two covenants, the one from Mount Si′nai, which bears children for slavery and which is Ha′gar.

Now Ha′gar means Si′nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children.

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

- Galatians 4:24

This shows that Jehovah created a physical reality representing a grander reality, embodied by conceptual 'systems', and those called, chosen or born within those systems.

For this reason, I'm not convinced that we are dealing with a literal fulfillment of 'two individuals' when this sort of allusion and metaphorical understanding is a cornerstone of interpreting the history of Israel, and the Christian system.

I see the same framework for understanding the two witnesses; particularly because of the Moses / Elijah transfiguration vision and the Zechariah 4 vision.

​

This is why I went into detail about Joshua / Judah / Mannasseh / Ephraim / Jacob / Esau, rather than jump right into 'the two witnesses'.

All of them form a continuous representative understanding of a concept, just like their mothers.

 

Jan - you are opening a can of worms I don't want to go down in this thread haha!

Joshua and I have very different views on the beast from the abyss, we'll just end up going back and forth over it.

Here is an in depth debate we had about the topic last month, it started around page 10:

http://e-jw.org/showthread.php?983-The-United-Nations-is-NOT-the-8th-king-again/page10


If you have anything to add - please bump it and respond!