Albert Barnes Commentary Revelation 11

CHAPTER XI

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

THIS chapter, which is very improperly separated from the preceding, and improperly ended—for it should have been closed at verse 18—consists (excluding the last verse, which properly belongs to the succeeding chapter) essentially of three parts:

I. The measuring of the temple, Revelation 11:1–2. A reed, or measuring stick, is given to John, and he is directed to arise and measure the temple. This direction embraces two parts:

1. He was to measure, that is, to take an exact estimate of the temple, of the altar, and of the true worshippers;

2. He was carefully to separate this, in his estimate, from the outward court, which was to be left out and to be given to the Gentiles, to be trodden under foot forty-two months; that is, three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days—a period celebrated in the book of Daniel as well as in this book.

II. The two witnesses, Revelation 11:3–13. This is, in some respects, the most difficult portion of the book of Revelation, and its meaning can be stated only after a careful examination of the significance of the words and phrases used.

The general statement regarding these witnesses is that they would have power and would prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days. If anyone should attempt to injure them, they had power, by fire that proceeded out of their mouths, to devour and kill their enemies. They had power to shut heaven so that it should not rain, and power to turn the waters of the earth into blood, and power to smite the earth with plagues as often as they chose.

When they had completed their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit would make war with them, and overcome them, and kill them. Their dead bodies would lie unburied in that great city where the Lord was crucified for three days and a half. Those who lived upon the earth would exult in their death and send gifts to one another as a token of their joy.

After the three days and a half, the spirit of life from God would enter into them again, and they would stand up on their feet. They would then be taken up into heaven, in the sight of their enemies. At the time of their ascension, there would be a great earthquake, and a tenth part of the city would fall, and many (seven thousand) would be killed. The remainder would be frightened and would give glory to the God of heaven.

III. The sounding of the seventh trumpet, Revelation 11:14–18. This is the grand consummation of the whole; the end of this series of visions; the end of the world. A rapid glance only is given of it here, for under another series of visions a more detailed account of the state of the world is given under the final triumph of truth.

Here, as a proper close of the first series of visions, the result is merely glanced at or alluded to—that then the period would have arrived when the kingdoms of the world were to become the kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ, and when he should commence that reign which was to continue forever.

Then universal peace and happiness would reign, and the long-promised and expected kingdom of God on the earth would be established. The "nations" had been "angry," but the time had now come when a judgment was to be pronounced on the dead, and when the due reward was to be given to the servants of God—the prophets, and the saints, and those who feared his name, small and great, in the establishment of a permanent kingdom, and the complete triumph of the true religion in the world.

I regard this chapter, therefore, to Revelation 11:18, as extending down to the consummation of all things, and as disclosing the last of the visions seen in the scroll or volume "sealed with the seven seals,"Revelation 5:1. For a reason above suggested, and which will appear more fully hereafter, the detail is here much less minute than in the earlier portions of the historic visions, but still it embraces the whole period, and states in few words what will be the condition of things in the end.

This was all that was necessary; this was, in fact, the leading design of the whole book. The end towards which all tended—that which John needed most to know, and which the church needed most to know—was that religion would ultimately triumph, and that the period would arrive when it could be announced that the kingdoms of this world had become the kingdoms of God, and of his Christ. That is here announced; and that is properly the close of one of the divisions of the whole book.

And there was given me. He does not say by whom, but the connection would seem to imply that it was by the angel. All this is of course to be regarded as symbolical. The representation undoubtedly relates to a future age, but the language is such as would be properly addressed to one who had been a Jew, and the imagery employed is such as he would be more likely to understand than any other.

The language and the imagery are, therefore, taken from the temple, but there is no reason to suppose that it had any literal reference to the temple, or even that John would so understand it. Nor does the language here used prove that the temple was standing at the time when the book was written.

For as it is symbolical, it is what would be employed whether the temple were standing or not, and would be as likely to be used in one case as in the other. It is such language as John, educated as a Jew and familiar with the temple worship, would be likely to employ if he designed to make a representation relating to the church.

A reed—kalamov. This word properly denotes a plant with a jointed hollow stalk, growing in wet grounds. Then it refers to the stalk as cut for use, as a measuring stick, as in this place; or a mock sceptre, Matthew 27:29–30; or a pen for writing, 3 John 1:13. Here it means merely a stick that could be used for measuring.

Like unto a rod. This word—rabdov—means properly a rod, wand, staff, used either for scourging, 1 Corinthians 4:21; or for leaning upon in walking, Matthew 10:10; or for a sceptre, Hebrews 1:8. Here the meaning is, that the reed that was put into his hands was like such a rod or staff in respect to size, and was therefore convenient for handling. The word rod also is used to denote a measuring-pole, Psalms 74:2; Jeremiah 10:16; 51:19.

And the angel stood, saying. The phrase, "the angel stood," is wanting in many MSS. and editions of the New Testament, and is rejected by Professor Stuart as spurious. It is also rejected in the critical editions of Griesbach and Hahn, and marked as doubtful by Tittmann. The best critical authority is against it, and it appears to have been introduced from Zechariah 3:5. The connection does not demand it, and we may, therefore, regard the meaning to be, that the one who gave him the reed, whoever he was, at the same time addressed him, and commanded him to take a measure of the temple and the altar.

Rise, and measure the temple of God. That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the literal temple—whether standing or not—for the exact measure of that was sufficiently well known.

The word, then, must be used of something which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be the church, considered as the dwelling of God on the earth. Under the old dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that dwelling; under the new, that peculiar residence was transferred to the church, and God is represented as dwelling in it. See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 3:16.

Thus the word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true church of God; as accurate as if he were to apply a measuring reed to ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem.

In doing that, if the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be distinguished from other buildings, or that one could be constructed like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be destroyed.

If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was—as distinguished from all other bodies of men, and as constituted and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be organized according to this, and that the accurate description could be transmitted to future times.

John has not, indeed, preserved the measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known.

There would be, therefore, a fulfilment of this, if at the time here referred to there should be occasion, from any cause, to inquire what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary.

And the altar. On the form, situation, and uses of the altar, see Barnes on Matthew 5:23-24; Matthew 21:12.

The altar here referred to was, undoubtedly, the altar situated in front of the temple, where the daily sacrifice was offered. To measure that literally, would be to take its dimensions of length, breadth, and height; but it is plain that that cannot be intended here, for there was no such altar where John was, and, if the reference were to the altar at Jerusalem, its dimensions were sufficiently known.

This language, then, like the former, must be understood metaphorically, and then it must mean—as the altar was the place of sacrifice—to take an estimate of the church considered with reference to its notions of sacrifice, or of the prevailing views respecting the sacrifice to be made for sin, and the method of reconciliation with God.

It is by sacrifice that a method is provided for reconciliation with God; by sacrifice that sin is pardoned; by sacrifice that man is justified; and the direction here is equivalent, therefore, to a command to make an investigation on these subjects, and all that is implied would be fulfilled if a state of things should exist where it would be necessary to institute an examination into the prevailing views in the church on the subject of the atonement, and the true method of justification before God.

And them that worship therein. In the temple; or, as the temple is the representation here of the church, of those who are in the church as professed worshippers of God. There is some apparent incongruity in directing him to "measure" those who were engaged in worship; but the obvious meaning is that he was to take a correct estimate of their character, of what they professed, of the reality of their piety, of their lives, and of the general state of the church considered as professedly worshipping God.

This would receive its fulfilment if a state of things should arise in the church which would make it necessary to go into a close and searching examination on all these points, in order to ascertain what was the true church, and what was necessary to constitute true membership in it. There were, therefore, three things, as indicated by this verse, which John was directed to do, so far as the use of the measuring-rod was concerned:

1. To take a just estimate of what constitutes the true church, as distinguished from all other associations of men;

2. To institute a careful examination into the opinions in the church on the subject of sacrifice or atonement—involving the whole question about the method of justification before God; and

3. To take a correct estimate of what constitutes true membership in the church; or to investigate with care the prevailing opinions about the qualifications for membership.

But the court which is without the temple. Which is outside of the temple proper, and, therefore, which does not strictly pertain to it. There is undoubtedly reference here to the "court of the Gentiles," as it was called among the Jews—the outer court of the temple to which the Gentiles had access, and within which they were not permitted to go. For a description of this, see Barnes' Notes on Matthew 21:12.

To an observer, this would seem to be a part of the temple, and the persons there assembled a portion of the true worshippers of God; but it was necessarily neither the one nor the other. In forming an estimate of those who, according to the Hebrew notions, were true worshippers of God, only those would be regarded as such who had the privilege of access to the inner court and to the altar.

In making such an estimate, therefore, those who had no nearer access than that court would be omitted; that is, they would not be reckoned as necessarily any part of those who were regarded as the people of God. Leave out and measure it not. Marginally, cast out. So the Greek.

The meaning is that he was not to reckon it as pertaining to the true temple of worshippers. There is, indeed, a degree of force in the words rendered leave out, or, in the margin, cast out—ekballe exō—which implies more than a mere passing by, or omission.

The word (ekballō) usually has the idea of force or impulse (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 15:17; Matthew 25:30; Mark 16:9; Acts 27:38, and elsewhere); and the word here would denote some decisive or positive act by which it would be indicated that this was not any part of the true temple, but was to be regarded as pertaining to something else.

He was not merely not to mention it, or not to include it in the measurement, but he was to do this by some act which would indicate that it was the result of design in the case, and not by accidentally passing it by.

For it is given unto the Gentiles. It properly pertains to them as their own. Though near the temple, and included in the general range of building, yet it does not pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded as heathen and strangers. It is not said that it was then given to the Gentiles; nor is it said that it was given to them to be overrun and trodden down by them, but that it pertained to them, and was to be regarded as belonging to them.

They occupied it, not as the people of God, but as those who were without the true church, and who did not pertain to its real communion. This would find a fulfillment if there should arise a state of things in the church in which it would be necessary to draw a line between those who properly constituted the church and those who did not; if there should be such a condition of things that any considerable portion of those who professedly pertained to the church ought to be divided off as not belonging to it, or would have such characteristic marks that it could be seen that they were strangers and aliens.

The interpretation would demand that they should sustain some relation to the church, or that they would seem to belong to it—as the court did to the temple; but still that this was in appearance only, and that in estimating the true church it was necessary to leave them out altogether.

Of course, this would not imply that there might not be some sincere worshippers among them as individuals—as there would be found usually, in the court of the Gentiles in the literal temple, some who were proselytes and devout worshippers; but what is here said relates to them as a mass or body—that they did not belong to the true church but to the Gentiles.

And the holy city. The whole holy city—not merely the outer court of the Gentiles which it is said was given to them, nor the temple as such, but the entire holy city. There is no doubt that the words "the holy city" literally refer to Jerusalem—a city so called because it was the peculiar place of the worship of God (see Barnes' Notes on Matthew 4:5; compare Nehemiah 11:1, 18; Isaiah 52:1; Daniel 9:24; Matthew 27:53).

But it is not necessary to suppose that this is its meaning here. The "holy city," Jerusalem, was regarded as sacred to God, as His dwelling-place on earth, and as the abode of His people, and nothing was more natural than to use the term as representing the church (compare Barnes' Notes on Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22).

In this sense, it is undoubtedly used here, as the whole representation is emblematic. John, if he were about to speak of anything that was to occur to the church, would, as a native Jew, be likely to employ such language as this to denote it.

Shall they tread underfoot. That is, the Gentiles previously mentioned, or those who, in the measurement of the city, were set apart as Gentiles and regarded as not belonging to the people of God. This is not spoken of the Gentiles in general, but only of that portion of the multitudes that seemed to constitute the worshippers of God, who, in measuring the temple, were set apart or separated as not properly belonging to the true church.

The phrase shall they tread underfoot is derived from warriors and conquerors who tread down their enemies or trample on the fields of grain. It is rendered in this passage by Dr. Robinson (Lexicon) as "to profane and lay waste." When applied literally to a city, this would be the true idea. When applied to the church, it would mean that they would have it under their control or in subjection for the specified time, and that the practical effect of that would be to corrupt and prostrate it.

Forty and two months. Literally, this would be three years and a half; but if the time here is prophetic time—a day for a year—then the period would be twelve hundred and sixty years, reckoning the year at 360 days. For a full illustration of this usage, and for the reasons for supposing that this is prophetic time, see Barnes' Notes on Daniel 7:25.

In addition to what is said there, it may be remarked concerning this passage that it is impossible to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was "trampled under foot" by the Romans for the exact space of three years and a half. Professor Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, "It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country of Judea."

But it is to be remembered that the affirmation here is that the holy city was thus to be trodden underfoot. Even taking the former supposition, in what sense is it true that the "whole country" was trodden underfoot by the Romans for only three years and a half?

Even the wars of the Romans were not of that exact duration; and, besides, the fact was that Judea was held in subjection, and trodden down by the Romans, for centuries, and never, in fact, regained its independence. If this is to be literally applied to Jerusalem, it has been trodden down of the Gentiles, with brief intervals, since the conquest by the Romans, to the present time. There has been no precise period of three years and a half in respect to which the language here used would be applicable to the literal city of Jerusalem.

In regard, then, to the proper application of the language which has thus been explained (Revelation 11:1–2), it may be remarked, in general, that, for the reasons just stated, it is not to be taken literally. John could not have been directed literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, and the altar, and the worshippers; nor could he have been requested literally to leave out, or "cast out" the court that was without; nor could it be meant that the holy city literally was to be trodden under foot for three years and a half.

The language clearly is symbolic, and the reference must have been to something pertaining to the church. And, if the preceding exposition of the tenth chapter is correct, then it may be presumed that this would refer to something that was to occur at about the period there referred to.

Regarding it, then, as applicable to the time of the Reformation, and as being a continuation of the vision in chapter 10, we shall find, in the events of that period, what would be properly symbolized by the language here used. This will appear by reviewing the particulars which have been explained in these verses:

1. The command to measure the temple of God (Revelation 11:1). This, we have seen, was a direction to take an estimate of what constituted the true church; the very work which it was necessary to do in the Reformation, for this was the first point which was to be settled, whether the Papacy was the true church or was the Antichrist.

   This involved, of course, the whole inquiry as to what constitutes the church, alike in reference to its organization, its ministry, its sacraments, and its membership. It was long before the Reformers made up their minds that the Papacy was not the true church; for the veneration which they had been taught to cherish for that lingered long in their bosoms. And even when they were constrained to admit that that corrupt communion was the predicted form of the great apostasy—Antichrist—and had acquired boldness enough to break away from it forever, it was long before they settled down in a uniform belief as to what was essential to the true church.

   Indeed, the differences of opinion which prevailed, the warm discussions which ensued, and the diversities of sect which sprang up in the Protestant world, showed with what intense interest the mind was fixed on this question, and how important it was to take an exact measurement of the real church of God.

2. The direction to measure the altar. This, as we have seen, would relate to the prevailing opinions on the subject of sacrifice and atonement; on the true method of a sinner's acceptance with God; and, consequently, on the whole subject of justification. As a matter of fact, it need not be said that this was one of the first questions which came before the Reformers, and was one which it was indispensable to settle, in order to a just notion of the church and of the way of salvation.

   The Papacy had exalted the Lord's Supper into a real sacrifice; had made it a grand and essential point that the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of the Lord, and that a real offering of that sacrifice was made every time that ordinance was celebrated; had changed the office of the ministers of the New Testament from preachers to that of priests; had become familiar with the terms altar, and sacrifice, and priesthood, as founded on the notion that a real sacrifice was made in the "mass;" and had fundamentally changed the whole doctrine respecting the justification of a sinner before God.

   The altar in the Romish communion had almost displaced the pulpit; and the doctrine of justification by the merits of the great sacrifice made by the death of our Lord had been superseded by the doctrine of justification by good works and by the merits of the saints. It became necessary, therefore, to restore the true doctrine respecting sacrifice for sin, and the way of justification before God; and this would be appropriately represented by a direction to measure the altar.

3. The direction to take an estimate of those who worshipped in the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church, or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary to be done in the Reformation.

   Before that, for ages, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church. The opinion that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation was the common opinion. The necessity of regeneration by the influences of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little understood, if not almost wholly unknown. The grand requisition in membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the church.

   One of the first things necessary in the Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down by the Savior that a change of heart—that regeneration by the Holy Spirit—was necessary to membership in the church, and that the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the spirit of their mind.

   This great work would be appropriately symbolized by a direction to take an estimate of those who worshipped in the temple of God; that is, to settle the question of who should be regarded as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled in the Reformation than this.

4. The direction to leave out, or to "cast out," the court which is without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that a separation was to be made between that which was the true church, and that which was not, though it might seem to belong to it.

   The one was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not pertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to heathenism. The idea would be that though it professedly pertained to the true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be characterized as heathenism.

   Now this will apply with great propriety, according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the Papacy was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times. It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would seem to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain to the temple.

   But it had the essential characteristics of heathenism, and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or cast out, as not pertaining to the true church. Can any one doubt the truth of this representation as applicable to the Papacy? Almost everything that was peculiar in the ancient heathen systems of religion had been introduced into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more that would lead him to feel that he was in a heathen land, than he would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer had designed to set up on the earth.

   This was true not only in the pomp and splendor of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials; but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in the number of festival-days, in the fact that the statues reared in heathen Rome to the honor of the gods had been re-consecrated in the service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs; and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use in the ancient heathen worship.

   The direction was that, in estimating the true church, this was to be "left out" or "cast out;" and, if this interpretation is correct, the meaning is that the Roman Catholic communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the true church: a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.

5. The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot (Revelation 11:2). This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be trodden down by those who are described as "Gentiles." So far as pure religion was concerned; so far as pertained to the real condition of the church and the pure worship of God, it would be as if the whole holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was sacred for the time here referred to.

   Everything in Rome at the time of the Reformation would sustain this description. "It is incredible," says Luther, on his visit to Rome, "what sins and atrocities are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. So that it is usual to say, 'If there be a hell, Rome is built above it; it is an abyss from which all sins proceed.'" So again he says: "It is commonly observed that he who goes to Rome for the first time, goes to seek a knave there; the second time he finds him; and the third time he brings him away with him under his cloak. But now, people are become so clever, that they make the three journeys in one." So Machiavelli, one of the most profound geniuses in Italy, and himself a Roman Catholic, said, "The greatest symptom of the approaching ruin of Christianity is, that the nearer we approach the capital of Christendom, the less do we find of the Christian spirit of the people. The scandalous example and crimes of the court of Rome have caused Italy to lose every principle of piety and every religious sentiment. We Italians are principally indebted to the church and to the priests for having become impious and profane." (See D'Aubigné's History of the Reformation, p. 54, Philadelphia Edition, 1843).

   In full illustration of the sentiment that the church seemed to be trodden down and polluted by heathenism, or by abominations and practices that came out of heathenism, we may refer to the general history of the Romish communion from the rise of the Papacy to the Reformation. For a sufficient illustration to justify the application of the passage before us which I am now making, the reader may be referred to Barnes' Notes on Revelation 9:20 and Revelation 9:21.

   Nothing would better describe the condition of Rome previous to, and at the time of the Reformation—and the remark may be applied to subsequent periods also—than to say that it was a city which once seemed to be a Christian city, and was not improperly regarded as the center of the Christian world and the seat of the church, and that it had been, as it were, overrun and trodden down by heathen rites, customs, and ceremonies, so that, to a stranger looking on it, it would seem to be in the possession of the "Gentiles" or the heathens.

6. The time during which this was to continue—forty-two months; that is, according to the explanation above given, twelve hundred and sixty years. This would embrace the whole period of the ascendency and prevalence of the Papacy; or the whole time of the continuance of that corrupt domination in which Christendom was to be trodden down and corrupted by it.

   The prophet of Patmos saw it in vision thus extending its dreary and corrupting reign, and during that time the proper influence of Christianity was trampled down, and the domination of practical heathenism was set up where the church should have reigned in its purity. Thus regarded, this would properly express the time of the ascendency of the Papal power, and the end of the "forty-two months," or twelve hundred and sixty years, would denote the time when the influence of that power would cease.

   If, therefore, the time of the rise of the Papacy can be determined, it will not be difficult to determine the time when it will come to an end. But, for a full consideration of these points, the reader is referred to the extended discussion on Daniel 7:25. As the point is there fully examined, it is unnecessary to go into an investigation of it here.

The general remark, therefore, in regard to this passage (Revelation 11:1–2), is that it refers to what would be necessary to be done at the Reformation in order to determine what is the true church, and what are the doctrines on which it is based; and to the fact that the Romish communion to which the church had been given over for a definite time was to be set aside as not being the true church of Christ.

Compare Luke 21:24 in relation to the word it; the term "leave out" is also rendered "cast out"; and compare Daniel 7:25 in relation to the phrase tread under foot.

And I will give power unto my two witnesses. Regarding this important passage (Revelation 11:3–13), I propose to pursue the same method that I have pursued throughout this exposition: first, to examine the meaning of the words and phrases in the symbol to ascertain the full meaning of the symbols; and, secondly, to inquire into the application—that is, to inquire whether any events have occurred that, regarding their character and the time of their occurrence, can be shown to be a fair fulfillment of the language.

And I will give power. The word "power" is not in the original. The Greek is simply, I will give; that is, I will grant to my two witnesses the right, or the power, of prophesying during the time specified—correctly expressed in the margin as, give unto my two witnesses that they may prophesy. The meaning is not that he would send two witnesses to prophesy, but rather that these were in fact such "witnesses," and that he would during that time permit them to exercise their prophetic gifts, or give them the privilege and the strength to enunciate the truth which they were commissioned to communicate as his "witnesses" to mankind. Some word, then, like power, privilege, opportunity, or boldness, must be supplied to complete the sense.

Unto my two witnesses. The word "two" evidently denotes that the number would be small, though it is not necessary to confine it literally to two persons or to two societies or communities.

Perhaps the meaning is that, similar to how two witnesses were required and were considered sufficient under the law to establish any fact (see Barnes on John 8:17), an adequate number of individuals would be preserved from apostasy during those times to serve as witnesses. These witnesses would be sufficient to uphold the evidence of truth by testifying against prevailing abominations, errors, and corruptions; by identifying the true church; and by bearing faithful witness against the world's wickedness.

Indeed, the Law of Moses stipulated that there should be two witnesses in a trial, and this was deemed a competent number under that law (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; John 5:30–33).

The essential meaning of this passage then is that there would be a competent number of witnesses in the case—that is, as many as would be regarded as sufficient to establish the points concerning which they would testify, with perhaps the additional idea that the number would be small. There is no reason for limiting it strictly to two persons, or for supposing that they would appear in pairs, two and two; nor is it necessary to suppose that it refers particularly to two people or nations.

The word rendered witnesses—martuv, from which we have derived the word martyr—properly means one who bears testimony. This can be in a judicial sense (Matthew 18:16; Matthew 26:65) or refer to one who can in any way testify to the truth of what he has seen and known (Luke 24:48; Romans 1:9; Philippians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:10; 1 Timothy 6:12).

Then it came to be employed in the sense in which the word martyr is now used—to denote one who, amid great sufferings, or by his death, bears witness to the truth; that is, one who is so confident of the truth, and so upright, that he will rather lay down his life than deny the truth of what he has seen and known (Acts 22:20; Revelation 2:13).

In a similar sense, it comes to denote one who is so thoroughly convinced on a subject that is not susceptible of being seen and heard, or who is so attached to someone, that he is willing to lay down his life as evidence of his conviction and attachment.

The word, as used here, refers to those who, during this period of "forty and two months," would thus be witnesses for Christ in the world: that is, who would bear their testimony to the truth of his religion, to the doctrines he had revealed, and to what was required of man. They would do this amid surrounding error and corruption, and when exposed to persecutions and trials on account of their belief. It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to represent the righteous as witnesses for God (See Barnes on Isaiah 43:10; see also Barnes on Isaiah 43:12; and see Barnes on Isaiah 44:8).

And they shall prophesy. The word prophesy does not necessarily mean that they would predict future events; but the sense is that they would give utterance to the truth as God had revealed it (See Barnes on Revelation 10:11).

The sense here is that they would in some public manner hold up or maintain the truth before the world.

A thousand two hundred and three score days. This is the same period as the forty-two months (Revelation 11:2), though expressed in a different form. Reckoning a day for a year, this period would be twelve hundred and sixty years, or the same as the time and times and the dividing of time in Daniel 7:25 (See Barnes on Daniel 7:25).

The meaning of this would be, therefore, that during that long period in which it is said that the holy city would be trodden under foot, there would be those who might be properly called "witnesses" for God, and who would be engaged in holding up his truth before the world. That is, there would be no part of that period in which there would not be found some to whom this appellation could with propriety be given. Though the "holy city"—the church—would seem to be wholly trodden down, yet there would be a few at least who would assert the great doctrines of true godliness.

Clothed in sackcloth. Sackcloth—sakkouv—was properly a coarse black cloth commonly made of hair, used for sacks, for straining, and for mourning garments (See Barnes on Revelation 6:12, Isaiah 3:24, and Matthew 11:21).

Here it is an emblem of mourning, and the idea is that they would prophesy amid grief. This would indicate that the time would be one of calamity, or that, in doing this, there would be occasion for their appearing in the emblems of grief, rather than in robes expressive of joy. The most natural interpretation of this is that there would be but few who could be regarded as true witnesses for God in the world, and that they would be exposed to persecution.

These are the two olive-trees. These are represented by the two olive-trees, or these are what are symbolized by the two olive-trees. There can be little doubt that there is an allusion here to Zechariah 4:3, 11, 14, though the imagery is in some respects changed.

The prophet (Zechariah 4:2–3) saw in vision "a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which were upon the top thereof; and two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof." These two "olive branches" were subsequently declared (Zechariah 4:14) to be "the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth."

The olive-trees, or olive branches (Zechariah 4:12), appear in the vision of the prophet to have been connected with the ever-burning lamp by golden pipes. As the olive-tree produced the oil used by the ancients in their lamps, these trees are represented as furnishing a constant supply of oil through the golden pipes to the candlestick, and thus they become emblematic of the supply of grace to the church.

John uses this emblem, not in the sense exactly in which it was employed by the prophet, but to denote that these two "witnesses," which might be compared with the two olive-trees, would be the means of supplying grace to the church.

As the olive-tree furnished oil for the lamps, the two trees here would seem properly to denote ministers of religion. Since there can be no doubt that the candlesticks, or lamp-bearers, denote churches, the sense would appear to be that it was through the pastors of the churches that the oil of grace which maintained the brightness of those mystic candlesticks, or the churches, was conveyed.

The image is a beautiful one and expresses a truth of great importance to the world, for God has designed that the lamp of piety shall be kept burning in the churches by truth supplied through ministers and pastors.

And the two candlesticks. The prophet Zechariah saw but one such candlestick or lamp-bearer; John here saw two—as there are two "witnesses" referred to. In the vision described in Revelation 1:12, he saw seven—representing the seven churches of Asia. For an explanation of the meaning of the symbol, see the notes on Revelation 1:12.

Standing before the God of the earth. So Zechariah 4:14 says, "These be the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth." The meaning is, that they stood, as it were, in the very presence of God—as in the tabernacle and temple, the golden candlestick stood "before" the ark on which was the symbol of the Divine presence, though separated from it by a veil. (Compare the notes on Revelation 9:13).

This representation that the ministers of religion "stand before the Lord" is one that is not uncommon in the Bible. Thus it is said of the priests and Levites (Deuteronomy 10:8), "The LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless his name." . The same thing is said of the prophets, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha: "As the LORD liveth, before whom I stand," (1 Kings 17:1; 1 Kings 18:15; 2 Kings 3:14; 2 Kings 5:16). The representation is that they ministered, as it were, constantly in his presence and under his eye.

(See Revelation 1:20 regarding "candlesticks".)

And if any man will hurt them. This implies that there would be those who would be disposed to injure or wrong them; that is, that they would be liable to persecution. The word "will" here is more than the mere sign of the future; it denotes intention, purpose, design—yelei—"if any man wills or purposes to injure them." See a similar use of the word in 1 Timothy 6:9.

The word hurt here means to do injury or injustice—adikhsai—and may refer to wrong in any form—whether in respect to their character, opinions, persons, or property. The general sense is that there would be those who would be disposed to do them harm, and we should naturally look for the fulfillment of this in some form of persecution.

Fire proceedeth out of their mouth. It is, of course, not necessary that this should be taken literally. The meaning is, that they would have the power of destroying their enemies as if fire should proceed out of their mouth; that is, their words would be like burning coals or flames. There may possibly be an allusion here to 2 Kings 1:10–14, where it is said that Elijah commanded the fire to descend from heaven to consume those who were sent to take him ; but in that case Elijah commanded the fire to come "from heaven;" here it proceeded "out of the mouth." The allusion here, therefore, is to the denunciations which they would utter, or the doctrines which they would preach, and which would have the same effect on their enemies as if they breathed forth fire and flame. So Jeremiah 5:14, Because ye speak this word, Behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.

And devoureth their enemies. The word devour is often used with reference to fire, which seems to eat up or consume what is in its way, or to feed on that which it destroys. This is the sense of the word here—katesyiei—"to eat down, to swallow down, to devour." Compare Revelation 20:9; Septuagint Isaiah 29:6; Joel 2:6; Leviticus 10:2.

As there is no reason to believe that there would be literal fire, so it is not necessary to suppose that their enemies would be literally devoured or consumed. The meaning is fulfilled if their words should in any way produce an effect on their enemies similar to what is produced by fire: that is, if it should destroy their influence; if it should overcome and subdue them; if it should annihilate their domination in the world.

And if any man will hurt them. This is repeated in order to make the declaration more intensive, and also to add another thought about the effect of persecuting and injuring them.

He must in this manner be killed. That is, in the manner specified—by fire. It does not mean that he would be killed in the same manner in which the "witnesses" were killed, but in the method specified before—by the fire that should proceed out of their mouth. The meaning is, undoubtedly, that they would have power to bring down on them Divine vengeance or punishment, so that there would be a just retaliation for the wrongs done them.