Friday, February 14, 2020

Some of the Problems With Interpreting Moses and Enoch as the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11


Latter-day Saints, based on the Doctrine and Covenants, believes that Revelation 11 teachers that there will be two literal prophets raised up in the latter days (see this post against a merely symbolic interpretation). As we read:

Q. What is to be understood by the two witnesses in the eleventh chapter of Revelation?
A. They are two prophets that are to be raised up to the Jewish nation in the last days, at the time of the restoration, and to prophesy to the Jews after they are gathered and have built the city of Jerusalem in the land of their fathers. (D&C 77:15)

As with many others, however, we do not believe that these two prophets will be Moses and Enoch. Commenting on this text, Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett in volume 2 of their A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, wrote:

15. The two witnesses: In Greek the words for witness and martyr are the same. This is appropriate, since being one often leads to becoming the other. John saw in his vision two servants of the Lord who testify of the truth and who suffer martyrdom for it. These two witnesses have the power to shut the heavens and to smite the earth with plagues. These witnesses will not be casual elders who just happen to be in Jerusalem when war breaks out; they will likely be General Authorities of the Church—prophets specifically called on this mission to the Jewish nation (compare Zechariah 4:12–14; Revelation 11:1–4).

Arguing against the Moses/Enoch interpretations, J. Dwight Pentecost wrote:

There are several difficulties in identifying Moses as one of the witnesses. (1) The phrase “like unto me” in Deuteronomy 18:15 seems to preclude any possibility that Moses himself will be one of the witnesses, for the prophet was not Moses, but one like Moses. (2) The similarity of the miracles does not signify identification. The miracles Moses wrought were signs to Israel. The signs of the witnesses will likewise be signs to that nation. It would be striking thing to those to whom the signs came if God should reduplicate those signs which had been the great signs to Israel in the past days. (3) While the transfiguration is identified with the millennial age (2 Pet. 1:16-19) it is nowhere identified with the tribulation period or the ministry of the witnesses. Because they appeared at the transfiguration, signifying they would be related to the Lord at His coming for His kingdom, it does not mean they must be the witnesses. (4) Moses’ body at the transfiguration was not his resurrection body, since Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23), nor an immortal body, so it can not be argued on the basis of Jude 9 that Moses’ body was preserved so he might return to die . . . There seem to be several arguments against identifying one of these witnesses as Enoch (1) It is the stated purpose that Enoch was translated “in order that he might not see death” (Heb. 11:5). In view of this it could hardly be stated that he will be returned to die. (2) It would seem that the antediluvian prophet would not be sent into a time when God is dealing with Israel. (3) The position of Enoch and Elijah in translation does not differ from all the Old Testament saints who are before the Lord through physical death. Their means of entrance differed, but not their position upon entrance. Thus the act that they were raptured does not necessitate a difference of state, nor make it necessary that they should return to die. (4) The witnesses have mortal bodies and are subject to death. Elijah and Moses on the mount of transfiguration evidently did not have mortal bodies, or they “appeared in glory”. It is hardly likely that they would be given mortal bodies again. (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964], 306-8)