Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 171:682 (Apr 2014)
Article: A Critique Of Preterist Views Of The Two Witnesses In Revelation 11
Author: Christine Joy Tan

---

BSac 171:682 (April-June 2014) p. 210

A Critique Of Preterist Views Of The Two Witnesses In Revelation 11*

Christine Joy Tan

* This is the second article in a four-part series “A Defense of a Futurist View of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11:3-13.”

The first article in this series discussed preterist views of the two witnesses and showed that assumptions underlying preterist identifications of the witnesses are untenable. This second article critiques the preterist views that the two witnesses of Revelation 11 (a) were Christians who remained in Jerusalem in AD 67-70, (b) symbolize Jewish governmental and religious authorities, or (c) represent the entire line of Hebrew prophets.

The Preterist View That The Two Witnesses Were
Christians In Jerusalem In Ad 67-70

Not Fitting The First-Century Jerusalem Context

A weakness of the preterist view that the two witnesses were Christians who remained in Jerusalem in AD 67-70 is the lack of external corroboration of events alleged to have happened during AD 67-70, especially the witnesses’ miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Preterists explain this lack by referring to first-century events such as the Roman invasion, the idea that most Christians fled east of the Jordan (in obedience to Christ’s warning in Matthew 24:16-22 and in fulfillment of Revelation 12:6, 14), and the idea that the two witnesses chose to stay in Jerusalem. As a result no record from Christians exists of the two witnesses. But this is

BSac 171:682 (April-June 2014) p. 211

both historical conjecture and an erroneous application of Scripture.1

Moreover, these preterists understand the witnesses’ miraculous powers, death, resurrection, and ascension literally, as having actually occurred in AD 67-70.2 True, the biblical text supports a literal understanding of the witnesses’ miraculous activities.3 However, preterists fail to point to any historian who verifies the activities of the witnesses. Josephus’s writings are the only extant eyewitness account of Jerusalem’s first-century destruction.4 In seeking to explain the lack of corroborating external evidence for the two witnesses’ activities in AD 67-70, preterists fail to take into account the follow...

visitor : : uid: ()