Stephen
Terry, Director
The
Two Witnesses
Commentary
for the May 11, 2024, Sabbath School Lesson
"In
your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am
one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." John
8:17-18
Twice a year, Canada, the United
States, and Europe engage in a bizarre ritual called Daylight Savings Time. We
are not alone, for several other countries follow suit. In the fall the clocks
are set back an hour giving us another hour of sleep, but in the spring, they
are set forward an hour, taking back the hour of sleep they granted us in the fall.
This constant assault on our body's desire to be secure in an ongoing and reliable
biorhythm leaves us feeling out of order until we become accustomed to the new
hours. However, this is not the biggest problem. Our animals, whether livestock
or pets, do not use clocks to determine the hours, they rely on the hours of
daylight and darkness. This means a cow that was milked at six in the morning
does not understand why they must now wait until what used to be seven because the
clock was set back an hour. For those of us who no longer live an agrarian
lifestyle, this is rarely considered, but those who have pets still must deal
with this issue. If we are customarily giving our pets their food before
heading off for work, they don't understand that feeding time is now an hour
later, so an hour before the clock says they should eat, they are attempting to
let us know that feeding time has passed and their bowl is empty. This alone,
more than simply setting the clock back, accounts for more sleep deprivation
than is healthy.
So why do we do this to
ourselves twice a year? Primarily, it is because we cannot agree on which of
the two times should be permanent. Should we be permanently back an hour or
forward an hour? Jonathan Swift, in his book, "Gulliver's Travels," eloquently
outlined how these impasses occur through Gulliver's visit to Lilliput. The
Lilliputians had been at war with the Blefuscudians over whether to break their
eggs at the small end or the larger end, the Lilliputians preferring the
former. Since the two parties could not allow the other to gain the advantage
of official recognition, divisive rhetoric and actual conflict festered between
the two groups. Jonathan Swift's solution was for an outside force neither of
them could withstand imposing a solution. This approach is why states appeal to
the federal legislature of the United States to resolve the issue of constantly
changing our clocks. Unfortunately, in a two party democracy, if one party
champions one option and another champions the other, they can effect change
based on their party's perspective when in the majority, but when the majority flips
to the other party, those changes can be rolled back as a fickle population and
wealthy interests sway the political winds this way or that. Short of divine intervention,
we have no greater power that can impose a solution. We have no Gulliver.
What does this have to do with the
Two Witnesses of Seventh-day Adventist eschatology? Adventism claims that the
Two Witnesses are the Old and New Testaments. They do this based on a false
eschatological timetable based on Ezekiel 4:6.[i]
William Miller, in the early 19th century, seized upon the idea that
prophetic days should always equal real years, this resulted in his prediction that
Jesus would return in 1844, an event never realized. Unwilling to abandon that
principle, the Seventh-day Adventist Church determined that the time did not
refer to Jesus' return, but to the beginning of an event called the Investigative
Judgment, where the cases of all will be decided prior to Jesus' return. While
the idea of an investigate judgment is biblical,[ii]
the date setting is not and was derived from a claimed vision by Hiram Edson
immediately following Jesus' failure to return in 1844. Rather than question
the whole "year-for-a-day" principle after the Great Disappointment of 1844, Adventism
doubled down and sought in every way possible to apply that principle to prophetic
timelines. It was determined that 1260 days, found in Revelation, chapters 11
and 12 and rendered elsewhere also as "time, times, and half a time" or "three
and a half years" meant 1,260 years. Then early Adventists created a timeline
based on arbitrarily claiming that Rome achieved complete domination over the
church in 538 CE by defeating the Arians and the ending of papal domination in
1798 CE, 1260 years later when the Pope was unseated by
General Berthier. That timeline was stated to
be the time of the Two Witnesses, claimed to be the Old and New Testaments, ending
with the ushering in of the Age of Enlightenment. This is supposed to have
slain the Two Witnesses and resulted in them being taken
up into heaven as the biblical text states.
The assumptions possibly would
not have gained the following they have today, over twenty-one million
followers, were it not for the endorsement of these timelines by Ellen White
and the widespread dissemination of that endorsement through the Adventist publishing
system and the denomination's many parochial schools and universities.
Foundational to the Adventist understanding of eschatology is Uriah Smith's "Daniel
and the Revelation." Although containing inaccuracies of prophetic fulfillment through
historical cites, the timeline is nonetheless adhered to in large part a
century and a half later. Unable to truly see the future, he credited the
Ottoman Empire with far more prophetic import than was fitting. For that reason,
Adventists do not so widely read his book today. But most Adventists would be
hard put to relate the byzantine convolutions of the prophetic timeline that
defines our most fundamental dogmatics. Start talking about Investigative Judgment
or Cleansing of the Sanctuary and eyes start glazing over if they are asked to reiterate
what those mean and why. If they are asked to explain why they believe the Two
Witnesses to be the Old and New Testaments, they will likely excuse themselves.
Even our quarterly does not do the job well.
Part of the problem is that we
feel we must find solid links between the prophecies of Daniel and those of
John in Revelation. We base our entire existence as a denomination on that
principle. We claim to be the remnant, "time-of-the-end" people and because the
book of Daniel is sealed until the time of the end,[iii]
it is imperative that Daniel is an open book to us as a church. It is the
ultimate proof of our remnant status. However, I have yet to see a cogent
revelation of the meaning of Daniel, chapter 11. It is uncomplimentary in its
revelation of our ignorance as a supposed elect people called forth for the end
times.
Nonetheless, we have a tough
time allowing denominational introspection that might deliver us from this
quandary. We accuse the church of Rome and the papacy of being a persecutorial
power when it comes to their treatment of those who dissented against papal
dogma. That is the period we refer to when we talk of the Two Witnesses. This has
not prevented us from doing the same. As Martin Luther was tormented by the church
of Rome for questioning dogma and praxis, so Desmond Ford was tormented by the
church of Takoma Park for calling for re-examination of the Investigative
Judgment doctrine. The church is not reluctant to use the power of the purse to
reign in dissent, threatening a member's livelihood and the support of their
families if they do not fall into line. Only those who do not feed at the
breast of the denomination may freely express themselves without fear of
retribution. This was made clear at Glacier View in 1980 with the subsequent
firing and defrocking of Dr. Ford.
The problem the denomination
faces is the irony of its desperate attempts to keep everyone in the ship while
ignoring the leaks streaming through below decks. If the captain's helm and
quarters are not flooding, they assume the journey will be successful. By the
time the water level reaches the helm, and the captain must decide whether to
abandon ship or go down with it in fine maritime tradition, the ship will be beyond
saving, and everyone will have drowned or drifted away in lifeboats. Why does
it have to get to that point?
To illustrate my point, Jesus
spoke of two witnesses, he and his Father as referenced in the opening verse.
His ministry lasted three and a half years. (1,260 days?) He was taken up into
heaven at the end of that ministry. There are alternative, valid applications
of prophecy without the year/day principle. Thanks to William Miller and the
Great Disappointment, we struggle to accommodate those ideas. We feel we are
the remnant people. We have the truth, and for that reason alone we are willing
to die on that hill, destroying all challengers in the process. It is time we grew
up spiritually. It is possible to crack the egg at either the small end or the
large end and still enjoy a healthy meal together.
For more information about
Daniel's prophetic timeline, you may enjoy my book, "Daniel
- Stranger in a Strange Land"