NONE.filter - rwp identifications:

rwp@Revelation:11:3 @{I will give} (\ds\). Future active of \didmi\. The speaker may be God (Beckwith) or Christ (Swete) as in strkjv@2:13; strkjv@21:6| or his angel representative (22:7,12ff.|). The idiom that follows is Hebraic instead of either the infinitive after \didmi\ as in strkjv@2:7; strkjv@3:21; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@7:2; strkjv@13:7,15; strkjv@16:8| or \hina\ with the subjunctive (9:5; strkjv@19:8|) we have \kai prophteusousin\ (and they shall prophesy). {Unto my two witnesses} (\tois dusin martusin mou\). Dative case after \ds\. The article seems to point to two well-known characters, like Elijah, Elisha, but there is no possible way to determine who they are. All sorts of identifications have been attempted. {Clothed} (\periblmenous\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\ as often before (7:9,13; strkjv@10:1|, etc.). But Aleph A P Q here read the accusative plural in \-ous\, while C has the nominative in \-oi\. Charles suggests a mere slip for the nominative, but Hort suggests a primitive error in early MSS. for the dative \peribeblemenois\ agreeing with \martusin\. {In sackcloth} (\sakkous\). Accusative retained with this passive verb as in strkjv@7:9,13|. See strkjv@6:12| for \sakkos\ and also strkjv@Matthew:3:4|. The dress suited the message (Matthew:11:21|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION They are literally many. There are those who make the book a chart of Christian and even of human history even to the end. These divide into two groups, the continuous and the synchronous. The continuous historical theory takes each vision and symbol in succession as an unfolding panorama. Under the influence of this theory there have been all sorts of fantastic identifications of men and events. The synchronous theory takes the series of sevens (seals, trumpets, bowls) as parallel with each other, each time going up to the end. But in neither case can any satisfactory program be arranged. Another historical interpretation takes it all as over and done, the preterist theory. This theory again breaks into two, one finding the fulfilment all in the Neronic period, the other in the Domitianic era. Something can be said for each view, but neither satisfies the whole picture by any means. Roman Catholic scholars have been fond of the preterist view to escape the Protestant interpretation of the second beast in chapter strkjv@Revelation:13| as papal Rome. There is still another interpretation, the futurist, which keeps the fulfilment all in the future and which can be neither proved nor disproved. There is also the purely spiritual theory which finds no historical allusion anywhere. This again can be neither proved nor disproved. One of the lines of cleavage is the millennium in chapter strkjv@Revelation:20|. Those who take the thousand years literally are either pre-millennialists who look for the second coming of Christ to be followed by a thousand years of personal reign here on earth or the postmillennialists who place the thousand years before the second coming. There are others who turn to strkjv@2Peter:3:8| and wonder if, after all, in a book of symbols this thousand years has any numerical value at all. There seems abundant evidence to believe that this apocalypse, written during the stress and storm of Domitian's persecution, was intended to cheer the persecuted Christians with a view of certain victory at last, but with no scheme of history in view.