Any discussion of ‘the cross’ in the Book of Revelation immediately faces a substantial challenge: in contrast with almost every other book in the New Testament, it is barely mentioned at all overtly. Its solitary explicit appearance comes in an extended prophetic narrative in chapter 11: the bodies of the ‘two witnesses’ will ‘lie in the public square of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified’ (Rev 11.8). The identification of the place in this way has led some to suppose that ‘the great city’ was John’s oblique way of referring to Jerusalem. But it is very hard to think of Jerusalem as the city that ‘rules over the kings of the earth’ (Rev 17.18) who made all the merchants of the world rich (Rev 18.19). Identifying it as a place of sin and debauchery (‘Sodom’) and a place of slavery for God’s people from which they would be liberated in exodus (‘Egypt’) points to it as being the jurisdiction of Rome—by whose power Jesus was put on the cross. The crucifixion is therefore here described as exemplary: just as Jesus suffered and died on the cross, so his faithful followers, bearing prophetic witness after the pattern of Moses and Elijah, will also suffer and be killed. But like their Lord, they too will experience the victory of resurrection life in defiance of their enemies, and this will lead some to repentance (Rev 11.11–12).
This single example highlights the complexity of analyzing Revelation for theological themes—a complexity which puts many ordinary readers off engaging with it. Despite the widespread view that the text relates to some future ‘end time’ (which, remarkably, is always just about to happen), John makes it clear that he is writing a letter to his first century contemporaries living in the province of Asia, the Western end of what we now call Turkey. This is clear from the epistolary language in Rev 1.4–5 and 1.9 as well as the closing remarks in 22.8 and 22.21. It is evident in the local details within the messages to the assemblies in the seven cities, most strikingly in the language of ‘hot, cold and lukewarm’ (Rev 3.14) to those living in Laodicea whose lukewarm water supply contrasted with the hot water of Hierapolis (Pummukale) lying on the opposite side of the Lycus River, and the cold water of Colossae further along the valley. But it can also be seen in the practices of devotion to the emperor which find their way into the scenes of heavenly worship in numerous ways, and the descriptions of calamity brought by the four horsemen of chapter 6—warfare, conquest, famine, disease and death—which were very familiar in the first century world, and have in fact been throughout history. (It is sobering to note that, following the slaughter of the Great War, the Spanish flu of 100 years ago infected one third of the world’s population.)
In its first word, Revelation also calls itself an ‘apocalypse’—a lifting of the cover so that we can see what is really happening—and a ‘prophecy’ (Rev 1.3), not so much meaning that it predicts the future (though there is plenty of eschatology in it) but that it offers God’s perspective and reality on a world that otherwise might look quite different to the human eye.
A wide range of ideas about Jesus are introduced in the epistolary greeting of Rev 1.5–7, and many of these relate to Jesus’ death on the cross.
First, the appellation ‘Christ’ (which occurs seven times in the book) appears to function as a name here, but it also stands alone elsewhere (Rev 11.15, 12.10, 20.4, 6) which suggests it has not lost its force as signifying ‘the one anointed by God’. This title is immediately followed by the description of Jesus as ‘faithful witness’; although the language of witness (martus, martyria) has a forensic sense of testimony in the context of trial, it quickly becomes associated with losing one’s life as a result of adherence to the faith, in Rev 6.9, 11.8 and 12.11. John is here portraying Jesus’ death on the cross as the result of his faithfulness as God’s anointed one, a pattern of faithfulness in a hostile world which believers are urged to follow. (This is confirmed by the numerological patterns within the text. The name ‘Jesus’ occurs 14 times, which is 2 x 7. 2 is the number of true witness (see Deut 17.6) and 7 the number of completion, suggesting that 14 signifies Jesus is the perfect witness. ‘Spirit’ and ‘saints’ also occur 14 times.) This fits both with the language of Paul in Phil 2.8 (‘he was obedient to death’) and of Jesus in his description of discipleship in Mark 8.34 (‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me’). The pioneering nature of his resurrection is expressed in the phrase ‘firstborn from the dead’.
In the second part of Rev 1.5, Jesus’ death is described using the metonym ‘blood’, which occurs again in this way in Rev 5.9, 7.14 and 12.11 and offers some key insights into the meaning of Jesus’ death. (Some commentators see the ‘blood’ on the robe of the rider on the white horse in 19.13 as the rider’s (Jesus’) own blood, but this is unlikely in view of the parallel of 19.15 with 14.20.) In this verse, Jesus’ death is a sign of his love for us—a muted note in Revelation, mentioned only elsewhere in Rev 3.9 and 20.9. Being set ‘free from sin’ is an important idea in Paul’s theology (see Rom 6.18–22, 8.2 and Gal 5.1) though John uses a different Greek word for ‘free’. It also connects with the Exodus motif that is found throughout Revelation; our freedom from sin by the death of Jesus is analogous to the freeing of Israel from Egypt, protected by the blood of the Passover lamb. The Passover connection continues in John’s exposition of the goal of this liberation—‘to be a kingdom and priests to serve [him]’, an adapted quotation from Ex 19.6. Most commentators see the following combination of Dan 7.13 and Zech 12.10 in Rev 1.7 as a reference to Jesus’ return (his so-called ‘second coming’). But in Dan 7, the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ is a description of this figure coming tothe throne of the Ancient of Days from the earth, not the other way around. So here and in Matt 24.30 (the only other place where these verses are combined) this must be a reference to Jesus’ exaltation and ascension to God’s right hand; the priestly task of those he has set free from sin is to proclaim him as Lord and lead the whole world to the ‘mourning’ of repentance.
In the second reference to ‘blood’ in 5.9–10, we again find the connection with the Ex 19.6 language of ‘kingdom and priests’. The notion of Jesus’ faithful witness is now adapted into him being ‘worthy’ to open the seals of the scroll, which looks very much like a first-century will document. Because Jesus has been faithful to death, he alone is the one who can reveal to us God’s purposes for his world and his people. The effect of Jesus’ blood is described in language of the agora, the marketplace, as Jesus has ‘purchased’ people for God, language that would include the manumission of slaves by paying the price of redemption. And those thus purchased have come from ‘every tribe and language and people and nation’, a phrase occurring seven times in the text, each time in a slightly different form (Rev 5.9, 7.9, 10.11, 11.9, 13.7, 14.6 and 17.15) which combines the covenant language of Ex 19.5 (‘out of every nation…’) with the creation language of Gen 10.31 (‘tribes, tongues, territories and nations’). The redemption found in Jesus’ death not only brings to a climax God’s intentions for his covenant people, it also fulfils God’s hopes for the whole of creation, as his grace flows out over the boundaries of one ethnic group to all the peoples of the world. This language already has a strong eschatological focus; this completion of both covenant and creation means that the redeemed will not be whisked to a heavenly bliss but will ‘reign on earth’, a promise expressed already in the messages to those in Thyatira, Philadelphia and Laodicea (2.26, 3.12, 3.21) and fulfilled in the final vision of the New Jerusalem in Rev 22.5.
The third reference to ‘blood’ comes in the interlude of chapter 7, whose narrative function is to answer the question ‘Who can stand…?’ (Rev 6.17) in the light of the reality of the world and God’s coming judgement. In the first half of the chapter, John ‘hears’ the nation of Israel counted in a census preparing for warfare (compare Numbers 1.2–3) and their number is a square times a cube (12 x 12 x 10 x 10 x 10) signifying the holy presence of God in his world, just as the New Jerusalem is a square and a cube (21.15–17) imitating the shape of the Holy of Holies in the first temple (1 Kings 6.20). But then in 7.9 he turns to see those who have been counted, and this finite Jewish group turns out actually to be the innumerable redeemed from all of humanity. They have come through great ‘tribulation’ (thlipsis 7.14) just as John and his readers are already experiencing ‘tribulation’ (1.9)—which Paul tells us is the lot of all who seek the kingdom (Acts 14.22; compare Jesus’ teaching in Matt 5.11 and Mark 10.30). ‘Having washed their robes and made them white’ could suggest readiness for (spiritual) combat (compare 19.14) but it more usually signifies purity and holiness (as in 19.8; compare Is 1.18) that is granted to us through Jesus’ ‘blood’. It is the death of Jesus for us which give us the purity, holiness and honour signified by the wearing of white, and this alone which allows us to stand in the presence of God himself. And enduring suffering out of faithfulness to Jesus is the right and natural response to what he has done for us, not an attempt to win his favour.
The final reference to ‘blood’ comes in the pivotal chapter 12. Adapting the popular pagan myth of Leto, Python and Apollo, used by Roman emperors as imperial propaganda, John tells us that it is Jesus (and not Roman imperial power) who offers us true peace and prosperity, since in his death, resurrection and ascension (‘snatched up to God and his throne’ Rev 12.5) he has finally defeated that dragon and snake Satan (‘the accuser’ 12.10) and dethroned him. This victory has been won ‘by the blood of the lamb’; it is Jesus’ sacrificial death which has brought about Satan’s defeat, so that he is ‘Christus victor’, a theme we find throughout the gospels (in anticipation in Luke 10.18 and John 12.31) and in Paul (Col 2.13–14, Rom 16.20). But once again we find the cosmic achievement of the death of Jesus intimately related to the response of believers in following his example: they (we) ‘triumph[ed] over him by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony, for they did not love their lives to much as to shrink from death’ (12.11).
These themes are drawn together in the central image in Revelation: that of the lamb ‘standing as though slain’ at the centre of scene of worship in Rev 5.6. This compact, startling and paradoxical image holds together the whole range of theological ideas. Jesus has been slain for us, and carries the marks of that into the presence of God—but he now ‘stands’, having been raised. Though English translations struggle to express this, he is ‘in the midst of the throne’ and shares the throne with God, reigning and acting as one with the Father. He does so as the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’, Israel’s hope, but also stands at the centre of the cosmos and the created order, represented by the four living creatures around the throne. The unfolding picture of the heavenly temple in Revelation seems to mirror the earthly temple but, whilst it has an altar of incense (8.3) it has no altar of sacrifice, since the enthroned presence of God at the centre of the temple has now become the place of sacrifice. And the one who reigns from this sacrificial throne is the true Lord who deserves our worship as only he can bring the reign of peace that we long for.
The cross in Revelation is redemptive, purchasing for God a kingdom and priests from every nation; it is liberating as it sets us free from sin; it is victorious as it dethrones every power of evil; it is exemplary as the ultimate expression of the faithful witness to which we are all called; and it fulfils every purpose God has for his people and his creation. It forms us as a people of the cross, who live distinctive lives of holiness as we endure suffering in anticipation of the hope of the City from above which, when it comes down to earth, will be our dwelling place in God’s intimate presence for all eternity.
Additional note: some commentators believe that the description of the rider on the white horse in Rev 19.13, ‘dressed in a robe dipped in blood’, is a picture of the victorious Jesus wearing his own blood of atonement. I am not convinced by that, because of the particular language that John uses. The description of the rider continues using present participles (vv. 12–13 are one sentence in Greek). The image of the robe dipped in blood is not a parallel to the robes of the great multitude washed and made white in the blood of the lamb (7:14), since the language is quite different, including the term for ‘robe’ (here himation but stole in 7:14). Rather, it is language borrowed from Isa. 63:1–4 where God tramples the nations in the winepress of his wrath and their blood spatters his garments, drawing on the double meaning of ‘blood’ as the juice of grapes (Rev 14:19–20). It is of no consequence that the mention of the winepress does not come until v. 15, since this whole section is present and perfect tense description, and the narrative action does not begin until v. 19.
(The main article was originally published in Preach magazine, and was previously published here in 2021.)
—-—G—-—
—-—R—-—
P-E-&-C-E
—-—C—-—
—-—E—-—
…there’s the cross in Revelation!
If ever there were a book in the New Testament that isn’t about peace (until the end, anyway)…
Despite the widespread view that the text relates to some future ‘end time’ (which, remarkably, is always just about to happen), John makes it clear that he is writing a letter to his first century contemporaries living in the province of Asia, the Western end of what we now call Turkey.
May I recommend, in addition to Holy Scripture, Aesop’s Fable about the wolf?
Luke wrote Acts to Theophilus, but that also does not prevent us from seeing more universal themes in it. Does it mean nothing to you that
* Jesus said on the Mount of Olives that the end would come after the gospel had been preached to all peoples, an enterprise now almost completed?
* Revelation speaks of an evil whole-world political system, and already there is a power-hungry and corrupt United Nations organisation, the financial system is globalised, the internet enables video calls across the world, and students travel round the world in their gap year.
* Revelation speaks of terrible wars and plagues, and we now have weapons of mass destruction both nuclear and biological capable of ending the world; every more powerful weapon that man has invented has been used.
* Daniel (9:26) says that the end will come like a flood, and people clearly sense an acceleration in the pace of events.
* Jesus made clear (at Matthew 23:37-9) that he would return when Jerusalem acknowledges him – meaning the Jewish people and their leaders in the Holy Land. The Jews began returning to their land in the 19th century, a second return (after the first from Babylon) but this time from all parts of the world – exactly matching Isaiah 11:11-12 – and regained political hegemony in 1948 and Jerusalem in 1967. Meanwhile the number of Jewish believers in Jesus there is on a roll, from not more than a dozen families in May 1948 (the majority accepted a British offer of evacuation). . By the mid-1970s there were estimated to be many hundreds (it is impossible to be precise), and at the end of that decade the number was probably in four figures, meeting in some 15 Hebrew-speaking fellowships. In 1999 a detailed demographic survey by Kai Kjaer-Hansen and Bodil Skjøtt found about 5000 believers in roughly 80 congregations. In 2017 the Israel College of the Bible sent out a questionnaire, initially to leaders of Messianic congregations; returns suggested a total of about 30,000. By no means all of this increase is due to immigration.
Come, Lord Jesus!
Thanks for this helpful article. Especially good to be reminded that Revelation is about the situation that the author and the church faced in the Roman Empire of their day.
I once asked a friend in Pakistan what their favourite book of the Bible and was a bit surprised when they said immediately, Revelation, precisely because it spoke to their current context from the context of the Roman Empire rather than because it gave precise end-times predictions.
The Book of Revelation is much loved by believers under persecution. The absence of persecution in Western civilisation in the 19th and 20th centuries is a historical anomaly. It is partly responsible for the flabby shape of our churches and it will not last.
The dominance of the atonement model in Christendom since the ABC Anselm (d. 1109) has meant that we are always looking to interpret the NT through that model.
But Ezekiel 45:18–23 in his vision of the eschatological temple saw that Day of Atonement sacrifices would be brought forward to the Passover Day (which celebrated a victory over Pharoah and a release from slavery) — thus, as Ezekiel foresaw, Christ achieved a victory over Satan/cosmic evil and the atonement on the same day.
The focus of Revelation is surely Christus victor. But the loss of that understanding means we lose an apocalyptic worldview and look to interpret the NT through the ‘this world’ atonement model. Thus, now our sins are atoned, in the new age, it is believed we will resume life much as before, with a literal temple and a renewed ethnic Israel — the view Anton expresses.
But Jesus says, “For in the resurrection [we] neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30)
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26).
The ‘us’ here refers to the elohim (‘angels’) — as Charlie Trimm Chair of OT at Talbot School of Theology concedes is the consensus among evangelical OT scholars — thus in some way we lose our human sexuality and become like God’s other ‘family’ — the angels in heaven (YouTube link below).
It seems difficult to fit an ethnic Israel and a literal temple into that worldview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbtAYC37HCA&ab_channel=SeanMcDowell
I take that ‘us’ to be an example of the ‘royal we’ among the Holy Trinity, even if the angels were its audience.
Anton,
It is in the very next verse – Genesis 1:27 – where God distinguishes himself from the angels.
I took your post of 2.09pm to mean that angels had a hand in the creation, which I deny. Are you saying that? NB Elohim, being the generic Hebrew word for ‘god’ (it is used in ‘the elohim of other [pagan] peoples’ in the OT), is context-dependent and may denote the godhead or the angels.
Anton,
I speak as an ‘orthodox’ evangelical. These verses have been subject to much study in the Academy. What that Professor of OT is saying is that in the evangelical Academy it is widely accepted that in Eden the elohim are created angels. It follows that we are like the angels also created also subject to God‘s authority and also have agency and volition. The attribute that God gave us that the angels did not get is a corporeal existence with an innate sexuality.
Colin,
I am confused as to what you are claiming, so I asked you (in all courtesy) a simple Yes/No question: do you personally believe that angels had a hand in the creation?
Please include a clear Yes or No in any reply.
Anton,
“I am confused as to what you are claiming, so I asked you (in all courtesy) a simple Yes/No question: do you personally believe that angels had a hand in the creation? Please include a clear Yes or No in any reply.”
No. And the text does not say that. It is widely accepted that in Genesis 1:26 God is speaking corporately to his divine council of elohim about what he is going to do — elohim, as you realise, is a plural noun and when in the plural, as it clearly is in Genesis 1:26, it refers to ‘gods’.
The problem is a lot of evangelicals are unhappy with the concept of ‘gods’ so that is why I described them as ‘angels’, as does the LXX on many occasions — and it seems that Jesus followed that tradition in his comment in Matthew 22:30. All angels are elohim but not all elohim are angels.
The comment by Jesus in Matthew 22:30 makes perfect sense in light of Genesis 1:26-27.
Many thanks for your clarification; I agree with your answer. I take the plural that is Elohim to be either a reference to the Godhead (with a hint at the Trinity) or a reference to angels; and which it is depends on context. It isn’t hard to find examples of each in the OT. I’m not very interested in what scholars say; I am interested in scholarship but scholars often disagree, so laymen might as well do their best to think for themselves.
Anton, when you say scholars often disagree, you must remember a few things.
Number one, there will be disagreement even if one person says they disagree.
Second, there will always be disagreement simply because there are so many scholars in the world.
Third, it matters not whether scholars disagree, only whether evidence is ambiguous.
Fourth, scholars disagree and therefore scholars do not know more than the rest of us is a non sequitur.
Fifth, disagreement means holding different views often including the correct one. So you are tarring those who hold the correct view in the process of tarring scholars in general.
Sixth, because scholars are precise thinkers, they count very sight disagreements as being of major importance.
Relatedly (7th) I always say that scholars actually disagree much less than the rest of us, because they narrow down the possible options much better than the rest of us do.
8th the normal context inwhich people say ‘scholars disagree’ is ‘scholars disagree and therefore supposedly that gives me carte blanche to hold the position that suits me, evidenced or not.’. Not that you are saying that.
Colin H. Thanks for this. I was always taught that Gen 1.26 was a trinitatrian reference but from your remarks l see now that is almost certainly referring to the ‘ Divine Council’. This is body of higher order spiritual beings that dwell in the presence of God and is mentioned in a number of places in scripture – a sort of God’ s spiritual Cabinet. I believe also, it is thought where Lucifer originated from. You will almost never hear about this in your average evangelical church where most take Gen 1: 26 to be a reference to the Trinity.
Christopher,
Let me give an exmxple of what I mean about scholars. There are extremely learned and intelligent scholars in the Catholic tradition and in the protestant tradition. But one of these large bodies of scholars is wrong. So how should someone decide whether to be a Catholic or a protestant?
You know the answer as well as I do!
I can’t begin to count the number of misapprehensions in that comment.
1. When I am at New Testament seminars, then no-one has denominational matters in mind because denominational matters are typically not scholarly, and to have them in mind would be to lower the tone, as it were.
2. If (as almost never happens) someone did have for example a Catholic or Anglican or Baptist perspective, it would almost invariably be wrong. All study is of the text only.
3. One reason for this is that denominational perspectives get relatively set in stone relatively early, but scholarship never stops developing and becoming more and more detailed and specialised, so leaving earlier formularies behind.
4. Why on earth would the main options for interpreting a passage just so happen to correspond to institutional bodies which have formed often for non-necessary contingent reasons out of certain historical circumstances at various times?
5. In particular, why would the 16th century have any more relevance to Bible interpretation than any other? It is a random century.Yet by citing the catholic-protestant binary, one makes it seem as though it does.
6. There are so very many ways you can slice the cake. Catholic-Protestant is only one of these, so is 15 pf the available ways of slicing.
7. However, it is worse than that, since the best interpretation will always be the most comprehensive. Therefore anything that is purely protestant/catholic/etc leaving out everything else is to that extent not only non comprehensive, but deliberately non comprehensive, and hence ends up at the bottom of the pile.
8. I cannot recall a time when either the debate or the options or the conclusions were noticeably catholic or protestant or whatnot. However, there are times when the catholic or protestant stock increases or decreases. For example, the catholic stock might decrease on verbal analysis of the angel’s words to Mary in general, and might increase on the basis that the words ‘the Lord is with thee’ are not noticeably less than the Christological use of Joseph (since these words have a Joseph origin) elsewhere in Luke. Even then, that would not be the main angle.
9. You say ‘one of these large bodies of scholars is wrong’. But neither body even agrees among themselves on many matters.
10. And anyway, if they did all toe the party line, that could well be an instance for us to dispute that they were being ‘scholars’ therein at all.
11. In biblical interpretation, it is not a level playing field. Those who have done most bible study are most likely to be closest to the right answers. That is just common sense. This tends to mean evangelicals.
12. The great immediately post Vatican II generation of biblical catholic scholars were great precisely because at that point they were the closest they have ever been to protestant i.e. text based interpretation.
13. In NT seminars, because text is king, all denominations and biases bow to that and defer to that, and if necessary must be changed by that.
14. Scholars are not always welcome in local congregations, because they will generally know better than the preacher about some things, and will especially know better than the denominational shibboleths.
15. There is no good argument in favour of denominational essentialism where catholicism and protestantism and pentecostalism fell from the sky fully formed and will remain that way. They are mere accidents of history. One does not say that it is a truth of logic that an army will have certain regiments.
16. When you say that one of them is wrong, you mean that a minimum of one of them is wrong
For ’15 pf’ read ‘1% of’.
Christopher,
Are you aware of the statement that arguments are to be weighed rather than counted?
I am speaking about the notion of a corrupt tradition.
Obviously arguments are to be weighed rather than counted. Nobody can get far without being aware of that.
Arguments are ranked according to their evidence i.e. correspondence to reality. And internal incoherence is a red flag re their truth.
Thank you Ian, for your careful insights, showing the depth and breadth of the NT community’s theology of the Cross being described by John. No simplistic one-dimensional theology on offer here! Is it worth reminding ourselves that in Revelation the power of the Cross is inseparably linked to the Resurrection (constantly implied I think by your comments). It is always the Resurrection which demonstrates and therefore validates the victory of the Cross for the NT community. For example Luke’s keynote Gospel presentation of Acts 2:22-36; and even for Paul 1Cor1:1-31 needs to be placed in the context of 1Cor15:1-8, which Paul calls his “gospel”. We are Easter (not just “Good Friday”) people !
FHB Yes we are “Easter/Good Friday people” , but we are also also ” exaltation/final judgement people.” And Jesus is that Judge! Acts17: 31 speaks of “the man He (God) has appointed.” The next verse speaks of the one who has been raised from the dead – cross-resurrection -and judgement!.
I agree with CH when he refers to the Christus Victor motif; if by this he incorporates the concept of judgement. I also agree with Ian P’s assessment that Revelation 19 material is “borrowed from Isaiah 63”. However, I would argue that the overall context here stretches beyond the confines of verses 1 to 4 of that chapter. For example, 63:5 bears a remarkable resemblance to Isaiah 59 :16. So than who is referred to in this verse when it says: “So his own arm worked salvation for him*. And about whom does verse 17 refer? Compare this with 52: 10: “The Lord will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of the nations and all the ends of the earth will see the *salvation* of our God. ” Which leads us into Isaiah 53 : –“and to whom has the ‘arm of the Lord’ been revealed ?” —“He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” Need I go on? Are we not witnessing here that powerful depiction of the ‘suffering servant’? And is it not beyond the possibility that, given the similarity among the various chapters here ,that the figure of *wrath* in 63: 5 is the same as the figure of salvation in 59: 16 et al.? If not, then to whom does the ‘man of war’ theology of Revelation 19 refer?
Victory is executed, the curse reversed, through the execution of Jesus, through the atonement, and resurrection for justification. Two sides of one redemption ‘coin’.
And it is only there where there is the New Creation, New Kingdom, ‘now’ but ‘not yet’ as in Revelation.
Inaugurated, not yet consummated.
Just a misdirected thought: do the horses represent a confluence of hobby horses? If so, there are many contemporary runners and riders and trainers.
No doubt to the first readers of John’s report there is/was a great encouragement to steadfastness during times of bloody persecutions and adversities, to see themselves perhaps seated with Christ in the heavenly places
They probably were not too concerned with how many times a specific word was used in the text.
How does this particular study have significance for 21st
century western readers, how should we read it, how can it be applied?
Dr. C. Matthew McMahon@ A Puritan.com, in typical puritan preaching [which nearly always closed with how a teaching might be applied in the everyday lives of the saints of the day;]
He gives 21st Century readers great encouragement in these turbulent times to enjoy and rejoice in this wonderful Scripture
@.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/the-cross-in-revelation-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
Thanks Alan. It is very helpful.
I found the link, copied and pasted here:
https://www.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/the-cross-in-revelation-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
A good read
Chris and Anton,
I do not know where we are on the thread so I put this comment here:
The confusion is in the epistemology. I am referring to a consensus among biblical scholars — biblical theologians who look to avoid a confessional position and see no role for the understanding of the church (unless based on valid scholarship) in accessing the meaning of the text.
Instead, they see that meaning is to be found in the context within the passage, within the book, within the canon — but perhaps most importantly, the social and literary context when originally written (thus a ‘Roman Catholic biblical theologian’ in this defintion is an oxymoron).
The original social and literary context is particularly problematic because discoveries in the last 75 years in the ANE have revealed a world of understanding unknown to the Reformers.
Confessional/systematic theologians work within that closed loop and new discoveries can give rise to a confessional conflict — and for those employed by the church or the faith-based academy it can lead to professional conflicts (will I keep my job?).
Specifically on Genesis 1:26 — without doubt Moses would have understood this as a divine council — the universal understanding in the ANE.
There is also confusion about reading a ‘sensus plenior’ back into the original text, i.e., a Trinity. For a biblical theologian any ‘sensus plenior’ reading should be based on an articulated Scripture understanding of such being part of the original intented meaning by God and, crucially, would not change any original meaning — it would be a deeper/additional meaning.
Otherwise, when Moses used the word ‘elohim’ it would not mean what he and his readers thought it meant. How would that work?
PS You can see that Ian P in his Revelation commentary is always looking for that original contextual understanding.
Geoff posts an interesting article as below — it is the precise antithesis of biblical theology and a clear demonstration of what biblical theology is not:
“The importance of Augustine of Hippo’s thought for western Christianity is difficult to overstate. Medieval theology is deeply influenced by Augustine, and the retrieval of Augustine’s thought is everywhere evident in the theology of the Reformers. Today, the reception of Augustine’s views of election, human nature, sin and grace, and sacramental theology—to name a few—can be seen in Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed traditions.”
Augustine had a poor understanding of biblical Greek, his knowledge biblical Hebrew was negligible — and his understanding of Hebrew culture and the ANE was non-existent.
This is not a criticism of Augustine, but those who follow Augustine have a different epistemology.
The article continues:
“Here, we see the principal problem to be solved in Augustine’s atonement theology. As with the rest of the church fathers …”
So, the article is a consideration of “Augustine’s atonement theology”and that of the church fathers — who are seen to have some authority. The author is Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Trinity Anglican Seminary — and I am sure he would not claim to be a biblical theologian.
These differing epistemologies are hugely significant in any discussion of biblical teaching and often lead to misunderstandings.
We’ve been here before on your hobby horse, Colin, with a straw man argument, which doesn’t address the article and points made.
Similarlarly, your biblical theology is well off the contending that God divorced Israel, presumably employing your ANE hermeneutic, without specifying what it actually is.
Also significant is a lack of response to Alan’s puritan posting.
There is much more about Augustine on the Credo site including an article by Baptist minister and lecturer Nick Needham on the Augustine, Pelagius dispute and an article on the transcendence of God.
And the transcendance of God of scripture, transcends the historical/higher critics understanding of elohim.
And an article, Augustine’s Christian Platonism. Revisited is here:
https://credomag.com/article/augustines-christian-platonism-revisited/
It does not contradict scripture but hones in on the transcendent God scripture, who was indeed immanently present in his conversion experience.
It is a transcendence and immanence an epistemology revealed throughout scripture. Not a mere intellectual exercise!
Geoff, thank you for recommending this Credo article because it does explain, if that is your thinking, why we have disagreed on things like NT Wright and Open Theism. No wonder you make many of the statements you do. The thing is, of course, whether this thinking is ‘biblical’.
God’s Victorious Love: Atonement and the Cross in Augustine.
https://credomag.com/article/gods-victorious-love/
And yet, though the atonement is central, it is but the outworking of the Beginning, Genesis, where Truth and Lie collide, and before the begining, as set out in a series of short talks and transcripts, this week begining Monday with
1. The tragedy of the fall
2. The strategies of satan
3. The enemy of our souls
4. The deceiver’s great lie
5. Looking to our loving Father (yesterday)
Hosted by Ligonier:
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson
Colin, May 3, 2025 at 11:23 am
I have no doubts as to the significance of Ian’s scholarship;
Or for that matter any theologian’s expertise [though there are quite a few weird ones; like false shepherds/teachers they can only be challenged by well read thinkers.
My situation as a common pew dweller is for teaching to be clear and of practical benefit to the man on the number 48 Omnibus.
My concern is that churches replete with extra learned Shepherds, Masters and Doctors of Divinity do exist in such appalling states of ill-health, ill-humour, poverty and are in a declining/dying state of being.
The fight is the fight for Life, but so many contentious people do not understand “spiritual warfare”, thinking instead that they are doing God a service.
People are looking for Life, politicly, a better life, a more meaningful life, a fulfilling life, a party life, a vibrant exciting life, or a peaceful contented life;
All around us the dead are crying out for Life.
Yes, young people as they always do/have. are looking for life.
Will they find The Life amongst the dead, in dead places?
HE is not here, He is risen,” seek those things which are above” as we are invited by St. John.
,
Revelation, as John says of it himself, is a prophecy, and therefore primarily about the future (the future when he wrote it) (Rev 1:19, 4:1). Hence the title of my commentary, When the Towers Fall: A Prophecy of What Must Happen Soon, the second half of which comes from Rev 1:1 and 22:6. Parts of the prophecy were fulfilled in the 20th century.
Regarding Elohim and Genesis, which is a bit off topic, page 73 of the commentary says:
The NT is clear: All things were made through Jesus Christ, who was with God in the beginning (John 1:1, I Cor 8:6). Therefore, when God speaks in Genesis 1, he is addressing his son, and the plural in Gen 1:26 and 3:22 designates them two.
Angels are not mentioned until Gen 6, with reference to some of the other sons. When Elohim is the subject and the Hebrew verb is singular, as throughout the creation narrative, it unambiguously means ‘God’.
Hi Steven,
The problem with the understanding that the plural in Gen 1:26 is a reference to Trinitarian concepts is that ‘elohim’ singular meant God (as you point out) — but when elohim was plural it meant ‘gods’ — this was the unanimous view it seems of Israel’s neighbours, and that is the way that Moses and his readers would have understood it.
If it was a reference to the Trinity neither writer nor reader would have understood it that way. Certainly the Bible can speak of mysteries but it wouldn’t use vocabulary that clearly meant something else at the time if it never did mean that thing.
The concept of a ‘sensus plenior’ means that we later see an additional meaning — not that the original meaning never applied. I think that is accepted across a wide spectrum of biblical scholarship.
Steven,
And I am sure you realise it is widely thought that Job was written before Genesis and those writings would have been surely know by Moses:
“Now there was a day when the ‘elohim’ came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them [plurtal] … there was a day when the ‘elohim’ came to present themselves [plural] before the LORD, and Satan also came among them … “Where you when I laid the foundation of the earth? … when the morning stars sang together and all the ‘elohim’ [plural] shouted for joy? (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4)
So, Job places Satan with the ‘elohim’ — but we believe in Genesis 1:26 Moses uses exactly the same plural noun — but means something different?
The most obvious reason why ‘elohim’ in Genesis 1 (and almost everywhere it is used in reference to God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is to be regarded as a singular noun is that that the verbs of which it is the subject are masculine singular.
In particular, this is the case for Gen 1:26: Elohim (he) said, “Let us make…”
Can you point to a place where the word is the subject of a verb which is plural?
Hi David,
It is the ‘us’ that is the reference to the plural elohim – a theme picked up in Genesis 3: 5, KJV and Genesis 3:22.
It is an assumption to say that because it is a prophecy it is about the future. Fundamentally, the prophet is one who speaks to a contemporary audience from God. Prophetic language can condemn or console. Yes, consolation in particular can have a future aspect, but it is primarily addressed to the prophet’s contemporaries for their encouragement.
Read my comment again: I refer to Rev 1:19 and 4:1, which say explicitly that the prophecy from 4:1 onwards is about the future. I also refer to Rev 1:1 and 22:6. Again these say explicitly that the prophecy concerns ‘what must take place soon’. Read the whole prophecy again. It should be obvious that the events described had not yet happened at the time John was writing.
Further, I disagree that the prime purpose of biblical prophecy in general is to encourage, and that the prime purpose of Revelation in particular is to encourage. It is to warn.
Even in the case of the seven letters – concerning the state of things now (the middle element in Rev 1:19) – most of the content is admonitory. Every letter ends with a promise, but the promises are conditional. They are for those who ‘overcome’ – in every generation, but particularly in the final period when conditions will be extremely challenging.
By ‘the cross’ we mean the doctrine that each and every one of us deserved the crucifixion as wages for our own personal sin, that on the cross, Jesus took the wage for our sin and that, ‘believing in Him’ (John 3:16) means believing that through His atoning work, my sins have been nailed to the cross, I have been ‘ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven’, and that I have the Holy Spirit within me, transforming me.
Well, while the first part of this (that my own personal sin warrants the crucifixion) may not be explicitly mentioned in Revelation (although I’d say that Revelation 5:9 is quite explicit), huge swathes of the book wouldn’t really make much sense without it – the offence of the cross (what the fact that Jesus had to die really means for us) and the atonement. Much of the book illustrates the persecution of those of us who are ‘in Him’ by those who are ‘offended in Him’. (The offence comes from a refusal to accept one’s personal sinfulness – and that the cross represents reasonable wages) and makes no sense at all without the backdrop of the cross and atonement.
I agree Jock. It seems to me most people, although accepting theyre not ‘perfect’, do not accept they need forgiveness by God and reject outright that our sins sent Jesus to the cross.
Reading the NT as a whole, I do not understand how anyone cannot see atonement is at the heart of Jesus’ death. It may not be the only facet but it is central.
Lest any think I have not been addressing the subject of this blog, the articles Geoff refers to make my point for me. There are two issues, the first is that our church traditions are based on Augustine:
“The importance of Augustine of Hippo’s thought for western Christianity is difficult to overstate. Medieval theology is deeply influenced by Augustine, and the retrieval of Augustine’s thought is everywhere evident in the theology of the Reformers. Today, the reception of Augustine’s views of election, human nature, sin and grace, and sacramental theology—to name a few—can be seen in Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed traditions.”
https://credomag.com/article/gods-victorious-love/
The second is that Augustine’s understanding of the gospel is based on Platonism:
“As Augustine vividly recounts, it was his reading of some books of the Platonist philosophers that introduced him to the idea of a reality beyond the changing world of space and time … Augustine maintained that God had led him to read the Platonists’ books before he read the scriptures.”
https://credomag.com/article/augustines-christian-platonism-revisited/
In contrast, biblical theologians are more convinced than ever that the NT is based on the OT and has a Jewish perspective which fully embraces an apocalyptic worldview. Neoplatonism does not.
So, my point has been that contra our Augustinian church tradition, we should not be surprised that Revelation does not focus on the atonement but rather has an apocalyptic/Christus victor worldview — especially as Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological Temple sees that the day of atonement sacrifices are subsumed into the Passover day which celebrates a victory over evil.
If you include two or more links, the comment automatically goes for approval, as part of spam filtering.
Thanks. I wondered if it was some sort of spam thing. I will avoid that in future.
Divine Counsel, pre-creation is intra trinity. eg John 1, John 17 and throughout John.
As for gods, which gods? The gods of Egypt, represented in the plagues, over which the God of Moses, the one true God succeed so that He could be worshiped as such, the I AM God of Shekinah glory.
True gods, or false gods? Which ‘gods’ did The Triune God of Christianity take counsel with?
Why would God take counsel with created beings, angels?
As for fuller sense, scripture interprets scripture, the OT the New and New the Old. It includes figures, eg. Rock, types, allegory(Sarah, Hagar).
It isnt that God needs counsel, but as in any relationship He wishes interaction.
It seems to me the OT reflects OT times understanding, and we shouldnt read the fuller NT understanding into it if we are wanting to know how the readers then understood the text.
Doesn’t the OT reflect God’s then revelation and counters prevailing beliefs of the pluralistic gods of culture.
Abram was called out by God, from Ur of the Chaldees, and their polytheistic worship, for God’s redemptive purposes.
Understanding may have been incomplete, and it was, but we no longer subscribe to it now we have the full canon, fulfilled in Christ.
Please answer the questions from the canon scripture.
Why would God take take counsel from the demonic?
Where in the whole canon does God take counsel from angels?
God has no such need in Trinity.
I dont think he does take counsel from the demonic. Not all angels are fallen, if indeed that is what constitutes a demon, though that is all guess work. I would imagine the vast majority are good. But why presume the only other beings in existence are angels? Given the vast number of different types just on this earth, would it be shocking if in the spiritual realm there’s a lot more too? It would be odd if God’s creativity was confined to the physical universe. And it would not be a surprise if the Bible does not reveal everything about reality. That’s for the next age.
Again, it is not about ‘need’ but about relationship. you might as well argue there was no ‘need’ for a creation in the first place because God being a Trinity is self-sufficient. Yet He chose to create, and ultimately flesh and bone humans.
PC1,
Yes! This is biblical theology. And not all the elohim (angels) were evil as Geoff seems to assume. Two of them – two Cherubim – were commissioned with the task of guarding the gate into Eden.
Colin H, I have never assumed that at all. There are are worshipping angels, obedient active messengers, and fallen angels, demonic, disobedient, active adversaries and their doctrines.
Aseity;
God in Trinity in his asiety has no need to consult with anything in his created order angels or false gods.
(Please Colin H do me the courtesy of responding to my points direct rather than indirectly through comments to others).
There is no scriptural evidence that God counsulted, the cherubim, nor the Archangels.
Aseity-
“I am who I am…This name describes him as the One who is and always will be what he was…He is self-existent. He existed before all things, and all things exist only through him…He is dependent on nothing, but everything depends on him…Nor does he need anything for he is all sufficient and has life in himself… Thus being all sufficient in himself and not receiving anything from outside of himself, he is, by contrast, the only source of all existence and life, of all life and love, the overflowing fountain of all good.” (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol.2, p150)
Thanks to our minister (an Oak Hill graduate) who last evening ran the first of three seminars on the ‘Doctrine of God.’
“Where is the cross and atonement found in the book the book of Revelation” –
How easily the debate has morphed into a myriad of issues which, in some cases have a biblical basis, but in others exhibit a tendency to drift into sheer speculation!
Even if Revelation exhibits a paucity of what has been described as ‘the backdrop of the cross and atonement’, what then are we to make of the epistle of St James – Luther’s ‘epistle of straw’? And what are we to make of all those epistles in the NT (and not forgetting Acts) which play down or virtually ignore that kingpin of the Reformation – justification by faith? Are we therefore about to offload those parts of Scripture which do not conforn to our own brand of evangelical piety? And even for those of you who are rooted in the soil of the a,b,c,d’s of the cross, are you not aware of the correlation of these with other aspects of Christian truth? For example- eschatology- the doctrine of the last things ? Revelation in its own apocalyptic style illuminates the *historical movement * of God’s saving purposes from creation and fall to the consumation of the saving work of Christ (witness the marriage supper of the lamb [19: 6-9]. I stress ‘historical’ here because as at least one reputable NT scholar has pointed out that Revelation is replete with allusions linked to the Old Testament! And these prophetic utterences,whilst faithfully illuminating the future messiahship of Jesus, do so without detracting from the completeness of his atoning work , yet maintaining that there are aspects of his work awaiting realization in the future (and by no means least of these being his ‘second coming’) !
The late OT scholar Alan Cole in his commentary on Exodus describes this phenomenon as ” prophetic perfects” – future events being described as if they had already taken place. However if you regard this as relegated to the OT, then read Luke 1: 68 :” Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people.” Of course if you reject the idea that the reference here is to national Israel, but you believe it refers to ‘spiritual’ Israel or ‘new’ Israel, then you will, no doubt, reject my analysis. Nevertheless, those of you, as members of the Augustine of Hippo fan club, will be aware? that regarding biblical exegesis, he had more than a propensity for allegorical interpretation. Indeed his input in this department still lingers on. And it goes much deeper than ‘Sarah and Hagar’.
Of course it goes deeper. But even mention an example is not to subscribe t wholesale allegory, it was given merely a an example along with other longitudinal biblical theology hermeneutics.
The questions I asked remain unanswered by Colin Hamer.
Neither has he responded in any substance to the Credo articles as is his wont when riding his hobby horses all over our hosts posts.
Colin MC, If that is a dig at me, it I we’ll off the mark.
If you can and Colin H can dismiss Augustine out of hand from your own
epistemological positions may indicate a certain narrowness.
The links to Credo open up questions for discussion which neither of you respond with any substance. The article were linked, to show that even theologian supporters of Augustine were aware of the objections principally Colin H’s so called epistemology denunciation. Augustine a radical sinner radically converted reviewing his pre-conversion knowledge and experience.
Colin H, has designed not to respond to m substantive questions.
As for allegory, I am far from a disciple of Augustine. The singular allegory was mentioned in response to fuller understanding of the whole canon , which includes the complementary schools of Biblical theology (with types, figures, patterns and more) and Systematatic Theology.
For what it is worth it doesn’t seem to me that much scriptural hermeneutics, gives much weight to Messianic Jews reading and understanding of, for example what are seen as the God ordained festivals/feasts of the Messiah, completed, fulfilled in Jesus.
I’m unaware that either of the Colins has given any consideration to this.
I have tried to explain this earlier but for some reason Ian has made my comment subject to moderation: The two articles Geoff refers to from credomag.com make my point for me, in that the first points out that much of our church tradtion is based on Augustine.
The second makes it clear that Augustine’s understanding of the gospel is based on Platonism, a point I think Bruce Symons was commenting on in a reply to Geoff — “God had led him to read the Platonists’ books before he read the scripture” — the link itself describes such: “augustines-christian-platonism-revisited”.
In contrast, biblical theologians are more convinced than ever that the NT is based on the OT and has a Jewish perspective which fully embraces and apocalyptic worldview. Neoplatonism does not.
So, my point has been that despite our Augustinian church tradition, we should not be surprised that Revelation does not focus on the atonement but rather has an apocalyptic/Christus victor worldview — especially as Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological temple sees that the day of atonement sacrifices are subsumed into the Passover day which celebrates a victory over evil.
Thanks Colin. Several interesting asides here.
As I said above I think the death of Jesus encompasses many facets, but that sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins was central. Hence Revelations numerous references to the Lamb that was slain. Jesus himself linked his death with the new covenant and such forgiveness. Any Jewish believer would have seen the direct link with the previous sacrifice of animals at the Temple so that an individual’s sin and that of the whole nation could be forgiven, and that of Jesus’ sacrifice – the lamb that was slain. As for Passover, although the events of the Passover night led to the release from evil powers, Passover itself reflected how judgement passed over those who were ‘covered’ in the blood of the sacrificed lamb. Without that blood, they too would have been judged.
PS Dear PCI The Anglican version of Holy Communion proclaims : ” Our Lord Jesus Christ said: Hear O Israel” The first commandment is this :the Lord our God ——-
Actually ‘Our Lord’ was only repeating what Moses said [Deuteronomy 6: 4&5] – ‘The Shema’,
Indeed , read carefully through all 4 gospels and you will see just how much of the New emanates from the Old . And if you look carefully through the rest of the NT, you will see how much of it is based upon Jewish history and theology.”OT reflects OT times understanding.”? So what ‘times’ does NT reflect?
Shalom
… and the first commandment God gave Israel?
The NT reflects the reality that the God of Israel is One yet 3 ‘persons’. The OT does not. That is why there needed to be a further and fuller revelation in NT times about the very nature of God.
Perhaps the OT hinted at such a reality, but it was a very subtle hint in my view and Im not convinced that using ‘us’ in Genesis for example is such a hint.
It is precisely because of Jesus’ claim to be ‘equal’ with God that he was accused of blasphemy. If God is One, then by definition there is no equal and any such claim is blasphemous. Hence why Jews picked up stones…
Ah. More on the doctrine of God, Peter, PC1. The ‘simplicity’ of God in the indivisible Oneness of God in Triunity.
Nothing simple about the Trinity, which is one reason why I dont think anyone made it up!
Peter, PC1,
A theological primer: the simplicity of God.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-the-simplicity-of-god/
I don’t think it is a case of God ‘consulting’ with the Divine Council in the sense of ‘ do you think this is a good idea guys ‘ or ‘ what do you think elohim?’ God knows what he want to do . I think the Bible paints a picture of an inner court of higher order spiritual beings some of which are appointed to carry out his purposes such as the cherubim in Eden and the Archangels, Seraphim and other supernatural beings. Satan was one of these who tried to usurp God’ s authority and was ejected from the council. Jesus may have been referring to this in Luke 10:18. Also Isa 14:12 is relevant here. As l stated earlier, you will almost never find this being preached or discussed in evangelical churches mainly for the reasons l think, that Colin H outlined previously.
Chris,
I think that is not summation of Colin H’s position. Consultation ot counsel became commissioning. There is no scripture evidence that consulted or took counsel from false gods nor angels whether obedient worshippers of God nor fallen adversarial angels, demons.
I’m making this point to you but it is for Colin H to respond, if he so deigns. One of his last comments was that cherubim were ‘commissioned’ to guard Eden as if that corroborated his entrenched epistemological claim.
God placed or stationed them. Genesis 3:24. That is not God receiving counsel from created beings.
did God not change his mind on occasion in the OT?
Does ‘knows what He wants to do’ mean ‘will do’?
I suspect there is more interaction with spiritual beings and also humans when it comes to God’s will than we care to admit. But then would that really be surprising if God is a personal Being wanting relationship?
Chris,
I think that is not summation of Colin H’s position. Consultation or counsel became commissioning in one of Colin’s last comments. There is no scripture evidence that God consulted or took counsel from false gods nor angels whether obedient worshippers of God nor fallen adversarial angels, demons.
I’m making this point to you but it is for Colin H to respond, if he so deigns. One of his last comments was that cherubim were ‘commissioned’ to guard Eden as if that corroborated his entrenched, yet undisclosed, ANE epistemological claim.
God placed or stationed them. Genesis 3:24. That is not God receiving counsel from created beings.
Geoff, I think Colin only mentioned the cherubin by way of negating his erroneous belief that you thought all angels were demonic. The Cherubin were clearly being obedient. I think you both got your lines crossed!
Thanks Chris.
It could be easily be clarified by Colin.
As far as Elohim is/are concerned, which is a topic far from Ian’s post I do wonder if Wellhausen’s documentary source hypotheses plays any part in the formulation of Colin’s scriptural theology or whether there has been any consideration weighing of the substantial arguments in the refutation of Elohim source material, redactors in the Pentateuch and the interchange of names for God such as Jehovah/Elohim which is present for example, at God’s meeting with Sarah.
But this is not ANE scriptural epistemology.
Geoff, your platonism is showing again. You say ‘There is no scripture evidence that God consulted or took counsel from false gods …’ And yet the book of Job portrays God as ‘doing’ exactly that! And please note my quote marks around ‘doing’.
Maybe it is better to think about what the biblical text is actually saying/doing rather than relying on preconceived notions of what a god is like and certainly more helpful than asking commenters to explain how they became Christians (maybe with different understanding from yourself) or what they think of Wellhausen?
BS,
God didn’t take counsel in the book of Job.
Astonishing to think that you think you know that I know what Platonism is!
While you at the same time you profess to know what it is, by seeing it in my comment!
Enough, neither you nor Colin H has addressed or attempted to address a brief point, which could be developed from the Sarah episode.
You seek to quarrel with another insubstantial comment seeking to be a smart Aleck interjection.
And I wasn’t addressing you.
Bye.