0

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one (οὐδεὶς) knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:11-13 NKJV)

"No one" is οὐδεὶς; is the same as used to describe a similar "lack of knowledge:"

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one (οὐδεὶς) knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

What is the reason only the Son Himself knows this Name?

Revelation Lad
  • 16,645
  • 7
  • 46
  • 104
  • 5
    When the Bible uses the words no one, none, nobody, etc., does it usually include God ? – Lucian May 14 '20 at 14:13
  • @Lucian Is He God? And how is the Word intended here? – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 14:15
  • 3
    This has nothing to do theology, but with the use of language. – Lucian May 14 '20 at 14:18
  • 1
    @Lucian Your comment about the meaning of "no one, etc..." is driven by language or theology? Perhaps you can explain the difference in an answer. – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 14:26
  • 1
    The translation you quoted is not the only English translation (in case English is your only language). Even if there would be no other English translations, you can always search that specific version for other occurrences of the words none, no one, nobody, etc. and ask yourself whether including God in its meaning would make any logical sense whatsoever (e.g., Deuteronomy 34:6). – Lucian May 14 '20 at 14:32
  • Could you please explain why you used the phrase, "no one knew" rather than what is written, "no man knew"? The WORD at that time will still be a man, a resurrected man at that. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit of God are men. God is not a man that He should lie, nor the Son of man that He should repent. – Bill Porter May 21 '20 at 18:32
  • @BillPorter The word is οὐδείς as in "no" and in this case "no one...except" BDAG p. 735 If you have a translation that says no man, it is an interpretation of the word and, obviously a disregard for the actual text and the fact John did not choose "man." – Revelation Lad May 21 '20 at 20:11
  • The "NKJV," that says, "no one," which is only listed as one of several possibilities of the meaning of that Greek word. Other possibilities are "none" (+ of these things) (any, at all, -thing); nought. Even if you insist that "no one" is the call, surely, you didn't expect John to have meant that the Father was any of those, do you, especially at this future time when the Son is not delimited as being required to be obedient to the Father by the Law of Moses? "No man" is quite reasonable. It excludes the Father. It also excludes those other unreasonable possibilities of that word, οὐδείς. – Bill Porter May 22 '20 at 03:38
  • The Father knows everything. –  Jul 28 '20 at 11:19
  • @Revelation Lad-When I down vote (not often) I comment, unlike the cowardly who hit and run and even tease. Your question and subsequent comments in this thread are somewhat perplexing and therefore lacking proper perspective ( I've been guilty of same myself). Also, I would appreciate it if you were to respond to my own comment, involving you, posted after my own A to this Q. It would be the Christian thing to do. Maybe you can even find some redemption. If of course it was not you that was responsible for accepting, then rescinding, then down voting me, I need to know, if only to apologize. – Olde English Jul 30 '20 at 22:35
  • 1
    @Lucian, in the gospel, it says "no one knows ...but only the Father knows". Here in Revelation, no one knows...except himself (i.e. only the bearer of the name knows). This logically means the Father did not know the name. – R. Brown Sep 27 '21 at 21:02
  • @RadzBrown: According to this questionable logic, Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22 would mean that the Father does not know Himself, and the Son does not know Himself either; likewise, 1 Corinthians 2:11 would mean that God himself doesn't know what goes on either within man's soul, or even within Himself; etc. – Lucian Sep 27 '21 at 21:16
  • @Lucian, please tell me why 1 Corinthians 2:11 excludes God the Father. The text speaks of man not knowing another man's own spirit. Nothing about excluding God the Father like what Revelations did. ".....for who of men has known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? So also the things of God no one has known, except the Spirit of God. – R. Brown Sep 27 '21 at 21:40
  • @RadzBrown: Per the aforementioned line of reasoning, *no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God* should exclude or prevent God [the Father, as distinct from the Holy Ghost] from knowing Himself. – Lucian Sep 27 '21 at 21:45
  • @Lucian, the Spirit of God is God's own mind just as the spirit of man is his own mind. The text says that God's spirit (mind) knows "the things of God (i.e. the Father)", not of another. The Holy Ghost is not only a distinct divine hypostasis but God's very own mind just as Christ Jesus is not only a distinct divine hypostasis but also God's very own Logos: God's own self-knowledge (John 1:1-3). – R. Brown Sep 27 '21 at 21:54
  • (continued) This is why when it said in Revelations "no one knows the name...except himself", it didn't exclude the Father because that self refers to the "Logos of God" (i.e. of the Father) (Revelation 19:13). It will only exclude the Father if Jesus were deemed to be a creature and not the Logos of God, proper to the very being of God. Hence, based on Revelation and the rest of the N.T., the Father cannot be true God without the full divinity of the Son as the Logos. And neither did it exclude the Spirit, based on 1 Cor 2. – R. Brown Sep 27 '21 at 21:55
  • @RadzBrown: Thus proving the falsehood of your (and the OP's) rigidly literal interpretation of expressions of the form no one knows X except Y. – Lucian Sep 27 '21 at 22:00
  • @Lucian, my first comment was logical (per the texts in isolation, like in the gospels account of the Father alone knowing) but this doean't mean its logical when read in light of the context or the whole of the N.T. (in the gospel, it says "no one knows ...but only the Father knows". Here in Revelation, no one knows...except himself (i.e. only the bearer of the name knows). This logically means the Father did not know the name). – R. Brown Sep 27 '21 at 22:08
  • (continued) Hence, the Father knowing alone is also false as it is indicative of "no one knows X except". The answer is the same as before: the Son knows because he's the Logos of God and the Spirit knows because he searches all things of God. – R. Brown Sep 27 '21 at 22:08
  • @RadzBrown: Respectfully, that's not the actual reason; see also Revelation 2:17. (This marks my last comment on this thread). – Lucian Sep 27 '21 at 22:11
  • @Lucian, what does Revelation 2:17 has to do with the divine hypostases? The Trinity knows the name written on that white stone because they are in union with the the man (the victorious) who was given it. The Father and the Son are "in" (Grk. εν) the believers (John 17:22-24). The believers imitate the one-ness (i.e. unity) of the "one" (Grk. εις) God. And the Holy Spirit too are in them (John 14:17). This is what theosis is (participation in the divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4), which is how man is saved. – R. Brown Sep 28 '21 at 07:39

5 Answers5

4

"No one" is used by Jesus (and evidently John), as you yourself cite, to refer to the entirety of creation - anyone who is not the omnipotent God:

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour no one [οὐδεὶς] knoweth: not the son, nor the angels of heaven, but only the Father.

Therefore, it necessarily, or at least possibly, excludes God.

Austin
  • 3,913
  • 2
  • 14
  • 31
Sola Gratia
  • 9,630
  • 18
  • 44
1

This new name only Jesus knew describes the unique experiences of The Logos in the completion of what God assigned for him. He shares this name with others as shown in Revelation 3:12. These persons have similar unique experiences as does the Christ so that in Revelation 2:17 they receive a ticket (white pebble) with their own name that no one knows. This seems to imply that the assignments God gives out and the experience each one has in fulfilling their assignment is only truly understood by the individual. Similar to the revealing of a sacred secret as outlined in 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16. Each individual contains in their own mind those things they have learned and experienced. So the sharers with Christ as in 2 Peter 1:2-4 also fit the description in Romans 8:28-30. Christ and those who are sharers with him have a similar experience, but each one as an individual having their own unique perspective.

ACME
  • 344
  • 1
  • 9
  • 1
    ACME : An excellent answer, "no one knew" refers to the unique experiences and priveledges Jesus was entrusted with.+1 – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 19 '21 at 12:11
  • The question was generated in response to the passage in Mark where Jesus is described as not knowing. the hour and day of His coming. This "ignorance" is used by some to "prove" the inferiority of Jesus relative to the Father. However, there are passages in Revelation which, if taken literally, indicate the Father's "ignorance" of some details. So when you say they receive a white pebble with their own name that no one knows, does those who do not know the name include the Father? – Revelation Lad Sep 19 '21 at 14:04
  • Revelation Lad, It does not seem that Rev 19:12 was inspired to reveal the nature or relationship of God or Christ. As to the difficulty of using human language to describe spirit persons, John 17: 20-26 seems to identify the ultimate "nature" God wants All his family to share, complete unity of thought and purpose. Further clarifying this point is 1 Corinthians 15: 28. Whether we know what is in another's mind is irrelevant it seems. – ACME Sep 19 '21 at 19:26
0

I don’t think it was a lack of knowledge as to why Christ didn’t know his name. Here is what I think. In Rev 2:17 we have a similar reference to us (the church/Body of Christ/overcomer) given a white stone with a name which no one knows except our self. In the time of Christ public games were played called Isthmian games, kind of like our Olympics, the conquerors in the public games were given white stones with their names in them, which entitled them to be supported the rest of their lives at public expense. The king at that time would have been the issuer of the stone. Let me put it all together. To gain entrance into the New Jerusalem we must have our white stone with our personal name given to us by Jesus. We in turn will also know the unknown name of Jesus which you are referencing in your question. Have a blessed day.

Karen Raye
  • 49
  • 6
  • There is no reference in scripture, most of all not by John the apostle, to the historic matters you mention. Therefore, how would John expect us to know such detail, if he had not included it in his book ? Nor have you, yourself, documented it by reference or citation, therefore it becomes your opinion. – Nigel J Jun 26 '20 at 03:08
  • Acts 26:10 Lit., “cast down a pebble,” The Greek word pseʹphos refers to a small stone and is rendered “pebble” at Re 2:17. Pebbles were used in courts of justice in rendering judgment of either innocence or guilt. White pebbles were used for pronouncing innocence, acquittal; black ones for pronouncing guilt, condemnation. So it may be that the White pebble in Rev 2:17 is the Judgement by God of favor on those who conquer to share special privileges that they individually experience. – ACME Sep 19 '21 at 19:41
-1

Why doesn't the FATHER know the NAME which was written?

Of all the names/titles associated with Jesus (I-e-sous), or Yeshua, even from before his birth: Immanuel, meaning "God is with us" (Isaiah 7:14); Son of God; Word of God; Faithful and True (Rev, 3:14); KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS (Rev, 19:16), there is but one other name that could be associated with him, that only he himself, AND THE FATHER, would know, that is necessarily know, the meaning of this name being: "WHO IS LIKE GOD", and this spiritual personage is not unknown to us. The name is mentioned several times in both the OT and the NT, but not in association with Jesus and yet we could very well be talking about one and the same.

'MICHAEL THE GREAT PRINCE' - Who Is He?

The spirit creature Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible, but when he is, the context is always dramatic. In Daniel we see him fighting (as one of the foremost princes) wicked angels on behalf of God's people (Dan, 10:13,20,21) In Jude he is disputing with Satan over the body of Moses (Jude 1,9). And in the book of Revelation he casts Satan and his demons down to earth (Rev, 12:7-9). Evidently, Michael is a key figure in heaven. Hence, it is proper to wonder, Who is Michael?

Since Michael is a champion of God's people, there is reason to identify him with the unamed angel that God sent ahead of the Israelites hundreds of years before: " Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him." - Exodus 23:20,21 NWT

It is not, entirely, illogical to conclude that this may have been the angel that delivered so many important messages to God's people. (Acts 7:30,35; Judges 2:1-3). The same had full authority from God to act in His name.

Consequently, is there anything here to make us believe that Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person?..... Well, Jesus is called "the Word". He is God's (chief) spokesman........

MICHAEL STANDS UP

"And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." - Dan, 12:1 NWT

Daniel, in chapter 11, had just described the march of world powers from his own time and on into the future. Two of the resulting political entities - the King of the North and the King of the South - would vie for ascendancy and control over God's people. At the climax of that rivalry, Michael would "stand up". What does this mean?

Well, in other parts of this same prophecy, the term "stand up" (arise in the NASB) means that the person ... assumes authority to rule as King (Dan, 11:3,4,7,20,21). Hence when Michael, 'stands up' he, too, starts to rule as a King. Consider the implications of this.

Before Daniel died, the last Jewish King, Zedekiah, had been deposed. There would be no Jewish king for centuries to come. Daniel's prophecy showed that one day, in the future, God's people would once again have a king - Michael.

Ezekiel, Daniel's contemporary, foretold the coming of one "who has the legal right" to rule again as king of God's people (Ez, 21:25-27), namely, Jesus Christ, who was to be anointed by God to rule as king in a heavenly kingdom (Luke 1:31-33; 22:29,30; Psalm 110:1). It is therefore only logical to say that Jesus and Michael are the same person. Hence, in the climax of one prophecy, Jesus becomes a king. In the other prophecy, Michael becomes a king. And, since both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event, surely it is reasonable to conclude that they are also dealing with the same person.

THE ARCHANGEL

In Jude 9, we see the designation "Archangel" given to Michael. In fact he was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the authoritative scriptures, nor do these scriptures use "archangel" in the plural. "Archangel" means " Chief of the angels." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Among God's spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matt, 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7). This too argues that Jesus and Michael are the same.

Interestingly, the name of Jesus is linked with the word "archangel" in one of Paul's letters. The apostle Paul writes: "The Lord (Jesus) himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet." (1 Thess, 4:16). The context places this event during "the presence of the Lord," when Jesus has started to rule as king. - 1 Thess, 4:15; Matt, 24:3; Rev, 11:15-18.

JESUS AN ANGEL?

Some object to identifying Jesus with the angel of Jehovah. For Trinitarians, of course, such identification poses a problem, since it shows conclusively that he is not equal to Jehovah God. Remember, though that the basic meaning of "angel" (Hebrew, mal-'akh'; Greek, ag'ge-los) is "messenger." As the "Word" (Greek, lo'gos), Jesus is God's messenger par excellence. Remember, too, that as the archangel, as well as "the firstborn of all creation," Jesus had the highest rank among the angels even before he came to earth, - Coloss, 1:15.

True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews: "He (Jesus) has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Heb, 1:4; Phil, 2:9,10). But, this was after his having been here on earth. He was still the archangel and "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev, 3:14).

Hence, the fact that Michael is the archangel, chief of the angels, the fact that he stands up to rule as King, and the fact that he takes the lead in casting Satan out of heaven at the time of the birth of God's Kingdom all lead us to just one conclusion:....

Michael, the great Prince, is non other than Jesus Christ himself. - Dan, 12:1.

NOTE

From my 2nd paragraph on, the above is an edited version, of a much longer narrative, taken from the "Watchtower - December 15, 1984", a xeroxed copy of which, has been in my possession for over 30 years. The impact it had on me has obviously been great. Whether or not, the readers of this post experience the same impact, is of small consequence to me, as I just felt compelled to share it. The Trinitarians amongst you, will most likely dismiss it, although I find it hard to believe that they won't at least ponder the possibility. Hopefully, I have not left out any truly important narrative, but then again there is always the option to further edit.

Olde English
  • 2,631
  • 8
  • 29
  • @ Revelation Lad- Excuse Me !! Would you like to explain why you initially accepted and then changed your mind ?? A down vote was then made at the same time as the reversal, which I have to assume was also you !!! – Olde English Jul 29 '20 at 05:05
  • I was working from my phone. I thought I had down voted your question since you failed to even address the primary issue: the Father's apparent lack of knowledge. When I saw my mistake I corrected it. Moreover, "Michael" is hardly the name no one knows but Himself, as your answer demonstrates. BTW comments automatically go only to person who posted the answer or question. If you want the comment to go to someone else you need to use @"user" So I never saw your comment until you posted one on my question. – Revelation Lad Jul 30 '20 at 23:24
  • @Revelation Lad-Let me get this straight. You initially "accepted" my answer (which upped my score by 15 pts) by mistake, as you had meant to just down vote me, so you had to reverse the "acceptance" and then down vote, all secretly. Do I have that right? And I did use @ "user" correctly, I thought. With regard to Michael, I was trying to point out that most Christians don't conflate Michael (the Archangel) with Jesus and that maybe they should. Then in my answer, I highlighted the " AND THE FATHER" in the 1st paragraph, to clumsily, I guess, emphasize that He would most definitely have known. – Olde English Jul 31 '20 at 00:19
  • "Secretly?" I guess so. Your answer might be suitable for Christianity SE because it is IMO largely JW doctrine. It is nonsense to say the name no one knows is Michael since that name is obviously known. Many sects which developed out of the unrealized excepted return of Christ (in the mid 1800's) would do well to consider that if the Scripture says no one knows...then no one knows. And when someone claims they "figured it out" clearly they 1) are wrong 2) don't believe what the Scripture says. – Revelation Lad Jul 31 '20 at 00:54
  • Also I did not get your first message. Not sure why. If you start with @ and use the first letter, the system will auto fill the rest of the name. – Revelation Lad Jul 31 '20 at 00:56
  • Ok! I guess we'll just move on here. Hopefully, you can heed the site's suggestion that all negative votes should be coupled with an explanatory comment in the future. "No One" wants to be left guessing. I couldn't resist that, I'm sorry. You do have a lot of good stuff to say by the way. You would not have the reputation that you have by not having had good import and I have to respect you for that, even if we can't always agree. No need to respond further. Have a good rest of the day and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.......... – Olde English Jul 31 '20 at 02:29
  • @OldeEnglish said, "Michael, the great Prince, is none other than Jesus Christ himself. - Dan, 12:1." If that's true, question for you from Genesis 22. The angel of the Lord calls out to Abraham from heaven two times, vs11 & 15. At vs16, "and said, By Myself I have sworn declares the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son. Vs17, indeed I will greatly bless you and multiply your seed etc. Hebrews 6:13, For when GOD made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Can Michael/an angel swear an oath for God? – Mr. Bond May 14 '23 at 17:48
  • No! But Michael the Archangel/the Word (later on to be incarnated as Jesus) the only begotten, as opposed to having been actually created, - the first-born* of all creation* (Col 1:15) - can, when relaying God's personal messages by way of a theophany, as in Genesis 22: 11,15,16,17 and Heb 6:13. This is the 4th or even 5th time that you have drawn me out on this, Consequently, I will not be drawn out on same anymore. You either open your mind to this, or you don't. Over and out. – Olde English May 14 '23 at 23:25
  • @Mr.Bond - Not sure whether you have seen above response, as I forgot to identify who I was responding to. – Olde English May 16 '23 at 00:45
  • If Michael is the name that is written that no one knows, why do you and so many others seem to know it? Doesn't that make the statement in Rev. 9 untrue? – Mike Borden May 16 '23 at 12:35
  • @MikeBorden - Forgive me but you'll have to be more specific. Rev. 9?? – Olde English May 16 '23 at 13:47
  • My apologies for the typo.. It is Rev. 19, verse 12 specifically. – Mike Borden May 17 '23 at 12:17
  • @MikeBorden - There's not much more that I can say than what I've already said. Much of my answer is predicated on Rev, 19:11 thru 16, which of course includes the statement in v.12. Then when you take into account what I stated in my 2nd paragraph and then onwards, it then becomes a matter of discernment. The parallels, between Jesus and Michael, are pretty much unmistakable. – Olde English May 18 '23 at 03:17
  • There is pretty good evidence here (https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/8527/32868) that Michael is "one of" and not "first of" the chief princes in Daniel 10:13. This would distinguish him from the Lord Jesus. – Mike Borden May 18 '23 at 12:22
  • 1
    @MikeBorden - I was intrigued when I started reading the top answer given in the above link, until an advocation was given to the uncanonical Book of Enoch, which I long ago dismissed as a fanciful and outrageous fake narrative. As far as I've ever been able to discern, the Chief, or Foremost angels/princes, are Michael, Lucifer and Gabriel, of which only one has the Archangel status, that being .... the first of the three. – Olde English May 18 '23 at 13:45
  • Hopefully you read the other answers as well. Most of them have to do with the etymology and usage of "echad". I also do not hold Enoch as inspired. – Mike Borden May 19 '23 at 12:01
  • @MikeBorden - Yes, I did. "Echad", one of, or, first of??? Who knows for sure what exactly was being implied. I could go with either when it comes to Dan, 10:13. The truth of the matter is, that whenever it comes to Michael, in other parts of scripture, whether it be canonical or uncanonical, he is invariably portrayed as the "foremost", not only in importance but also in deed. – Olde English May 19 '23 at 17:30
  • It's not that clear, is it? Here they are in order. 1) Michael (one of) the chief princes, 2) Michael your prince, 3) Michael the great prince who stands for the children of thy people, 4) Michael the archangel, 5) Michael. 1 is most likely "one of". 2 is qualified. 3 is also qualified. 5 is just a name. Only 4 tends in that direction and the word is only used twice. – Mike Borden May 21 '23 at 12:45
-2

In scripture some have been given new names by God. It signifies God’s blessing. (Ge 35:10)

Jehovah gives new names

And the nations shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory, and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name (ASV, Isaiah 62:2)

In Revelation new names are “written” by God and given to the saints. Since he wrote the names on the white stones, when “no one knoweth” it but the recipient it does not exclude the one who wrote the name on the stone, God.

Rev 2:17 that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth it.

Likewise God also is the writer of the name given the Son of God.

Rev 19:12 And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself.

The fact that Jesus receives a new name is consistent with his calling the God of Revelation "My God."

Re 3:12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

Soldarnal
  • 36,556
  • 73
  • 211
  • 386
  • It would appear Revelation 3:12 describes The Word writing a name on someone. So at a minimum the Father and the Word would know the Name which was written. However, your assertion regarding the one on who the name is written is an unproven (and IMO likely incorrect) assumption. If the The Word of God writes a Name on a forehead, not only would the person be unable to see it, everyone else would. Perhaps you need to give what is described more consideration? – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 18:27
  • BTW does the example from Isaiah 62 imply YHVH and The Word are the same? What I mean is, who but God can truly give a person a new name? – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 18:40
  • Likewise God also is the writer of the name given the Son of God. - So what ? He is also the One to bury Moses. But, just like in that case, He then later forgot where He buried him, which is why the Torah says, in Deuteronomy 34:6, that *no one knows his grave to this day*, and, according to the OP's brilliant logic, that includes God as well. :-) – Lucian May 14 '20 at 21:22
  • 1
    This “question”... is sheer and utter nonsense. – Lucian May 15 '20 at 01:02
  • @ Revelation Lad You seem to word twiddle a bit when you fail to also acknowledge that the Son also said "I and my Father are one." in John 10:30. You seem intent on bifurcating the speaking God from His own WORD. Else, why did you stop your quote at verse 12. Even in the NKJV, verse 13 says, "He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God." There is no reason to imply that the Father was intended to be left in the dark as to this "name written" per verse 12. – Bill Porter May 22 '20 at 04:21