Reading Revelation (Part II)

In my first post in this series, I started by indicating that I believe that the traditional interpretive frameworks used to approach the book of Revelation are, to be blunt, pretty much useless. I’m convinced that the usual categories more often than not force people to make interpretive conclusions about the text before actually approaching the text at all, that they treat the book of Revelation as something wholly different from all other New Testament texts, and that they usually become totally centred around the concept of the ‘millennium’ in a way that I don’t think the text itself either directs or allows.

I suggested, then, that there might be a more excellent way, and mentioned that I would, from this post onwards, begin to outline what I think is a more authentic method to approach the text with, which consisted of essentially three inter-connected layers:

  1. A contextual examination
  2. An inter-textual examination
  3. A literary-rhetorical examination

In this post, then, I will begin with the contextual considerations, and move on to examine the other layers in subsequent posts.

A Contextual Examination

Before we get into that, however, I wanted to begin by noting that method is very important. People sometimes tell me that they just read the text ‘as it is’, but this is, to be perfectly honest, a load of absolute rubbish. We always approach any text with some sort of method, whether we are conscious of it or not, and so part of seeking to be more genuine in our study is to at least acknowledge the interpretive framework we are bringing to a given text, to understand its strengths and limitations, and humbly to allow it to be an ‘entry point’ into the ‘hermeneutical spiral’ (as we engage the text with our assumptions clearly identified, allow the text to speak back to those assumptions, and then repeat the process over and over and over again, gaining (hopefully) an ever-increasing understanding as we go).

For example, if I were to begin a story with “Once upon a time…”, you would have some fairly clear genre expectations about what was coming next. Your interpretive framework would spring into action without you really having to do anything at all. If I began another story with, “Have you heard the one about…”, then a different set of genre expectations would automatically kick in.

I know this all sounds excruciatingly basic, but it is important.

So, I am suggesting that we be perfectly up front about our methodological assumptions here, and that we approach the text of Revelation, firstly, with an eye to its socio-historical situated-ness. My reason for doing this is quite simply because I’m fairly sure that no text is created in a vacuum. All texts, as far as I am aware, are written in some sort of context, and I happen to believe that this information is somewhat important in our study of, especially, ancient texts (but any text, really). I don’t happen to be overly confident about finding with any sort of certainty precise authorial intent in these texts, as some are, but I do think that the socio-historical situation within which texts arise can help give us some helpful information in the task of understanding what has been written.

…I guess that’s why I’m doing a PhD in ancient history…

Anyway, building on from this idea, I want to suggest that, at least most often, texts make some sense to their original recipients. This is an assumption, to be sure, but I think it’s a relatively reasonable one. Think about it for a moment: if these texts didn’t make sense to their original audiences, we probably wouldn’t have them now. If they were totally intelligible, they would, most likely, have disappeared into the sands of time. Of course, we could have, in the book of Revelation, the exception that proves this rule: the one text in all of history that made absolutely no sense to its original recipients but which was preserved anyway through thousands of years in the most extraordinarily extended act of selflessness in all of human history.

Of course, this idea could also just be stupidity. I don’t buy it, and I don’t think too many other reasonable people would buy it either.

I think then, that Tim LaHaye – even though he might be a really nice guy(!) – is pretty much 100% wrong when he suggests that the book of Revelation is only going to make sense the closer we get to the time when the events it describes are going to take place. I think he’s got this precisely around the wrong way; he couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. I think the truth is closer to the idea that Revelation is going to make less and less sense the further we get away from when it was originally written, because of the widening gap between our own socio-historical situation and that of when Revelation first appeared.

What this means, then, is that we have to work all the more hard at trying to understand the socio-historical situation into which the text was written. Context, as I am known to say, is our best friend!

So, what can we actually know, with any reasonable certainty?

Firstly, the text itself indicates that it was written by a guy named ‘John’, who seems to be fairly sure that he’s writing a prophetic message to a number of churches around the area of Ephesus (modern-day Turkey). While it is true that we always need to apply critical interpretive tools to claims made by such texts, most commentators agree on the idea that ‘John’ is actually the author’s real name; that is, the text is not pseudonymous. This ‘John’, then, doesn’t actually give us much more information about himself. What he does indicate, though, is that he seems to think that he has experienced the same sort of prophetic commissioning that we see in a number of the Hebrew prophets (Rev. 10:1-11, cf. Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1-3), and that he is writing a prophecy (Rev. 1;3; 22:18) which he thinks is a pretty important message that the people in the churches need to hear urgently.

We’ll define what the word ‘prophecy’ actually means in the next post, but for now we might summarise the point by saying that this guy named John seems to have thought that he had been commissioned by the Judeo-Christian God to deliver an urgent message from this God to the people in the churches in the area around Ephesus.

To be even more precise, we are dealing here with a real person writing what he considers to be an important message to real people in a bunch of real churches in the area of ancient Asia Minor. And he seems to have expected the recipients to understand what he was saying.

But the question is: why did he think this message was so important? Why did he think it was so urgent that his recipients hear, and act on, the message contained within the text?

Although it is still somewhat debated, most critical commentators agree that the book of Revelation was written near the very end of the first century C.E. (‘A.D.’ in the old lingo).*

What was happening at this time?

Well, Rome basically ruled the whole world (or at least the bit that seemed important to them, which was pretty much based around the Mediterranean Sea). The Roman Empire was, to most eyes, magnificent! The Golden Age had dawned with the reign of Augustus (pictured…at least in statue form), and it was pretty difficult to stand up to the might of this great world power. Rome’s strategy was to woo other nation states to submit themselves to Rome’s ‘protection’, and they were offered the opportunity to then receive all the benefits of the Pax Romana (the ‘Peace of Rome’). Rome had, so the propaganda went, brought order out of chaos. They had brought about a time of great peace and prosperity for all who would align themselves with Rome. There were lucrative possibilities of trade and travel and every wonderful thing. All you had to do is direct allegiance to Rome, and everything would be fine.

Of course, for those who decided not to do this, Rome would simply steamroller over the top of anyone or anything in its path and take all the resources that it wanted from an area anyway…after laying waste to the armies that dared stand in the way.

For many, for fairly obvious reasons, the propaganda worked. For those in the Roman province of Asia Minor at the end of the first century, there was prosperity for the taking. Trade opportunities were presenting themselves, and all it took was to kiss the backside of Caesar a little bit. Too easy!

But some didn’t see it that way.

For some, Rome’s dominance was an eery reminder of the great boastful, idolatrous empires of the past. For many of those from a Jewish heritage, the spectre of empires like Babylon hung over the head of Rome, and participation with a system that seemed so idolatrous just couldn’t be a good idea. Especially after 70C.E., the comparison with Babylon became entrenched, with the Roman armies besieging and almost completely destroying Jerusalem and the Jewish resistance that had arisen like the Maccabees to throw off the shackles of foreign domination. Thus, for these people, Rome became a kind of ‘Babylon 2.0’ (and this is reflected in post-70C.E. Jewish literature).

The Romans also had a precarious (to the minds of staunch monotheists) relationship between power and divinity. While it is somewhat true that many of the Roman emperors shared Augustus’ somewhat faux humility in regards to being called a ‘god’ (especially while still living), the view from the provinces was sometimes a little bit more relaxed. Especially in places like Asia Minor, there was already a thriving connection between living rulers and the great heroes of old, and there wasn’t too much hesitation in linking living rulers with the gods. In Pergamum, just up the road from Ephesus, there stood an imperially-endorsed Provincial temple dedicated to ‘Roma and Augustus’, probably located in close proximity to the Great Altar to Zeus. (Interestingly, John describes Pergamum as the place where ‘Satan has his throne’ in Rev. 2:13, which is possibly a scorching reference to this architecture.) By the late 80s C.E., the emperor Domitian had commissioned Olympic Games in Ephesus, and had linked himself quite prominently to Zeus in the process (as a kind of benefactor of the games).

For a Jew or a Christian, it is fairly easy to see how this could be interpreted as an ominous sign.

Though it is true that later Christian historians seem to have overplayed their hand in descriptions of Domitian, suggesting that he presided over a great persecution of Christians (he probably didn’t, by the way – or at least there is no real primary source evidence for it), it is nevertheless fair to say that it would have been quite easy for Christians or Jews to be significantly troubled by the way things were heading.

For John, it seems that he summed up the situation, taking into consideration past history and the trajectory of where he saw things headed (like a good historian and sociologist!), and decided that these developments were not heading anywhere good. Though it seems that only one person John knew had already been ‘martyred’ (Antipas in Rev. 2:13), John seems to have thought that the belief of Christians was going to take them into direct confrontation with Rome. The Christian statement “Jesus is Lord” (like the Jewish Shema) was going to get them into trouble, because at least some were quite comfortable with saying that Caesar was Dominus et Deus (‘Lord and God’).**

John was right.

It is a matter of history that the Romans ended up deciding, eventually, that Christians endangered the prosperity of Rome (with their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the gods, which meant the possibility of incurring divine disfavour, and their seditious talk of a rival ‘king’ who was going to rule the whole world), and empire-wide persecutions of Christians were the fruit of that. While there is no evidence of this in John’s time, we do have surviving letters from Pliny the Younger (a Roman Governor of an area near where John was writing from) to the emperor Trajan, from about 15 years after John wrote. In these letters, Pliny asks Trajan what he should do about these pesky Christians, and indicates that his usual practice (which he had been following for some time) was to interrogate them (but not necessarily to seek them out) and, if they confessed and did not renounce Christ, he would have them executed (if only for their obstinance, which was a tad uncouth and definitely un-Roman). For his part, Trajan thought this was a fair call.

John, then, saw these ‘storm clouds’ on the horizon. He seems to have summed up the situation and concluded both that Rome was not advancing the causes of God in the world, and that (faithful) Christians would eventually find themselves in a very sticky situation with a decidedly unhappy Rome.

Rome didn’t muck around with these sorts of things, and John knew that this was a very serious situation.

He seems to have written Revelation, then, as a way of highlighting all these sorts of issues, and thought that the message was urgent enough that the Christians around Asia Minor needed to hear it straight away – and act on it.

For John, this was an urgent message from God, and one that the people in the churches needed to hear quickly. It was time to buckle up.

The question is, why did he choose to write this urgent message in such a seemingly bizarre form? The answer to that, though, will have to wait until the next post…


* There are some commentators who date the text to the mid first century C.E. (for various reasons that I don’t have space to go into here), and some who take a ‘cake and eat it’ approach (I’m talking to you here, Mr Aune and Mr deSilva) of dating some of the text to the mid first century and some of it to the late first century, but most commentators agree that the text probably attained its final form in the very late first century, probably in the mid 90s.

** There is debate over whether Domitian required people to call him by this title (which is unlikely), or whether it was a kind of title of flattery for some who sought the favour of Domitian. Either way, it is attested as being something that was circulating at the time, and the important point to note is as to how this might have looked to people like John.


Published by

Josh Dowton

Student of history/theology/nonviolence/permaculture/missional thinking. Large of limb, red of hair. Semper in excretia sumus, solum profundum variat.

18 thoughts on “Reading Revelation (Part II)”

  1. You use the term ‘Most” in dating the letter towards the end of the century. I’d be interested in knowing what was the comparison / percentage of the commentators who did / don’t and whether the majority of those who did / didn’t relied on the same sources and thus it becomes a circular argument.

    I’m interested in the evidential weighting that shows it was a latter letter.

    1. At this particular point in time, I’d translate ‘most’ here as ‘the overwhelming majority’. There are a couple, like Ken Gentry, who argue for the earlier date, and some (like Aune and deSilva) who hold a more complicated composition theory which incorporates identifiable ‘early’ bits and ‘late’ bits, but even they hold that the final form was completed late.

      There is a whole bunch of reasons as to why it’s most probably late first century, including the fact that Rome is referred to as ‘Babylon’ (which is decidedly post 70C.E.). Read the introduction to Beale’s commentary, which is fairly recent and explains it briefly-but-well.

  2. Er…. As a Preterist, I can assure you that preterists don’t believe Revelation was written just before “Rome began to crumble” but rather, just before Jerusalem began to crumble. The harlot/Babylon is Jerusalem, not Rome. It is also referred to as Sodom, and “the city where the Lord was crucified” / the hatlot wife of God that he warned repeatedly throughout the OT that we would divorce unless she repented. Rev is an expanded version of Jesus prophecy in Matt 24 about the destruction of Jerusalem. If we believed it was about Rome crumbling then we would be wrong, because as you say “it didn’t work out quite line that” – but we don’t, we believe it is clearly about the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy that Jerusalem and the Temple would be totally destroyed by the Romans, bringing a clear and final end to the vestiges of the Old Covenant – and that did work out exactly like it is described. I think Dr Kenneth Gentry has proven categorically that Rev was written before AD70 – I have never heard anyone able to factually, historically, and textually refute his research.

    1. Hi Martin,

      Thanks for your comment!

      I have updated the original post to now include the type of Preterism that you are speaking of (which is, as I note, one of at least a couple of different forms). I originally didn’t include it in the post simply because I wanted to keep the word count fairly low (at least relatively). The type of Preterism that you are arguing for, to my mind, is the least convincing option of the two, and so I chose to focus on the other form in my limited space. I have acknowledged your point, though, and have now included the option that you note as well.

      In regards to your comment, I am simply not convinced that Dr Gentry has proven anything ‘categorically’. If you have never read a convincing refutation of Dr Gentry’s work, then I humbly suggest that you do a bit more reading…

      In regards to the early dating of Revelation in general, I would simply say that the use of the name ‘Babylon’ is (among many other reasons) the most convincing piece of proof that an early date simply cannot be sustained. There is not one piece of primary source evidence for Jerusalem being referred to as ‘Babylon’ (either before or after 70C.E.), whereas this name becomes a relatively common reference to Rome after the war.

      1. For the record, I think that N.T. Wright has presented a *very* strong case for the idea that Jesus is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in the ‘apocalyptic’ passages in the Synoptic Gospels. I just don’t think that’s what’s going on in the book of Revelation. At all.

  3. I agree with your take on Futurism, and I too like NT Wright, however I still say that I have never read or heard a case which refutes the internal textual evidence and historical evidence that Dr Gentry puts forth. Don Preston has also presented some strong evidence that 2 Peter was written before AD70 and it shows a knowledge of the contents of Revelation, and if you want a good old fashioned liberal scholar – Bishop JAT Robinson eventually completely reversed his previous opinions and admitted that Revelation was pre AD 70.You say “keep reading” – but I read a lot, as well as write and teach on eschatology and I still have never seen his research refuted or corrected. If you care to refute his evidence in an article, I would be very interested to read that. I also still say that I know of no living preterist (not a “half-preterist, half-futurist” – but a proper preterist: either partial of full) who would not agree that Revelation is primarily about the fall of Jerusalem (not Rome) and that it is an expanded version of the prophecy (albeit using a lot more apocalyptic language) in Matthew 24-25 – its’ even laid out the same way. Why would a preterist want to say it was about “Rome crumbling” when, as you say, “it didn’t work out quite that way” when they could say it was about the fall of Jerusalem, which worked out exactly that way?

    1. Perhaps one day I shall write the article refuting the pre-70C.E. dating and Gentry’s work in particular, but I feel that most scholarly commentaries that grapple with the question of dating the text do a pretty good job, on the whole, of outlining the post-70 dating convincingly.

      I guess there are Preterists who understand the book to be dealing primarily with Rome (and the author’s belief that her destruction was imminent) simply because the author takes over the types of prophecies that were always about the nations (rather than to Israel) and applies them now in a new and creative way to Babylon 2.0 (i.e. the destroyer of Jerusalem). Of interest here is the way that Bauckham has shown (I think beyond any doubt) that the list of cargoes in Rev. 18, though modelled on Ezekiel 27:12-24, is extraordinarily accurate in detailing the types of cargoes traded in Roman Asia Minor at the end of the first century. The destruction pictured is (clearly) the destruction of Rome.

      For a (full-)Preterist, then, it would have to be argued that either John was totally convinced that Rome was just about to be completely destroyed by God’s intervention (and therefore that he was somewhat wrong with the prediction), or else the predictions came true in some other form (or something like that).

      I don’t think either of these ideas is tenable, but I do think that many of the insights of Preterism (of this kind) have much value. In fact, I think that, out of the four usual options outlined in my first post, this has the most to commend it, as long as it is very heavily nuanced. I just think that it’s better to start from another vantage point (i.e. the one that I’m outlining in these posts), and then to work towards the conclusions, rather than having the conclusions pre-determined before approaching the text.

      1. With all due respect, (and I do respect you, you are obviously an intelligent person and a thinker), I think we must live in different theological universes. I spent three years (about 10 years ago) researching everything I could about eschatology before ever teaching or writing on the subject. I read everything I could. From every viewpoint possible. Both popular and academic works. I have never met anyone who has even attempted to refute – piece by piece – the PhD research that Kenneth Gentry did over many years on the internal textual evidence and the historical evidence of the date of Revelation. You seem to think you could refute it in a blog article. Now, I have heard people dismiss Dr Gentry (usually either angry Fundamentalist Futurists or Jesus seminar style liberals, although many British liberals have since been convinced by Bishop Robinson regarding a pre AD70 date) but I have never heard anyone even engage with his evidence; as far as I am aware, it remains unrefuted. Not only that, but Dr Gentry also (again in “Before Jerusalem Fell”) re-examines the claims for a post AD 70 date and dismantles all the arguments. I don’t know what to say about your belief that you could refute Dr Gentry’s doctoral research on a blog post. You are either one of the greatest minds in eschatology to ever walk the earth and Dr Gentry’s scholarship is only at kindergarten level in comparison, or you have never given serious thought to the depth and compelling nature of the original research carried out by Dr Gentry.

        Also, you say that you “feel that most scholarly commentaries that grapple with the question of dating the text do a pretty good job, on the whole, of outlining the post-70 dating convincingly”. Well, (in my theological universe, anyway), the only evidence I have ever seen put forward in favour of a post AD 70 date is one very vague quote from Irenaues which MAY mean that “John wrote Revelation during the reign of Domitian” or it may mean that “John, who wrote Revelation, was still with us during the reign of Domitian” – but either way, since Irenaues also said that Jesus lived well into his 50’s, I wouldn’t take his historical accuracy very seriously. Every other “quote” put forward to claim that revelation is post AD 70 is a quote from someone quoting Irenaues – so there is really only the Irenaues quote.

        Maybe I am flogging a dead horse that you are not interested in, however, I think you would agree, that IF Revelation was written prior to AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, then that totally changes the way it should be interpreted and understood. That, therefore, is one of the main deciding factors in any interpretation, and that one fact must be taken very seriously and I would suggest – studied in great depth until this fact is established.

        Remember that the vast majority of preterists, originally had bought into a different brand of eschatology (futurism, historicism, idealism, post AD70 date for Revelation etc) and only BECAME preterists because of the overwhelming evidence of a pre AD 70 date and the fact that identifying Nero as the “beast” who’s statue was set up in the Asia Minor market places to be honoured by all who buy and sell, that Jerusalem is Babylon, the harlot, the divorced adulterous wife of Yahweh who was “stoned to death” by the bombardment of boulders (falling on them “like hailstones”), after being surrounded by armies as Jesus predicted etc makes every chapter of the book, when read side by side with actual historical events, make perfect sense and closes the case on any further controversy.

        That is why I am a preterists. It is why ever preterist I know became one. Because we studied these matters for years and were convinced by the overwhelming nature of the evidence. It is not because we “need to keep reading” or haven’t given serious consideration to other views. We have, and have found them wanting. Many of us became preterists reluctantly. We could no longer argue which the plain truth that was staring us in the face.

        1. Hi Martin,

          We both know that I am not ‘one of the greatest minds in eschatology to ever walk the earth’ (I just wanted to assure you that I don’t think that either), but I noted that I might venture to write an article, not a blog post. The article would be one that I would aim to have published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Now, I probably still couldn’t do a complete job even on that form, but I shall have to go back and read Dr Gentry’s work to see if there are some prominent points on which his case hinges. I have read ‘Before Jerusalem Fell’, but it was some time ago now. I remember being thoroughly unconvinced by the argument, and seem to remember some scholarly book reviews saying similar things. I shall try to search out those book reviews for you.

          I would agree with you when you say that *if* Revelation was written pre-70C.E. then it changes everything in regards to how we interpret it. I just don’t think it was written pre-70. As such, it changes nothing.

          I certainly think that there is much to do with Nero in regards to the ‘Beast’, but I don’t think that either there is evidence for your statue scenario in the marketplaces, or any evidence whatsoever for Jerusalem being ‘Babylon’. This last point is contrary to any evidence we do have, which firmly establishes the tradition of Rome as ‘Babylon’. The first rule of history is the primary source evidence. That primary source evidence is not on your side here.

          I respect very much the fact that you have done the study, and that you have approached the task with enough authenticity to be able to change to a different view from the one you started out with. This is a very rare occurrence, and I think that it shows an excellent attitude towards scholarship in general.

          I also think that your work in seeking to understand the text within it’s original context is to be applauded. I just think that the primary source evidence leads to some different conclusions to what you are saying.

          I think we will have to agree to disagree, but I do very much appreciate your comments and will try to reply to any point you make.

          At the end of the day, I am actually happy for you to change my mind if you can offer the evidence. I don’t think that has been done, even by Dr Gentry.

  4. Hey Josh,
    Thank you for taking the time to put your research into blog for us mere morals. The intensive on Revelations I did with you, still stands as one of the highlights of my Bth. I look forward to reading through your posts.

      1. Hey Josh,
        I’m currently recording an album I hope to have out next year. Red White and Blue will be on it. I’ll follow you on twitter and FB and let you know when it’s out. Suprised you remembered me, but glad you liked it so much.

        1. Hi Tarun,

          Remember you, and remember the song, I certainly do. That song was my high point of that class : )

          I look forward to hearing your album when it’s released.



  5. One last point: you say “For a (full-)Preterist, then, it would have to be argued that either John was totally convinced that Rome was just about to be completely destroyed by God’s intervention” – but a full preterist would never say that, because the don’t believe that Revelation IS about Rome being destroyed by God’s intervention – they believe it is about Jerusalem being destroyed.

  6. If Dr Gentry doesn’t convince you, I won’t either. However, I do hope that you do revisit the dating issue, and the preterist understanding of Revelation (as an actual preterist would describe their understanding), and I think that a thorough work of research on that subject would probably involve spending at least a year rummaging through the hundreds of historical documents on to see what preterist scholars themselves have to say about Revelation, documents that go all the way back to the patristic era.

    The fact that the Temple is described as still standing in Jerusalem, is about to be destroyed, and that Revelation contains hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament and dozens to the Olivet Discourse, (regarding the end of the age – that is, the Mosaic age, and the birth of a new age), the fact that Jerusalem is called “Sodom and Egypt” in Revelation is strong support for it also being Babylon (all the nations that God has judged), the fact that believers in the Messiah are exhorted to “come out of Babylon” so as to avoid her judgments is also a clear picture of believers fleeing Jerusalem for Pella prior to the final Roman battle (Christians did not flee Rome, they made it their centre) – must either mean that Revelation is a prophecy written before AD 70 – or it is a false prophecy, masquerading as a pre AD 70 prophecy. But, as I say, I am obviously not going to convince you, so I will leave you to your post AD 70 date (even though that makes no “covenantal” sense to me). I suspect that you have already decided on the format and interpretation of Revelation and are too far into your PhD research to now change your mind, and so being convinced of a pre AD 70 date would be very inconvenient for you, so I will just let it go now.

    1. Hi Martin,

      Dr Gentry hasn’t convinced me, and I don’t suppose that you will either. I don’t think, for example, that either of you gives a satisfactory explanation of the fact that the primary source evidence only ever refers to Rome as ‘Babylon’, post 70C.E., rather than Jerusalem. Your explanation above simply doesn’t hold any water. I think you should also read my next post in regards to defining ‘prophecy’.

      What I will say, however, is that I will certainly re-engage with Dr Gentry’s work, as well as checking out the website you link to. I can assure you, and you’ll just have to take my word for it, that I would not submit my PhD thesis which assumes a late first century date if I wasn’t thoroughly convinced of it. Even if coming to believe in a pre-70C.E. date was ‘inconvenient’ for me, I can promise you that I would take such matters seriously and not just submit the thing anyway. I take my work as a scholar much more seriously than that. Again, though, seeing as we have never met, you’ll just have to take my word for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s