Today we start with a new phrase; here are the translations we saw before:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John (King James Version – KJV)

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,  (New King James Version – NKJV)

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,  (New American Standard Bible – NASB)

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition – NRSVUE)

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,  (New International Version – NIV)

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, (English Standard Version 

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;  (American Standard Version – ASV)

A revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him so that he could tell his servants what is now to take place very soon; he sent his angel to make it known to his servant John,  (New Jerusalem Bible – NJB)

Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to make open to his servants, which things it behooveth to be made soon. And he signified, sending by his angel to his servant John   (Wycliffe Bible – WYC)

Here’s the earliest quote I could find that was specific to this phrase:

“In the reading of the Revelation of the holy apostle John, dearest brethren, we direct our minds and will take care to explain, the Lord granting it, the reading according to its anagogical meaning [leading the mind upwards, to the spiritual]. For the revelation of Jesus Christ makes itself wide for our ears, so that those heavenly realities that are hidden might be manifested to our hearts.

“‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to make clear to his servants,’ that is, to manifest to his servants…’”   [From ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TEXTS: LATIN COMMENTARIES ON REVELATION (2011), translated and edited by William C. Weinrich, on the work of Caesarius of Arles: EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE, 510-37]

So we start with a basic concept, that to ‘make clear’ would be to ‘manifest.’ Definitionally, to manifest is to make openly known by clear evidence, or, to make something real from something theoretical.  Both usages would apply.

The next quote is contemporary or shortly after the first:

“‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him,’ that is, to John, the most blessed of the apostles. ‘To show to his servants’: that he might explain those things that he had learned and that he might reveal those things that he had explained.”  [From ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TEXTS: LATIN COMMENTARIES ON REVELATION (2011), translated and edited by William C. Weinrich, on the work of Apringius of Beja:EXPLANATION OF THE REVELATION BY THE MOST LEARNED MAN, APRINGIUS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH AT PAX, 531-548]

Personally, I think that you would be ‘revealing’ before you would be ‘explaining,’ but I could be wrong.

Another quote contemporary with the last:

“When it is said to him, ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him,’ it is as though he said, ‘This revelation is given from the Father to the Son, and then from the Son to us,’ his servants. By calling the saints the ‘servants’ of Christ, he safeguards what is proper to his deity. For, to whom would men belong, unless to him who is the Maker and Creator of humankind? And who is the Creator of humankind and of all creation? No one other than the only begotten Word and Son of God! For the present author says in the Gospel, ‘All things are made through him.’”   [From ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE: NEW TESTAMENT XII: REVELATION (2005), edited by William C. Weinrich, on the work of Oecumenius: COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, 538]

To me, it is unclear from the phrase “which God gave him to show his servants” just whose servants we are talking about: Jesus’ or God’s. This is the first quote to take a stand by saying that we are talking about the servants of Jesus. I also like how Oecumenius ties Revelation to John’s Gospel.

Yet another quote probably contemporary with the last one, though it could have been written a bit earlier:

“The acknowledgement that they are servants, professed by those intimate with the Savior, does not controvert that which was said by Jesus to them, I no longer call you servants, but friends. For although he calls them friends and children, and brothers, thus bestowing honor and excellence on them, still they profess in gratitude that they are servants. For they deem that it is noble and great to have God as a master. Therefore, in their epistles they state this appellation first, in the same tenor as others declare the high-office titles of mortal human beings. As a matter of fact, James and Paul and the rest of the (holy) men unanimously do the same thing. For, humbling themselves due to their freedom from arrogance, they keep silent on designations which have been written about themselves and proclaim their pre-eminence.”   [From AN ANCIENT COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION: A CRITICAL EDITION OF THE SCHOLIA IN APOCALYPSIN (2013), by P. Tzamalikos, on the work of Cassian the Sabaite: SCHOLIA IN APOCALYPSIN, 6th century]

No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.  (John 15:15; NASB)

This is a very good point: Jesus stopped calling his disciples ‘slaves’ in favor of ‘friends.’ How do we reconcile that with the phrase “his servants”? Well, Cassian explains it by making the servants belong to God instead of to Jesus. As I said earlier, the phrase is not clear about whose servants are being spoken of, so here we have the other possible interpretation. 

Here we have the first reference to the term “his servants” as representing a “high-office title,” which Cassian points out is expressed by most of the New Testament authors.

Now we move ahead in time a few years, into the early Middle Ages:

“He says that the revelation was given to Christ. By this expression concerning him John is thinking more of Christ’s humanity, since in his Gospel John more than all others dwells on those things that are sublime and proper to God. But also here by means of the ministering angel and the mention of the servants who are instructed he makes known the greatness of the deity of Christ. For all things are his servants.”   [From ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TEXTS: LATIN COMMENTARIES ON REVELATION (2011), translated and edited by William C. Weinrich, on the work of Andrew of Caesarea: THE INTERPRETATION OF ANDREW, ARCHBISHOP OF CAESAREA OF CAPPADOCIA, OF THE REVELATION OF JOHN THE THEOLOGIAN, early 7th century]

It took me a minute to think about the phrase: “John is thinking more of Christ’s humanity.” I think I can see why Andrew would say this, but I don’t think I agree. I think Andrew says this because Jesus didn’t know these things while in the flesh, and so God is giving this as a revelation to Jesus. I don’t agree because in my opinion, once Christ died and was resurrected, He was again part of the Godhead so that this would have been shared knowledge with God. I think “God gave [it] to him” not in the sense of a revelation to a human being, but in a more general sense. The Greek word used, ‘didomi,’ has a wide meaning, and that meaning can include ‘implied’ or a figurative sense of ‘to give.’ It can also mean ‘to present’ or ‘to allow.’ I suspect that the phrase ‘which God gave to him,’ is saying that God was part of this revelation with Jesus within the Godhead, rather than ‘giving’ this to Jesus as a separate being. The next quote hints at this explanation:

“Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him. Here the Trinity is understood: Christ the Son of God, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit is speaking through John. To make plain, that is, to show to his servants, that is, to believers in Christ…”   [From EARLY LATIN COMMENTARIES ON THE APOCALYPSE (Hiberno-Latin), edited by Francis X. Gumerlock (2016), on the work of Pseudo-Jerome: HANDBOOK ON THE APOCALYPSE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, mid to late 7th century]

I think that the implication of bringing the Trinity in here is to refer to the Godhead: that all of Them together are involved in this revelation.

Moving on:

“Gave to him, that is, the Father to Christ, or Christ to John, to make plain, that is to show simply without a parable…”  [From EARLY LATIN COMMENTARIES ON THE APOCALYPSE (Hiberno-Latin, 2016), edited by Francis X. Gumerlock, on the work of an anonymous writer: REFERENCE BIBLE: ON THE MYSTERIES OF THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN, early to mid 8th century]

The ‘gave to him’ is clearly the Father to Christ in the Interlinear Bible, because it is ‘God gave to him.’ If God gave it to John directly, then Christ would have been out of the loop. 

I found the idea interesting that the information would be given without parables: made plain. This could imply very limited symbology as well.

Next, the Venerable Bede:

“As was his custom, John refers the glory of the Son to the Father and testifies that Jesus Christ received the revelation of this mystery from God.”   [From ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE: NEW TESTAMENT XII: REVELATION (2005), edited by William C. Weinrich, on the work of the Venerable Bede: EXPLANATIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE, 710-716]

I really like this. Bede, by stating that John “refers the glory of the Son to the Father…” is saying that the revelation actually comes from the Godhead/Trinity, but John is rightly giving the ultimate credit to God.

Moving a little further east for this quote:

“’To reveal to his servants what would occur.’ This is not like the gospel, very lofty divine sayings; but to his servants and the overseers of the churches, through their fellow-servant John, he demonstrated what would occur in the immediate future.”   [From NERSES OF LAMBRON: COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN (Armenian), by Nerses of Lambron, (translated by Robert W. Thomson, 2007), 1179] 

A fairly basic statement but with a reference to John’s Gospel; of course I don’t agree with ‘in the immediate future.’

Stepping into the high Middle Ages:

“He touches, then, on a fourfold efficient cause: The principal cause is God, the secondary cause is Christ insofar as he is human, the middle cause is the angel, and the proximate cause is John. And so it says, that it is ‘an apocalypse of Jesus Christ,’ that is, made by Jesus Christ, which God, namely the Father and the whole trinity, gave to him [Rev 1:1]. He gave, I repeat, not only so that he could know the revelation but also to make public, that is, in order to make manifest, to his servants those things that soon must come to pass. [Rev 1:1].”   [From COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, by Peter of John Olivi, (translated by Warren Lewis, 2017), 13th century]

This author states ‘the secondary cause is Christ insofar as he is human,’ which is hugely limiting. More than that, Christ does not appear to John as a mere human figure anywhere in Revelation. Then Peter goes on to say: ‘made by Jesus Christ, which God, namely the Father and the whole trinity, gave to him.’ Well, Jesus Christ is the second person of that trinity, so is He giving the revelation to Himself? I don’t think that looking at Christ as “human” in this phrase works at all.

The last sentence is confusing: “He gave…not only so that he could know the revelation but also to make public… to his servants those things that soon must come to pass.” Who is being referred to here? The part: “not only so that he could know the revelation” really can’t be referring to Jesus Christ. Yet the rest of the sentence seems to be about Christ. How does Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, not know the revelation before He is ‘told’?  This makes no sense to me.

About three hundred years later:

“Which Revelation, with all judgment and power, God the everlasting Father hath wholly given unto him, now taken up from the earth, glorified, and set above all the works of his hands;”   [From THE IMAGE OF BOTH CHURCHES, by John Bale, ~1550]

Mr. Bale recognizes that Jesus had received “all judgment and power,” prior to the events of Revelation; and that He was “set above all the works of his hands.”

Towards the end of the 16th century:

“But John tells that this prophecy which he brings is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show to his servants….Behold then all mysteries come from the most high God, through Jesus Christ the mediator in our flesh…But still for the authority of the book, it comes from the high God, it is from Jesus the mediator, it is sent by an Angel, here is no blemish: but it comes also from a man. Indeed it comes from a man, but from such a man, and in such sort, that the authority is nothing all diminished, for the holy Apostles and Prophets were but the instruments of the holy Ghost, and delivered nothing of their own, but whatsoever the spirit by them uttered…He doth not here utter any thing but as a faithful witness, even as the tongue and pen of the holy Ghost. Then is it our part humbly to stoop down with all reverence, to harken to God, and to our Lord Jesus Christ, who in singular love hath sent this Revelation to all his servants. We must take heed that we despise not things coming from so great and so glorious a mediator, sending them unto us for our special good. Thus much for the high authority of this book.”   [From SERMONS UPON THE WHOLE BOOK OF THE REVELATION, by George Giffard, 1596]

With this quote the job titles of the Supreme Being are being parsed out. God gave the revelation to Jesus the Mediator who then sends it by Angel (Messenger); but it’s really the Holy Ghost that moves the pen.

I don’t argue that Jesus is not the Mediator; but that He is part of the Trinity, and as such, would already know what’s being revealed. Jesus said that if you see Him, then you see the Father: so Jesus the Mediator being sent to John is the same as God the Father being sent, but provides a different, more relatable experience for John.

And I agree that the Holy Spirit guided John’s pen, as again, the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity. 

This next quote comes from a man born as David Wangler (1548-1622) in Germany. His father intended him for a higher education, but his new step-mother had him sent into apprenticeship with an apothecary. After a while she changed her mind and sent him into apprenticeship with a shoemaker. About the age of 16 his father took over and sent him on to college, where, after about 3 months, he was able to support himself entirely by selling his poetry. He took a Latin name at some point, and as Wangler meant “cheek” in German, he took the name Pareus, which meant “cheek” in Latin. 

Germany of the late 16th and early 17th centuries was torn between Lutheranism and the Reformed Church, known as Calvinism in many places. Pareus was raised Lutheran, but became Reformed under the tutelage of Reformed professors; his father either disinherited him, or at least threatened to (depending on the source), over this change in belief. During most of his life, his place of residence and his jobs were affected by the religious choice of the prince in charge of a given part of Germany: Pareus mostly lived in Heidelberg, except when the prince in charge was Lutheran, then he had to move somewhere with a Reformed prince until the Lutheran prince was replaced.

Despite all the strife, he became a very well-known theologian, pastor, and professor. His writings were much quoted up through the 19th century, and he is still used as a source today.

Here’s the quote:

“…the words following, which God gave unto him, seem to weaken the argument [that Christ is part of the Godhead]. For to whom God doth reveal things to come, he is not God: but God has revealed these things to Christ, therefore Christ is not God. The answer is twofold, first the whole may be granted, if it be taken in a good sense, as namely, that Christ (albeit he is true God) yet wherein God his father has revealed these things to him, that is, according to his humanity, he is not God. For the humanity of Christ, not foreknowing things to come but by revelation, is not God: but the man Christ Jesus, is God, because by his divinity, he foreknows all things of himself. Secondly the assumption is not in the text, and may be denied: for John saith not, that God revealed these things to Christ, but gave this revelation to him, as to our mediator, that he might reveal the same to us his servants: for it is his proper office, to reveal the will of the father to the Church. So that John speaks of the office of Christ, as he is our mediator, which doth not diminish the equality of the son, with the father, but supposes it: because as he was mere man, or a creature, of what power soever, he could not have performed the works of a mediator. But it behooved him also to be God. But Thirdly, there follows no absurdity, to understand it as spoken of the Godhead of Christ: for such as is the order of existence, such also is the manner of working, betwixt the father, and the son. For as the son exists not of himself, but as he is the first begotten of the father, so the son reveals things to come, not of himself, but as he receives from the father: and as the father Gives unto the son his Essence: so is also his divine wisdom communicated unto him from the father by Eternal Generation…Essentially of the trinity: and taking it in that sense, then the revelation is given to Christ by God, as unto a mediator only, but understanding it of the person of the father, then God is said to give it unto Christ, both, as to the son, and mediator also.”

When I put a post together, the first thing I do is put all the quotes I intend to use in a document. After that, I go through the quotes one by one, thinking and writing about each one as I go. When I first read this paragraph, it sounded convoluted and rather like double-talk. After I had gone through the earlier quotes and written about my thoughts, reading this quote suddenly made perfect sense, and brought into focus all my wonderings about the phrase “which God gave Him.” What particularly settled my thinking was the reminder that Jesus always spoke of Himself as “the Son,” as One who came from the Father, and that He only revealed that which He received from the Father: “For as the son exists not of himself, but as he is the first begotten of the father, so the son reveals things to come, not of himself, but as he receives from the father.” This really brought it into focus for me. Perhaps it could be boiled down to: Christ is part of the Godhead, but Christ is not the whole of the Godhead. That might be too simplified, but maybe it helps the perspective.

Pareus goes on:

“To show unto his servants the end, that God Gave the revelation to Christ, was, not that he should have it for himself. But, as being the messenger of the father, to reveal it to his servants. By servant is meant John, with the pastors and teachers, yea all the faithful of all ages: to all which the mysteries of this book were to be revealed by Christ.

“First, to John that he should write it, and then to all the rest both to read, and understand it, meditate, teach, & explain it to the Church of God. The Gr. his, notes the servants of Christ, for it coheres with the word to show, which notes the office of Christ, and not of God. So that Christ shows this revelation, to his own servants, which is a second argument; proving the Godhead of Christ. For he certainly is the Lord of the Church, yea God Eternal, to whom John, the teachers, and all the faithful of the Church are servants: for God alone is the Lord of the Church…For albeit Christ in that he is our mediator, is exulted to be head, and Lord of the Church: notwithstanding (except he had been God), he could neither have been mediator, or Lord of the Church. So that we plainly see, that Christ Jesus, is God, seeing John and all the faithful are his servants.”   [From A COMMENTARY UPON THE DIVINE REVELATION OF THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST JOHN, by David Pareus, 1644]

And so, Pareus uses Greek to answer my further question of whose servants are those referred to, which is how I hoped someone would address it, as I am certainly not knowledgeable in the finer points of Greek grammar.

We’ll end with a very short quote from an English Puritan, John Trapp (1601-1669):

“Verse 1. A servant of Jesus Christ. This is an higher title than Monarch of the World…”   [From COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES AND REVELATION, by John Trapp, 1647]

Not an entirely new thought, but a worthy one. Next time we will finish with the 17th century and start into the 18th.