“which God gave Him, to show His servants”

Returning to the 20th century with a short one:

 ‘which God gave him. This is a Johannine note. The Evangelist that gives Christ the highest place in relation to God asserts most strongly that all that He gives to man He first received from God (John xii. 49). This dependence does not imply inferiority of nature, but special function. His servants, i.e. God’s.”  [from THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by J.T. Dean, 1915]

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.   (John 12:49; KJV)

Dean has cut this topic down to the bare minimum: he acknowledges John’s assertion that Christ, as man, has the top place with God, and then sweeps away the arguments regarding whether or not Christ should have already known about this revelation after His Ascension by stating that it was only due to His ‘special function’ that He ‘received’ it. I find this to be a reasonable argument. In other words, it’s not even a matter of if He ‘knew’ after His Ascension, but instead, what God wanted conveyed to His servants. With this interpretation, of course they are God’s servants.

The next quote:

“It is not so much a revelation or unveiling of the Person of Christ, though it discloses His High Priestly and Kingly glory, as it is the unveiling of those events that shall precede and accompany His return to the earth. This is seen from the fact that what is revealed in the Book, was given unto Jesus Christ, by God the Father, to show unto His Servants the ‘things which must shortly come to pass.’ When Jesus was asked just before His death, when the things that He had prophesied against Jerusalem should come to pass (Mark 13:1-31), He replied in verse 32, ‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither (NOT YET) the Son, but the FATHER.’ 

²⁸Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: ²⁹So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. ³⁰Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. ³¹Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ³²But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.   (Mark 13:28-32; KJV)

“But after His Ascension He received from the Father the information that the Disciples asked for, and before the close of the first century, while at least one of those Disciples was still living, the beloved John, He sent an angel messenger to impart to him, and through him to the Churches, the information that is ‘unveiled’ in this Book of Revelation. Thus we see that the canon of Scripture would be incomplete without this message from Jesus to His Church after His return to Heaven.” [from THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Clarence Larkin, 1919]

I have to agree with Larkin that Revelation is mainly about the “unveiling of those events that shall precede and accompany His return to the earth.”  Revelation clearly describes the Second Coming, so it would also seem to describe the events leading up to it. There are some commentators who refuse to see Revelation as being chronological, and thus do not accept that it’s about the lead up to Christ’s return, but I have yet to be won over by them.

We also see here that Larkin is seeing Christ as gaining this knowledge after His Ascension and then making the decision to impart the knowledge to the last remaining Apostle. There is also an implication in the phrase: “while at least one of those Disciples was still living,” that Christ was running out of time, which I cannot agree with. Upon ascension, Christ was entering a realm where time does not exist. He could have appeared to any one (or all) of the Apostles or Disciples with this information well before any of them were being martyred. No, I think that there was a deeper reason for choosing the time, place, and person for this revelation than John being the last Disciple still alive. I am not really qualified to expound on this, but I think that some things are obvious: John seemed to have a special bond with Christ, the churches were starting to have some problems that needed correction, and John was away from the distractions of the world there on Patmos. There are probably some even deeper reasons, but I’m not the one to ferret them out.

Moving on:

“It was as a servant of Jesus Christ that John wrote, and the audience that he wanted, so far from being confined to theologians or scholars or prophetical experts, was to consist also of other servants—people, that is, who teach merely in a Sunday school, who tend the unconscious sick, who put the babies to bed and, for fifty-two weeks in the year, cook the family dinner, seven days a week. Poets and philosophers often preach democracy to the leisured and learned classes. But this John was a democrat in very deed. His was no Elysium. He sat in no chair at Athens Oxford—Harvard. Where Moses climbed Mount Pisgah and so surveyed the promised land, John was content with Patmos, never mentioned in Scriptures save this once, an island of disappointed hopes, his St. Helena. Here were miners who worked in salt—who were blinded by industrial hardship—wage-slaves without the wages, yet even to these men, John declared that heaven was open. Even they might be in Christ, Kings who could rule their circumstances and Priests who could enter the holiest. Mastery might be theirs and theirs also might be worship. No longer was history to be made in secret by a group of emperors and statesmen. To housemaids and clerks and unskilled laborers, history must justify herself. No longer were wars and persecutions to be an unchallenged ordinance of rulers. Mothers had a right to ask for what reason men seized the babes they bare and racked those innocent limbs and, on a thousand barren battle-fields, reduced the bodies of their sons to cannon-fodder. 

“Amid intellectual pretensions and Latinized verbiage, this lowliness of John’s mind was revealed in the very work which proclaimed his genius. It was from the Old Testament, to which some of us have risen superior, that he drew this pure water of humility. He had read how the dream of God, of which the interpretation was denied to wise men, astrologers, magicians and soothsayers, dawned clearly for a Jewish exile and captive whose very name, Daniel, had been paganized into Belteshazzar. Similarly, Amos was but a herdsman of Tekoa—a village as unknown except for him as Nazareth is unknown except for Christ yet to Amos as to Daniel and David, the shepherd lad, service was the path to prophecy—the Secret of the Lord was with them who fear Him.”   [from THE VISION WE FORGET, by Philip Whitwell Wilson, 1921] 

I was really getting into the poetry of this quote until I hit “Amid intellectual pretensions and Latinized verbiage, this lowliness of John’s mind was revealed in the very work which proclaimed his genius.” First of all, there were no “intellectual pretensions and Latinized verbiage” used by Christians in the Apostolic Age. The “pretensions” started in the second century, and the “Latinized verbiage” came after that.  

The “lowliness of John’s mind” was not revealed in Revelation: Revelation came from the mind of Jesus Christ. And He was famous for seeking out the lowly and humble among us. He is also the “genius” mentioned, not John.

Then I read: “It was from the Old Testament, to which some of us have risen superior…” Oh dear. How do any of us ‘rise superior’ to the Word of God? Either the whole Bible is the Word of God or none of it is. The whole New Testament rests on the foundation of the Old Testament: you cannot have one without the other, so believing in only one of them makes you incomplete rather than “superior.”

On to the next decade:

“But does this title mean that our Lord is the subject or object of what is revealed, or is He both the Revealer and Revelation? No doubt He is the Revealer, a fact quite consistent with the words ‘which God gave to Him.’ This need present no difficulty. Clearly all the events recorded for us later, already lay open before Him as a book. It does not say that God ‘made’ the Revelation to Him, in the sense of shewing it, but ‘gave,’  in the sense of entrusting it to Him. He is still ‘the righteous servant  of Jehovah,’ and only reveals what God commissions Him reveal. It is as though the father should agree with his son that the time had come to inform his tenants of the arrangements for his approaching coming-of-age and marriage. Such matters would, of course, be already well known to himself; now he is to reveal them to others. So, not is only Christ the Revealer but the Revelation; He reveals in the Father’s time things concerning Himself: He is the Key to the Revelation. [from THE VISIONS OF JOHN THE DIVINE, by William Hoste, 1932]

A very good quote delving into the why regarding God ‘giving’ the revelation to Jesus. He’s implying that in ‘giving’ the revelation to Christ, God was not ‘telling’ Jesus something new, but rather being part of the decision to reveal it at that time to us. I think that this is the best exposition of this phrase yet.

The next quote:

“The genitive ‘of Jesus Christ’ already makes the apokalupsis definite; the relative clause does this still more, for this is the particular revelation ‘which God gave to him,’ namely to Christ, ‘for him to show to his slaves,’ which Christ then also did show by using John, one of his slaves. The ultimate source of this revelation is God himself.  The lines of transmission is: from God, —to Jesus Christ, —to Christ’s slave John, —to all the other slaves of Christ…When God gave Jesus Christ this revelation is not said, as little as the time is stated in Matth. 28:18: ‘There was given to me all authority in heaven and on earth.’ Comp. John 13,3. Many passages attest that when God gives to Jesus Christ this means to Christ’s human nature. We may note John 5, 19-23 and 26-27; 8, 28 and 38; 12, 49-50; 17, 8 and 22; hence also we confess accordingly…”

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and earth.   (Matthew 28:18; ASV)

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God;    (John 13:3; ASV)

¹⁹Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.  ²⁰For the Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel. ²¹For as the Father raiseth us the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. ²²For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; ²³that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him…²⁶For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself: ²⁷and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.    (John 5:19-23, 26-27; ASV)

²⁸Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things…³⁸I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.    (John 8:28,38; ASV)

⁴⁹For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. ⁵⁰And I know that his commandment is life eternal; the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.    (John 12:49-50; ASV)

⁸for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me…²²And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one    (John 17:8,22; ASV)

I’m breaking in for a moment to comment on the author’s use of the word ‘slave.’  I’ve looked at all the major translations he would have had access to and none of them use ‘slave’ as the translation of doulos.  The American Standard Version (ASV, 1901) would have been the most recent translation available to the author, so I’m using that for his Bible references. But, I think that it’s the author himself who decided to translate doulos as ‘slave.’

Back to the quote:

“The claim that here ‘God gave to Jesus Christ’ means to the Son in his divine nature stands challenged already by the name ‘Jesus Christ,’ which ever designates him according to his earthly life and to his office accomplished by means of his human nature.

“The infinitive denotes purpose and its subject is Jesus Christ: ‘for Christ to show to his (Christ’s) slaves.’ The verbs agree in meaning with apokalupsis…this revelation Jesus showed; signified its meaning; all that comprised it John saw. Since Christ is to show (aorist, in one great showing [aorist is a form of a verb that usually expresses a simple occurrence of an action without reference to it being completed or continuing] ), the three pronouns…refer to Christ: Christ’s slaves — Christ’s angel — Christ’s slave John. ‘Slaves’ and ‘slave’ contain no reference to office. We belong to Christ, who bought us with a price (1 Cor. 6,20; 7,23); he is our Lord. 

for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.   (1 Corinthians 6:20; ASV)

²²For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ’s bondservant. ²³Ye are bought with a price; become not bondservants of men. ²⁴Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.   (1 Corinthians 7:22-24; ASV)

“We are precious to him; we obey him alone in a delightful service. See the beautiful passage John 10, 4-5. 

⁴When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. ⁵And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.   (John 10:4,5; ASV)

“We hear his voice alone, not the coaxing of a stranger. The main connotation in doulos is that Christ’s will is wholly our will. This is what Paul means when he calls himself ‘slave of Jesus Christ’ as in Rom. 1, 1. John here does the same. Christ used one of his slaves to show to all of his slaves this revelation.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God   (Romans 1:1; ASV)

“It is a mistake to understand ‘his slaves’ and ‘his slave John’ in a different sense. Of course, John was an apostle; he does not call himself as apostle in this connection, because that term refers to the entire office of testifying to the Gospel, while here Christ uses him only for showing this revelation to those who are already slaves of Christ like John himself.”    [from THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN’S REVELATION,  by R. C. H. Lenski, 1935]

I think I have now come to the place where I don’t feel the need to think about whether Christ received the revelation in His human nature vs. His eternal nature. I prefer to think of that as Hoste did, that God was part of the decision to reveal the information to John, that it wasn’t about ‘telling’  Jesus new information. 

Lenski has set up a grammatical argument for ‘His slaves’ to mean ‘Christ’s slaves,’ which doesn’t mean a lot to me either as Christ and God are One, so as ‘slaves,’ we belong to both.

I really like the sentence “The main connotation in doulos is that Christ’s will is wholly our will.” This makes perfect sense to me. Much better sense than ‘servant’ or ‘slave.’ Slave, especially, implies a forcing and an unwillingness. A servant, at least, is more likely to be so by choice, which is closer to the reality of being a doulos of Christ’s. In English, I would say that doulos would be a cross between a servant, a soldier and a subject (as in: subject to the King).  A doulos of Christ’s gives over his life to Christ; it’s his life to give as an autonomous being, but also because he is an autonomous being, it’s a continuing act that he must perform throughout his life. To me, this seems more like the stance of a subject or a soldier. The other aspect is that Christ is in us, as the Holy Spirit, so that the ‘orders’ given are from within, not from without as with a slave, servant or soldier…and sometimes even subject (subject to the will of the King). 

The last quote of the day:

“…these plain words are before us as we enter upon The Revelation: ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.’ This revelation must have been communicated to Him after His ascension to heaven, by the Father who has ‘set within his own authority’ times and seasons. We believe: 

“1. That the times and seasons are yet within the Father’s authority—of course by the glad consent of the Son. 

“2. That the book of The Revelation contains the details of the carrying out of the divine decree that all Christ’s enemies should be put under His feet—all things, save the Father, subjected unto Him (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). 

²⁴Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. ²⁵For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. ²⁶The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. ²⁷For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.  ²⁸And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

“3. That the Father has not revealed ‘the day and the hour,’ so that we are waiting and watching and expecting, along with our Lord, the Father’s giving Him His Kingdom, which He ‘went into a far country, to receive … and to return’ (Luke 19:12). 

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.    (Luke 19:12; KJV)

“Our Lord said in Gethsemane, ‘Thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?’ (Matthew 26:53, 54). He left it to the Father to grant Him, as He pleased, weakness, shame and suffering, or resurrection, power, and glory. And this was perfect obedience! 

“Christ will, of course, occupy the eternal throne, for He is God, yet it will be ‘the Throne of God and of the Lamb,’ an infinitely beautiful and gracious arrangement. For our Lord will not retire from us into the Godhead, although He is and will continue to be, ‘God blessed forever’: but He will be a man, and as such will reign on ‘the Throne of God and of the Lamb’ forever!”

Not a terrible quote. The 3 things the author ‘believes’ seem a bit restricted, but not untrue as stated.  

The sentence: “He left it to the Father to grant Him, as He pleased, weakness, shame and suffering, or resurrection, power, and glory. And this was perfect obedience!” is perfectly true. I remember when I realized that this was what obedience meant, and from there I surmised that the ‘fear of God’ had to do, in large part, with this concept. We do not know what God will require of us.

I also like: “For our Lord will not retire from us into the Godhead…but He will be a man, and as such will reign on ‘the Throne of God and of the Lamb’ forever!” I hadn’t thought about this before, that Jesus could just disappear into the Godhead where we could not follow. He made it very clear while on earth that He was providing a path, a way to reach eternal life. Even 2000 years later the path is still there and just as bright, though the entrance can be harder to find. I hadn’t really considered that He would have to deny Himself the relief (perhaps) of retiring into the Godhead in order to shepherd His sheep through the gate. 

I’ve appreciated this little excursion, but I really think that God enjoys having this ‘alter ego’ that is still part of Himself in order to mediate between Himself and His people.

The last part of the quote:

“To show unto his servants (literally bondservants). This revelation is written not exclusively to the Church, but to all willing subjects of Christ. This will include the spared remnant of Israel, also those among the nations that attach themselves to them in the awful time of trouble; in fact, all companies of God’s saints. Although written ‘for the churches’  (Revelation 22:16), the book of The Revelation is not addressed to the Church, the assembly of God, the Body of Christ, as such, as are Paul’s Epistles. 

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.    (Revelation 22:16; KJV)

“The Revelation is a prophecy, testified to the churches, for their information as to ‘the things that are to come,’ and for warning and correction. 

“No wonder, then, that those not subject to Christ should find difficulty with the book of The Revelation! It is a remarkable fact, that although our Lord Jesus said in the upper room, ‘No longer do I call you servants; … but I have called you friends’; and although Paul tells the church saints, in Galatians 4:7, ‘Ye are no longer bondservants, but full-age sons:’—nevertheless all the apostles in their writings call themselves bondservants of Jesus Christ! If we are having difficulty with this blessed closing book of God’s holy Word, let us surrender ourselves to Jesus Christ as His servants. The book was written to bondservants.”    [from REVELATION: A COMPLETE COMMENTARY, by William R. Newell, 1935]

I don’t think that Revelation was “written to the churches,” rather I agree with the statement “Revelation is a prophecy, testified to the churches…”.  I also agree that “his revelation is written not exclusively to the Church”.  This is where being a Dispensationalist comes in. My understanding of it is that there are times in history (stretching into the future) where it means something different to ‘be saved.’  Each of these ways of being saved is an alignment with Christ. Before the First Coming, they were looking forward to and longing for the appearance of the Christ. They may not have thought about it in those words, but in aligning themselves with God and working towards the future that God promised (think Abraham, Noah, and Moses), this was actually an alignment with the coming Christ, the promise of whom was made starting with Genesis 3:15. During the Church Age we have our path laid out for us: it is, comparatively, the easiest Dispensation. Once the Church is removed, new followers will no longer be part of the ‘bride of Christ.’  They will be in a new Dispensation, one that still has the path proclaimed in the Bible provided, but it will be a harder and more perilous path than we have now.

I especially like Newell’s statement: “If we are having difficulty with this blessed closing book of God’s holy Word, let us surrender ourselves to Jesus Christ as His servants. The book was written to bondservants.” While this implies that there is only the one interpretation of Revelation (and I suspect that there are multiple layers, like the rest of the Bible), it is still very true that to see any meaning in the book, one must believe in Christ.

That does it for today. We will start with another view from 1937 and move from there into the years of World War II.