Why did God the Father, rather than Jesus, deliver the Book of Revelation to John?

Why was the Revelation given by the Father rather than by Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:1)?

The Revelation is given by God, Who, of course, we understand in this passage, is the Father.

The defining portrait of the Lord Jesus in the Revelation is "One like unto the Son of Man" (1:13; 14:14). As such, He has authority to execute judgment (Joh 5:27)" TARGET="_blank">Joh 5:27) and to extend God’s rule throughout God’s creation (Heb 2:6-8)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 2:6-8). The Revelation gives us the course of events leading to this fulfillment, when the word comes from the throne, "It is done" (Rev 21:6)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 21:6).

In His role as the Son of God and as the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus always moves in subjection to His Father and in dependence on His God, respectively. Because He is God, the Lord had full knowledge of all these events and He did not lack the ability to communicate them. We cannot but worship when we see Him always acting within the role entrusted to Him.

When it was God’s purpose to strengthen His people and enable them to be true to the soon-coming Sovereign, He committed that communication to Jesus Christ, the ascended Man. His role, as Son of God and Son of Man is to communicate. As His God and Father, God’s role is to determine what, when, and how to communicate.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can we approach the Lord Jesus to worship Him apart from the Father?

We are on holy ground when considering any aspect of divine truth, but especially do we need to approach “with unshod feet,” when it is a question of the Being of God! We can only know what He is pleased to reveal, and even then it is “as in a glass darkly,” and “in part.” There is one God—that is, one Divine Essence; but in that unity there are three Divine Persons or Subsistencies, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial: that is, each of the three possesses the whole Divine substance. We must neither divide the substance, nor confound the persons.

These three Persons are in necessary relations to one another, and it is important not to confound these relations. Each possesses the Personal properties essential to Himself, and which cannot be predicated of or communicated to the others. Thus it belongs to the Father to “beget:” His are the eternal counsels; the Son is the Only-begotten, the Incarnate One; He alone suffered for sin. The Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son. The Spirit reveals the Son, by whom the Father is declared or interpreted. Now, it is not derogating from one Divine Person to refrain from attributing to Him what the Holy Scriptures assign to Another.

Thus we never read of worship being offered to the Holy Spirit, though He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal, divine as the Father and the Son. But we do read, even in the days of His humiliation, of worship being rendered to the Lord Jesus, and He accepted it. And in Revelation 5:8-13" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 5:8-13 Divine worship is paid to the Lamb in heaven. Nevertheless, the Lord proclaims in John 4:23, 24," TARGET="_blank">John 4:23, 24, that the true Worshippers will worship the Father, and that it is the “Father who is seeking worshippers”—”God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” The apostle Paul indicates, too, in that pregnant verse (Eph. ii. 18), the true Divine order. “Through Him (Christ Jesus) we both (believers from Jew and Gentile) have access by the Spirit unto the Father.” The Lord is the way to the Father and the substance of worship; the Spirit the power; the Father the recipient of the worship of the people.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If the inaccurate rumors were dealt with publicly (for example, by a public rebuke, 1 Timothy 5:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:20), they should be cleared publicly. Otherwise, as is more usually the case, those who become aware that what they have heard or repeated is false should be as diligent to correct and contain the damage as they were to further it. They would do the right thing if they apologized to the individual, too. As far as the wronged believer is concerned, he may kindly request the believers who have told others these inaccuracies to repair the damage to the assembly's testimony by correcting their mistakes. Beyond that, the wronged believer should leave it to the Lord to vindicate his name (Proverbs 20:22)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 20:22). It's a safe "rule of thumb," that when a believer can trust the Lord to clear his name he is in the right; when he insists that others clear his name, he casts suspicion on his cause.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is wavering faith the reason for unanswered prayer (James 1:7)?

Is wavering faith the reason for unanswered prayer (James 1:7)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:7)?

No. On occasion, God allows us to have what we request. The result is not initially the best for us (Psalm 106:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 106:15). He allows this so we will appreciate the security of His will. What He allows in our life is always only for our good -eventually, it is the best for us. The motive of such prayer was self-will, not faith. Nevertheless, God granted the prayer.

In James 1:6," TARGET="_blank">James 1:6, 7 the tried believer asks for wisdom. Verse three makes it clear that faith is being tried. In verse five, faith is being expressed and strengthened. The enemy of faith is double mindedness, a mind for the values of this world and a mind for the values of the world to come. That's the basic conflict James highlights throughout his book. When the thinking of the world motivates a believer's prayer, he cannot "ask in faith." Faith sees another and eternal world; it asks in keeping with that realm. In response to that prayer, our God gives liberally.

What hinders prayer is a mind that tries to accommodate itself to two worlds: the temporal and the eternal. Faith is not working consistently and the result is receiving nothing from God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How much alcohol should a Christian drink before feeling that he has gone too far?

How much alcohol should a Christian drink before feeling that he has gone too far?

A simple answer is that a believer should avoid alcoholic drinking in a social setting. Drinking alcoholic beverages can become a habit and lead to drunkenness. The first time wine is mentioned in the scriptures is in connection with Noah, "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent" (Genesis 9:21)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:21).

Drunkenness and impurity are associated, as wise King Solomon points out in Proverbs 23:29-35." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 23:29-35. Genesis 19:32" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 19:32 gives further evidence of this. Wine in itself is not condemned in scripture; however, it is clear that drunkenness is a very serious sin (1 Corinthians 5:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:9).

Paul exhorts Timothy to "use a little wine" as a medicine, not a beverage. He limits the amount to "a little" (1 Timothy 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:23). "Be not drunk with wine, ...but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18).

What about a Christian's testimony before unbelievers to whom he has spoken about Christ when they see that believer drinking?

J. Abernathy

Other pages in this section

About this site

How do we understand the meaning of "only begotten" Son?

How do we understand the meaning of "only begotten" Son?

The word translated "only begotten" appears nine times in our New Testament. Luke uses it three times in his gospel to describe either an only daughter (8:42) or only son (7:12; 9:38). The term also describes Isaac (Heb 11:17)," TARGET="_blank">Heb 11:17), which is instructive, because Isaac was not the only son born to Abraham. He was the father of Ishmael and six other sons (Gen 25:2)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 25:2). Isaac, however, was uniquely precious (22:2), because God promised to fulfil His covenant with Abraham through Isaac.

The remaining references to "only begotten" are from John’s pen and all refer to the Lord Jesus. The first mention in John is significant. Although the other four references (1:18; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9)" TARGET="_blank">1Jo 4:9) have an article ("the") with "only begotten," the first reference does not. "We beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten of a Father" (John 1:14," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, YLT). The absence of an article does not mean He was like an only begotten son. He was and is "the only begotten Son." As Mr. Newberry points out, the missing article indicates character. John saw in Christ every evidence that He was the Son uniquely precious to His Father and every reason why He should be thus treasured by His Father.

Although John never refers to believers as "sons of God," he does tell us that we are begotten (a related word) by God (1Jo 5:1, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1Jo 5:1, 18). Since many are begotten by God, the term "only begotten" cannot refer to the act of "begetting." It cannot therefore imply a beginning of the Son’s existence, or His becoming the Son of God, or His birth into humanity. "Only begotten" expresses the uniqueness of the Son in the essential value He has to the Father and in the central place He has in all that the Father has purposed.

For those who find the expression "only begotten" rather archaic, the words "only Son" convey much the same truth, although "unique Son" may express the truth more completely.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Christian bride

Is the Christian bride’s long hair a sufficient head covering for her wedding?

Yes. The Scriptures only instruct a sister to wear a head covering when the assembly has come together. This, once again, is a personal choice.

A sister’s long hair is her permanent expression of the headship of the man (see question 1). If her behavior during and after the wedding indicates that she respects the headship of her new husband, this is consistent with the "message" her long hair gives. Apart from that, she is disobedient to God and disturbs the beauty of His plan.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How does our humanity differ from the Lord

How does our humanity differ from the Lord’s?

Ours is fallen humanity (Romans 5:12, 14, 19)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12, 14, 19), while His is holy humanity. Three words carefully and precisely define the Lord’s humanity: form; likeness; fashion (Phil 2:7, 8)." TARGET="_blank">Phil 2:7, 8). He took the form of a servant when He assumed a human body (Hebrews 10:5)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:5), expressive of a new essence He possessed. In the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:3), He resembled our humanity in every observable way. Because He was in fashion as a man, nothing about His conduct or mode of life contradicted His being truly human.

In important ways, though, His humanity differs from ours mentally, morally, and materially. In contrast to His omni- science, our understanding is darkened (Ephesians 4:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:18). Unlike His holiness, fallen human- ity prefers sin (Isaiah 53:6;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:6; Romans 7:18, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:18, 23). Different from our bodies, His body was not under the condemnation of death because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:16-18)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:16-18). Paul deals with the material and moral implications of our fallen humanity in Romans 5-8." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5-8. Our physical flesh, linked with Adam is subject to death (7:24) and is presently insepar able from the moral principle within, the flesh, which cannot please God (8:8). The Lord was not subject to death (John 10:18)," TARGET="_blank">John 10:18), nor was His body dying. He grew with age (Luke 2:52)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:52), but was not subject to the processes of dying that begin to function in our bodies at conception. Attempting to explain that scientifically is impossible; its cause is supernatural (Luke 1:35)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35). Primarily, the physical substance of our Lord differed from ours because His essential manhood was totally without sin. That moral difference entails His freedom from the condemnation of death that blights all else in creation.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What can believers do for a believer who is the subject of damaging rumors?

What can believers do for a believer who is the subject of damaging rumors?

If the rumors are just passing stories that no one would take seriously, let them drift into nothingness. More harm than good might come from telling the person what others said. For example, if the person insisted on knowing who repeated the rumor, he would either be upset with you if you refused to tell him or upset with the person who told the rumor. You have become a talebearer who stirs up strife (Proverbs 26:20)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 26:20).

We should always ask for evidence to substantiate rumors about others, especially for persistent, harmful rumors. If supporting evidence is not available, make your disapproval clear. And never repeat damaging rumors (Titus 3:2;" TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:2; James 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">James 4:11). Wrongly damaging the reputation of others is serious (Proverbs 6:16-19)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 6:16-19).

Discussing the rumors in a friendly manner with the accused, without assuming the truthfulness of the rumors, would be a kindness, especially when accompanied by a sincere expression of concern that anyone would say such a thing. That would make it easier for the individual to admit that the rumor is true or partly true or else to affirm that it is totally false. Depending on its seriousness, you could even mention the supporting evidence you had been given. Every attempt should be made to contain the problem (Matthew 18:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15). If the rumor arose from a clear case of misunderstanding, don't give the wronged person a case against the source of the rumor, but volunteer to try to correct the misunderstanding yourself.

If the rumor appears likely to be true and involves issues of concern to the assembly, a believer is responsible to go to an overseer and kindly, humbly, confidentially, carefully inform him. If the believer did not inform the assembly's leadership, he would be responsible for wrongfully covering the sin (Acts 5:2, 8-10)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:2, 8-10). It is a mistaken kindness to support a believer in sinning against God.

When the overseers become aware of a possible problem, they are responsible to thoroughly investigate (Proverbs 25:2)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 25:2), visit the individual, and guide the assembly to act in keeping with the facts. The believer who passed on the information to the overseers has no further responsibility and must submit to their judgment (Hebrews 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Angels marry human beings?

Does Genesis 6:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:1-5 refer to the marriage of angels with human beings? If not, please give reasons for rejecting this theory.

I believe it is a purely fanciful speculation, without any real base of probability or Scripture. What is in question is rather the intermarriage : of men of the Seth line—the godly seed, with women of the Cain line— the worldly seed. Hitherto these had kept apart, as they always should. It is affirmed that the expression, “Sons of God,” always refers in Scripture to angels. It certainly does, I judge, in Job 1:6;" TARGET="_blank">Job 1:6; Job 2:1" TARGET="_blank">Job 2:1 and Job 38:7." TARGET="_blank">Job 38:7. But these are holy angels; Satan with the brazen audacity, which characteriSes him and his followers, presents himself among them, but there is no reason to suppose he or other fallen beings could thus be described. Or are we asked to believe that holy angels were tempted by lust toward women? The whole idea is grotesque. Angels are of a entirely different order of creation to human beings. But analogous xpressions such as, “Sons of the Most High,” and “Sons of the living God” (Psalm 82:6;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 82:6; Hosea 1:10)," TARGET="_blank">Hosea 1:10), seem to refer to men, and in the New Testament the exact expression is applied to Godfearing men and women (see Matthew 5:9;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:14, 19). And I judge it is the same here. Then it is stated, but quite incorrectly, that the result of this “unholy union” was nephilim, which is the Hebrew word for “giants” anglicised, so as to convey to our minds something mysterious and monstrous. But a careful reading of the passage shows that these “giants” were already in the earth at the time, before these marriages took place, and then we get the words, “And also after that (giving the facts of verse 2), when the Sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,” the result was “men of renown,” not half-angels_haf but true human beings, so that the union seemed to succeed, but God only saw increased depravity in the earth.

The only other place where this word, (nephilim occurs is Numbers 13:33" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 13:33: “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak (which come) of the giants.” There is not a hint that these were not real men, like the rest of the Anakins, e.g., Goliath and his four brethren, etc. ft is asserted that “nephilim is connected with a verb, “to fall,” and that these mysterious beings were “fallen”_”apostates” etc., but Gesenius denies this meaning, and says the true meaning is, “fallers on,” or “attackers,” i.e., violent men. There must, it is supposed, have been a further “angelic intermarriage” after the flood to account for the appearance of these “giants” in the land of Canaan; for all the first company would have been drowned We may suppose what we like, but there is no hint of such a thing in Scripture. As a matter of fact the whole speculation seems directly opposed to our Lord’s own words, when Speaking of the resurrection state :—“In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:30), ergo.—the thing is impossible. This surely ought to suffice to show that “the angels that kept not their first estate,” of Jude 6," TARGET="_blank">Jude 6, have nothing to do, as has been affirmed, with the “sons of God” in Genesis 6." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6. Such speculations have no real scriptural ground, and we should avoid them carefully.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu