euggio

That's exactly what I said. You say it does not fit the narrative because you primarily share the view that Jesus Christ is God and as such cannot be also considered a slave to God. This is entirely logical. However, based on the opposite idea that God and Jesus Christ are separate spiritual entities, Jesus is still our Lord, but a Lord that only does the will of his Father, who then is a greater Lord (John 5:19; 6:38). The slave is not evil. Jesus is just comparing two possible behaviors and their corresponding outcomes. If the slave does right by his subordinates, his master will entrust him with all his possessions. However, if he is wicked then he will pay the price of his wickedness at an hour that he is not aware of. And that fits the narrative about the unknown hour because the ruling slave and the other slaves in the master's household do not know it, except for the master. Let's suppose that Jesus is not the slave in question. Who else is? Is the question that Jesus asked his disciples in Matt. 24:45 a rhetorical question? I ask this because if the slave also does not exist yet, Jesus could not expect his disciples to answer it without telling them.

Why not? And Jesus seems to ask the question based on what he just said. That slave was put in charge of other slaves by their mutual master. To my humble opinion, it only does not fit the idea of Jesus's being considered a slave to God.

It is not for us to determine who will be saved or not. God chooses whomever he wants. Just remember not to cast the first stone and not to judge others.

My 2¢ on this. Matt. 24:45 comes as a question whose answer should be inferred from what comes earlier. In other words, we should be able to determine who the faithful and sensible slave (NASB; wise servant, KJV) is, based on the preceding parable(s). The faithful slave is a slave put in charge over his master's household. Both the household and the faithful servant thus share a common master. Now guess who that slave is: who came to do the will of our Lord God and was called "Lord" as he did so? What lord is it about in Matt. 24:42—44? Assuming the answer is evident, we can say that the slave is one person, not a group of people and that any believer cannot be qualified as the position was already filled. The context in Matt. 24 is roughly that there are signs to Jesus Christ's coming, that the end times will be perilous, that no one, even Jesus Christ, knows the time of his coming, and that Christians must get ready. In that context, the food given at the proper time is not material food, but is after Matt. 4:4 every word that comes from the mouth of God. According to me, the proper time refers to every moment when someone becomes hungry for the word of God or when s/he needs it. Jesus Christ's disciples were eager to know what would come next. That was the proper time to tell them.

Based on Rev. 1, it is addressed to servants. You are right, based on that verse. However, in Rev. 10:11, John was also ordered to prophesy again and so before many people. Does that mean that he was to prophesy one more time to Christians? Or are those people simply non-Christians? More context is needed to answer. The earlier comparison to Jesus Christ's parables is telling, for even though nonbelievers were insensitive to his teaching he still spoke to them about the kingdom of God. He spoke in parables not only to nonbelievers but also to believers, to whom he privately explained those parables afterwards because they also did not understand. Having a working knowledge of the OT is a great help and an expression like "hidden manna" for instance is quickly understood if one knows the OT. However, not all part of the book necessitates that knowledge. I must admit that one approach, like the one I try to develop, may not be enough. The question is therefore how much of the OT we need in order to understand the Book of Revelation completely.

According to the analysis above, the revelation of Jesus Christ is defined as a device used to show events that are inevitable and imminent. I will try to explain it in another topic, as this one is only about a fragment of Rev. 1:1, but the revelation is more precisely the name given to the container of the word of God or the scroll on which that word was written. The Book of Revelation as we know it is a translation of the testimony of John, which is a testimony to the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is itself a testimony to the word of God. By metonymy, the scroll on which those testimonies were respectively written can be each also called a revelation. The revelation of the word of God is a revelation of Jesus Christ in that it was given to Jesus Christ (a revelation to Jesus Christ). The revelation of the testimony of Jesus Christ is a revelation of Jesus Christ in that it was given by Jesus Christ (a revelation by Jesus Christ) or sent through him (a revelation through Jesus Christ). The revelation of the testimony of John is also a revelation of Jesus Christ in that its content is similar to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, based on Rev. 1:2. Based on those details, we can say that the beginning words of chapter 1 to the new heavens and the new earth as you put it are all part of the testimony of John. I hope I have correctly understood and answered the question.

I could not express it better. Thanks @Michael37.

I did not want to write a very long text. So I have presented a very small fragment of Rev. 1:1 and a small discussion. That's why you don't see the main point ?. Please bear with me. You are right, being a servant of God and Jesus Christ is not different. However, you know that because you are Christian. It is not confusing to you, but is to non-Christians. I did not see that until you point it out to me. Thank you. This may also be the reason why the translators seem to have overlooked the grammatical issue. It is because it is obvious to Christian readers. That God and Jesus Christ did the showing is a more general view. More precisely, the revelation did the showing or was used to do the showing. It's like when you would be called a sewer when you actually used a sewing machine. In God's case, that sewing machine would be a part of God's (spoiler: the container of the word of God or the scroll on which the word of God was written, by synecdoche... again), which allows to do the sewing and which Jesus Christ would use to accomplish God's purpose to sew. This is the tiny detail I wanted to point out. It is a revelation about Jesus Christ, when the events it shows or allows to show are considered to be about Jesus Christ. But that comes at a secondary level, since what the small fragment of Rev. 1:1 in question indicates now is that the phrase "revelation of Jesus Christ" means a revelation to Jesus Christ (as given to him). The rest of this verse and verse 2 will add more meaning to it.

You're welcome. It's just a technical clarification.

Hi, Revelation has been the most daunting biblical read with the most controversial interpretations for centuries. That alone is a sufficient reason for manifesting vigilance, discernment, and open-mindedness. For that matter, the analysis below is my own view, which means that it is as much arguable as all other views out there including the critiques that will be deigned to it. Let's not be inflammatory. Premises: 1) Approaches to the book (short reference to the Book of Revelation) with bias, that is, previous Bible knowledge (namely personal or denominational beliefs, knowledge of the OT and NT) and/or specific interpretive systems (such as preterism, historicism, etc.) are considered highly risky, owing to the fact a bias may contradict another. Christians are invited to read the book afresh first and then relate what they understand to their previous views. 2) Translation is the translator's word. The question is whether it is faithful to the source text or not. Once Bible readers admit this simple fact, they will wonder whether their confusion is not the result of a wrong translation or that of an implicit disagreement with the translators. Personal view: Based on its allegorical nature, the book, which is internally called the revelation of Jesus Christ coincidentally or not, is somehow similar to Jesus Christ's parables. Now, let's consider the prophecy at Ps. 78:2, which is fulfilled in Jesus's speaking in parables to the crowd (cf. Matt. 13:34, 35) and also in proverbs to his disciples (cf. John 16:25, 29). In comparison, Christians and non-Christians have been reading the same Revelation text. This suggests that that prophecy might still be being fulfilled, that "fulfilled" does not mean "finished," "abolished" (a nod here to Matt. 5:17), that the book is not Christian-centric. I mean by that that it has been up for reading by Christians and non-Christians in the same format (as confirmed by Rev. 1:1 and Rev. 10:11). Let's consider again the prophecy at Is. 6:9, 10, which Jesus said is a reason for his speaking in parables in Matt. 13:10—15. Nonfollowers, those whose hearts were insensitive and who did not hear with their ears or listen and who closed their eyes, were predisposed to disbelieving and ignoring his message. Even some followers misunderstood and disbelieved a parabolic teaching by Jesus Christ (cf. John 6:53—71). In comparison, non-Christians are prone to reject the message in the book while Christians are confused. While Jesus Christ would privately explain parables to his disciples (cf. Mark 4:34), there is at least an instance where nonfollowers, namely the chief priest and the Pharisees, understood what he meant (cf. Matt. 21:45). Parables do not have an obscurant and esoteric nature and in that case only reflect people's long prophesied indifference to spiritual matters (proactivity). You would not be able to discern them unless you pay attention to them. Is that significantly different from what is known about the Book of Revelation? I conclude that the message in that book is only buried under the load of Christian and non-Christian confusion, that discernment is required, and that as Christians, we need to ask for it when in lack according to James 1:5. The premises may be augmented and the introductory view improved. Critiques are welcome, starting from those. I will just start with one phrase in Rev. 1:1, because this is already too long for my liking. My view is presented in an unformalized form. I disagree with the translators here in only one point or maybe two. In the Ancient Greek text (AG, for short; and I used Scrivener 1894), the subject "God" is inverted and is syntactically close to "to shew." It governs both the verb "gave" and the infinitive "to shew." In others words, God is the giver, the intender, and the intended shower. A single English sentence like this only presents God as the giver and the intender. Based on the subject inversion in Greek, the antecedent of the determiner "his" is syntactically clear and points to God while in English it is not that clear. Non-Christians are still asking whether servants are God's or Jesus Christ's. Christians are also confused because one group assume that Jesus is the right antecedent, based on its previous Bible knowledge. So far, the KJV translators have skipped a subtle, yet important, meaning from the source text and been unclear in their rendering of it. In AG, saying that "revelation" is the antecedent of "which" and "Jesus Christ" that of "him" may be a no-brainer, but I've given the English version to read by a non-Christian and he asked me who the "him" was and thought that the revelation of Jesus Christ was given to an unspecified male. All that to say technically, as a side note, that I think the whole verse must be updated (as it is a 17th-century text maintained in subsequent versions) and presented as a lexical entry with "revelation of Jesus Christ" as a definiendum (a phrase to be defined) in other to prevent readings that we Christians just assume to be unlikely but are nonetheless plausible. Tell me what you think. P.S.: I forgot to indicate something important. From the preceding, Rev. 1:1 indicates that God gave a revelation to Jesus Christ for the purpose of showing imminent inevitable events to his [God's] servants and that God was to show those events. Notice the semantic relation between the verb "to show" and the verb "to reveal," from which derives the word "revelation." I would say that "to reveal" is a hypernym of "to show." In this case, that the revelation was given for the purpose to show imminent inevitable events to servants of God makes it a device appropriate for that purpose, a device to show imminent inevitable events. As a result, to show imminent inevitable events to his servants is God's purpose when to show imminent inevitable events is the revelation's function. That God gave something for a purpose similar to the thing's function is no tautology, it is a classical case of what is called a "synecdoche," where "God" also stands for the revelation that he gave. In that case, the revelation is a part of God's, such that its performance, operated by Jesus Christ who was given the device, is considered as good as God's. In clear, the revelation is actually the shower (or the direct shower); God is the shower by synecdoche (indirectly).