Dr. Steven Nemes writes in the article The revelation which God gave Jesus, after quoting the opening line of Revelation
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.
Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ, ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ.
One of the arguments that non-trinitarians often make in favor of their position is that God and Jesus are clearly distinguished in the Bible from one another—not only as Father and Son, but also as God and Christ. Because they are clearly distinguished, they cannot be consubstantial as the catholic tradition says. One can see the same thing happening in this opening verse.
As Nemes continues
There is a long chain of mediation taking place here. God gives something to Jesus, who then gives it to an angel, who then gives it to John, who then writes it down. There are consequently four actors involved here, namely God, Jesus, the angel, and John, and each actor does something different.
Because there are four actions taking place here, each of which is such that it is only performed by one of the four actors in involved, it follows that none of the actors are consubstantial with each other. In the catholic tradition, the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means that there is only a single operation or act of which each is equally its subject. In the words of John of Damascus, there is in God “one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy” (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8). But there cannot be one “energy” or one activity in the situation being described in Rev. 1:1 because there is something God does which Jesus does not (namely, initiate the passing on of the revelation) and there is something Jesus does which God does not (namely, receive the revelation from God and pass it on to the angel). There are two energies here, i.e. two actions or activities, and not one. Therefore, Jesus is not consubstantial with the Father.
At this point, a Trinitarian who holds to consubstantiality might appeal to Jesus' dual-nature to account for this.
Jesus would therefore be said to have received the revelation of God as regards his human nature, but not as regards his divine nature.
In response to this, Nemes argues
On the one hand, in the catholic tradition it is believed that Christ did not cease to be God in becoming human. This means that everything that would be true of him as God by nature remains true of him even after he assumes a human nature in addition. But it would be true of Jesus in virtue of his divine nature that he knows all the things that are revealed to John by the angel. And one cannot be given a revelation if one already possesses knowledge of the relevant mystery, just as a person who is already dead cannot be killed, just as a soaked garment cannot be made wet. Consequently, the catholic principle that Christ does not cease to be God in becoming human makes it impossible for him to have been given a revelation by God.
On the other hand, suppose one proposes that Christ did give up some of some his divine qualities in becoming human. Previously he was omniscient, but upon incarnating he no longer knew everything. This still does not provide a solution to the problem at hand, because Revelation refers to Christ after his resurrection. If one tries to justify the possibility of Christ’s receiving revelation from God by suggesting that he gives up some of his divine qualities upon becoming incarnate, this text would force the conclusion that this condition continues even after his resurrection and exaltation into heaven. Christ then would have ceased to be fully God in becoming human, not only for a time, but rather for all time! I am not sure that many people will find this proposal very satisfactory.
How do Trinitarians who hold to both consubstantiality and a dual-nature theory of Jesus respond to the sorts of points Nemes is making here? That if Jesus is fully God in his ascended state then Jesus can't be given revelation as Jesus knows all things, or if you hold to a limiting of knowledge with respect to Jesus similar to his incarnation but now in an ascended state, Jesus apparently then would cease to be fully God not just temporarily but eternally?