How are Faith and Works Related? - a Constructive Debate Speech

The KJV uses the words Faith and Works together in the same verse 15 times.  I’ve drafted my discussion around those verses.

First, definitions.  

Faith:

Hebrews 11:1-3 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Works 

What we do, whether good or bad, as it relates to God’s law:

Romans 2:1-16 - Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Justification is by faith, not by works

Galatians 2:16 - Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Seeking Justification by Works is the wrong way and doomed to failure

Romans 9:31-32 - But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Salvation is entirely by grace through faith, not just initial justification

Galatians 3:2 - This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:5 - He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Ephesians 2:8-10 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The law of faith excludes boasting in a way that the law of works would not because it is by grace through faith, not by works

Romans 3:27 - Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 4:5 - But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 11:6 - And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Faith and Works go together

2 Thessalonians 2:13 - But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Hebrews 6:1 - Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Hebrews 9:14 - How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Revelation 2:13 - I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Revelation 2:19 - I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

Galatians 5:22-24 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

True Saving Faith is evidenced by works

Seven of the verses are in James 2 (14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26)

James 2:1-26

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

We ought to work because of the faith authored in us by Christ

Hebrews 12:1-2 - Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Manuscript evidence of Revelation 16:5

The current ECM website data for Revelation 16:5 provides transcription data for around 100 witnesses to Revelation 16:5.  Some of those are witnesses are "corrector" witnesses.  

A comparison of the transcription reveals both a general harmony with the ECM/NA28 as well as numerous departures from the ECM/NA28.  Most of the departures seem to be minor.  

Example 1: Phrase Insertion

About 10% of the witnesses insert "του επι" to the first phrase of the verse, "και ηκουσα του αγγελου του επι των υδατων λεγοντος" and a big percentage note a punctuation mark: "λεγοντος·".  The punctuation mark in this example is an ἄνω τελεία (ano teleia) also known as άνω στιγμή (ano stigmi) or simply "Greek semicolon."  This punctuation mark has no viability because such marks were a later development used for aiding reading, as evidenced by their absence in the oldest manuscripts. 

The addition of the "του επι" would change the phrase from "and I heard the angel of the waters saying" to "and I heard the angel upon the waters saying".  I am not familiar with anyone who argues that this is the original text.  The majority and earliest manuscripts don't have this reading. The Vulgate does not have this reading.  I have not checked patristic witnesses about this myself.  

Hoskier (link) identifies seven manuscripts for this variant as well as Arethas for a similar variant:

The TR, like the NA28, follows the shorter text.  

Example 2: Verb Change

A single manuscript (2048) apparently has ηκουσε instead of ηκουσα to form the phrase "και ηκουσε του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος."  The difference in meaning "he heard" instead of "I heard."  2048 is an 11th century manuscript of Revelation.  Hoskier identifies the variant as corresponding to a single manuscript:

The Vulgate does not have this reading.  I have not checked patristic witnesses about this myself.  It might be very hard to distinguish between uses of "he heard" as the commentator's own introduction (i.e. to refer to John rather than the commentator), although in theory there could be commentary that would make the issue clear.

The TR, like the NA28, follows the overwhelming majority of texts.

Example 3: Article Change

It seems there was an error in the copying of 2286, as a result the firsthand text seems to have written and then erased "τω" rather than "του" before αγγελου.  Similarly, the firsthand text of 01 seems to be "των" but was corrected to "του" .  

Hoskier notes the error and correction of 01 thus:

The article "των" with "αγγελου" would be irregular.  Although it is found in one of the earliest manuscripts, considering that it is corrected there and considering that the text of 2286 may simply witness a similar clerical slip, this variant does not seem to be viable.  It's not directly translatable in English or Latin.  

Once again, the TR, like the NA28, follows the overwhelming majority of texts.

Example 4: Phrase Omission and Participle Change

At least three manuscripts (2026, 2057, 2495) completely omit the phrase, "και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων". Two of those replace "λεγοντος" (a genitive participle) with "λεγων" (a nominative participle).  As to the former issue, Hoskier notes:

As to the latter issue, Hoskier notes:

These third and fourth variants of  "λεγωντος" or "λεγοντως" for "λεγοντος" did not show up in the transcription list I have.  Nevertheless, in my list, manuscript 2845 has "λεγοντα" for "λεγοντος", which Hoskier does not seem to note.  Ultimately, each of the manuscripts that depart from the overwhelming majority seems to be a 15th century manuscript.  The Vulgate uses the accusative for "saying" (which I think should serve the same purpose as the Greek genitive here) and English while it doesn't distinguish participles in the same way, seems functionally the same.  I didn't check the patristic witnesses myself, although it can be seen that the Armenian seemingly has a different take.

Yet again, the TR, like the NA28, follows the overwhelming majority of texts.

Example 5: Word Order

Several manuscripts change the order of the words of this first phrase.  For example, 2329 and 2886 place "λεγοντος" before "των υδατων", while 2847 places "των υδατων" before "του αγγελου."  Manuscript 2847 also replaces "ηκουσα" with "οικουσα".  2847 is a 16th century manuscript and 2886 is a 15th century manuscript, while 2329 is a 10th century manuscript.  

Hoskier does not seem to note the latter issue, but regarding the former issue observes:

Once again, the earliest and vast majority agree, and the TR and NA28 follow the earliest and vast majority of texts.  I don't think the word order issue would result in a translation difference, and it would seem unlikely to be clearly identifiable in the patristic evidence, which I haven't checked.

Summary (so far)

As you have hopefully seen so far, even in just this first phrase of the verse (i.e. Rev. 16:5a), there are only seven Greek words, but there are more than seven variant readings in the five examples I've provided above.  Moreover, Hoskier identifies additional variants such as the omission of the initial "and" (in the Sahiddic and some of the Boharic) and the addition of "holy" (ἁγίου) before angel, as well as the omission of "the angel."   Nevertheless, in each case the vast majority of the Greek copies agree with one another, and in each case the TR and the NA28 agree.  In fact, essentially  

Rev 16:5 (STEP bible)(NA28)

(NA28) Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(Nestle) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(Ant) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(Byz) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(Elz) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(SBLG) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(SRGNT) Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(THGNT) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(Tisch) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(TNT) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(TR) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(WHNU) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

Even the Complutensian Polyglot agrees:

In short, despite the presence of lots of variants, the first half of the verse is relatively uncontroversial.

Interesting Variants in the Second Half

In order to reduce the amount of space, let me summarize the variants in the second half (i.e. "... Δίκαιος εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας"), limiting myself to the variants with Greek text support in the 100 witnesses for which I have transcripts.  Before I do that, I think it worth noting that literally all 100 witnesses have no variation regarding the word "δικαιος" (righteous).  

1. Manuscript 61 had ο and then δι before δικαιος but ultimately was corrected to avoid such insertions.
2. Manuscript 2344 adds Lord in nomina sacra form ("κ̅ε̅·") after righteous (Manuscripts 2049 and 296, which are from the 16th century and copied from a printed text likewise have the inserted word).
3. Manuscripts 104, 141, 2042, 2495, 2847, and 2919 omit εἶ.
4. Manuscripts 131 and 2042 add "ην" before "ὁ ὢν"
5. Manuscript 2495 adds "ων" before "ὁ ὢν"
6. Manuscript 2847 omits the "ὁ" before "ὢν" 
7. Manuscript 2847 omits the "καὶ " after "ὁ ὢν"
8. About 27 witnesses (including the earliest witness) use the word "ὃς" rather than "ὁ" before "ἦν"
9. About 23 witnesses (including the earliest witness) include the καὶ before ὅσιος .
10. About 49 witnesses (about half and including the earliest manuscript) omit the ὁ before ὅσιος
11. Manuscript 2432 has a reading of ωσιος rather than ὅσιος although it is corrected.
12. Manuscript 2847 has "και ω ων ωσιος" instead of "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
13. Manuscript 2919 has "ο ο αμγοσιος" instead of "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
14. Manuscript 2495 omits "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
15. Manuscript 2026 inserts "εν τοις εργοις σου" (in your works) after "καὶ ὅσιος"
16. Manuscript 469 inserts "και ο αγιος" after "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
17. Manuscript 2196 omits "ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας" 
18. Manuscript 2845 has "παντα" for "ταῦτα"
19. Manuscript 792 has "δικαια" for "ταῦτα"

As you can see, all but three of these variants are cases where there is an overwhelming majority reading.  Moreover, as you can see, even with just these copies, there are 13 words and 19 variants.

Looking at the NA28 (which agrees with the Complutensian here), the Stephanus 1550 TR, and Beza's TR, we see the following differences:

• NA28/Complutensian ... δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,
• TR1550  ... Δίκαιος Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας
• Beza 1582/98: ...  Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ Ὁ ὢν, καὶ Ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας.

In short, all three correspond to the overwhelming majority of manuscripts for variants 1, 3-7 and 15-19, i.e. the minority position is rejected in all those cases.  Similarly, none of the three follow the minority variants 11-14.  That leaves us to consider variants 2 and 8-10.

The insertion of "Lord" (variant 2)

This insertion has weak evidence in the manuscripts and versions.  Specifically, Hoskier notes:

In other words, Hoskier identifies the word as being present in two Greek manuscripts, the Aethiopic, and part of the Boharic.  

The oldest and the vast majority of manuscripts support the non-inclusion of the word.  The reason for the presence of the word in the TR editions (both Stephanus and Beza) is the inclusion without comment by Erasmus from his very first edition.

The presence of the extraneous "Lord" in a small number of manuscripts is most easily explained by parallel corruption from verse 7, which has the word, or from an insertion intended to clarify that the angel was talking to the Lord, not to John.  The alternative explanation that scribes tended to insert the word "Lord" into the text, while correctly premised, does not seem to be the best explanation here, as the usual trigger for such an insertion would be the presence of the name, Jesus, or the title, Christ.  The insertion does not alter the meaning of the text, because the angel is speaking to the Lord.

The word "ὃς" rather than "ὁ" before "ἦν" (variant 8)

None of the three editions we are looking at follow this well attested but minority reading.  The probable reason for rejecting this reading is that although it makes the Greek smoother, it does so at the expense of an intentionally irregular use of Greek here, to signal that the Greek participle is being used as a name/title of God.  The reading here is so similar to the readings found at 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17 that it is hard to imagine that a different wording was intentionally used by John here.   

The omission of "καὶ" after "ἦν" (variant 9)

The NA28 and the Complutensian Polyglot, following the majority of witnesses against the minority and the earliest witness, omit the "καὶ" here.  It's a difficult variant to consider in isolation.  Possibly the Complutensian editors just followed the manuscripts they had.  For the NA28 editors, the choice had to be informed by the related variant of  ὁ before ὅσιος, which we will consider next.  In short, "καὶ" makes sense if the word "holy" is supposed to be coordinate with "righteous" (Δίκαιος).  Thus, the insertion of this word can be used as an attempt to correct a perceived omission. 

The omission of the "ὁ" before "ὅσιος" (variant 10)

If the word "holy" were coordinate with "righteous," one would not normally expect the article ὁ to be present, because it would not be needed.  Correspondingly, the article is omitted in quite a lot of the exemplars, seemingly as a false correction to the text.  Interestingly, though, I cannot tell at a glance whether the ὁ is more often omitted when the καὶ is present or absent.

While we may be inclined to agree with Beza that the combination of "καὶ ὁ" that he found in the Stephanus TR is problematic, the better solution is to understand that the "καὶ" was erroneously added.  With that understanding, the point of the "ὁ" is to serve a similar purpose as it did with the previous names, "ὁ ὢν" and "ὁ ἦν," namely to signal that the word "holy" is being used in the Vocative as a name/title of God.

The substitution of "καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος" for "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"

The reader will notice that this variant does not have a number.  That's because this variant does not correspond to any of the texts in the list I have.  It likewise does not correspond to any text found by Hoskier.  Some people claim that Beza had a manuscript with such a reading.  If so, it would be a singular reading.

If such a manuscript existed, it seems likely that it was similarly an attempt to deal with the difficult construction "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος" found in the exemplar.  The scribe presumably saw that "ὁ ὅσιος" was irregular and thought that the "καὶ" would be more naturally followed by a third tense participle of the verb "to be" (εἰμί), namely the future middle participle, nominative masculine singular (ἐσόμενος).  

There is no versional evidence that directly supports this substitution, and the patristic evidence brought forward to substantiate this substitution is shaky at best (see the analysis here).

Conclusion

For Revelation 16:5, despite the numerous variants witnessed by the manuscripts, it turns out that there are very few variants that require us to do more than realize that they represent a tiny minority.  While variants 8-10 (from the above list) are interesting and require some thought, they are resolvable.

Versional Evidence at Revelation 16:5

Sahidic (source)

Boharic (source)

Syriac (source)

ܘܫܡܥܬ ܠܡܠܐܟܐ ܕܡܝܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܙܕܝܩ ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܘܚܤܝܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܢܬ ܀ ("Peshitta")

(Eth) And I heard the angel of the waters saying, Righteous art Thou, who art, And who wast, and just; Because thou hast judged these.

(Murd) And I heard the angel of the waters say: Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, and art holy; because thou hast done this judgment.

Georgian 1879 (source)

რომელი  ამბობდა: მართალ ხარ, უფალო, რომელი ეგე ხარ, და რომელი იყავ, და რომელი ხარ წმიდა, ... 

Armenian (1895)

Critical Armenian text in English (source): 

Pecularities of Codex 3 (source)

Variations from the normal text of alpha of the manuscripts mu, kappa, and lambda (source)

Variants of Codex 6 with Codex 1 (source)

Appendices:

Appendix I: Additional Coptic

Rev 16:5 (source)

(CopSahidicMSS) ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

(CopSahHorner) ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲕⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

(CopSahidica) ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

Appendix II: Additional Georgian

(source) 

5და გავიგონე, წყლების ანგელოზი რომ ამბობდა: „მართალი ხარ შენ, რომელიც ხარ და იყავი, წმიდაო, რომ ასე განსაჯე. 
(source)

 5და გავიგონე, წყლების ანგელოზი რომ ამბობდა: „მართალი ხარ შენ, რომელიც ხარ და იყავი, წმიდაო, რომ ასე განსაჯე.

(source)

5გავიგონე, წყლების ანგელოზი რომ ამბობდა: „მართალი ხარ შენ, რომელიც ხარ და იყავი, წმიდაო, რადგანაც ასე განიკითხე.

Lorenzo Valla

Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) was a genius.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes him as "one of the most important humanists of his time."  He is noted as being the one who demonstrated that Pseudo-Dionysius was not the companion of Paul (see this lecture or this article; N.B. I do not endorse the lecturer's views on the relationship of Christianity and the New Testament) and that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery (as mentioned here; see this acknowledgment by the Vatican). He also provided a critique of Aristotelean logic. 

One of Valla's contributions was not well-appreciated during his lifetime, but proved to be immensely important.  He compared the Vulgate Latin text of his day with the Greek New Testament.  A manuscript edition of this work was found and published by Desiderius Erasmus.

Lorenzo Valla was the first significant biblical scholar of the Renaissance. He set himself the task of comparing the Vulgate to the Greek text of the New Testament during his amazingly fruitful period, 1435–48, at the south Italian court of King Alfonso the Magnanimous. He seems to have completed a first draft by 1443 and continued to work on this version up to 1453, five years after coming to Rome from Naples. He called this first recension Collatio Novi Testamenti and dedicated it to Pope Nicholas V.[FN35] From 1453 to his death in 1457 Valla revised this first version, leaving at his death a clearly more sophisticated, though shorter, text that carried the title In Latinam Novi Testamenti Interpretationem Annotationes in the 1505 editio princeps put through the press by its discoverer, Erasmus of Rotterdam. [FN36] The Annotationes, which were the only recension available in print until 1970, have in common only about 60% of the lemmata found in the Collatio,[FN37] and even in the case of these common lemmata the Annotationes offer a considerable revision of the Collatio. Valla’s work enjoyed a minimal circulation[FN38] until Erasmus discovered a copy of the Annotationes in the abbey of Parc outside of Leuven in the summer of 1504. From that point on, it has been the object of divergent interpretations and serves almost as a Rorschach test of one’s attitude towards Valla. Erasmus drew inspiration from it and spent much of his preface defending the notion that a grammaticus (ostensibly Valla, but as the future would reveal, really Erasmus himself) could legitimately treat sacrae litterae.[FN39] Erasmus's scriptural method would go far beyond Vallas's narrow grammatical approach, and he would at times express annoyance at Valla's tendency to quibble over minutiae.[FN40]

[FN35] For the history of the text see Alessandro Perosa’s preface to his edition of Valla’s Collatio Novi Testamenti (Florence, 1970). 

[FN36] The single extant manuscript of the second recension has a different title: Correctio. Novi Testamenti; see the description of MS 4031-4033 of the Bibliothèque Royale Albert I, Brussels, in J. Van den Gheyn et al., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1901-48) p. 91, no. 211. For a compendium of the Annotationes prepared by an unknown fifteenth-century scholar, see Riccardo Fubini, "Una scolastica testimoniaza manoscritta delle 'Annotationes in Novum Testamentum,'" in his L’Umanesimo italiano, pp. 169-83.

[FN37] See Perosa in Valla, Collatio, p. XXVII.

[FN38] In addition to the codex unicus of the Annotationes, only two manuscripts of the Collatio survive; see Perosa in Valla, Collatio, pp. IX-XVII.

[FN39] Ep. 182, Allen 1, pp. 406-12.

[FN40] See Jerry H. Bentley, "Biblical Philolohy and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels," The Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977), 8-28, at pp. 14 and 22. See also Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto, 1986), p. 88: "In many cases Valla's findings formed no more than a point of departure for Erasmus ... It must also be acknowledged that the sum total of Valla's notes is small by comparison with Erasmus' detailed commentary."

(Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus 2008, pp. 21-22)

Interestingly, the work referenced in FN35 above omits the Apocalypse as well as Philemon.  Bentley explains that Valla's work circulated as a first draft and then a subsequent second draft, the latter of which Erasmus ultimately printed (source). 

What are Valla's comments in Revelation? 

(In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ... adnotationes By Laurentius Valla · 1505)(Laurentii Vallensis viri tam gr[a]ec[a]e q[am] latin[a]e linguae peritissimi in Latinam Noui testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Gr[a]ecorum exemplarium Adnotationes apprime vtiles By Laurentius Valla · 1505)

At Revelation 1:

Transcription: 

Gratia vobis ab eo qui est & qui erat & qui venturus est, et a septem spiritibus qui in conspectu throni eius sunt. Nescio an aliquid mysterii sit in hoc quod graece dicitur, ab iis qui est, & ab iis qui erat & ab iis qui venturus est sive ut ad verbum transferam ab ens, & ab iis quis erat, & ab iis qui venturus: quanquam graece propter articulos concinnius dicitur, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. An voluit Ioannes in deo significare immutabilem proprietatem quod non facit cum nominat septem spiritus: ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων. Illud autem quod qui venturus est transfertur: praesentis est potius participium quam futuri. Sed cur interpres non transtulit nunc nomen graecum throni per sedis ut caeteris in locis facit? 

Translation:

Grace to you from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne. I do not know whether there is any mystery in this that is said in Greek, from those who are, and from those who were and from those who are to come or as to translate word for word from being, and from those who were, and from those who are to come; although in Greek it is more aptly said due to the articles, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Did John want to signify in God an immutable property, which he does not do when he names the seven spirits: ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων? However, that which is translated as 'who is to come' is rather a present participle than a future one. But why did the translator not translate now the Greek name of the throne through 'seat' as he does in other places?

At Revelation 4:

Transcription:

Dicentia sanctus sanctus sanctus. Quid causae est cur cum graeci codices omnes havent novies sanctus: latini habeant omnino ter & mysterium illud ter trium qui est numerus ordinum angelorum perdant? Et propter voluntatem tuam erant & creati sunt: graece non legitur erant sed sunt: εἰσἰ, de deo enim dicitur quod erat, non de rebus creatis.

Translation:

Saying holy, holy, holy. What is the reason why, when all the Greek manuscripts have 'holy' nine times, the Latin ones have it altogether three times and lose that mystery of three times three, which is the number of orders of angels? And for your will they were and were created: in Greek, it is not read as 'were' but as 'are': εἰσἰ, for it is said of God that He was, not of created things.

While the focus is on the same verse, it is not on this particular issue.

At Revelation 11:

Transcription:

Gratias agimus tibi domine deus omnipotens qui es & qui eras & qui accepisti virtutem. Graece est, Qui es, qui eras, & qui venturus es: quia recepisti virtutem καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας.

Translation:

We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who are and who were and who have taken power. In Greek, it is, 'Who are, who were, and who are to come: because you have taken power' (καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας).

Notice that focus is on Revelation 11:17.

At Revelation 16:

Transcription:

Iustus es domine qui es & qui eras Sanctus: quia haec iudicasti. graece est: ut superius admonui: erat non eras: quasi dicatur tu domine, is qui est & qui erat qui sanctus, neque enim graece sanctus refertur ad erat ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.

Translation:

You are just, O Lord, who are and who were, Holy: because you have judged these things. In Greek, it is, as I have warned above: 'was' not 'were'; as if it is said, 'you, Lord, he who is and who was, the holy one,' for in Greek 'holy' is not referred to 'was' (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος).

Notice that the focus is on Revelation 16:5.

Similar comments can be found in the other editions of Valla's comments.

From his Annotations (In novum testamentum annotationes By Laurentius Valla, Lorenzo Valla · 1526)

At Revelation 1 (pp. 338-9)

Transcription:

Gratia vobis ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui venturus est, et [a?] septem spiritibus qui in conspectu throni eius sunt) Nescio an aliquid mysterii sit in hoc quod graece dicitur, ab iis qui est, & ab iis qui erat, & ab iis qui venturus est: sive ut ad verbum transferam, ab ens, & ab iis quis est, & ab iis qui erat, & ab iis qui venturus: quanquam graece propter articulos concinnius dicitur, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. An voluit Ioannes in deo significare immutabilem proprietatem? quod non facit cum nominat septem spiritus, ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων. Illud autem quod, qui venturus est, transfertur, praesentis est potius participium quam futuri. Sed cur interpres non transtulit nunc nomen graecum throni per sedis, ut caeteris in locis facit? 

At Revelation 4 (p. 341)

Transcription:

Dicentia, sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.) Quid causae est cur cum graeci codices omnes havent novies sanctus, latini habeant omnino ter, & mysterium illud ter trium, qui est numerus ordinum angelorum, perdant? Et propter voluntatem tuam erant & creati sunt) graece non legitur erant, sed sunt, εἰσἰ, de deo enim dicitur, quod erat, non de rebus creatis.

At Revelation 11 (p. 343)

Transcription:

Gratias agimus tibi domine deus omnipotens, qui es, & qui eras, & qui accepisti virtutem) graece est: Qui es, qui eras, & qui venturus es, quia recepisti virtutem, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας.

At Revelation 16 (p. 345)

Transcription:

Iustus es domine qui es, & qui eras Sanctus, quia haec iudicasti) graece est, ut superius admonui, erat non eras, quasi dicatur: tu domine, is qui est, & qui erat, qui Sanctus: neq; enim graece Sanctus refertur ad erat, ὁ ὢν, καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.

(see also the republication of Valla in the 1540 "Opera Omnia" or this backup link of Erasmus' original 1505 publication. Laurentii Vallensis viri tam gr[a]ec[a]e q[am] latin[a]e linguae peritissimi in Latinam Noui testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Gr[a]ecorum exemplarium Adnotationes apprime vtiles By Laurentius Valla · 1505).

Bentley notes that Erasmsus considered himself a follower of Valla and Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (1455-1536).  D'Étaples provided commentaries on the Gospels, Paul's epistles, and the Catholic epistles.

The French Bible associated with Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples has limited notes at Revelation 16:5

Ultimately, therefore, when we look at the most likely source for Erasmus on this point, we see Valla.