Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer on Revelation 16:5

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (1800-73) is most famous for his 16 volume critical commentary on the New Testament.

Meyer, at Revelation 16:5, wrote: 

Revelation 16:5 . ὅσιος . So A, B, C, Lach., Tisch. The rec. has interpolated καὶ ὁ . א has the art. without the καὶ (Tisch. IX.).

ὍΣΙΟς . Cf. Revelation 15:4 . As the solemn formula Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἩΝ [3691] does not allow an immediate combination with ὅσιος , [3692] and as before ὅσιος , neither ὁ , nor καὶ , nor καὶ ὁ , dare be read, [3693] and consequently the translation of Hengstenb. (“the godly”) is false, we can only, in the sense adopted by Luther, who, however, interpolates an “ and ,” regard the ὅσιος as placed with δίκαιος by asyndeton, as a predicate belonging to εἰ : “Righteous art thou, which art, and which wast, holy” [art thou], “because thou hast ordained such judgments:” ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρ . The ταῦτα refers to Revelation 16:4 , not to Revelation 16:3 ; for that which is the subject of treatment (Revelation 16:6 ) is drinking-water that is changed into blood, so that the inhabitants of the earth who have shed the blood of saints and prophets [3694] must drink blood. [3695] 

[3691] The καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is absent here, as in Revelation 11:17 , because the coming to judgment is already in process of execution.

[3692] Against De Wette: “Thou who art and wast holy.”

[3693] See Critical Notes, p. 414.

[3694] Cf. Revelation 13:7 ; Revelation 13:10 , Revelation 6:10 , Revelation 11:7 , Revelation 17:6 , Revelation 19:2 .

[3695] πεῖν . On this form, see Winer, p. 84.

The reference to Hengstenberg we have discussed elsewhere (link to discussion).  This idea of the implied extra εἰ is certainly an interesting way to explain the text, although I don't find it particularly persuasive. 

Meyer seems exactly right, however, to tie the ταῦτα back to Revelation 16:4.

Meyer, at Revelation 11:17, wrote:

The ascription of adoration, ΚΎΡΙΕ Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ , Κ . Τ . Λ . , in which the guaranty for the glorious result of God’s ways was previously indicated, [2981] appears now when that glorious end is beheld as already attained to be actually realized. [2982] But from the former significant designation of God, Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , [2983] this last point necessarily is omitted; for the ascription of praise, even though proleptical, applies even to that which has now come, and thus the fulfilment of his mystery has been attained. [2984] Luther improperly follows the bad revision of the text, in which the ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧ . is interpolated from Revelation 1:8 , Revelation 4:8 .

[2981] Revelation 1:8 , Revelation 4:8 . Cf. also Revelation 10:6 .

[2982] Cf. Revelation 15:3 , Revelation 16:7 ; Revelation 16:14 , Revelation 19:6 ; Revelation 19:15 , Revelation 21:22 .

[2983] Revelation 1:8 , Revelation 4:8 .

[2984] Cf. Revelation 16:5 . Beng., Hengstenb.

It is interesting to note how the Germans have Luther's text as their target, rather than the KJV.  That's totally expected, of course, but it provides a pleasant break from the very Anglo-centric approach of British and American theologians.

Meyer, at Revelation 1:4, wrote (together with a note from the American editor):

ἈΠῸ Ὁ ὬΝ , Κ . Τ . Λ . Description of the divine name יהוה , [553] but not under the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical way, the three tenses are indicated. [554] As to the form of the expression, neither is the manifestly intentional combination of the nom. ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., with ἀπό to be impaired by the insertion of τοῦ , [555] or by supplying τοῦ λεγομένου ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., τοῦ ὅς ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., τοῦ θεοῦ ὅς ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., etc.; [556] nor is the irregularity, that, in the absence of a necessary preterite participle in the formula ὁ ην , the finite tense is treated as a participle, to be accounted for by the false conception that ὁ stood for ὅς ; [557] nor, finally, is ὁ ἐρχόμενος to be taken as precisely equivalent to ὁ ἐσόμενος [558] by an accommodation of the use of הכָּא , perhaps with an allusion to Mark 10:30 , John 4:21 ; John 5:25 ; John 16:25 ; John 16:31 : but, in that inflexible firmness of the divine name, [559] there is something mysterious; [560] viz., an intimation of the immutability of the eternal God [see Note XVII., p. 122], who, as is shown also by the idea itself of eternity, and especially by the Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , [561] rules the destinies of his people, as well as of the hostile world, brings his prophecy to fulfilment, and especially holds in his firm hand the entire development of the judgment. Accordingly, John writes not Ὁ ἘΣΌΜΕΝΟς , but with living reference to the fundamental thoughts of the book, [562] Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , as also Revelation 1:8 ; Revelation 4:8 . [See Note XVIII., p. 122.] 

[553] Cf. Exodus 3:14 . LXX.: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν .

[554] Cf. yet Bengel: “Incomparable and wonderful is the composition of the name יהוה from יְהִי , he shall be, and הוֶה , being, and הָוָהָ , he was.” Cf. Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 3:14 : “Who was, is, and will be, spake to the world.” [Etheridge’s translation, 1. p. 450: “He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be.”] Targ. Jon. on Deuteronomy 32:39 . Wetst.

[555] Erasmus.

[556] Cf. Wolf.

[557] Schöttgen.

[558] Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard.

[559] ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ . Cf. Revelation 1:5 .

[560] Valla. Cf. L. Cappell., Pric., Grot., C. a Lap., Beng., Stern, Hengstenb., Winer, p. 66, etc.

[561] See below.

[562] Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XVIII. Revelation 1:4 . ὁ ἐρχόμενος

Gebhardt (p. 21): “John does not use ἐρχόμενος as synonymous with ἐσόμενος , but in the sense of coming to judgment for the final completion of the eternal world-plan.” Cremer ( Lexicon ): “In Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 1:8 ; Revelation 4:8 , ὁ ἐρχόμενος denotes God as the God of the future revelation of salvation; cf. Isaiah 40:9 : and the title (viz., ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ .), as a whole, is given to God, as the God of an eternal and unchangeable covenant.” Tait: “The word ἐρχόμενος is the keynote of revelation. It runs like a silver thread throughout the entire book. It enters into it at the beginning, and it is summed up at the end by ‘Surely I come quickly.’ ”

It definitely caught my eye that Meyer says (emphasis mine), "the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical way, the three tenses are indicated."  I had not made the connection to kabbalah, but it is fascinating to see that connection made.  On the other hand, Bengel (link to my discussion of Bengel) does make the argument that Meyer is criticizing.

Meyer also forcefully states: "nor, finally, is ὁ ἐρχόμενος to be taken as precisely equivalent to ὁ ἐσόμενος by an accommodation of the use of הכָּא, perhaps with an allusion to Mark 10:30 , John 4:21 ; John 5:25 ; John 16:25 ; John 16:31" (footnote omitted).  I certainly agree that it is not to be taken as an equivalent.  The connection with the coming time is probably right, and the tenuous assertion of allusion seems appropriate, because it is hard to prove.