Joseph Exell on Revelation 16:5

The Pulpit Commentary is a series of commentaries, variously edited.  The editor for the Revelation volume is Joseph Exell (1849-1910), evidently a pastor in addition to being an editor.  I'm crediting him in the title of this post, though I am not sure whether he provided the thoughts quoted below.

TPC, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus; righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge (Revised Version). There is scarcely any authority for inserting "O Lord," or "and shalt be" (cf. Revelation 11:17).

Exell is right about both textual critical points, and is almost certainly understating them.  He does not seem to recognize that "shall be" was a substitute for "Holy One." 

TPC, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; the Almighty. Omit "and art to come" (Revised Version), with א, A, B, C, P, Andreas, Arethas, Primasius, Syriac, Armenian, etc. (cf. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 4:8). Perhaps the future is purposely omitted, since God's "coming" is now an accomplished fact (cf. also Revelation 16:5).

Again, Exell is right about the textual critical point.  His explanation for why "coming" is not present also makes sense.

TPC, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

From him which is. Why should not we be as bold as St. John, and disregard grammar for the sake of keeping the Divine Name intact? St. John writes, ἀπὸ δ ὧν, κ.τ.λ. not ἀπὸ τοῦ ὅντος, κ.τ.λ. "If in Exodus 3:14 the words may run, 'I AM hath sent me unto you,' may we not also be allowed to read here, 'from HE THAT IS, AND THAT WAS, AND THAT IS TO COME'?". Note the ὁ ἧν to represent the nominative of the past participle of εἶναι, which does not exist, and with the whole expression compare "The same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Here every clause applies to the Father, not one to each Person; the three Persons are marked by the three prepositions, "from … and from … and from." It is a mistake to interpret ὁ ἐρχόμενος either of the mission of the Comforter or of the second advent. 

I agree with Exell that in verse 4, we should not make "the coming one" refer specifically to the works of the Son and Spirit.  However, the Triune God is coming in Judgment, which is a central theme of the book.