Marvin Richardson Vincent on Revelation 16:5

Marvin Richardson Vincent (1834-1922) became Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Criticism at Union Theological Seminary in New York.  His "Word Studies," continues to be a valuable resource today.

Vincent, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

O Lord. Omit.

And shalt be. Following the reading oJ ejsomenov. Read oJ osiov Thou Holy One.

Not much meat here, though I naturally agree with his comments.

Vincent, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

And art to come. Omit.

Again, not much meat here, though I naturally agree with his comments.

Vincent, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

From Him which is, and which was, and which is to come [απο του ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος] . The whole salutation is given in the name of the Holy Trinity : the Father (Him which is, and was, and is to come), the Spirit (the seven spirits), the Son (Jesus Christ). See further below. This portion of the salutation has no parallel in Paul, and is distinctively characteristic of the author of Revelation. It is one of the solecisms in grammatical construction which distinguishes this book from the other writings of John. The Greek student will note that the pronoun which [ο] is not construed with the preposition from [απο] , which would require the genitive case, but stands in the nominative case.

Each of these three appellations is treated as a proper name. The Father is Him which is, and which was, and which is to come. This is a paraphrase of the unspeakable name of God (Exodus 3:14), the absolute and unchangeable. JO wn, the One who is, is the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14, "I am the oJ wn (I am) :" " oJ wn (I am), hath sent me unto you. "The One who was [ο ην] . The Greek has no imperfect participle, so that the finite verb is used. Which is and which was form one clause, to be balanced against which is to come. Compare Revelation 11:17; Revelation 16:5; and" was [ην] in the beginning with God " (John 1:2). Which is to come [ο ερχομενος] . Lit., the One who is coming. This is not equivalent to who shall be; i e., the author is not intending to describe the abstract existence of God as covering the future no less than the past and the present. If this had been his meaning, he would have written oJ ejsomenov, which shall be. The phrase which is to come would not express the future eternity of the Divine Being. The dominant conception in the title is rather that of immutability.

Further, the name does not emphasize so much God 's abstract existence, as it does His permanent covenant relation to His people. Hence the phrase which is to come, is to be explained in accordance with the key - note of the book, which is the second coming of the Son (chapter Revelation 1:7; Revelation 22:20). The phrase which is to come, is often applied to the Son (see on 1 John 3:5), and so throughout this book. Here it is predicated of the Father, apart from whom the Son does nothing. "The Son is never alone, even as Redeemer" (Milligan). Compare "We will come unto him," John 14:23. Origen quotes our passage with the words : "But that you may perceive that the omnipotence of the Father and of the Son is one and the same, hear John speaking after this manner in Revelation, 'Who is, etc. '" Dean Plumptre cornpares the inscription over the temple of Isis at Sais in Egypt : "I am all that has come into being, and that which is, and that which shall be, and no man hath lifted my veil."

Vincent again seems to have strong points: the names are proper names, and erchomenos is not equivalent to esomenos. His reason is strong as well: the phrase which is to come does not express the future eternity of the Divine Being.