Walter Biggar Scott on Revelation 16:5

Walter Biggar Scott (1838-1933), apparently a significant member of the Plymouth brethren, wrote a commentary on Revelation.

At Revelation 16:5, Scott writes:

The angel of the waters acquiesces in the divine judgment. It might be naturally supposed that he would deprecate judicial and retributive dealing in the sphere over which he presides. On the contrary, he justifies God, saying, “Thou art righteous.” The plague does not overstep by a hairbreadth the just measure of strict righteousness. Then the eternity of God’s Being, “Who art ,” and His past relation to men and angels, “and wast ,” are next affirmed. *See remarks in our Exposition on Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 1:8 ; Revelation 4:8 ; Revelation 11:17 . “The holy One.” This peculiar word occurs but twice in the New Testament in relation to Christ: the other instance is in Revelation 15:4 .

In the Authorised Version of verse 5 the words “O Lord” and “shalt be” are unnecessary interpolations, and are rejected by most critics, while the title the “holy One” is omitted (see R.V.).

Scott takes note of the textual differences, and nearly nails the differences.  He seems to be unaware that "shalt be" is actually a mis-correction of "holy."  Scott's observation that "who art" refers to God's eternal being, that "and wast" refers to God's past dealings with angels and men.  When you understand this, and stop trying to make the is/was/coming a triplet, the meaning of "the coming one" more naturally falls out in Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5.

At Revelation 11:17, Scott writes:

Thanks are given to Jehovah (Lord) God Almighty, a strong combination of divine titles. Jehovah the self existing One; God (Elohim), Who as such is the Creator;Almighty too in power, in resources. Then the eternity of His Being is declared, “Who is ” ( eternal existence ), and “Who was ” in relation to the past. “And art to come” is in the text of the Authorised Version, but should be omitted, as in the Revised Version and other translations. “To come” would be out of place in the doxology before us, as the kingdom in its time and eternal features is regarded as present. The deleted sentence is correct in Revelation 4:8 .

Notice that Scott explains the internal reasons for rejecting the "art to come" here.  Thankfully, we are not reliant only on the internal evidence.

At Revelation 1:4, Scott writes:

4. The dread and sacred Name Jehovah signifies underived existence, the Self-Existing One . To Israel the Name was explained as “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14 ); to Gentiles as “ Him which is, and which was, and which is to come ” (Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 4:8 ). *The heathen borrowed from the Jews. The truths of the Old Testament really lie at the root of anything good in the ancient faiths and mythology of the heathen. Thus, “Jupiter was, Jupiter is, Jupiter will be,” is evidently taken from the Biblical explanation of the national Names of the God of Israel, Jehovah. It is a Name of ineffable grandeur, and one which Israel was made fully acquainted with from the commencement of her history (Exodus 6:3 ). It is God’s memorial Name, even to generations yet unborn. “Which is ” implies independent, unchangeable existence. “Which was ” intimates Jehovah’s relation to the past. “Which is to come ” shows His connection with the future. God’s relation to the universe in its vastness and greatness, as also in its minuteness, is a grand and invigorating truth.

In Revelation 4:8 the order of the sentences is reversed; “which was ” precedes “which is .” Chapter 4 contemplates the government of the whole earth, and not that of Israel only, hence the living creatures first say “which was.” It is a question of time; whereas in Revelation 1:1-20 the eternity of Jehovah’s Being is first presented in the words “which is.” Thus, too, it is intimated in the change of the sentence “which was ” that Jehovah’s past deeds of power are an earnest and pledge that eternal existence and omnipotent might are not quiescent attributes in the divine Being, but are exercised through all ages and under all circumstances.

It is interesting to see the claim that the pagans took this concept from Israel.  Some have viewed Beza's change and others' interpretation as coming from pagan philosophy, rather than coming from the Scripture itself.

While I reject Scott's take on the significance of "which is to come," I do find it interesting that Scott has offered a rationale for the different order at Revelation 4:8.