Archibald Thomas Robertson on Revelation 16:5

Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863-1934) was apparently best known for his "Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research."  It is not that work, but his commentary, "Word Pictures," to which we go in this post. Nevertheless, you can see his constant attention to grammatical issues.

Robertson, in Word Pictures, writes:

Which art and which wast (ο ων κα ο ην). See this peculiar idiom for God's eternity with ο as relative before ην in Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, but without ο ερχομενος (the coming on, the one who is to be) there for the future as in Revelation 11:17.

Thou Holy One (ο οσιος). Nominative form, but vocative case, as often. Note both δικαιος and οσιος applied to God as in Revelation 3:1; Revelation 15:3.

Because thou didst thus judge (οτ ταυτα εκρινας). Reason for calling God δικαιος and οσιος. The punishment on the waters is deserved. First aorist active indicative of κρινω, to judge.

Robertson's parsing seems to be right, in terms of providing the explanation for both dikaios and hosios. On the other hand, Robertson provides little insight as to why the ho erchomenos is gone.

Robertson, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

From him which is (απο ο ων). This use of the articular nominative participle of ειμ after απο instead of the ablative is not due to ignorance or a mere slip (λαψυς πενναε), for in the next line we have the regular idiom with απο των επτα πνευματων. It is evidently on purpose to call attention to the eternity and unchangeableness of God. Used of God in Exodus 3:14.

And which was (κα ο ην). Here again there is a deliberate change from the articular participle to the relative use of ο (used in place of ος to preserve identity of form in the three instances like Ionic relative and since no aorist participle of ειμ existed). The oracle in Pausanias X. 12 has it: Ζευς ην, Ζευς εστι, Ζευς εσσετα (Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus will be).

Which is to come (ο ερχομενος). "The Coming One," futuristic use of the present participle instead of ο εσομενος. See the same idiom in verse Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8 and (without ο ερχομενος) in Revelation 11:17; Revelation 16:5.

I agree with Robertson's point that the use of the nominative here is not a slip of the pen. Robertson has hit on an important point that has to be explained: why isn't the participle declension different?  One explanation is to symbolize the eternal immutability of God himself.  Perhaps a less grand explanation would be to call attention to this participle being used as a name, as in Exodus 3:14.

Robertson's point about Pausanias likewise misses an opportunity.  Why didn't John describe God that way? Why use participles at all?  Part of the reason is that John is not trying to say the same thing as Pausanias.

Likewise, if Robertson's take on ο ερχομενος as a periphrastic future were correct, one would have to ask themselves why, particularly given the availability of the perfectly straightforward ο εσομενος, which is not used.

Henry Alford on Revelation 16:5

Henry Alford (1810-1871), Dean of Canterbury, is apparently best known for his New Testament commentary, "The Greek Testament."

Alford writes: 

saying, Thou art righteous who art and wast (as in ch. Revelation 11:17 , the καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is omitted. For the construction, see reff.) holy (I incline against Düsterd., to the usual connexion, viz. the making ὅσιος belong to ὁ ὢν κ . ὁ ἦν , and not in apposition with δικαιος . And that which moves me to it is, 1) the extreme improbability of two epithets, δίκαιος and ὅσιος , both being predicated in such an acknowledgment of an act of justice: and 2) that as I have taken it, it best agrees with the ὅσιος in ch. Revelation 15:4 , where it is predicated of God not as the result of any manifested acts of His, but as an essential attribute confined to Him alone),

Notice that Alford in his disagreement offers us two ways in which hosios can be understood in the text.  The best understanding is one that connects it back to Revelation 15:4, no doubt.  Moreover, all God's attributes are not a result of what God does, but instead what God does reveals who God is.  In this case, though, I think that the very fitting death sentence in Revelation 16:5 shows both God's justice and his hosiotis.

At Revelation 1:4, Alford writes:

 from Him who is and who was and who is to come (a paraphrase of the unspeakable name יהוה , resembling the paraphrase אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:14 , for which the Jerusalem Targum has, as here, qui fuit, est, et erit : as has the Targum of Jonathan in Deuteronomy 32:39 , Schemoth R. 3. f. 105. 2: “Dixit Deus S. B. ad Mosen: Ego fui et adhuc sum, et ero in posterum.” Schöttg., Wetst., De Wette. “ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , instants , i. e., futurus : ut Marc. 10:30. Caret lingua Hebræa participio quale est ἐσόμενος .” Ewald. Each of the appellations by itself is to be regarded as a proper name ὁ ὤν , ὁ ἦν (not ὃ ἦν : the imperf. or aor. being used in the lack of a past participle of εἰμί ), and ὁ ἐρχόμενος : and it follows from what is remarked above that the meaning of ἐρχόμενος is not here to be pressed as referring to any future coming , any more than in its English representative, “He that is to come .” By doing so we should confuse the meaning of the compound appellation which evidently is all to be applied to the Father, ὡς αὐτοῦ περιέχοντος ἐν ἑαυτῷ πάντων τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὰ μέσα καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα , as the second alternative in the Catena. In the first (Arethas?) ὁ ὤν is supposed to mean the Father ( ἐγὼ εἰμὶ ὁ ὤν , as said to Moses), ὁ ἦν the Son ( ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ), and ὁ ἐρχόμενος the Spirit, as ever proceeding forth and descending on the Church. Hengstenb., who presses the literal sense of ἐρχόμενος , avoids this confusion, but falls into that of making the covenant Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit, come to judge the world and the Church. At least so it would seem: for when he comes to this the weak part of his exegesis, he obscures his meaning by raising a cloud of rhetorical description of what shall take place at that coming. He connects ἐρχόμενος with ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφ . below, in spite of the καὶ ἀπὸ … καὶ ἀπό intervening. It is needless to say, that that ἔρχεται is to be referred to the last subject only, viz. to Ἰησοῦς χριστός . And wherever the ἔρχομαι ταχύ , with which he also connects it, occurs, it is distinctly said of the glorified Saviour),

Notice how insistent Alford is against the idea that "the coming one" has anything to do with coming, instead treating it as a periphrastic future. While Alford has an explanation for why ὁ ἦν is used, Alford does not offer any explanation for why ho esomenos is not used, if that is what John meant.  The "Hengstenb." he criticizes is the Hengstenberg we previously reviewed (link to discussion).

Robert Utley on Revelation 16:5

In "You Can Understand the Bible," Dr. Robert Utley writes:

"Righteous are You" This is an allusion to Moses' song in Deuteronomy 32:0 (especially Revelation 16:5) or possibly Psalms 119:137.

"who are and who were" Notice that there is no future element as in Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, because there is no future time (cf. Revelation 11:17). This is the end! This is purposeful; note the threefold designation of Revelation 1:4. Time is no more! The end (i.e., Parousia) is revealed several times in Revelation, not just Revelation 19:0. Each of the seals, trumpets, and bowls ends with the Second Coming and culmination of history. This is why I Think the recapitulation theory for the interpretation of Revelation is best!

Utley received Doctor of Ministry (Major project in Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutics) Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL (according to this page)  I should point out that some of the typos are probably due to the webpage from which I'm quoting Utley's material, as there obviously is not a "Deuteronomy 32:0," and one ought not cite Psalm 119 as "Psalms 119."

Utley offers a slightly different take on why there is "no future element" here, namely "because there is no future time ... This is the end! ... Time is no more!"

At Revelation 11:17, Utley writes: 

Notice that the future aspect of this common description of God (except for some sixteenth century late minuscule Greek manuscripts) is left out because God has begun to reign. The last of these three chronological aspects will never be mentioned again in the book of the Revelation. The Kingdom has come (cf. Revelation 11:15-16)! This gives evidence that the recapitulation theory of the parallel relationship between the seals, trumpets, and bowls is true!

Notice his explanation here says that the kingdom has come.  He could add that the King has come.

At Revelation 1:4, Utley writes:

"from Him who is and who was and who is to come" This is obviously a title for the unchanging Covenant God (cf. Psalms 102:7; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). Its grammatical form is awkward in Greek but may reflect an Aramaic background. The literal phrase is "from the One who is, from the One who was, and the One coming" (cf. Revelation 4:8). This phrase reflects the OT covenant title "I Am" (YHWH, cf. Exodus 3:14, see SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY at Revelation 1:8). This phrase is used for God the Father in Revelation 1:4 and 8, and of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:17 and 18 (cf. Hebrews 13:8). The purposeful transfer of titles from YHWH to Jesus was one way the NT authors asserted the Deity of Jesus.

This threefold phrase of God as past, present, and future is modified in Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5, which is the Second Coming at the end of the trumpets, to just the present and past because the future (end-time) has dawned.

The linked "Special topic" contains additional discussion of YHWH among other names of God.

Here Utley again suggests that it is the second coming that serves as the reason that "the coming one" is not included at Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5.

Hengstenberg on Revelation 16:5

Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869), Hengstenberg on John, Revelation, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel & Psalms, at Revelation 16:5-7, wrote:

Revelation 16:5. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, who is and who was, the godly, because thou hast judged thus. Revelation 16:6. For blood of saints and prophets have they shed, and blood hast thou given them to drink; they are worthy! Revelation 16:7. And I heard the altar say, Yea, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. ... In the address to God: “who is and who was, the godly,” (the text, which Luther followed, improperly prefixes, Lord, and instead of “the godly,” has “ and holy,” or “godly,”) those attributes of God are particularly specified, which were manifested by his judgments, and from which these judgments flowed. In regard to the expressions, “who is and who was,” comp. on ch. Revelation 11:17. In that passage the addition, “and who comes,” could not be made, because the Lord had there already fully come. Here we have still not reached the last end; four vials are yet to follow. But still, “who comes,” would not be properly suitable here, and there was no reason for resuming it now again, after it had already been laid aside at ch. Revelation 11:17. Here respect is not had, as in ch. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8, Revelation 4:8, to what the Lord is going to do in the future; but what he has done, is brought into view. Here it was only in a fitting way indicated, that the old God proved by deed, that he still lived.

As there the emphasis lies on the “who comes,” so here it lies on the “who is;” q.d. Thou, who by thy deeds hast shewn that as thou hast been, so thou also art. The godly, as an epithet is applied to God, in reference to his regard for the moral order of the world, which admits of nothing alien to him, nothing opposed to him or rising above him, but only what is conformable to his own essential nature (comp. on ch. Revelation 15:4).

Hengstenberg, born in Prussia and a professor of the University at Berlin, corrects the addition "Lord" and treats hosios as vocative (i.e. "the Godly") rather than merely adjectival (i.e. "righteous ... and holy," or "righteous ... and godly").

Hengstenberg explains why "the coming one" is no longer used at this point Revelation 16:5, with the same rationale as at Revelation 11:17, and even more so because John's perspective is no longer of God as the one who will come, but as God who has come. 

Hengstenberg provides additional relevant discussion at Revelation 1:4:

From Him who is, and who was, and who comes. These words are a description of the name of Jehovah. I have showed in my Beitr. II. p 230, ss, that this name, properly Jahveh (for the vowels belong to Adonai, which the Jews pronounce instead of it) has the meaning of the Being, absolute existence. [Note: According to Delitzsch, in his Bibl. Proph. Theologie, p. 120, the name signifies the becoming, or going to be (der Werdende.) But this view is at once disposed of by the passage before us, as it would cut off “the who is and who was,” and leave only “the who comes.” So also by the original passage, Exodus 3:3-16, since it cannot explain the Ehjeh ascher Ehjeh and point out its essential identity with the mere Ehjeh. The name by this explanation is merely evacuated. The becoming swims in the air, if it does not rest for its basis on the being. The becoming of God, too, is a thought quite foreign to the whole of Scripture, and has passed over into theology from the modern philosophy. God comes, indeed, but he does not become.] The idea of pure, absolute, unchangeable existence, it was there remarked, as expressed of Jehovah, is a quite practical one; that which God is comes into consideration only as conditioning what he is for his people. This appears at once from Exodus 3:13-16. The people, in asking for his name, were to find in that a pledge and security for what was to be performed by God, for his wonderful help in the most distressing circumstances, not what should satisfy their metaphysical curiosity. The name Jehovah comprises in itself the fulness of all consolation, and the treasures thereof are here brought up from their depths and placed before the eyes of believers, the prophet’s companions in tribulation. On the rock of the pure, unchangeable, absolute Being of God dash all the despairing thoughts of those who can call this God their own, as also all the proud thoughts of the world which has him for its enemy. “I am a worm and no man” can be said in calm repose by such as can only look with an untroubled soul into this unfathomable mystery. As pure, and absolute, and unchangeable Being, God is; he exists in the fulness of that omnipotence which he makes subservient to the good of the church at the present time; he works, though in the depths of concealment, for her welfare, however circumstances may seem to indicate the contrary, and the world may triumph over the church lying in apparent helplessness on the ground, and bleeding with a thousand wounds He was; for he has given evidence of his being in the past by deeds of omnipotent love, as when he led the children of Israel out of the Egyptian house of bondage. He comes; for he will appear for the judgment of the world and for the salvation of his church, when the two shall be made to change places,—those ascending the throne who lay in the dust, and those who formerly occupied the throne thrust down to the ground. The stress should here be put upon the last clause, “he who comes.” [Note: The proof that the ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not synonymous with ὁ ἐσόμενος, as has been often affirmed, and still again by De Wette, is to be found in my Beitr., p. 239. I there pointed to the relation of the former expression to the ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν in Revelation 1:7, to the ἔρχομαι ταχύ in 22:7, 20, ii. 5, iii. 3, &c., where the view of God’s suffering and persecuted people is directed to the coming of God and Christ. Also to the dropping of the ὁ ἐρχόμενος in ch. 11:17, after the was and is, because the future of God’s kingdom had become present, the coming had come.] In ch. Revelation 4:8 the four living creatures constantly cry out, “Holy, holy, holy, is God, the Lord, the Almighty, who was, and who is, and who comes:” as much as to say, who, as by giving matter-of-fact demonstration of his Being in the past and present, he has proved himself to be the was and is, so will he also come to establish his kingdom over the whole earth. The inversion there (who was and is, instead of, who is and was here) shews that the expression “who is” here does not indicate the whole nature of God,—does not express, like the name Jehovah, his eternal, absolute Being, but is limited to the living efficacious tokens of his Being at the present time, for which the manifestations of his Being during the past afford a pledge. To the same result, also, we are led by the simple fact that along with the “who is” we have here on either side the two expressions “who was” and “who comes.” In the original it is literally: from who is, and was, and comes. There was no room for flexion, because thereby the unconditional application of the three designations to the Lord would have been darkened, and also because the Greek has no participle preterite.  

I find it especially interesting that Hengstenberg denies that "who is" here indicates the whole nature of God and says that the inversion in Revelation 4:8 "proves" that it is not equivalent to Jehovah. I'm not sure that he's convinced me so easily.

Hengstenberg's response to Delitzsch is particularly apt: "The becoming of God, too, is a thought quite foreign to the whole of Scripture, and has passed over into theology from the modern philosophy. God comes, indeed, but he does not become."  The idea of God as the "shall being one" may be something Plato would accept, but it is not something that Scripture teaches.

Hengstenberg is also wise to point out that "ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not synonymous with ὁ ἐσόμενος," despite the oft conflation.  The periphrastic use of "come" lends itself to such an understanding, but it is more natural to take "the coming one" to refer to the role of coming in judgment, rather than as suggesting something remains future in God.

Some Less Relevant Commentary on Revelation 16:5

From my earlier survey (link thereto), here are a few commentaries that have at least a little bearing on the Revelation 16:5 debate.

• J. Hampton Keathley III (d. 2002), taught at Moody Bible Institute (link)
• The reference in Revelation 16:5; "who are and who were" refers to the eternal essence of God. As the Eternal One, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. God is long-suffering but eventually God’s holiness must act and His judgment against sin will be delayed no longer.
• Dr. Manly Luscombe (b. 1950, Doctorate in Biblical Studies, Harvard) (link)
• 5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.
• A. The angel declares that the judgment of God is righteous. God is Just. I made some extended comments on this matter in the notes in chapter 15.
• B. When God judges the wicked, all the saints will agree that the judgment was the only thing that a Righteous and Holy God could do. If God did not judge them in this way, He would not be a Holy and Just God.
• Schaff's Popular Commentary (Philip Schaff d. 1893, worked on the American Bible Revision Committee) (link)
• Revelation 16:5-6. And I heard the angel of the waters saying, Thou art righteous, which art, and which wast, the Holy One. No episode of this kind had intervened at the close of the third trumpet. But at the highest stage of judgment it is fitting that even those who suffer from it should answer that it is right. The answer is given by the ‘angel of the waters,’ not the angel ‘who was set over the waters,’ and surely not the angel who now poured out his bowl upon the waters, but the waters themselves speaking by their angel, and responding to the fact that the judgment which they have incurred is just. The ascription of praise is to God as ‘righteous,’ and it will be observed that He is described in three particulars; first, ‘which art,’ secondly, ‘which wast,’ thirdly, ‘the Holy One.’ ‘Which art to come’ can be no longer used, for God is come (comp. chap. Revelation 11:17). The particular method of judgment is also commended. It is again the lex talionis; those who had poured out blood shall drink blood.
• Schaff at 11:17
• Revelation 11:17. Contains the first part of their song of praise and thanksgiving. In reading, a comma is to be placed after the word Lord, which presents us with the name of Him who has thus triumphed, and brought the troubles of His Church to an end. The name ‘Lord’ is then followed by three appellations as at chap. Revelation 4:8, first. God; secondly, the Almighty; thirdly, which art and which wast, the third clause usually belonging to this last appellative, ‘which is to come,’ being left out because no longer needed: the Lord is come. This part of the song of praise deals with the general statement that the Lord has taken to Him His great power. That power had indeed been always His, but for a time He had permitted His enemies to contend against it. He is to permit this no longer.
• James Burton Coffman (d. 2006, Church of Christ minister)(link)
• Righteous art thou, who art and who wast … We might have expected the phrase "and who is to come" until it is remembered that this vision reveals the state of things when the coming of Christ has already begun.
• Thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge … This with the next two verses is a kind of parenthesis to show that such terrible judgments are in no sense to be construed as unbecoming or out of character in the one true and living God who gave his Son for our redemption. No! These judgments are exactly what the God of love should do. "The pouring out of the bowls is not a series of arbitrary actions, but a solemn judgment."
• Albert Barnes (d. 1870,  studied at Princeton Theological Seminary)(link) 
• Which art, and wast, and shalt be - That is, who art eternal - existing now; who hast existed in all past time; and who will exist ever onward. See the notes on Revelation 1:8. The reason why this attribute of God is here referred to, seems to be that the mind of the angel adverts to it in the changes and desolations that were occurring around him. In such overturnings among people - such revolutions of kingdoms - such desolations of war - the mind naturally turns to one who is unchanging; to one whose throne is from everlasting to everlasting.
• Barnes at 1:4
• from him which is, and which was, and which is to come - From him who is everlasting - embracing all duration, past, present, and to come. No expression could more strikingly denote eternity than this. He now exists; he has existed in the past; he will exist in the future. There is an evident allusion here to the name Yahweh, the name by which the true God is appropriately designated in the Scriptures. That name יהוה Yahweh, from היה haayah, to be, to exist, seems to have been adopted because it denotes existence, or being, and as denoting simply one who exists; and has reference merely to the fact of existence. The word has no variation of form, and has no reference to time, and would embrace all time: that is, it is as true at one time as another that he exists. Such a word would not be inappropriately paraphrased by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” or who is to be; and there can be no doubt that John referred to him here as being himself the eternal and uncreated existence, and as the great and original fountain of all being.
• They who desire to find a full discussion in regard to the origin of the name Yahweh, may consult an article by Prof. Tholuck, in the “Biblical Repository,” vol. iv., pp. 89-108. It is remarkable that there are some passages in pagan inscriptions and writings which bear a very strong resemblance to the language used here by John respecting God. Thus, Plutarch (De Isa. et Osir., p. 354.), speaking of a temple of Isis, at Sais, in Egypt, says, “It bore this inscription - ‘I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my vail no mortal can remove’“ - Ἐγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονός, καὶ ὅν, καὶ ἐσόμενον καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν πέπλον οὐδείς τω θνητὸς ἀνεκάλυψεν Egō eimi pan to gegonos, kai hon, kai esomenon kai ton emon peplon oudeis tō thnētos anekalupsen. So Orpheus (in Auctor. Lib. de Mundo), “Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all things are made by Jupiter.” So in Pausanias (Phocic. 12), “Jupiter was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be.” The reference in the phrase before us is to God as such, or to God considered as the Father.
• John Nelson Darby (d. 1882, a Plymouth Brethren Founder)(link)
• 16:5 one, (l-19) Hosios . see Note b, ch. 15.4.
• Darby at 15:4
• 15:4 holy; (b-16) Hosios , not hagios . It is used for mercy, grace, and of Christ, as the One in whom all gracious qualities are concentrated. (Psalms 89:1 ,Psalms 89:2 ,Psalms 89:19 .) In men it means piety and uprightness. Chesed is so translated in the Old Testament. It is in general the sum of qualities which suit and form the divine character in man, as opposed to the human will. what God gives as consistent with himself, his character, and promise. The 'sure mercies ' of David is expressed by this word in the LXX, Isaiah 55:3 ; Acts 13:34 . God alone possesses the qualities which entitle him to worship as a pious man would understand it. Hosios is used in this general way for 'holy.' see Note i, Hebrews 7:26 . homage (c-24) See Note h, ch. 3.9. righteousnesses (d-29) See Note, ch. 19.8.
• Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary (Albert Garner and J.C. Howes) (link)
• 2) "Thou art righteous, 0 Lord, which art," (dikaios ei ho on ho hosios) "righteous art thou, the one who is the holy one," 0 Lord, as in Revelation 15:3.
• 3) "And wast and shalt be," (kai ho en) "and existed (was) and shall ever be;” the eternal God, the Master or Lord of all forever, Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; Revelation 11:17.

The significance of Keathley's observation is that indeed God's eternity is conveyed without the need for the addition of a future tense verb.  

Similarly, I found it interesting that Luscombe sees God as "Righteous and Holy" or "Holy and Just" here despite using the KJV wording of the text, which replaces "holy" with "and shall be."

Schaff's observation about why "is to come" is not present in Revelation 11:17 and 16:5 is similar to Beza's own analysis (link) at Revelation 16:5.  The reason why that description of God is not present in those passages is that by those places, He has come in judgment.  This, of course, ought to lead one to recognize that "the coming one" is not a periphrastic way of saying "who shall be".  Coffman's observation is the same.

Barnes, following Beza, has the future tense verb at Revelation 16:5 and gets the same idea of God's eternality.  Barnes also erroneously treats "is to come" as a periphrastic way of expressing God's future existence.  

Darby's note is of interest because it, quite correctly (and long before the work of Nelson and Peels) focuses on the significance of the use of hosios, not hagios, in Revelation 15:4 and 16:5, and its connection to Chesed in the Old Testament. I would slightly disagree with his way of getting to how God is hosios, because it is better to see God as being the only one possessing the true quality of hesed/hosios in his covenantal dealings with his people.

Garner and Howes have an odd blend of readings in their note.  Their first English does not match their first transliterated Greek, and their transliterated Greek while it matches their second English does not match any Greek text, because it omits "the having-been one". In bullet 3, again their English and Greek do not align.   

Survey of Revelation Commentaries

The "Study Light" website provides numerous commentary resources.  There is a range of orthodoxy and quality amongst the resources.  So, I provide the links below merely for reference for those interested, not by way of any kind of recommendation.  Additionally, given that there are already over 80 works that in some way discuss Revelation 16 (usually specifically including verse 5), I thought it would be wise to catalogue those resources I've reviewed in preparation for my planned debate on Revelation 16:5.  God willing in future posts, I will in some way interact with those resources that in some way have a bearing on the specific textual issues that pertain to that debate.  For this post, I merely categorize the resources, according to whether they are:

• essentially irrelevant: resources in this category range from resources that provide no commentary or even quotation of Revelation 16:5, to those that provide some commentary or a quotation of Revelation 16:5, but that fall short of providing comments that would appear to have any impact on the debate.  I'm not saying that these works are irrelevant in general -- some of them, such as Poole's Annotations, are excellent resources -- just not relevant to my debate on Revelation 16:5.
• minor relevance: resources in this category have some kind of comments or statements that, while they do not go directly to the heart of the issue, have at least some bearing on the debate (usually in terms of the internal evidence)
• significant: resources in this category provide some kind of interesting or highly relevant observation
• most significant: resources in this category in some way directly address the textual issue.  These were, of course, the resources I was looking for in my search.  

Naturally, the "Study Light" website, while extensive, is not complete.  There doubtless are commentaries that are not found on this site, including some of the most recent and most scholarly by contemporary standards.  So, exclusion from the list below means nothing other than that on January 21, 2025, the website did not list the resource (or that I, in my haste, somehow overlooked it). 

Essentially Irrelevant

• Foy Wallace (link)
• Larkin (link)(link to actual book)
• Koenig (link)
• Box (link)
• D.S. Clark (link)
• Hampton (link)
• Knollys (link)
• Smith (link)
• Ironside (link)
• Brown (link)
• Norris (link)
• "Restoration" (link)
• Kelly (link)
• Newell (link)
• Zerr (link)
• "Concordant" (link)
• Orchard (link)
• Barclay (link)
• Edwards (link)
• Godbey (link)
• "Bible Study New Testament" (link)
• "People's New Testament" (link)
• Burkitt (link)
• Clarke (link)
• Bridgeway (link)
• Bell (link)
• Smith (link)
• Dummelow (link)
• Dr. Constable (link)
• Ellicott (link)
• Expositor's Dictionary of Texts (link)
• Hole (link)
• F. B. Meyer (link)
• Gaebelein (link)
• Gann (link)
• Morgan (link)
• Everett (link)
• Geneva Study Bible (link)
• Haydock (link)
• Gray (link)
• Seiss (link)
• Sutcliffe (link)
• Trapp (link)
• King (link)
• Kretzmann (link)
• Lange (link)
• Grant (link)
• Wells of Living Water (link)
• Henry "Complete" (link) and "Concise" (link)
• Poole "Annotations" (link)
• Pett (link)
• Peake (link)
• "Preacher's Homiletical Commentary" (link)
• Hawker's "Poor Man" (link)
• Benson (link)(Interesting as an example of the danger of interpreting Revelation using the newspaper)
• Scofield (link)
• The Biblical Illustrator (link)
• Coke (link)
• The Expositor's Bible Commentary (link)
• Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (link)
• Wesley (link)
• Whedon (link)

Minor Relevance (My analysis of the "minor relevance" commentaries as a group)

• Keathley (link)
• Luscombe (link)
• Schaff's Popular Commentary (link)
• Coffman (link)
• Barnes (link) 
• Darby (link)
• Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary (link)

Significant 

• Hengstenberg (link)(my analysis here)
• Utley (link)(my analysis here)
• Alford (link)(my analysis here)
• Robertson's Word Pictures (link)(my analysis here)

Most Significant

• Bengel (link)(my analysis here)
• Scott (link)(my analysis here)
• Cambridge Greek Testament (link)(my analysis here)
• Meyer (link)(my analysis here)
• Vincent's Word Studies (link)(my analysis here)
• Bullinger (link)(my brief analysis here)
• Gill (link)(my analysis here)
• Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (link)(link to "unabridged" version)(my analysis here)
• The Pulpit Commentary (link)(my analysis here)

God willing, I plan to summarize and discuss the most relevant material from these last three categories of resources, either for a future blog post or video (or both).

Responding to Nick Sayers' Interview with AVBibleThumperMinistries on the alleged significance of the three "I AM" statements in Exodus 3:14

 Approximately from 1:54:31 to 1:56:50 in "Interviewing Nick Sayers @RevolutionDebates on The Perfection of The KJV!!!" Nick Sayers states:

They claim to us, “oh you're you're following no manuscripts in this place.”  Like, say, one example: Revelation 16:5. They always bring this up.  Oh, Revelation 16:5 - when it has “shall be – “Oh, that's a conjectural emendation. That was just made up out of thin air.” Sort of thing.  What they don't tell you is when it says “the one who is, and was, and shall be,” that's actually the etymology of the name of Jehovah: the past, the present, and the future. When you read in Exodus 3, verses 14 to 15, it has three I AMs there. One's the past, One's the present, One's the future. And then the next verse says, “My name is Jehovah.”  So, the building blocks for the name of Jehovah is: the past, the present, and the future – the one who is, and was, and shall be. So, when it says that -- some scribe wrote “holy” on it because it's the holiest name of God according to the Jews. Many times they don't even pronounce this name and so they've written “holy” on a lot of these manuscripts, which is a type of – it's a name and so they put a “Sacra” on it which means “holy.” So, it’s a nomin sacra.  So, understanding that, we do have some very good internal evidence for some of these things that — people have been saying for years that, “oh this is a conjectural emendation.” James White will make a big fuss about this, but they don't tell you it's the name of Jehovah there in the Book of Revelation, in Revelation 16:5, and that changes everything. Why would they have “holy” written there? Well, it's a holy name.  Jews didn't want anyone to say this. I mean they even say God with a g dash d.  You know what I mean. If they’re seeing the etymology of Jehovah with the three I AMs there, that's like – that's radioactive to them. And so they're going to write “holy” there. And, so that's why you see these type of things. It’s a name. It’s a full name of the name of Jehovah. So, of course it's going to have the three elements: the past, the present, and the future. It appears four other times in the Book of Revelation as the one who was, and is, and is to come; but the purest form is the one who was, and is, and shall be. And they wrote holy over it. 

First, let's look at Scripture.

Exodus 3:13-16 

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt:

This argument from the "three I AMs" may not be original to Nick (I don't recall whether he cites anyone for this idea), but it does not seem to be either translationally or exegetically sound.

It is true that the phrase "I AM" appears three times in the English of Exodus 3:14 in the KJV.  The Hebrew of the verse says:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃

Most English translations render this Hebrew word (in all three places) as "I AM." Certainly, Nick's preferred English translation, which he normally argues was perfectly translated, likewise uses "I AM" in all three places.  Some render this word as "shall be."  Some commentators (such as Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 64 or Robert A. Snyder), argue that the Hebrew word אֶהְיֶה could be variously understood as past, present, or future.  Snyder writes:

With regard to translation, “I AM WHO I AM” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) has nine possibilities, due to three translations for the verb (“I was” or “I am” or “I will be”) and three translations for the relative pronoun (“who” or “what” or “that”).

Similarly, Hamilton writes:

Nevertheless, at the next page, Hamilton concludes:

Likewise, Snyder connects Exodus 3:14 with the Gospel "I am" statements:

The Gospel of John proclaims Jesus as the fulfillment of the divine name of Exodus. As in Exodus, where “He will always be whatever his people need him to be in any given moment, in any given place,” because truly God is both “I-will-be-what-I-will-be” and “I-will-be-what-I-need-to-be-for-you,”[62] so also in John, Jesus is both the absolute “I am” and the predicate “I am your every need.” Jesus is God’s memorial-name forever and our very strong tower. Hallelujah!

Neither of these gentlemen, however, suggest that somehow the three instances of אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:14 should be understood respectively as past, present, and future.

Additionally, while versification does lasso in a third instance of "I AM," in God's own explanation of His name, He only uses אֶהְיֶה twice, namely: "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" - "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I AM THAT I AM," in the KJV.  Moreover, when God tells Moses what Moses should tell the people, God simply states: "אֶהְיֶה" (ehyeh), a single time.

• When God expands that in the next verse, He says: 
• "LORD (i.e. YHWH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," 
• "יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב"
• "YHWH elohei avoteichem elohei avraham elohei yitzchak velohei ya'akov"

Thus, God explains says Moses should refer to Him as YHWH, and describe him as the "elohei avoteichem" (God of your fathers), namely the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  Elohim is used four times and the Tetragrammaton is used once, but even the triple use of Elohim is not about past, present, and future, but about identifying the three principle patriarchs of the people of Israel.

As for the assertion that "some scribe wrote 'holy' on it," this assertion lacks merit.  There is precedence for substitutions of Adonai for YHWH in Hebrew or κύριος (kurios - Lord).  The KJV itself follows this practice in most places in the Old Testament, including in Exodus 3:15.  There is also precedent for abbreviating words like κύριος as ΚΣ (kappa sigma, with a line over them).  This latter practice is also known as nomina sacra abbreviation.  However, characteristic of nomina sacra abbreviations is the omission of letters and the use of the overline.  What Sayers has proposed is a substitution without any precedent.

The reference to the similar expressions in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17 is a sword with two edges for Sayers.  In none of these places do we find manuscripts reflecting a similar scribal practice as Sayers has proposed occurred here.  Sayers' assertion that this is the "purest form" is - again - a claim without precedent.  It's not a "form" used anywhere in Scripture, nor is it a form used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, nor in the other Jewish writings before the New Testament.  

Additionally, Revelation 11:17 does not help Sayers, as it does not even include the "coming one" found in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8, and necessary for Sayers to view this as some kind of "triadic declaration."