Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) is probably more famous today for his work in textual criticism. However, Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament (published in 1742, and the source of the following quotations) was what he was best known for during his lifetime.
Bengel, at Revelation 16:5, writes:
Revelation 16:5 . [178] Ὁ ὢ καὶ ὁ ἦν , which art and which wast ) See on ch. Revelation 11:17 , and comp. D. Lang. Comm. Apoc. f. 188. ὁ ὅσιος ) Others put καὶ before ὁ , or for ὁ , or omit καὶ ὁ . [179] Sound exegesis often distinguishes the pearls of a genuine reading from the filth of various readings: and Wolf excellently compares with this the passage, ch. Revelation 1:8 , ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς , Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ . It will also be profitable to have brought forward another, ch. Revelation 4:8 : ἍΓΙΟς , ἍΓΙΟς , ἍΓΙΟς , ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ , Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς . There is a very great resemblance between those two passages and this passage, which is thus: ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ΕἾ , Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ , Ὁ ὍΣΙΟς . The subject there is, ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς · here, in the vocative case, Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ . The epithet belonging to the subject is there, Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ · here, in the same case, Ὁ ὍΣΙΟς · in both places without the particle ΚΑῚ . The predicate there, ch. Revelation 4:8 , is ἍΓΙΟς · here ΔΊΚΑΙΟς . For the sentence is not to be thus construed, ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ΚΑῚ ὍΣΙΟς since there are many intervening words in the text. At the commencement and at the close of the Apocalypse the Lord is called Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ , the Almighty; here, where judgments show themselves, He is called ὁ ὅσιος , the Holy. First of all He is praised on account of His Might , lest in the time of His patience He should appear to have no strength, whereas in the end He is about to display enough of Might; afterwards He is praised for His Grace , when retribution commences. Might and Grace are alike assigned to the Lord in Psalms 62:11-12 . The epithet ὅσιος answers to the Hebrew חסיד , and signifies gracious , in an active or a passive sense. God exhibits His own grace in all His works, and He receives gratitude [the attribution of grace ] from all saints.
[178] τοῦ θηρίου , of the beast ) Therefore the vial of the first angel will be the first mark [“character,” characterism] of the beast. V. g.
[179] Engl. Vers, has “which art, and wast, and shalt be ” (omitting ὅσιος , and substituting καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος or ἐρχόμενος ). ABC Vulg. support ὅσιος . h has et qui es pius . Rec. Text has καὶ ὁ ὅσιος . E.
Bengel makes the Hesed/Hosios connection that is key to understanding the text. It is interesting how Stephanus' text is viewed as the "Received Text" here, rather than Beza's text. We see this a bit farther below, where he bemoans some people seemingly locked-in over Stephanus' edition(s?).
Bengel, at Revelation 11:17, writes:
Revelation 11:17 . Ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν , who is, and who was ) Some have added, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος . [121] The shorter reading here also is the true one; the fuller one is derived from a parallel passage. See App. Crit. Ed. ii. on this passage. Such varieties of reading are not to be decided in a cursory manner, on common grounds, but by careful investigation, according to the strong arguments which peculiarly and naturally belong to each passage. By which method we shall find, in the present instance, that this passage, ch. Revelation 11:17 , is not so much to be compared with the three preceding, as with the one which follows, ch. Revelation 16:5 . What is the aspect of the three preceding passages, we have before shown, on the passages themselves, and especially on ch. Revelation 1:8 : but now both these passages, ch. Rev 11:17 and Revelation 16:5 , coincide with the trumpet of the seventh angel, and therefore with the consummation of the mystery of God, in which, that which had previously been foretold by the expression, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , now is exhibited in actual operation, and indeed is exhibited first in heaven, ch. Revelation 11:17 , and then on earth, ch. Revelation 16:5 . Interpreters on this passage have long ago seen this. Ansbert says, They do not here subjoin, as they were accustomed , and who art to come; they speak of Him as already present . Haymo, who usually treads in the footsteps of Ansbert: It must be observed that he does not add, as before , who art to come. For they show Him already present in the judgment, by which all these things will be accomplished, and therefore they by no means speak of Him as (still) to come . John Purvey, in his Comm. published with the preface of Luther, says; He does not add the third clause, which he has usually added, namely , and who is to come, for this reason, because the prophet, with his intellectual vision, then saw God as it were already sitting in judgment . Zeltner published a dissertation, A. 1712, which is inscribed, Evangelium Tetragrammaton e Novo Testamento Exulans . The subject, as it is comprised in the title, derives something from the truth. When the Son of God was engaged in the world, of the promises given in the Old Testament, and comprehended in the name of Jehovah , as many as were to be fulfilled at that time, were fulfilled: and then, that which had been future, was advancing to the present. But, however, in the prophecy of the New Testament, that is, in the Apocalypse, that phrase, ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , by which the tetragrammaton, יהוה , is usually expressed, is, as it were, set forth afresh; and the future itself, as though reviving in the second coming of Christ, respecting which see Hebrews 10:37 , is placed before us, until at the entrance of the most important trumpet of the seventh angel, first the words, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , which, at the beginning, were alone contained in אהיה , and afterwards also the words καὶ ὁ ἦν , which was denoted by the termination of the noun יהוה , are most magnificently absorbed, and pass into the single expression, ὁ ὤν . Hence it comes to pass, that even great things, from this very passage, are not said to come , as lately they were said to come , Revelation 11:14 , and ch. Revelation 9:12 , but to have come , shortly afterwards, Revelation 11:18 , and ch. Revelation 14:7 ; Revelation 14:15 , Revelation 19:7 . Those persons do not sufficiently hold fast the normal force of Scripture, which ought to be retained even in addresses, who even still in prayers, and in hymns, from time to time, say, Jehovah , instead of Lord , or Jah . For under the trumpet of the seventh angel this Tetragrammaton ceases to be used, and the Diagrammaton , יָהּ , is the only expression which the saints utter, together with applause; ch. Revelation 19:1 .
[121] Added by Rec. Text, in opposition to ABC h Vulg. Cypr. E.
Note that Bengel references Purvey, who had already found the reason for the shorter description in Revelation 11:17: "John Purvey, in his Comm. published with the preface of Luther, says; He does not add the third clause, which he has usually added, namely, and who is to come, for this reason, because the prophet, with his intellectual vision, then saw God as it were already sitting in judgment."
Indeed, Bengel goes back even farther: "Interpreters on this passage have long ago seen this. Ansbert says, They do not here subjoin, as they were accustomed , and who art to come; they speak of Him as already present. Haymo, who usually treads in the footsteps of Ansbert: It must be observed that he does not add, as before , who art to come. For they show Him already present in the judgment, by which all these things will be accomplished, and therefore they by no means speak of Him as (still) to come."
Bengel, at Revelation 1:4, writes:
Revelation 1:4 . Ἀπὸ ὁ ) Erasmus introduced ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ . [5] This is the first of those passages in which the reviewer says, that I cannot at all be defended. And yet the reading approved of by me, ἀπὸ ὁ , is an early one. See App. Crit. Ed. ii. on the passage: When I pray, will they be moved, who, in their ignorance, esteem the press of Stephens of more value than all the traces of John in Patmos? ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , from Him, who is, and who was, and who cometh ) In this salutation, James Rhenferd, in his Dissertation respecting the cabalistic [6] style of the Apocalypse, seeks for a description of the Ten Sephiroth, [7] three superior, and seven inferior: and he has proved that there is some resemblance; but he has brought forward from the Cabalistic writers nothing which does not exist in a purer form in the writings of John. Comp. Lamp. Comm. on the Apoc., p. 253. The Hebrew noun יהוה is undeclined; and of that noun this is a periphrasis, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , as we shall see presently at Revelation 1:8 . And therefore the periphrasis also is used without inflexion of case. The article ὁ , three times expressed, gives to the Greek paraphrase of a Hebrew noun the form of a noun. ἑπτὰ , seven ) The Jews, from Isaiah 11:2 , speak many and great things respecting the Seven Spirits of the Messiah. Lightfoot .
[5] AC read ἀπὸ ὁ : Rec. Text, with inferior MSB., ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ .
[6] The Cabalists were teachers of the Cabala, a tradition of hidden things. They professed to discover great mysteries in the letters of the sacred text. They invented the Ten Sephiroth or Cabalistic tree. See Jennings’ Jewish Antiquities, and Lewis’ Origines Judææ, vol. 3. T.
[7] A magnificent delineation of these, a hundred years ago (1673) prepared at the command and expense of the Princess Antonia, of happy memory, is to be seen in the Deinacensian temple, which, not many years previously , Eberhard Third, Duke of Würtemburgh, the brother of that most illustrious virgin , had caused to be erected for the benefit of the strangers who make use of the mineral waters. A full description of this monument, which is called Turris Antonia, with the addition of an engraving, has been given by S. R. F. C. Ætinger, now Abbot of the Murrhardensian Monastery, s. t. Œffentliches Denkmal der Lehrtafel einer weyl. Würtembergischen Princessin Antonia, etc., Tub. 1763. There are some who superciliously laugh at all such things as Rabbinical trifles; there are some, perhaps, who value them too highly, almost stopping at the rind (instead of penetrating within). Any one may see what true σωφροσύνη advises, or what the measure of faith permits, and the proportion of knowledge derived from the Word of GOD. E. B.
My heart goes out to Bengel when he writes: "When I pray, will they be moved, who, in their ignorance, esteem the press of Stephens of more value than all the traces of John in Patmos?" For us dealing with those who excessively elevate the King James Version, it is the "press of Cambridge" instead of Stephens, but the sentiment is the same!
Bengel, at Revelation 1:8, writes:
§ 7. Since these things are so, the Third part, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , cannot but answer to the Hebrew יהוה : for the epithet, ὁ παντοκράτωρ , is never used, unless either Θεὸς or יהוה immediately precede. The former precedes, with an interval between, in the present: therefore יהוה is immediately preceding. Moreover either the three clauses taken together, ὁ ὢν , καὶ ὁ ἦν , καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , answer to the name יהוה , or the third, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , undoubtedly does so.
§ 8. He who יהוה , shall be, is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος ; and yet He is not called ὁ ἐσόμενος , but with great skill, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , lest there should appear to be any detraction from His present being, and that His coming may be more clearly expressed. About to be, in Hebrew הבא , coming; comp. John 16:13 ; and so other languages.
§ 9. There is great dispute as to the manner in which the name יהוה is to be read, and how widely its signification extends. Some, because the points of the name אלהים frequently, and of the name אדני very frequently, are added to it, introduce other vowels, and, for instance, read it as יִהְוֶה Iihvaeh.
§ 10. But even if the name יהוה always had vowels belonging to the other names of God, and never its own, attributed to it in our copies, yet it might be read Jehovah, equally with Iihvaeh. But many things prove that Jehovah even must be the reading.
§ 11. The Hebrews were careful never to pronounce the name יהוה , except with the greatest purity; wherefore, where the prefixes introduced a change of vowels, they very frequently substituted the name אדני , having vowels approaching very closely to יהוה . But wherever יְהֹוָה is written, it is evidently to be read Jehovah. On this one account alone they retained Scheva under Jod: as also the Chaldean paraphrasers do, in that very contraction in their writing, which represents the name Jehovah and Adonai. As יֱהֹוָה is written by means of the points of the name אלהים , so by means of the points of the name אדני it might be written יֲהֹוָה , unless it were of itself to be pronounced יְהֹוָה . Proper names, as Jehojakim, and many others, which are formed from the name יְהֹוָה , and Greek forms of writing this name, being spread abroad among those of foreign lands, have been long ago collected by the learned.
§ 12. There is an incomparable and admirable compounding of the name יהוה from יְהִי Shall be, and הִוֶֹה Being, and הָוָה Was. This paraphrase of the Divine Name by three tenses flowed on to the most ancient Greek poets and to the Talmudical writers. Passages are given in Wolf, T. iv. Curar. in N. T. p. 436. But the Apocalypse has the greatest strength.
...
§ 20. Thus far have we considered this passage separately: it now comes to be compared with the parallel passages. For here the expression employed is ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , and ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , ch. Revelation 4:8 ; and afterwards, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ; and finally, ὁ ὤν . See below on ch. Revelation 11:17 , Revelation 19:1 .
§ 21. When God appeared to Moses in the bush, He called Himself אהיה , I will be. In Exo 3:14 He supplies this reason for His name: I will be what I will be, as He had said to Moses at the 12th verse of the same chapter, I will be with thee. Afterwards He Himself expresses the name, commanding Moses to say, אהיה I WILL BE hath sent me. The Verb אהיה becomes a Noun, as ὁ ἦν , the Article being prefixed: and ὁ ἦν itself is a befitting phrase, as in Aristotle, εὐθὺς τὸ ἔσται καὶ τὸ μέλλεα , ἕτερον , l. ii. de gener. et corrupt, c. 11.
§ 22. This Name having been proclaimed to Moses, throughout the same vision, and afterwards throughout the whole writing of the Old Testament, the name יהוה is mentioned. אהיה of the first person might have appeared suitable there, where the Lord is speaking of Himself, and יהוה of the third person, where angels and men are the speakers. And yet Moses was commanded to say, אהיה I WILL BE hath sent me; and the Lord also calls Himself יהוה Jehovah: and the name אהיה is not afterwards repeated, whereas the name יהוה is of constant occurrence. It is plain therefore that the name יהוה adds to the meaning of the name אהיה something beyond the mere difference between the first and third person; since first of all the Lord called Himself I shall be, and presently afterwards He began to call Himself by the habitual title, He shall be Being He was.
§ 23. The name יהוה is read of old, before the times of Moses, and mentioned in such a manner that we may be assured that Moses did not, from an idiom arising not until his own time, introduce the expression into the times of Enoch, Abraham, etc.: Genesis 4:26 ; Genesis 13:4 ; Genesis 14:22 ; Genesis 15:2 ; Genesis 15:7 , etc.
§ 24. Again, it is plain that this revelation was made to Moses, and by the instrumentality of Moses to the Israelites, by which revelation the name Jehovah became known to them in a new way. We lately quoted the passage, Exodus 3:15 . A second is to be added, Exodus 6:3 : I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob , באל שדי , as a God abounding in all good things: but under My name Jehovah I was not made known to them. In which passage ב is prefixed to the word אל , and, as denoting the aspect under which one is regarded, may be befittingly rendered by the French en, as, for instance, they say, Vivre en Chrétien. When God appeared to Abraham, He called Himself אל שדי , Genesis 17:1 : and from this Isaac and Jacob often so called Him. At that time also He was called Jehovah, but by a less solemn use. It was not until the time of Moses that He Himself ordered that this should be His name for ever, and that this should be the memorial of Him from generation to generation: Exodus 3:15 . Then He made for Himself an eternal name, by the transaction itself: Isaiah 63:12 . Let the passage he looked to, Exodus 15:3 , and the whole of that song.
§ 25. יהוה is used from הוה , to be: and this name of Himself may be regarded either absolutely, as He who is from eternity to eternity is in Himself; or relatively, as He becomes known to His people in His character as He who is, by accomplishing His promise by the work itself.
§ 26. In the former sense, the name יהוה was celebrated, even in the days of the Patriarchs; but under the other sense, which was added not until the time of Moses, the Lord made Himself known to the Israelites, by that great work of leading them forth from Egypt.
§ 27. By such means He admirably, as it were, contracted the meaning of His name יהוה , so that, just as God, although being the God of all, yet was no other, and was called no other, and wished to be called no other, than the God of Israel, so יהוה , He who is, was no other than He who is to Israel, or, in other words, who affords and exhibits Himself to Israel. He truly said, I will be to you, as He afterwards said, I will not be to you: Hosea 1:9 . In a similar manner, as often as God performed some remarkable work, we read that He or His name was known: Psalms 76:1 ; Psalms 83:18 ; Isaiah 52:6 ; Ezekiel 39:7 .
§ 28. Therefore in the time of Moses He called Himself as it were afresh, אהיה , I will be. He does not say, I will be what I was, I will be what I am; but אהיה אשר אהיה , I will be what I will be: where there is implied the declaration of a benefit to be almost immediately bestowed. That is, I will be to the Israelites the character which, by the very fact, I will be in regard to their fathers, both what I said to them I would be, and what it behoves Me to be to them, namely, by now at length fulfilling the promise which I formerly gave. And thus the meaning of the future prevailed in אהיה , including both a recapitulation of the revelations and promises of God, which had been given to the fathers, and a declaration of the event now to be exhibited, by the bringing the people out of Egypt.
§ 29. The name אהיה , afterwards swelling out into the name יהוה , transmitted at the same time the same meaning of the future to the name יהוה , so that in the very form of the name the future might be conspicuous, and from thence there might be an advance to the present with the past.
§ 30. יהוה is the same precisely as ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν . So suitable was the language of the Old Testament. But in the Apocalypse the order is inverted by an elegance of construction not to be despised, except by the supercilious; and in ch. Rev 4:8 He is said to be ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , where, in the natural order of the times, the four beasts celebrate the praises of the Lord in a summary form of expression, as He has exhibited Himself, and does, and will exhibit Himself. But here, ch. Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 1:8 , both by the pen of John, and by His own mouth, He is styled ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ; and so by a fresh idiom, but one which is founded on the Divine nature itself, the ὢν , as the principal and radical word, is placed first, with a remarkable prelude and token of that change, by which subsequently both the ἐρχόμενος and the ἦν , as we have noticed, § 20, betake themselves to [pass into] the ὢν .
It is interesting to note Bengel argue: "He who יהוה , shall be, is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος; and yet He is not called ὁ ἐσόμενος, but with great skill, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , lest there should appear to be any detraction from His present being, and that His coming may be more clearly expressed." In other words, Bengel's argument is that ὁ ἐρχόμενος is used rather than ὁ ἐσόμενος to avoid any detraction from God's present being.
It is also interesting to see Bengel claims: "יהוה is the same precisely as ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν". While I cannot accept this conclusion, Bengel's argument for why the order is then changed by John is at least cogent and consequently not to be simply dismissed out of hand.
