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.