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.