Cyprian of Carthage, Eugenius Voulgaris, and "The Three are One"

Two arguments recur in contemporary defenses of the Johannine Comma (the “Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7–8): Cyprian’s quotation of “the three are one” and the claim that the masculine grammar of the earthly witnesses requires the heavenly witnesses of v. 7. The latter argument is often associated with a 1780 letter of Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris).  KJV advocates (the usual defenders of the Comma) object to the idea that Cyprian may have been referring to the spirit, water, and blood as the Father, Son, and Spirit.  What is particularly interesting, however, is that Voulgaris himself interprets the earthly witnesses—the spirit, the blood, and the water—as symbols of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Usually, the appeal to Voulgaris' letter comes in the form of bolstering an attack on the text of 1 John 5:6-8 as containing (it is alleged) a grammatical solecism in the absence of the interpolation. Students of John's writings, especially the book of Revelation, recognize that John's writing often violates the standards of Attic Greek, but does so intentionally, and with some purpose in these "violations."  Such departures from strict Attic norms are referred to as solecisms, apparently from the negative view that Athenians had of the Greek spoken by the people of Soloi (a Greek colony of Cilicia, in modern-day Turkey) (source).  

Cyprian's Reference to "The Three are One"

On the idea that Cyprian of Carthage may have been quoting 1 John 5:7, the specific quotation is from Cyprian's Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church), Section 6 (source), which states:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est et pudica. Unam domum novit, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit. Haec nos Deo servat, haec filios regno, quos generavit, assignat. Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae iungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur, nec perveniet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. Habere iam non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si potuit evadere quisquam, qui extra arcam Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadit. Monet Dominus et dicit: Qui non est mecum, adversus me est, et qui non mecum colligit, spargit. Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt; et quisquam credit hanc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem scindi in ecclesia posse et voluntatum collidentium divortio separari? Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, non tenet Dei legem, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem.

(Latin Text Source and Alternative Translation)(Alternative Source)

I've tried to use text highlighting to emphasize the structure of Cyprian's argument.  In particular, note that Cyprian's last sentence wraps up the rest of this section: 

He who does not hold this unity (i.e., the unity of the church) does not hold God’s law (a reference to the adultery/treason motif), does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son (a reference to the gather/scatter statement and to the "I and the Father we are one" statement), does not hold life and salvation (a reference to the sacraments).  

Cyprian's quotation of 1 John 5:8 "and these three are one" is said to be about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  In what way is that?  Some have proposed that it is because John is symbolically referring to the Father, Word, and Spirit as spirit, blood, and water.  Typically, King James defenders balk (or even scoff) at this view.  Before investigating how Comma Defender Voulgaris endorsed such a view, let's consider some other reasonable alternatives. 

Alternatives to the Symbolic View - The Sacramental View

While the explanation of the symbolic interpretation of spirit, blood, and water is the most straightforward explanation of Cyprian's reference that does not require hypothesizing that the Johannine Comma had already been invented, there is another explanation: Cyprian may see the reference to water and blood as references to the sacraments of the Lord's Supper (the body and blood of Christ) and Baptism (water), through which the Spirit works - or perhaps to the Baptism (water) and Death (blood) of Jesus himself.  

Recall that the text says:

1 John 5:5-12 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

You may recall that God's witness to the Son ("my beloved Son") was given at Jesus' own Baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).  A weakness of this interpretation of John's epistle is that John is the only evangelist not to mention this particular verbal witness (unless this is the time he is mentioning it).  On the other hand, John could be referring to the inspired witness that John the Baptist gave to Jesus (see, for example, John 3:26) or to the visual witness of the Spirit that John does record (John 1:33).  The strength of this interpretation is that this is a sense in which Jesus "came by water." 

Origen's (185-253) Commentary on John's Gospel, Book VI, Section 26, makes a similar connection between the Baptism of Jesus and 1 John 5:8 (source):

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, I baptize with water, but He that comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, Unless you drink My blood, you have no life in you, and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his Epistle of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one.

Origen was approximately a contemporary of Cyprian.  

Another interpretation is that "come by water" here refers to Jesus baptizing (or overseeing baptism) as John's gospel records (John 3:22; 3:26; and 4:1-2).  This could then be connected (by Cyprian) with the triune name of God associated with Baptism in Matthew's gospel (Matthew 28:19).

Ambrose, for example, makes a connection of all three witnesses to Christian Baptism.  He does not do so in the way Origen does, but seems to be completely uninfluenced by his view. 

Ambrose (339-397) in On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Chapter 6 (sections 76-77) writes (source):

There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: The water, the blood, and the Spirit. One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Ambrose goes on in Book III, Chapter 10 (Sections 65-68) to write (source):

I ask, however, why, if there be no doubt that we are born again by the Holy Spirit, there should be any doubt that we are born of the Holy Spirit, since the Lord Jesus Himself was both born and born again of the Holy Spirit. And if you confess that He was born of the Holy Spirit, because you are not able to deny it, but deny that He was born again, it is great folly to confess what is peculiar to God, and deny what is common to men. And therefore that is well said to you which was said to the Jews: If I told you earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And yet we find each passage so written in Greek, that He said not, through the Spirit, but of the Spirit. For it stands thus: ἀμήν, ἀμήν, λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὓδατος και Πνεύματος, that is, of water and the Spirit. Therefore, since one ought not to doubt that that which is born of the Spirit is written of the Holy Spirit; there is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit also is God, according to that which is written, the Spirit is God.  But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. Hear how they are witnesses: The Spirit renews the mind, the water is serviceable for the laver, and the blood refers to the price. For the Spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred Font washed us, the blood of the Lord redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony in a spiritual sacrament, for the Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit. Though the fullness of the sacrament be in each, yet there is a distinction of office; so where there is distinction of office, there certainly is not equality of witness.

Notice the sacramental connection, as well as this explicit and positive testimony against the Comma, by quoting from before its insertion point to after without including it, particularly when it would have suited Ambrose's argument if it were known to him.

Consider the way that Ambrose makes a Trinitarian connection to the passage in On the Mysteries, Chapter 4 (Section 20)(source):

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.

In another place (Concerning Virginity, Book III, Chapter 5, section 22, link to source), Ambrose does not make an explicit citation of 1 John 5:7-8, but nevertheless makes a similar connection:

And since I have inserted a clause in which mention is made of the Lord's Body, lest any one should be troubled at reading that the Lord took a body of pain, let him remember that the Lord grieved and wept over the death of Lazarus, and was wounded in His passion, and that from the wound there went forth blood and water, and that He gave up His Spirit. Water for washing, Blood for drink, the Spirit for His rising again. For Christ alone is to us hope, faith, and love— hope in His resurrection, faith in the laver, and love in the sacrament.

The Spear Piercing - Double Baptism View

Why go down the sacramental path at all?  Partly this is because of the slight obscurity of what it means for Jesus to "come by water" or by both water and blood.  Other interpretations have suggested that Jesus was born of water in the sense of being naturally born from his mother's womb (based on an interpretation of John 3:5).  Another Biblical mention of water and blood is in John 19:34 (and Matthew 27:49b in more Greek manuscripts than have the TR comma), where blood and water flowed out of Jesus' side upon His side being pierced with a spear (Rufinus (344-411) in his Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, section 23, refers to both this blood and water from the spear-piercing as baptism - link to source).

Considering that John's gospel just summarily says that the Word was made Flesh, and does not provide any infancy narrative, the "came by water" as relating to his birth seems less likely as a viable explanation.  On the other hand, there is mention of testimony associated with piercing of Jesus' side:

John 19:31-37 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.  

Here, the record of the water and blood is supported by the Evangelist, but also aligned with the inspired Old Testament Scriptures.

Tertullian (155 - 220), in On Baptism, Chapter 16, connects the spear-piercing with Baptism (source):

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood,  just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.

An anonymous author (writing in the third or fourth century) offers these thoughts in On Re-Baptism, sections 14, 15, 18, and 19 (source):

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, But I have another baptism to be baptized with. Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?  Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, From his belly flowed rivers of living water;  which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord's passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier's spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe in Him: But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind, although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.

15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;  — that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. 

...

18. ...  From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.

19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. And, unless I am mistaken, we have also explained what our Lord says: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Moreover, I think that we have given no weak reason as the cause of the custom. Let us have a care, although we do that in a subsequent place, that none may think that we are stirring up the present debate on a single article; although this custom even alone ought, among men who have the fear of God, and are lowly, to maintain a chief place.

I don't adopt this author's views (cf. Basil (330-379), On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 15, Section 36 - link to source), but merely offer them as being roughly contemporaneous with Cyprian, testifying to a sacrament-related (and even spear-related) view of the text, as well as providing an explicit testimony to the non-interpolation of the Johannine Comma.  Incidentally, Cyprian himself referred to a baptism of blood, referring to the death of the person himself in his Epistle 72, at sections 21-22 (link to source).

Leo's Life of Christ View 

Leo the Great (391– 461) makes a similar reference to both the spear-piercing and 1 John 5:8 in his famous "Tome of Leo," which was received by the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (often referred to as the 4th Ecumenical Council)(source), which is a clear positive testimony against the Comma:

If therefore he receives the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ears from the preaching of the Gospel: let him see what was the nature that hung pierced with nails on the wooden cross, and, when the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier's spear, let him understand whence it was that blood and water flowed, that the Church of God might be watered from the font and from the cup. Let him hear also the blessed Apostle Peter, proclaiming that the sanctification of the Spirit takes place through the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And let him not read cursorily the same Apostle's words when he says, Knowing that not with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, have you been redeemed from your vain manner of life which is part of your fathers' tradition, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ as of a lamb without spot and blemish. Let him not resist too the witness of the blessed Apostle John, who says: and the blood of Jesus the Son of God cleanses us from all sin. And again: this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith. And who is He that overcomes the world save He that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth, because there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three are one.  The Spirit, that is, of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism: because the three are one, and remain undivided, and none of them is separated from this connection; because the Catholic Church lives and progresses by this faith, so that in Christ Jesus neither the manhood without the true Godhead nor the Godhead without the true manhood is believed in.

But - of course - the primary reason to go down the sacramental path is because of Cyprian's statement that God's unity "coheres in celestial sacraments" (sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem).  That's seen in both the unity of the Sacrament of the Lord's table, in which we consume the one loaf that we are (1 Corinthians 10:17; cf. Cyprian, Epistle 62, section 13 - link to source), and the unity of the Sacrament of Baptism, in which "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).  Connecting the death of Christ and Baptism to church unity has Scriptural precedent -- Paul writes: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13)

You only have to read the rest of Cyprian's treatise (available here) to get the same sense of Cyprian's willingness to follow Paul's point and also to develop the same themes from Scriptural passages that are not necessarily directly about the point being considered.  For example, in the very next section of the treatise, Cyprian argues for the necessary unity of the Church from Jesus' garment remaining undivided (e.g., "By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.").

Incidentally, this broader use of the term "sacrament" suggests that Cyprian may just be speaking symbolically, not necessarily referring strictly to the two Sacraments of the New Covenant.

Cyprian in Context - the Unity of the Church 

One must also consider Cyprian's point in citing 1 John 5:8.  Was it to establish the unity of essence of the Triune persons?  The argument seems to be about unity of purpose and mission, a sense that fits well with his quotation of John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"), and does not require Cyprian to be taking John out of context there.  In context "the three are one" relates to the unity of agreement of the three bearing witness, not their unity of essence.  Moreover, in context, that unity of testimonial agreement serves the purpose of bringing life through faith, which is the main point of the church in Cyprian's view as well.

Likewise, while it is not perfectly clear that Spirit points to Father, Blood points to the Son, and Water points to the Holy Spirit, it is certainly easy to see how someone who sees the undivided garment of Christ as being a sacrament of Christian unity could see the context of 1 John 5:8 as pointing in this direction, for John writes: "And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:7-9).  It would be easy for Cyprian to see "the witness of God" and "the three are one" and to infer that Spirit, water, and blood refer to the persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Gregory Nazianzen: Trinitarian with a Non-Trinitarian Interpretation 

Gregory Nazianzen (329-390), however, takes a view that John is not speaking about the Trinity in his Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31) (source):

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

At some point, our KJV advocacy friends throw up their hands and exclaim that we are being wholly unreasonable to make a linkage between the Spirit, Water, and Blood and the persons of the Trinity - and following Leo or Gregory on the interpretation of the text, we may agree with them about the right sense.  

On the other hand, I would like them to consider their own champion on the grammatical argument (one who stands opposed to Gregory Nazianzen, whose text did not include the Comma): because that's exactly how their champion, Voulgaris, interprets the text!

I'm not suggesting that Voulgaris is infallible, or even right - surely Gregory Nazianzen's and Leo the Great's takes on the text are each better than Cyprian's.  However, considering that Voulgaris is one of the go-to sources for the grammatical argument, KJV advocates ought not lightly set aside his interpretation of the text.  Even if they disagree with it, saying it is wholly unreasonable - or something that only opponents of the Comma would suggest - seems like it is hereby demonstrated to be untenable.

In particular, Voulgaris argues that the heavenly witnesses are what the earthly witnesses symbolize. He made these claims long before the boogey-men, Westcott and Hort were on the scene.  He also made these claims in defense of the verse against being an interpolation. See the details of his claims in the letter that follows. 

My (amateur) Translation of the Text of Voulgaris 

In some places, I've slightly departed from the accents/breathings provided in the printed text (see my transcription of the printed text below). First, I provide a translation of the Latin of the document, and then I offer a translation of the Greek portions. 

This alone I could add at present, which by no one (that I know) has hitherto been observed. So far indeed is it from being the case that that passage crept in through interpolation, that not even the eighth verse, which follows, would stand, unless the seventh verse, about which the matter is, preceded.

For what in the Latin version is rightly expressed by the masculine gender of speech, that, in the original Greek text itself, the preceding verse not being presupposed, would by no means stand, except with a certain violence of diction and through a most manifest solecism. For since

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [1]

are nouns of the neuter gender, in what way will that which immediately precedes agree with them:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [2];

and that which immediately follows:

Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ. [3]

That masculine nouns, indeed, and feminine ones are construed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, regard being had to

τὰ πράγματα [4],

is certainly a peculiar genius of our language, most well known to all who know it; but that, conversely, neuter substantive nouns are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns, no one would say.

Further, here in the eighth verse we read thus:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [5]

But would not, I ask, the natural and proper expression here rather be:

Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν? [6]

Yet that is written, not this. What other account, therefore, can be brought forward for the occurrence of this

ἀκαταλληλίας [7],

except solely the expression of the preceding seventh verse, which through this immediately following eighth verse is symbolically explained and plainly repeated, an allusion having been made to that which had preceded?

The three, therefore, who bear testimony in heaven are first placed in the seventh verse:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι. [8]

Then, however, immediately brought forward, the very same witnesses, insofar as they also confirm the same testimony on earth, through these three symbols in the eighth verse:

Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [9]

As if our Evangelist were saying:

Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες [10]

(which is sufficiently indicated by the particle καὶ [11], whose force in the present passage is not simply copulative, but plainly identificative)

περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται· δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα· οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ· τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός· τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως, συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι· οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [12]

But oh! I have undertaken a pitcher, not an amphora!

At Poltava, on the 10th day of December, 1780.

And my (again amateur) translation of the Greek portions:

1. τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

the spirit and the water and the blood

2. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness.

3. Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ.

And these three, etc.

4. τὰ πράγματα

the things [i.e., the nature of those things]

5. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

6. Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [neut.] are the things [neut.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν?

and the three [neut.] are unto the one?

7. ἀκαταλληλίας

of incongruity / of lack of agreement

8. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness in heaven,

ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα·

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι.

and these three are one.

9. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

And three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

10. Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες

Those very same ones, the ones bearing witness in heaven

11. καὶ

Most commonly, this word means "and" or "also," but here Voulgaris is saying it has the sense of "namely" 

12. περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται·

concerning whom it has been said in the passage above;

δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα·

namely, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit;

οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ,

the same ones are bearing witness also on the earth,

δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν·

through which symbols they were revealed to us;

ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ·

and these symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is indicated;

τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός·

the blood, through which the Son [is indicated];

τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.

the water, through which the Holy Spirit [is indicated].

Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν

And these three, who above indeed,

ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων,

in an unveiled manner, through the thearchic names themselves,

ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται

are presented as bearing witness in heaven,

οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ

the same [are presented] on the earth,

διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως,

through the mention in the economy,

συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι·

being repeated symbolically;

οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

these three are unto the one.

Source Text (trying to stay faithful to the printed text)

Hoc ego tantummodo in præsenti addere possem, quod a nemine (quod sciam) hactenùs observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse, per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse, ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus præcederet, de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina rectè exprimitur masculino sermonis genere, id in ipso textu Græco originali, non præsupposito superiore versiculo, haud planè consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis, ac per solœcismum patentissimum. Cum etenim το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα nomina neutrius generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis, quod immediatè præcedit: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες; et quod illico sequitur: Και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις κ. τ. λ.  Masculina equidem nomina, et fœminina, nominibus adjectivis, pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi, respectu habito ad τα πραγματα, id sane linguæ nostræ peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est; sed quod etiam reciprocè neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut fœmininis indicentur, nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισι. Sed nonne quæso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset: Τρια εισι τα μαρτυρουντα εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και τα τρια εις το ἓν εισιν? At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc. Quæ igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest, nisi sola præcedentis versus septimi expressio, quæ per hunc immediate sequentem versum octavum, symbolicè explicatur et planè replicatur, allusione facta ad id, quod præcesserat? Tres, igitur, qui in cœlo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῳ ουρανῳ, ὁ Πατηρ, ὁ Λογος, και το ἁγιον Πνευμα· και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις ἓν εισι. Deinceps vero immediatè adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment, per tria hæc symbola versu octavo: Και τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισιν. Ac si diceret Evangelista noster: Οἱ αυτοι εκεινοι οἱ εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες (quod satis indicatur per particulam και, cujus vis in præsenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed planè identifica) περι ὡν εν τῳ ανωτερῳ εδαφιῳ ειρηται· δηλαδη ὁ Πατηρ ὁ Λογος και το Πνευμα· οἱ αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισι και εν τῃ γῃ, δι’ ὡν ἡμιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν· ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστι το πνευμα, δι’ ου δηλουται ὁ Πατηρ· το αἱμα, δι’ ου ὁ Υἱος· το ὑδωρ, δι’ ου το Πνευμα το ἁγιον. Και οἱ τρεις οὑτοι, οἱτινες ανωτερῳ μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι’ αυτων των θεαρχικων ονοματων, εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οἱ αὐτοι εν τῃ γῃ δια της εν τῃ οικονομιᾳ μνησεως, συμβολικως επαναλαμβανομενοι· οἱ τρεις οὑτοι εις το ἓν εισι. Sed ohe! urceum institui, non amphoram!

Poltaviæ, ad d. 10 Decemb. 1780

 

The χαριτόω (Charito'o) Argument

A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, aka BDAG (3rd edition), p. 1081, explains the meaning of χαριτόω thus: 

One of the techniques of those arguing that Mary was immaculately conceived is to load the word, χαριτόω, with special significance.  We will take a broader look at the use of the word before Luke's use (in quoting the angel) and after Luke's use.

• Sirach 18:15 (Intertestamental Period)
• Luke 1:28 (Early Apostolic Period)
• Ephesians 1:3-6 (Middle Apostolic Period)
• Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Second Century for their current form?), Joseph's Testament
• Shepherd of Hermas (Late 1st Century or 2nd Century), Section 101
• Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Paedagogus (c. 198) 3.11.83, Stromata (c. 198-203) 1.1.14
• Origen (185 - 253), Fragments on the Gospel of John
• Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas (2nd century BC) 
• Posidippus (c. 310-240 BC), Epigrams 
• Origen (185 - 253), Fragments in Luke (in catenas), Fragments 21a-21d

Sirach 18:15-18 (NETS)

Sirach 18:15 Τέκνον, ἐν ἀγαθοῖς μὴ δῷς μῶμον καὶ ἐν πάσῃ δόσει λύπην λόγων. 16 οὐχὶ καύσωνα ἀναπαύσει δρόσος; οὕτως κρείσσων λόγος ἢ δόσις. 17 οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν; καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ (man) κεχαριτωμένῳ (who has been favored). 18 μωρὸς ἀχαρίστως ὀνειδιεῖ, καὶ δόσις βασκάνου ἐκτήκει ὀφθαλμούς.

Luke's Gospel

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured (κεχαριτωμένη), the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted (ἐχαρίτωσεν) in the beloved.

Testament of the 12 Patriarchs

11.ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ ΙΩΣΗΦ ΠΕΡΙ ΣΩΦΡΟΣΥΝΗΣ

11.1. (1) Ἀντίγραφον διαθήκης Ἰωσήφ. ἐν τῷ μέλλειν αὐτὸν ἀποθνῄσκειν καλέσας τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· (2) Τέκνα μου καὶ ἀδελφοί, ἀκούσατε Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ ἠγαπημένου ὑπὸ  Ἰσραήλ· ἐνωτίσασθε, υἱοί, τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. (3) ἐγὼ εἶδον ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου τὸν φθόνον καὶ τὸν θάνατον, καὶ οὐκ ἐπλανήθην ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ κυρίου. (4) οἱ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοι ἐμίσησάν με, καὶ ὁ κύριος ἠγάπησέ με· αὐτοὶ ἤθελόν με ἀνελεῖν, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου ἐφύλαξέ με· εἰς λάκκον με ἐχάλασαν, καὶ ὁ ὕψιστος ἀνήγαγέ με· (5) ἐπράθην εἰς δοῦλον, καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐλευθέρωσέ με· εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ἐλήφθην, καὶ ἡ κραταιὰ αὐτοῦ χεὶρ ἐβοήθησέ μοι· ἐν λιμῷ συνεσχέθην, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος διέθρεψέ με· (6) μόνος ἤμην, καὶ ὁ θεὸς παρεκάλεσέ με· ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ ἤμην, καὶ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπεσκέψατό με· ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην, καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἐχαρίτωσέ με· ἐν δεσμοῖς, καὶ ἔλυσέ με· (7) ἐν διαβολαῖς, καὶ συνηγόρησέ μοι· ἐν λόγοις Αἰγυπτίων πικροῖς, καὶ ἐρρύσατό με· ἐν φθόνοις συνδούλων, καὶ ὕψωσέ με.

11. THE TESTAMENT OF JOSEPH ON TEMPERANCE

11.1. (1) A copy of the testament of Joseph. When he was about to die, he called his sons and his brothers and said to them: (2) "My children and brothers, listen to Joseph, beloved by Israel; heed, sons, your father. (3) I have seen in my life envy and death, and I was not led astray from the truth of the Lord. (4) These brothers of mine hated me, and the Lord loved me; they wanted to kill me, and the God of my fathers protected me; they threw me into a pit, and the Most High lifted me out; (5) I was sold into slavery, and the Lord freed me; I was taken into captivity, and His mighty hand helped me; I was bound by famine, and the Lord himself nourished me; (6) I was alone, and God comforted me; I was weak, and the Most High visited me; I was in prison, and the Savior favored (ἐχαρίτωσέ) me; I was in chains, and He freed me; (7) I was slandered, and He defended me; in the bitter words of Egyptians, and He rescued me; in the envy of fellow servants, and He raised me up."

Shepherd of Hermas

101. (1)   Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἑβδόμο[υ ὄρους, ἐν ᾧ βοτάναι] χλωραὶ [καὶ] ἱλαραί, καὶ ὅλον τὸ ὄρος εὐθηνοῦν, καὶ πᾶν γένος κτηνῶν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐνέμοντο τὰς βοτ[άνας ἐν τούτῳ τῷ] ὄρει, καὶ αἱ βοτάναι, ἃς ἐνέμοντο, μᾶλλον (2) εὐθαλεῖς ἐγίνοντο, οἱ πιστεύσαντες τοιοῦτοί εἰσι· πάντοτε ἁπλοῖ [καὶ ἄ]κακοι [καὶ μακάριοι ἐ]γίνοντο, μηδὲν κατ’ ἀλλήλων ἔχοντες, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνδεδυμένοι [τὸ] πνεῦμα [τὸ ἅγιον τούτων τῶν πα]ρθένων καὶ πάντοτε σπλάγχνον ἔχοντες ἐπὶ πάντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν κόπων αὐτῶν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐχορήγησαν ἀνονειδίστως καὶ ἀδιστάκτως. [ὁ οὖν] κύριος ἰδὼν τὴν ἁπλότητα αὐτῶν καὶ πᾶσαν νηπιότητα ἐπλήθυνεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς κόποις τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ (4) ἐχαρίτωσεν αὐτοὺς ἐν πάσῃ πράξει αὐτῶν. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν τοῖς τοιούτοις οὖσιν ἐγὼ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς μετανοίας· διαμείνατε τοιοῦτοι, καὶ οὐκ ἐξαλειφθήσεται [τὸ σ]πέρμα ὑμῶν ἕως αἰῶνος· ἐδοκίμασε γὰρ ὑμᾶς ὁ κύριος καὶ ἐνέγραψεν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸν ἡμέτερον, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σπέρμα ὑμῶν κατοικήσει μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ ἐλάβετε. 

101. (1) From the seventh mountain, on which there are green and cheerful herbs, and the entire mountain is lush, and all kinds of animals and the birds of the sky fed on the herbs on this mountain, and the herbs they fed on (2) became even more luxuriant. Those who believed are such; always simple, innocent, and blessed they became, having nothing against one another, but always rejoicing in the servants of God and clothed in the Holy Spirit of these virgins and always having compassion for every person, and from their labors, they provided for every person without reproach and hesitation. (3) Therefore, the Lord, seeing their simplicity and all their innocence, multiplied them in the labors of their hands (4) and graced them in all their deeds. And I, the angel of repentance, say to you who are such: remain as such, and your seed will not be wiped out forever; for the Lord has tested you and has written you in our number, and your entire seed will dwell with the son of God; for from His spirit you have received.

Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue (the Tutor)

3.11.83

(1) παιδαγωγούμενον. «Οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ γάρ σου ὀρθὰ βλεπέτωσαν, τὰ δὲ βλέφαρα νευέτω δίκαια·» μὴ γὰρ οὐκ ἐξὸν καὶ ἰδόντα καρτερεῖν; Ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν φυλακτέον. Δυνατὸν γὰρ ἰδόντα ὀλισθεῖν, ἀμήχανον δὲ μὴ ἰδόντα (2) ἐπιθυμεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ τὸ καθαρεύειν μόνον ἀπόχρη τοῖς σώφροσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ ψόγου σπουδαστέον πᾶσαν ἀποκλείσαντας ὑπονοίας αἰτίαν πρὸς συγκεφαλαίωσιν ἁγνείας, ὡς μὴ μόνον εἶναι ἡμᾶς πιστούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ (3) ἀξιοπίστους φανῆναι. Καὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο παραφυλακτέον, ὥς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, «μή τις ἡμᾶς μωμήσηται· προνοούμενοι γὰρ καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων.» «Ἀπόστρεψον δὲ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἀπὸ γυναικὸς κεχαριτωμένης, καὶ μὴ καταμάνθανε (4) κάλλος ἀλλότριον», φησὶν ἡ γραφή. Κἂν πύθῃ τὴν αἰτίαν, προσεπεξηγήσεταί σοι· «ἐν γὰρ κάλλει γυναικὸς πολλοὶ ἀπεπλανήθησαν, καὶ ἐκ τούτου φιλία ὡς πῦρ ἀνακαίεται,» εἰς πῦρ ἄγουσα ἀκατάπαυστον διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἡ ἐκ πυρὸς ὁρμωμένη φιλία, ἣν ἔρωτα κεκλήκασιν.

(1) Being guided. "For your eyes should look straight ahead, and your eyelids should direct justly;" is it not possible, even upon seeing, to endure? But it is to avoid falling into it that one must be careful. For, seeing, one might slip, but desiring without seeing is impossible. (2) For it is not only cleanliness that is required of the temperate, but also to be beyond reproach, having excluded every cause for suspicion towards the summing up of purity, so that we may not only be faithful, but also appear trustworthy. And indeed, this too must be guarded against, as the apostle says, "that no one may fault us; providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men." "Turn your eyes away from a graceful woman, and do not seek to know another's beauty," says the scripture. And if you inquire the reason, it will be explained to you: "for by the beauty of a woman many have been led astray, and by this, love burns like fire," leading to an unceasing fire because of sin, this passion ignited by fire, which they have called love.

But, above all, it seems right that we turn away from the sight of women. For it is sin not only to touch, but to look; and he who is rightly trained must especially avoid them. Let your eyes look straight, and your eyelids wink right. Proverbs 4:25 For while it is possible for one who looks to remain steadfast; yet care must be taken against falling. For it is possible for one who looks to slip; but it is impossible for one, who looks not, to lust. For it is not enough for the chaste to be pure; but they must give all diligence, to be beyond the range of censure, shutting out all ground of suspicion, in order to the consummation of chastity; so that we may not only be faithful, but appear worthy of trust. For this is also consequently to be guarded against, as the apostle says, that no man should blame us; providing things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. 2 Corinthians 8:20-21 But turn away your eyes from a graceful woman, and contemplate not another's beauty, says the Scripture. Sirach 9:8 And if you require the reason, it will further tell you, For by the beauty of woman many have gone astray, and at it affection blazes up like fire; Sirach 9:8 the affection which arises from the fire which we call love, leading to the fire which will never cease in consequence of sin.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata

1.1.14.

(1)   Ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶνδέ μοι τῶν ὑπομνημάτων γραφὴ ἀσθενὴς μὲν εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι παραβαλλομένη πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκεῖνο τὸ κεχαριτωμένον, οὗ κατηξιώθημεν ὑπακοῦσαι, εἰκὼν δ’ ἂν εἴη ἀναμιμνῄσκουσα τοῦ ἀρχετύπου τὸν θύρσῳ πεπληγότα· «σοφῷ γάρ», φησί, «λάλει, καὶ (2) σοφώτερος ἔσται,» καὶ «τῷ ἔχοντι δὲ προστεθήσεται». ἐπαγγέλλεται δὲ οὐχ ὥστε ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰ ἀπόρρητα ἱκανῶς, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ, μόνον δὲ τὸ ὑπομνῆσαι, εἴτε ὁπότε ἐκλαθοίμεθα εἴτε ὅπως μηδ’ ἐκλανθανώμεθα. πολλὰ δὲ εὖ οἶδα παρερρύηκεν ἡμᾶς χρόνου μήκει ἀγράφως διαπεσόντα. ὅθεν τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῆς μνήμης τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπικουφίζων, κεφαλαίων συστηματικὴν ἔκθεσιν μνήμης ὑπόμνημα σωτήριον πορίζων ἐμαυτῷ, ἀναγκαίως κέχρημαι τῇδε τῇ ὑποτυπώσει. (3) ἔστι μὲν οὖν τινα μηδὲ ἀπομνημονευθέντα ἡμῖν (πολλὴ γὰρ ἡ παρὰ τοῖς μακαρίοις δύναμις ἦν ἀνδράσιν), ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἃ ἀνυποσημείωτα μεμενηκότα τῷ χρόνῳ [ἃ] νῦν ἀπέδρα, τὰ δὲ ὅσα ἐσβέννυτο ἐν αὐτῇ μαραινόμενα τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἐπεὶ μὴ ῥᾴδιος ἡ τοιάδε διακονία τοῖς μὴ δεδοκιμασμένοις. ταῦτα δὲ ἀναζωπυρῶν ὑπομνήμασι τὰ μὲν ἑκὼν παραπέμπομαι ἐκλέγων ἐπιστημόνως, φοβούμενος γράφειν ἃ καὶ λέγειν ἐφυλαξάμην, οὔ τί που φθονῶν (οὐ γὰρ θέμις), δεδιὼς δὲ ἄρα περὶ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων, μή πῃ ἑτέρως σφαλεῖεν καὶ παιδὶ μάχαιραν, ᾗ (4) φασιν οἱ παροιμιαζόμενοι, ὀρέγοντες εὑρεθῶμεν. «οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τὰ γραφέντα μὴ <οὐκ> ἐκπεσεῖν» καίτοι ἀνέκδοτα ὑπό γ’ ἐμοῦ μεμενηκότα, κυλιόμενα δὲ ἀεὶ μόνῃ μιᾷ χρώμενα τῇ ἐγγράφῳ φωνῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐπανερόμενον οὐδὲν πλέον παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἀποκρίνεται δεῖται γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης βοηθοῦ ἤτοι τοῦ συγγραψαμένου ἢ καὶ ἄλλου   

(1) The writing of these memoirs of mine is admittedly weak when compared to that graceful spirit which we were deemed worthy to obey, but it might serve as a reminder of the archetype struck by the thyrsus: "For," it says, "speak to the wise, and he will become wiser," and "to him who has, more will be given." It promises not so much to interpret the mysteries adequately—much less is required for that—but merely to remind, whether we might forget or lest we be forgotten. I am well aware that many things have slipped through us, lost to the passage of time unwritten. Hence, to lighten the weakness of my memory, I provide for myself a systematic summary of memory, a salvific memorandum, having necessarily resorted to this depiction.  (3) Indeed, there are things not remembered by us (for great was the power among the blessed men), and there are also things that remained unmarked by time, now vanished, and those that were extinguished within it, fading in the mind, since such service is not easy for the untested. Reviving these memories, I willingly send forth some, choosing them knowledgeably, fearing to write what I have been careful even to speak, not out of envy (for it is not right), but rather fearing about those encountering them, lest somehow they stumble and, as the proverbial saying goes, we find ourselves offering a sword to a child. "For it is not possible that the written words will not fall out," although remaining unpublished by me, always rolling, using only the written voice to the reader, nothing more than what is written is answered—it necessarily requires the help of either the author or another.

Alternative Translation (link)

The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck with the thyrsus. For "speak," it is said, "to a wise man, and he will grow wiser; and to him that hath, and there shall be added to him." And we profess not to explain secret things sufficiently -- far from it -- but only to recall them to memory, whether we have forgot aught, or whether for the purpose of not forgetting. Many things, I well know, have escaped us, through length of time, that have dropped away unwritten. Whence, to aid the weakness of my memory, and provide for myself a salutary help to my recollection in a systematic arrangement of chapters, I necessarily make use of this form. There are then some things of which we have no recollection; for the power that was in the blessed men was great. There are also some things which remained unnoted long, which have now escaped; and others which are effaced, having faded away in the mind itself, since such a task is not easy to those not experienced; these I revive in my commentaries. Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection, afraid to write what I guarded against speaking: not grudging -- for that were wrong -- but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in a wrong sense; and, as the proverb says, we should be found "reaching a sword to a child." For it is impossible that what has been written should not escape, although remaining unpublished by me. But being always revolved, using the one only voice, that of writing, they answer nothing to him that makes inquiries beyond what is written; for they require of necessity the aid of some one, either of him who wrote, or of some one else who has walked in his foots

Origen, Fragments on the Gospel of John

(11)   Τῶν ἀρετῶν τὸ μὲν οἴκοθεν ἔχομεν καὶ παρ’ ἑαυτῶν, ὃ προαιρετικῶς κτώμεθα, τὸ δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ, πιστεύσαντες γοῦν τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐνεδέχετο ἐκ τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι. λείπεται ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ αἰτεῖν, καθὼς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ φασὶν αὐτῷ· «Πρόσθες ἡμῖν πίστιν». ἡ γὰρ λέξις ἡ «Πρόσθες» σημαίνει ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτοὺς θεοδώρητον πίστιν πρὸς ᾗ εἶχον προαιρετικῶς. ἀμέλει καὶ ὁ Παῦλος γράφων φησί· «Κατ’ ἀναλογίαν πί«στεως» τῆς ἐνούσης ἐκ τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν τὰς δωρεὰς τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοσθαι· «Ἑτέρῳ δίδοται πίστις, φησίν, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι». εἰ δὲ πίστις δίδοταί τινι κατὰ ἀναλογίαν ἧς ἔχει πίστεως, φανερὸν ὅτι τῇ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν κατορθωθείσῃ ἡ θεόπεμπτος παραγίνεται πίστις. ἅπερ δὲ περὶ πίστεως εἴρηται, λεκτέον καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀρετῶν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ ἀρετὴ χάρις ἐστὶ κεχαριτωμένον ποιοῦσα τὸν ἔχοντα, ὅταν ἡμῖν προαιρετικῶς κατορθωθῇ αὐτή, τηνικαῦτα τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ παραγίνεται, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ δίδοσθαι παρὰ θεοῦ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.

(11) Of the virtues, we have some from within ourselves and by our own acquisition, which we obtain by choice, and some from God, having believed in the Savior and His Father as it was possible to become through what depends on us. It remains for us also to ask from God, just as the disciples of Jesus say to Him: "Increase our faith." For the phrase "Increase" signifies them demanding a God-given faith in addition to what they had chosen voluntarily. Paul also writes saying: "According to the measure of faith" that is present by what depends on us, the gifts of the Spirit are given: "To another is given faith," he says, "by the same Spirit." If faith is given to someone according to the measure of faith they have, it is evident that the divinely sent faith arrives in addition to the faith that was achieved by our efforts. And what has been said about faith must also be said about the other virtues. Therefore, since virtue is a grace that makes its possessor favored, when it is rightly achieved by us through choice, then the divine aspect arrives, and this is the grace given by God in place of grace.

Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas (2nd century BC) (R.H. Charles, ed.):

224 Pleased with these words, the king asked the next How he could be free from envy? And he after a brief pause replied, 'If you consider first of all that it is God who bestows on all kings glory and great wealth and no one is king by his own power. All men wish to share this glory but cannot, since it is the gift of God.'

225 The king praised the man in a long speech and then asked another How he could despise his enemies? And he replied, 'If you show kindness to all men and win their friendship, you need fear no one. To be popular with all men is the best of good gifts to receive from God.'

226 Having praised this answer the king ordered the next man to reply to the question, How he could maintain his great renown? and he replied that 'If you are generous and large-hearted in bestowing kindness and acts of grace upon others, you will never lose your renown, but if you wish the aforesaid graces to continue yours, you must call upon God continually.'

Original Greek: 

(224) Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε· Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; Διαλιπὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔφη· Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι μερίζει δόξαν τε καὶ πλούτου μέγεθος τοῖς βασιλεῦσι, καὶ οὐδεὶς παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ βασιλεύς ἐστι· πάντες γὰρ θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ἀλλ’ οὐ δύνανται· θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. 

(225) Ἐπαινέσας δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον· Πῶς ἂν καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν; Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· Ἠσκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργασάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχοις· τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δῶρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ’ ἔστι κράτιστον. 

(226) Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών· Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι; Εἶπε δέ· Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταδοτικὸς ὢν καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ’ ἂν ἀπολίποι δόξης· ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρημένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διὰ παντός. 

(alternative Greek)

224 Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; διαλιπὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔφη Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι μερίζει δόξαν τε καὶ πλούτου μέγεθος τοῖς βασιλεῦσι, καὶ οὐδεὶς περὶ ἑαυτόν ἐστι βασιλεύς· πάντες γὰρ θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δύνανται· θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. 225 Ἐπαινέσας δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ἠσκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργασάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχοις· τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δῶρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι κράτιστον. 226 Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι; εἶπε δὲ Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταδοτικὸς ὢν καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ᾽ ἂν ἀπολίποι δόξης· ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρημένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διὰ παντός.

Alternative Translation:

(224) But being pleased with what was said, he said to the next person: "How could one be outside of envy?" And after pausing, that one said: "First, if you realize that God distributes to all kings both glory and the magnitude of wealth, and no one is a king by himself; for all wish to share in this glory, but they cannot; for it is a gift from God."

(225) And having praised the man for more reasons, he asked another: "How could one despise one's enemies?" And he said: "Having practiced goodwill towards all men and having worked to make friendships, you would have no cause of complaint from anyone; but to have been favored by all men and to have received a beautiful gift from God is the greatest."

(226) And agreeing with these, he ordered the next to reply, saying to him: "How could one remain honored?" He said: "By being eager and generous in sharing your graces with others, and being magnanimous, you would never lose honor; but to ensure that what has been said to you remains, always invoke God."

"Critical" Translation (link):

224 Now the king, pleased with this reply, spoke to the next guest, “How could a man be free from envy?” Now after a pause, he declared, “First of all, by realizing that God assigns both glory and greatness of wealth to the kings, each and every one, and no one is a king by his own power. For all men wish to share this glory, but instead they cannot—for it is a gift of God.”

225 Now the king, after giving a long commendation to this guest, asked another, “How can a man despise his enemies?” Now he spoke, “By practicing goodwill to all humans and by forming friendships, you would owe no obligation to anyone. But to have gratitude with all humans, and to receive a handsome gift from God—this is one of the strongest gifts.”

226 Now the king, after approving these words, directed the next guest to answer, speaking to him, “How can a man maintain the glory he received?” Now he spoke, “If by his earnestness and his favors he showed munificence and great-generosity toward others, he would never lack glory. But if you wish for these previously-mentioned qualities to abide with you, you must call on God continually.”

Thackery's Translation (link) 

Pleased with his words, the king asked his neighbour how he might be free from envy. And he, after a pause, said, "Chiefly by considering how it is God who apportions to all kings their glory and great wealth, and that no one by his own power [FN1 Text slightly emended.] is king; for all men desire to partake of this glory, but they cannot, since it is a gift of God."

225 He commended the speaker at some length, and asked the next one how he should despise his foes. And he replied, "If thou hast studiously practised goodwill towards all men and formed friendships, thou needest fear no man. But to be in high favour with all men is the very best of good gifts to receive from God." [FN1 Text slightly emended.]

226 He commended his words, and bade the next one reply to the question, how he might retain his renown. And he said, " If with loving kindness and gracious acts thou art liberal and bountiful to others, thou wilt never have lack of renown ; but that the aforesaid graces may continue thine, thou must constEftitly call upon God."

*** 

Posidippus (c. 310-240 BC), Epigrams 

Translation:

Section  48

This is sufficient for the wise Bithynid to lie nearby

to the servant of good masters, O Themis, ruler;

for they did not begrudge freedom, I gladly declare,

who have a stele better than freedom.

Greek (48) 

τοῦθ’ ἱκανὸν συνετῆι Βιθυνίδι τοὐγγύθι κεῖσ[θαι]

  τῆι δούλη[ι χ]ρηστῶν, ὦ Θέμι, δεσποτέων·

[οὐ γὰρ] ἐλευθερίηι προσεμόχθεον, εὖ χαριτοῦμ[αι,]

[   ἥτις ἔ]χ̣ω̣ στήλην κρέσσον’ ἐλευθερίης. 

Alternative Translations (from here)

Translated by M. Lefkowitz, From Diotima: Women & Gender in the Ancient World.

Goddess Themis, this tomb is a sufficient resting-place

    for wise Bithynis,a slave of worthy masters,

for I did not strive for freedom, but I was well rewarded,

    and I have this memorial that is more enduring than liberty.

Translated by E. Kosmetatou

This is sufficient grave for wise Bithynis, a slave,

    O Themis, of good masters.

For I did not struggle for freedom but was well rewarded:

    I have this stele which is far superior to liberty.

Origen, Fragments of his lost Commentary on Luke, Fragments 21a-21d

(21a) Ἐπειδὴ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς τῇ Εὔᾳ· ‹ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ τέκνα›, διὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὁ ἄγγελος· ‹Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη›· αὕτη γὰρ ἡ χαρὰ λύει ἐκείνην τὴν λύπην·

(21b) εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὴν τῆς Εὔας κατάραν διέβη ἡ ἀρὰ ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ τῶν θηλειῶν γένος, οὐκοῦν στοχαστέον, ὅτι διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὴν Μαρίαν εὐλογίας πλατύνεται ἡ χαρὰ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν παρθένον·

(21c) ‹ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ›· ἦν γὰρ μετ’ αὐτῆς ὁ μικρὸν ὕστερον ἐξ αὐτῆς.

(21d) ‹ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ›· ἰστέον ὅτι ἅμα τῷ εὐαγγελίσασθαι εὐθὺς συνέλαβεν ἡ παρθένος παραδόξως.

(21a) Since God said to Eve, "In pain you shall bear children," for this reason the angel says, "Rejoice, highly favored one"; for this joy dissolves that pain.

(21b) If indeed through the curse of Eve, the curse passed onto all the female gender, it must then be considered that through the blessing towards Mary, joy is expanded upon every virgin soul.

(21c) "The Lord is with you"; for He was with her, who a little later came from her.

(21d) "The Lord is with you"; it must be known that at the moment of being told the good news, the virgin miraculously conceived immediately.

Compare Homily X on Luke by Origen, as translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J. for the Catholic University of America Press series, The Fathers of the Church: a New Translation (vol. 94).

(p. 26)

I mention this because the translator asserted that he failed to translate the early Lucan fragments because the homilies already sufficiently discussed things ("Origen's thought on Luke 1 to 3 is covered well enough in the homilies." p. xxxix), which it seems plain that they did not. As Lienhard notes, the authenticity and accuracy of the fragments cannot be guaranteed unless we some day find the intact commentary.

What can we conclude from the above?  Chiefly, we can conclude that the term is not some special word that means, or implies, that a person is immaculately conceived, or that means or implies that a person has original justice, or the like.

Early Commentaries on Revelation (with a Focus on Revelation 1:4 and 16:5)

Alcuin of York (d. A.D. 804) Commentary on Revelation (the available text ends at Rev. 12:12)(source)

• At Revelation 1:4-5 Alcuin's Commentary has (source)

VERSES 4-5

John to the seven churches which are in Asia. By the number seven is represented the universal Church, because of the seven gifts of him who has filled the earth. Hence Elisha made the child upon whom he lay gape seven times,1 because the people that died from unfaithfulness is brought back to life by the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. So the number seven is perfect, being formed by the number three and the number four; for the number three is considered perfect in the divine Scriptures because of the mystery of the Trinity, because of the three virtues: faith, hope, and love, or because of the three classes of the faithful: preachers, celibates, and married people. As for the number four, it is perfect because of the four parts of the world, because of the four cardinal virtues (namely prudence, temperance, courage, and justice) or because of the four books of the Gospels. Therefore, because knowledge of the Trinity encompasses the four cardinal points of the sky, because hope, faith, and love complete the sum of the four cardinal virtues, or because the three classes of believers submit to the commandments of the four Gospels, it is right for the universal Church to be symbolized by this number seven. One should nonetheless know that it was especially to the seven churches of the Ephesians that he sent these mysteries he wrote in exile. So species is not excluded, but in the species a genus is shown, namely the universal Church. It is appropriate to say that the universal Church is in Asia, for Asia translates to “pride.” The word “pride” is not always used to refer to a vice, but sometimes to the summit of virtue, as in I will make thee to be the pride of worlds,2 that is “I will make you despise all pleasures and low honors;” and elsewhere, He hath lifted thee up above the height of the earth.3 So it is in this height of pride that the Church takes its place. Alternatively, if “pride” is being used to refer to a vice, we should not take it to mean that the Church will remain proud, but that it was raised in the arrogance of pride some time ago, but is predestined to become humble through a heavenly gift, according to this: Hast thou entered into the storehouses of the snow, or has thou beheld the treasures of the hail: Which I have prepared for the time of the enemy, against the day of battle and war?4

Grace be unto you and peace from him that is, and that was, and that is to come, and from the seven spirits which are in the sight of his throne, and from Jesus Christ. Grace means forgiveness granted freely,5 and it is with it shining on us when we were servants of sin that we were adopted as children of justice. It is this grace that Peter and Paul first mentioned in their salutations when they were about to write to the faithful, in order to show, before exhorting the peoples of grace, that the whole sum of the salutation was in this grace. It is proper for grace to

(1) 2 Kings 4:32 et seq.

(2) Is. 60:15.

(3) Cf. Is. 58:14. Note that one of the Latin words for « pride » (the one used in the Latin text in «« Asia » translates to « pride ». The word « pride »... »), elatio, also means « elevation » and derives from the verb used in the Latin in « he hath lifted thee up». The word used for « pride » in the Isaiah quote is a different one.

(4) Job 38:22-23.

(5) « Freely » = gratis, which is nothing else but the ablative plural of gratia, which means, among other things, « gratitude », « grace », and, in the plural, « thanks ». Hence gratis means literally « for thanks (and nothing more) ».

be put before peace, because no one could have come to God's peace reconciled if the grace of mercy had not preceded them. As for the fact that he says from him that is, and that was, and that is to come, it should be taken as referring specifically to the only-begotten Son of God. He is in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and has never been affected by mutability, according to this saying of Paul's: There was not in him « it is » and « it is not », but « it is » was in him,1 because, before he was born of the Virgin in time, he spent all times with the Father. Whence the same John says, in the beginning was the Word.2 It is also the same who is to come to judge the living and the dead in the humanity he assumed, as it is written: He shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven.3 So, since it is certain that the Church has received this grace from the Son and the Holy Spirit as well as from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit, why is the person of the Father not mentioned in this passage? Because it is habitual in the sacred Scriptures, where one or two of the persons of the Trinity are mentioned, for the whole Trinity to be understood at the same time. As for the words from the seven spirits, he says this because of the sevenfold operation of one spirit; and this spirit is said to be alone in the sight of the throne, that is of the Church, that is in the memory of the saints, because it is to this same spirit in particular that the remission of sins is ascribed, according to this: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.4 Or if not, then surely the whole Trinity is understood in the Spirit. In saying from Jesus Christ, he mentions the person of the Son again, because the one referred to existed before the ages, and was made man in the end of the ages.

Who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. It is obviously a way of speaking when he calls Christ specifically the faithful witness, while there are three who give testimony: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one God.5 One may also call the Son specifically, in the role of man he assumed, a faithful witness, in that he went as far as the death of the flesh for the sake of the testimony of the truth. For while the whole Church, in the holy preachers, gives testimony concerning Christ, the ones called martyrs, that is “witnesses,” 6 are principally those who suffered physical death for Christ. He is called first begotten because no one before him rose never to die. A different interpretation would be that all the saints are dead to the world, as it is said in for you are dead,7 but he is so in a special way, because there has been no sin in him. By the kings, he means either all the saints, who know how to govern themselves well, or at any rate the preachers, who become partners with the good but raise themselves above the wicked, like Peter above Ananias,8

(1) Variant of 2 Cor. 1:19. There would actually be no difference in Latin between « it is » and « he is ».

(2) John 1:1.

(3) Acts 1:11.

(4) John 20:22-23.

(5) Cf. 1 John 5:7.

(6) The word « martyr » comes from Greek, where it means « witness ».

(7) Col. 3:3.

(8) Acts 5:1 et seq.

and Paul who brandishes his scepter, saying, What will you? shall I come to you with a rod?1 Because he hath loved us. How he has loved us, the pains he suffered clearly show. He did not however love us as we were, that is wicked ones, but as he made us by love itself. Whence it is added right afterwards, and washed us from our sins in his own blood; but in what way he has washed us in his own blood, the apostle indicated, saying, All we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death.2

 Alcuin of York (d. A.D. 804) Questions and Answers on Revelation (source)

• At Revelation 1:4-5 Alcuin's Q/A has (source):

(1:4-5) QUESTION: What does it mean that John salutes only seven churches whereas the Master of truth says, Go ye into the whole world, and preach to every creature?6 ANSWER: Through these seven churches, he writes to the whole Church. Indeed totality is often represented by the number seven, because all this worldly time flies by in cycles of seven days. THERE FOLLOWS: Grace be unto you and peace from him that is, and that was, and that is to come, and from the seven spirits. ANSWER: He wishes the pious people grace and peace from God the eternal Father, the sevenfold Spirit, and Jesus Christ, who gave testimony to the Father in the human form he assumed. He names the Son in the third place as he is going to say more about him. He also names him last because he is the first and the last, and he has already named him together with the Father when he said that is to come. The first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.

(1) Cf. 1.1 in the previous commentary, and note (3) on p.5.

(2) Luke 11:27-28.

(3) Rev. 22:17.

(4) There may be a mistranscription in the Latin and « love » may have been originally intended, as the Latin words look similar.

(5) Acts 1:1.

(6) Mark 16:15.

=============================

Glossa Ordinaria (medieval - hard to date) (on Revelation) (only chapter 1 is transcribed in this online source):

• At Revelation 1:4, the GO has (source)(p. 7):

1:4 John to the seven churches which are in (a)Asia. (b)Grace to you and (c)peace from (d)him (e)that is, and (f)that was, and (g)that shall come, and from (h)the seven spirits which are (i)in the sight of his throne,

a.  I.e. pride.*

b.  I.e. remission of sins.

c.  I.e. rest from vices.

d.  I.e. Christ.

e.  Sc. incorruptible according to his divinity.

f.  Sc. once born eternally.

g.  Such, even if he does not appear such now.*

h.  I.e. the sevenfold Spirit, which is one in nature, but manifold in the distribution of graces.

i.  Angels  and  holy  men  are  thrones,  in  whom  he  now  sits  and judges,  not  to  judge  in  the  future;  in  whom  God  sits, illuminating them.

To the seven churches. God gave it to Christ, Christ to John, and John to the churches; principally to those to which he had been appointed as a master, and to the others through a simile.

Or by seven all the churches are meant, because seven signifies universality, or because they are illumined by a sevenfold spirit.

Ephesus was the metropolitan city or capital of all Asia, where John was exercising superintendence.

In Asia. Asia means pride. So the Church is now in the pride of virtues, and1 was formerly in the pride of vices.

This Asia is not the big one (i.e. the one that is said to be the third part of the world), but some province in which there were seven cities, and seven churches with seven bishops.2

Asia Minor is a part of greater Asia; it contains seven cities of which Ephesus is the metropolis. Paul preached the Gospel in this Asia Minor (Acts 16), but afterwards, with the division of the apostles, John was put in charge of it.3

Grace and peace. He prepares the listeners to be favorable and attentive, as he did also in the prologue.

And from the seven spirits. "Spirit" denotes the same as "love"; whence the remission of sins and other gifts, which are gifts of the whole Trinity, are attributed to the Spirit, so that we may understand that the Trinity works out of love alone.

He passes over in silence the person of the Father, because no one had misunderstood what concerns God the Creator; he mentions the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, concerning whom the heresies of Marcion and Terebinthus arise in the churches.4

[[1.4 (a) *Only in Latin 588.] (e), (f), (g) *Instead of (e), Codex 24 has "Eternally, even though he was born in his time"; it does not have (f), but does have (g); it also has an additional marginal gloss saying "Incorruptible since long ago, now also immutable according to his humanity". Rusch has one marginal glass combining different elements of all this with some variations: "Eternally, even though he was born in his time; now immutable through his humanity, and once corruptible; he shall come such, even if he does not appear such now".] 1 Codex 24 and Rusch: "or".] 2 Only in Rusch.] 3 Only in Rusch.] 4 Instead of "the heresies of Marcion and Terebinthus", Codex 24 and Rusch have "all heresies".]] 

• At Revelation 1:4, the GO has (pp. 31-32):

4:8 (a)And the four beasts, every one of them has six wings (b)round about: and (c)within they are full of eyes; and (d)they had no rest (e)day and night, saying, (f)Holy, Holy, Holy, (g)Lord God Omnipotent, (h)which was, and (i)which is, and (j)which is to come.

a. As if he were saying: And in order to proclaim these things about Christ, they had been well instructed.

b. I.e. they instruct simpler people by the literal meaning.

c. And the more perfect ones by allegory.*

d. I.e. they did not stop.

e. I.e. in prosperity and in adversity, or every day*

f. Thrice because there is Trinity in persons.

g. Once because there is unity in majesty.

h. Without beginning.

i. Immutable.

j. The Son will appear corporally, because* the whole deity will manifest itself to the faithful.

The first wing is the natural law, the second one the law of Moses, the third one the prophecies1, the fourth one the Gospel, the fifth one the teachings of the apostles, and the sixth one those of all these, like Augustine and others2, through whom3 the Church strives for what is high, and from whom preachers receive the support for all preaching4. Or the six wings are the knowledge of the works of God made in six days, by whose knowledge those who do good works in them are lifted up on high.

And round about and within. Or because they keep themselves clean, and instruct others by their examples. Or because they illuminate them in the middle and in the far ends of the earth.

They are full of eyes within, i.e. they are clean in their conscience, and round about, i.e. they are irreprehensible in the sight of men. 

[[4:8 (b) and (c) * The Vulgates of all three books have << and round about and within they are full of eyes >>, instead of putting << round about >> with << has six wings >> .] (e) *Codex 24 and Rusch have << continuously >> instead of << every day >>, the former perhaps making more sense.] (j) *The word << because >> only in Latin 588.] 1 Codex 24 and Rusch : << the prophets >>.] 2 Codex 24 has only << like Augustine >> ; Rusch has << like Augustine, Gregory and Ambrose >>.] 3 Codex 24 and Rusch : << through which >>.  The following << whom >> could in theory also be << which >>, the Latin form being the same in this case.] 4 Codex 24 and Rusch : << the foundation of all preaching >>.

• At Revelation 11:17, the GO has (p. 64):

11:17 saying: (a)We thank you Lord God Omnipotent, (b)which are, and (c)which were, and which shall come: (d)because you have received* your** (e)great power, (f)and have reigned.

a. Because you have saved us and damned our enemies.

b. Immutable.

c. Who were once despised.

d. By rising again, giving the Spirit to your people, and assembling the Church.

e. For your kingdom.*

f. I.e. you have defended your people from the Devil, destroying the Devil's power*

11:17 In the verse: *Latin 588's Vulgate has "which are, and which were, and which have received"; Codex 24 "which are, and which were, and which shall come, which have received". **Latin 588 does not have "your".] (c) *Codex 24 and Rusch: "Once when you were despised".] (e) *In Codex 24 and Rusch, this, with the addition of "and" at the beginning of the next verse, "And the Gentiles were angry".] (f) *"Destroying the Devil's power" only in Latin 588. 

• At Revelation 16:5, the GO has (p. 90):

16:5 And I heard (a)the (b)angel (c)of the waters, (d)saying: You are (e)just O (f)Lord, (g)(h)which are, and (i)which were, (j)the Holy One, (k)because you have* judged these things:

a. I.e. the leading preachers, sc. the apostles.*

b. Guardian.*

c. Of the Scriptures or of the peoples.*

d. I.e. praising in his inward emotion.*

e. Sc. by keeping equity.*

f. Sc. by presiding over all.*

g. He does not say "which shall come" because he understands that it will happen soon.

h. Sc. immutably.*

i. Sc. essentially.*

j. Sc. formally and effectively.*

k. Who have damned those wicked by our agency.

I heard, i.e. I understood, the very preachers1 who will do this retribution attributing it not to themselves, but to the Lord, and affirming that it is done justly.

In the sixth seal and in the sixth angel he often spoke of the same wicked, but in this respect, that he showed what and how great tribulations they inflicted on saints, and even if there was some word there concerning the damnation of the wicked, it was put incidentally in order to encourage the suffering ones; here, on the other hand, he speaks only about the plagues which they themselves inflict on the wicked2.3

16:5 In the verse: Latin 588 and Rusch have "who have" instead of "because you have". Only one letter of a word differs between the two in Latin.] (a) *Only in Latin 588.] (b) *Not in Latin 588.] (c) *Only in Rusch.] (d) *Only in Rusch.] (e) *Only in Rusch.] (f) *Only in Rusch.] (h) *Only in Rusch.] (i) *Only in Rusch.] (j) *Only in Rusch.] 1 Codex 24: "all the preachers".] 2 Codex 24 and Rusch: "which the saints themselves will inflict on the wicked".] 3 in Codex 24 and Rusch, this gloss is placed earlier, somewhere near verse 1 or 2.

=============================

Bede on Revelation (online)

• At Revelation 1:4, Bede writes (source): 

4

seven. By these seven churches he writes to every church, for universality is wont to be denoted by the number seven, in that all the time of this age is evolved from seven days.

Grace. Grace he desires for us, and peace from God, the eternal Father, and from the sevenfold Spirit, and from Jesus Christ, Who gave testimony to the Father in His Incarnation. He names the Son in the third place, as he was to speak further of Him. He names Him also the last in order, as He is the first and the last; for He had already named Him in the Father by saying, "Who was to come."

=============================

Victorinus on Revelation (the Sixteenth chapter is not addressed)(source)

• At Revelation 1:4, Victorinus writes (source):

4. Grace unto you, and peace, from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come. He is, because He endures continually; He was, because with the Father He made all things, and has at this time taken a beginning from the Virgin; He is to come, because assuredly He will come to judgment.

And from the seven spirits which are before His throne. We read of a sevenfold spirit in Isaiah, — namely, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, of knowledge and of piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord.

Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, Ancient Christian Texts Series, "Latin Commentaries on Revelation," (p. 1)

• At Revelation 1:

1. At the beginning of the book he promises blessedness to the one who reads and to the one who hears and to the one who lee[s what is written, so that by attending to the reading one might learn good works and safeguard that which it commands. "Grace to you and peace from God who is and who was and who is to come."[FN1: Victorinus is the first Western witness for the reading "from God." He attributes the three predicates to Jesus, thereby making a strong claim to the divinity of Jesus. Tertullian had already attributed the three phrases to Christ (Against Praxeas 17:4 [ANF 3.613])] He was because he made all things with the Father and did not acquire a beginning from the Virgin. To be sure, he is going to come for judgment.[FN2: The recension of Jerome reads at the beginning "he is because he continually exists" (permanet).] "From the sevenfold Spirit." We read in Isaiah, "a Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and strength, of knowledge and piety, a Spirit of the fear of the Lord."[FN3: Is 11:2-3 "Fear of the Lord," as in MS A (so read by Dulaey, SC 423:46). Hausleiter reads "fear of God," following MSS from the Jerome recension (CSEL 49:18). ] These seven gifts are of one Spirit, that is, they are gifts of the Holy Spirit. 

=============================

Ambrosiaster Questions and Answers on Revelation (Questions 65 and 72 pertain to Revelation 10:8)

=============================

Origen - Commentary on John, Book I, Chapter XL (link)

Having expiscated the “to us” and the “absolutely”—sanctification and redemption being “to us” and not absolute, wisdom and redemption both to us and absolute—we must not omit to enquire into the position of righteousness in the same passage.  That Christ is righteousness relatively to us appears clearly from the words:  “Who was made to us of God wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”  And if we do not find Him to be righteousness absolutely as He is the wisdom and the power of God absolutely, then we must enquire whether to Christ Himself, as the Father is sanctification, so the Father is also righteousness.  There is, we know, no unrighteousness with God; [John 7:18] He is a righteous and holy Lord [Rev. 16:5], and His judgments are in righteousness [Rev. 16:7], and being righteous, He orders all things righteously.

=============================

Denys (aka Dionysius the Areopagite), The Divine Names, Chapter II (source) 

If, instead of applying these to the whole Godhead, they wrest them to include only one part Thereof, how will they explain such passages as: “Thus saith He that is and was and is to come, the Almighty,”172 or: “Thou art the same,”173 or “The Spirit of Truth that is, and that proceedeth from the Father”?174 And if they deny that the whole Godhead is Life, how can that Sacred Word be true Which declared “As the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will,”175 and also, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth”?176

172Rev. i. 4.

173Ps. cii. 27.

174John xv. 26.

175John v. 21.

176John vi. 63.

=============================

Athanasius, Against the Arians, Discourse I, Chapter IV, Section 11 (source):

11. At his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, that ‘there was once when the Son was not;’ this is the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious men1881? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy is but greater; for it is impious to say that He was ‘once,’ or to signify Him by the word ‘once.’ For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time when the Word was not; for your very adverb ‘once’ naturally signifies this. And your other, ‘The Son was not before His generation,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘There was once when He was not,’ for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do ye, as ‘the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord1882 and against His Christ?’ for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather ‘always’ and ‘eternal’ and ‘coexistent always with the Father.’ For, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God1883.’ And in the Apocalypse he thus speaks1884; ‘Who is and who was and who is to come.’ Now who can rob ‘who is’ and ‘who was’ of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, ‘Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever1885;’ while silencing the Greeks, he has said, ‘The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead1886;’ and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself, ‘Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God1887.’ Surely in these words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper one to another, affirming that the Father is ‘His eternal power.’ This is not so; for he says not, ‘God Himself is the power,’ but ‘His is the power.’ Very plain is it to all that ‘His’ is not ‘He;’ yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and ‘turn to the Lord;’ now ‘the Lord is that Spirit1888;’and you will see that it is the Son who is signified.

1881    Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word ‘time.’ vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,—‘There was,’ what ‘when the Son was not?’ or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is who was ‘when’ He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who ‘was’ before the Son? This was true, if ‘before’ was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John’s Gospel may be interpreted ‘In the Beginning,’ or Origin, i.e. in the Father ‘was the Word.’ Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

1882    Ps. ii. 1.

1883    John i. 1.

1884    Rev. i. 4. τάδε λέγει. [On λέγει, &c., in citations, see Lightf. on Gal. iii. 16, Winer, Gram. §58, 9 γ, Grimm-Thayer, s.v. II. 1. e.]

1885    Rom. ix. 5.

1886    Ib. i. 20.

1887    1 Cor. i. 24. Athan. has so interpreted this text supr. de Decr. 15. It was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicæa, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid. de Syn. 18, and Orat. ii. §37.

1888    2 Cor. iii. 16, 17. S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 4–7, that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply ‘Spirit’ without the addition ‘of God’ or ‘of the Father’ or ‘from Me’ or of the article, or of ‘Holy,’ or ‘Comforter,’ or ‘of truth,’ or unless He has been spoken of just before. Accordingly this text is understood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr. Cels. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 32; Pseudo-Athan. de comm. ess. 6. On the other hand, the word πνεῦμα, ‘Spirit, is used more or less distinctly for our Lord’s Divine Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63, &c. [But cf. also Milligan Resurr. 238 sq.] Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the ‘Holy Spirit,’ which came down upon S. Mary might be considered the Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, ‘If the Spirit of God did not descend into the womb “to partake in flesh from the womb,” why did He descend at all?’ de Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 26, Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren. Hær. v. 1. Cypr. Idol Van. 6. Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. ii. 27; Athan. λόγος ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἔπλαττε τὸ σῶμα. Serap. i. 31 fin. ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἦν τὸ πνεῦμα ibid. iii. 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, αὐτὸν ἀντὶ σπορᾶς συλλαβοῦσα τὸν λόγον, κεκύηκε, t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even though his date were a.d. 150), who also says plainly: Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est. Sim. v. 5, 2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of ‘Spirit’ for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Græc. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren. Hær. iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3, and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severian. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot. ad Marc. ii. 8; Bull, Def. F. N. i. 2, §5; Coustant. Præf. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init.]

=============================

Cassiodorus (Fathers of the Church, Vol. 144, Cassiodorus, St. Gregory the Great, and Anonymous Greek Scholia, Writings on the Apocalypse) (Chapter 1, section 2. [4], pp. 16-17), Francis X. Gumerlock, trans.

John, to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace to you and peace, etc. The apostle John says that he is writing to the seven churches which have been established in Asia. He greets them, and wishes them peace and for grace to come from Christ the Lord and from the seven angels who, as is read, stand before the throne of the Lord, as in the book of Tobit where the angel Raphael said: "I am one of the seven angels who stand before the throne of the glory of God." But who this Lord is, "who is, who was, and who is to come," he makes known through an obvious statement, testifying that he is Christ the Lord, who redeemed us with his precious blood. He also tells us how he will come in his Second Advent and how he will be seen by people in his glorious power. For he is "the first and the last" and the Almighty, which he also established with that statement about his divinity.

=============================

Anonymous 6th Century Scholiast, Scholia 4, pp. 108-109 T.C. Schmidt, Trans. (proposed to be drawn from a fourth-century or later theologian based on the title, "John the Theologian" despite some very similar statements in Origen's On Prayer 27.13, see fns. 6 and 8, at p. 109)

Revelation 1.4b-7: He who is and who was and who is coming, and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, (5) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, firstborn from the dead and rule of the kings of the earth. To him who loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood, (6) and made us a royal priesthood to or God and his Father; glory and honour be to him forever and ever. Amen (7) Behold he comes with the clouds, and every eye and those who pierced him shall see him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn him. Yes, Amen.

The Word embraces three tenses. John the Theologian, who perceives this, here says that the Savior is He who is and who was and who is coming. The [phrase] "who is" brings forward the present; the [phrase] "who was" [brings forward] what has passed; and the [phrase] "who is coming" [brings forward] the future. Having understood such things concerning the Word, the apostle, perceiving him to be Christ, says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Now, "yesterday" brings forward what has passed; "today" [brings forward] what is present; and "forever" [brings forever] the future.

Alternative translation by P. Tzamalikos in An Ancient Commentary on the Book of Revelation, a Critical Edition of the Scholia in Apocalypsin (p. 103). Tzamalikos ascribes this collection to Cassabian the Sabaite a previously unknown 6th century monk.

The Logos has encompassed the three parts of time. Being aware of this, John the Theologian says at this point that the Savior is He who is, and who was, and who is to come. He applies the [expression] who is, to the present time, the who was, to the past, the who is to come, to the future. Having thus comprehended the teaching about the Logos, and recognizing Him as Christ himself, the Apostle says, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever, applying the [term] yesterday to past time, the [term] today to current time and the [term] forever to the future.

=============================

Ps-Jerome (Continental Irish author late 7th century), in Early Latin Commentaries on the Apocalypse, Francis X. Gumerlock, ed. and trans., p. 22, at Rev. 1:5

Who is, who always is. Who was, [who] in the present is in the flesh. Who is to come, that is, for the judgment.

=============================

Theodulf of Orleans, Exposition on the Apocalypse of John (A.D. 810), Chapter 1, as provided in Carolingian Commentaries on the Apocalypse by Theodulf and Smaragdus, Francis X. Gumerlock, trans. at p. 33

Who is, who always is. Who was, [who] in the present is in the flesh. Who is to come for the judgment.[EN9]

Endnote at p. 64:

EN9 Pseudo-Jerome, Handbook on the Apocalypse of the Apostle John, on Rev 1:4, CCSL 107:196.

=============================

Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, Homilies on the Apocalypse of John (A.D. 812), Homily on the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost (at Revelation 4:8), as provided in Carolingian Commentaries on the Apocalypse by Theodulf and Smaragdus, Francis X. Gumerlock, trans. at p. 83

Who was, who is, and who is to come. "Who was", as in that passage: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and God was the Word (John 1:1). "Who is", as in the passage: Say to the children of Israel: The One who is has sent me to you (Ex 3:14). "Who is to come" is understood as [he is coming] to judge the living and the dead (1 Pet 4:5).

=============================

Nicholas of Lyra, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra on the Apocalypse of St. John, the Apostle (A.D. 1329), Chapter 1, the Preface, at Rev. 1:4, in Nicholas of Lyra's Apocalypse Commentary, Philip D.W. Krey trans., p. 33

From him who is That is, from the eternal God. According to Boethius in the Consolation of Philosophy, "Eternity is endless life possessed all at once in its totality and its perfection." Nevertheless, his simplicity is not apprehended by us except by a comparison to time. For he assists at every time, even infinitely as it were; therefore, this is expressed to us through the distinctions of present, past, and future time.

Nicholas of Lyra, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra on the Apocalypse of St. John, the Apostle (A.D. 1329), Chapter 4, the Treatise, at Rev. 4:8, in Nicholas of Lyra's Apocalypse Commentary, Philip D.W. Krey trans., p. 71

"Who was and is and is to come." This expresses the eternity of God, which we do not apprehend along the way unless by comparison to distinctions in time, as was said in chapter 1.

=============================

Primasius of Hadrumetum (540) (my own source)

Book I, Chapter I, at Rev. 1:4

Grace to you and peace from God, who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty. Even though according to the apostle "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," or as He Himself testifies "He who sent me is with me," due to the unity of one and the same nature: However, this passage should properly be attributed to the person of the Son. For He 'is', because He remains the same; He 'was', because with the Father He created all things, He did not begin with [being born of] the Virgin; He 'is to come' to judge.

And from the seven spirits who are before the throne of God. Due to the sevenfold operation of the Holy Spirit, it is called the sevenfold spirit, that is, of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might, of knowledge and piety, and of the fear of God. For the gifts of the one Spirit are legally commended when peace and grace are devoutly wished from the seven spirits.

Book I, Chapter IV, at Revelation 4:8

And they were full of eyes in front and behind, or as another translation says, "inside and out:" Inside because the light of the gospel is hidden from the unworthy. "For if our gospel is veiled," he says, "it is veiled to those who are perishing." Alternatively, "in front and behind" means that wherever the fruit-bearing Church spreads, it walks in the light of God's face, and with unveiled face beholds the glory of God. Another interpretation of "in front and behind" [is that the group of] the six wings, which total twenty-four, hints at the books of the Old Testament. We accept by canonical authority twenty-four books, just as there are twenty-four elders sitting in judgment. The reason the preaching of the New Testament is fruitful is because it is strengthened and confirmed by the testimonies of the Old. The Church holds this "in front and behind," that is, both then under the law and now under grace.

'They who have no rest day or night, saying: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come.'" When the Church, spread all around in individual members, diverse professions, cities, regions, provinces, various languages and nations, ceaselessly praises God in word and deed, in adversity and prosperity, it does not stop praising the Lord day and night. The eternal praise of intellectual creatures continues in the heavens above Jerusalem, to whose likeness the wandering Church delights to conform.

Book III, Chapter XI, at Revelation 11:17 and following through the end of Revelation 12

And the seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of our God and of his Christ has come, and he will reign forever and ever." And the twenty-four elders who sit before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, "We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who are and were, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, to reward your servants the prophets and those who fear your name, both small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." Concerning the elders, enough and more has been said about what should be understood. But it now mentions the beginning and end of Christ's dispensation; for by saying "you have begun to reign and the nations were angry" it first demonstrates Christ's coming. However, what follows, "your wrath has come and the time of the dead," or as another translation has it "that the dead may be judged," shows the second coming, when both the small and great, perfect and little ones, saints and prophets and those fearing his name, will receive their reward. "For my eyes," he says, "have seen my imperfect [works], and in your book they will all be written." And lest the wicked should promise themselves impunity, he added, "and to destroy those who have corrupted the earth," just as the Psalm says: "But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." "Behold," he says, "the third woe is coming at the voice of the seventh angel," and when he had sounded, he spoke only of the church praising the Lord and giving thanks, from which we understand that the reward of the good is not without the woe of the wicked. Hence the Psalm: "When his wrath flares up in an instant," surely against the wicked, "blessed are all who trust in him." So now the church itself says: "Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, to give to your servants their reward" and so on; this is the last woe. Indeed, having summarized the Lord's physical birth, it hints that he will speak about the same thing differently and in a more extended manner.

Book IV, Chapter XVI, at Revelation 16:5

"And I heard," he says, "the angels of the waters saying: 'You are just, O Lord, the One who is and who was.'” The angels of the waters are heralds of the peoples, resounding from their innermost feelings with divine praises.

"And you are holy because you have judged in this way: For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink, for they are deserving." While both the Jews and the Gentiles have physically shed the blood of the saints, which the Lord mentions as requiring recompense, saying, "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah", this could also refer to the blindness of misinterpretation. This means that those who misuse the prophecies and twist their meanings are also seen as shedding the blood of the prophets. It's like saying that those who interpret spiritual law in a carnal way are justly handed over to the corruptions of the flesh and blood, where both the sins and the punishments for sins are recognized. Hence, the apostle says: "Because they did not receive the love of truth so as to be saved, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, and they will all be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness."

=============================

Apringius of Beja (548), Explanation of Revelation, at Revelation 1:4, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come. As he declared his own name at the beginning of the writing, where he said, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia," so in a similitude of words he confirms most evidently that he is John by saying "who is, who was, and who is to come." For in God there is always being. Therefore it was said to Moses, "I am who am," and the apostle himself says in the Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; he was in the beginning with God." By this he indicates that the Word exceeds every beginning because he was in the beginning, nor does he have a beginning because he was with God, nor will he receive an end because he was God. Rather he will remain forever because he was in the beginning with God, and he indicates that it is this one who is to come.

Apringius of Beja (548), Explanation of Revelation, at Revelation 1:8, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

And since the substance of his humanity has been made plain, he announces the glory of his divine substance and speaks the words of the Lord himself, saying, "I am Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

...

And so, in all things he might be what he always is, as the present scripture says: "The Lord God says, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

=============================

Bede (d. 735), The Exposition of the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:4, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

Grace be to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come and from the seven spirits, and the following, He wishes for the faithful grace and peace from God, the eternal Father, and from the seven-formed Spirit.

=============================

Bede (d. 735), The Exposition of the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:5, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

And from Jesus Christ. Grace and peace is also from Jesus Christ, who in his assumed human nature gave witness to the Father. He names the Son in the third place, since most of what he has to say in the following revelation was concerning him. He also names him last, because he is the first and the last. Moreover, he had already named him in the Father when he said, "who is going to come."

=============================

Bede (d. 735), The Exposition of the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:8, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

Who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty, He had said this same thing concerning the Father, for God the Father has come and will come in the Son. 

=============================

Bede (d. 735), The Exposition of the Apocalypse, at Revelation 7:3, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

"Until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." For this purpose was the rule of the nations destroyed, that the face of the saints might in freedom be marked by the sign of faith that the nations had received. For even the figure of the cross indicates that the kingdom of the Lord is everywhere extended, as the ancient distich shows:

Behold, the four-squared world, in distinct parts,

that you show you might show the sign of faith to encompass all things.

Nor in vain was the four-lettered name of the Lord written on the forehead of the high priest, since this is the sign on the foreheads of the faithful, about which the psalm "for the wine vats" sings: "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth," and so on, until he says, "that you may destroy the enemy and the defender."  

=============================

Bede (d. 735), The Exposition of the Apocalypse, at Revelation 16:5, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Latin Commentaries on Revelation

And I heard the angel of the waters say, "Just you are, who is and was, the Holy One, for you have judged these things." By the angel of the waters he refers to all the messengers of the peoples who by an inner affection raise up in unison a cry of praise to God, for he will avenge the blood of his servants by giving their murderers death to drink.

=============================

William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation, at the Translator's Introduction regarding Andrew of Caesarea (p. xxxiv):

The phrase "who is, who was and who is to come" refers to the "tri-hypostatic deity" (τῆς τρισυποστάτου θεότητος) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

=============================

Oecumenius (6th or 7th century), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:4, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[1:4] John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from God, who is and who was and who is coming.

This is the same as saying, "Grace to you from the God of us all." For the Father calls himself "he who is," making known this name to the most wise Moses from the bush, saying, "I am who am." And our holy Evangelist uses "who was" to speak concerning the Son, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Moreover, in the first of the Catholic Letters he writes, "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what we have beheld and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life." The phrase "who is coming" refers to the Holy Spirit, for not only did he come on the day of Pentecost as that is narrated in the Acts, but he also comes always to those souls worthy to receive him.

Alternative translation from the Fathers of the Church, vol. 112, John N. Suggit trans. (p. 23)

6. He says, John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from God, who is and who was and who is coming (Rv 1.4)

7. This is the same as saying, "Grace to you from the God of most wise Moses at the bush, saying, "I am who I am," (2) and the present blessed evangelist said "he was" about the Son, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and again in the first of the general epistles, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and which our hands touched, concerning the Word of life." (3) And by the one who is coming he means the Holy Spirit. For not only was the Spirit present on the day of Pentecost, according to the narrative in Acts, but he is always present, too, to the souls worthy of receiving him.

=============================

Oecumenius (6th or 7th century), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:5, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[1:5] And from Jesus Christ, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Having previously written of the preincarnate Word of God and referring to him as "he who was," he now speaks concerning the incarnated Word, saying, "and from Jesus Christ." By speaking in this manner he does not divide Christ into two, but he testifies by the one statement and the other that he who is the Word of the Father is also he who has become flesh.

Alternative translation from the Fathers of the Church, vol. 112, John N. Suggit trans. (p. 24)

10. And from Jesus Christ, he says, to the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth (Rv 1.5)

11. Earlier he had written about the pre-incarnate Word of God, describing him as he who was; now he speaks about him as incarnate, saying, and from Jesus Christ. He does not separate him into two, but witnesses to both aspects of him at once, both that he is the Word of the Father and that he was made flesh.

=============================

Oecumenius (6th or 7th century), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:8, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[1:8] "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty, and the Lord of creation.

"Alpha" indicates the beginning: "omega" indicates the end. Therefore, he is saying, "I am the first and the last," showing through "first" that God is without beginning and showing through "last" that God is without end. Since nothing exists among people that is without beginning or without end, he uses the terms "first" and "last," which are common among us, rather than "without beginning" and "without end." God also speaks through Isaiah saying, "I, God, the first, and to that which is yet to come, I am." He calls God "Almighty" and "Lord of the creation," not only of that which is sensible but also of that which is intellectual.

Alternative translation from the Fathers of the Church, vol. 112, John N. Suggit trans. (p. 27)

16. I am Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is coming, the sovereign Lord, and Lord of creation (Rv 1.8)

17. Alpha means the beginning, and Omega the end. Therefore he says, I am the first and the last (Rv 1.17), declaring by the first that God has no beginning, and by the last that he has no end. For since with human beings there is nothing that is without beginning and end, he used what is for us the beginning and the end, instead of saying, "without beginning and without end." This is also what God said through Isaiah: "I, God, am the first, and I shall be for the ages to come." (2) He calls God sovereign Lord, and Lord of creation, of spiritual as well as perceptible creation.

=============================

Oecumenius (6th or 7th century), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 11:15-19, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[11:15-19] And the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, "We give thanks to you, Lord God, the Almighty, who is and who was, that you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the nations to be judged, for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of earth." And the temple of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, and thunder, an earthquake and heavy hail.

... 

When the voice was heard, "the elders worshiped God," bringing their own thanksgiving and saying, "We give you thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who is and who was." The phrases "who is" and "who was" are fitting to be used of the holy Trinity, although usually "who is" is used of the Father and "who was" is used of the Son. For "to be" is true of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, the thanksgiving of the elders is ascribed to the holy Trinity.

Alternative translation from the Fathers of the Church, vol. 112, John N. Suggit trans. (pp. 104-6)

16. Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever." (2) And the twenty-four elders who sat on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, (3) "We give thanks to you, Lord God, sovereign of all, who are and who were, because you have taken your great power and have entered on your reign. (4) The nations raged, but your wrath has come, and the time for the nations to be judged, and to reward your servants, the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and to destroy the destroyers of the earth." (5) Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, noises, peals of thunder, and earthquake, and heavy hail (Rv 11.15-19).

17. ... (3) When the voice had sounded, he says, the elders worshiped God, and they themselves rendered their own thanksgiving, saying, "We give you thanks to you, Lord God, sovereign of all, who are and who were." And he takes You who are to refer to the Holy Trinity, as well as You who were, even though You who are is especially said about the Father, and You who were about the Son; for being (You who are) refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And we rightly say "You who were" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the thanksgiving of the elders is offered up to the Holy Trinity.

=============================

Oecumenius (6th or 7th century), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 16:2-7, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[16:2-7] And the first angel went and poured his bowl on the earth, and a foul and evil sore came on people who bore the mark of the beast and who worshiped his image. And the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became like the blood of a dead person, and every living soul died. And the third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the fountains of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, "Righteous are you who is and who was and the holy One, in these your judgments, for they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink, for it is their due." And I heard the altar say, "Yea, Lord, God Almighty, true and just are your judgments!"

... 

Most certainly it is this angel who is placed by the providence of God over the waters whom, he says, "I heard saying, 'Righteous are you, who is and who was, the holy One'." The phrase "who is" shows the endlessness of God, and "who was" that he is without beginning. The "holy One" refers to the fact that he is righteous in all things on behalf of all things. For it says, "You have judged these things" so that those who have spilled the blood of the saints might drink blood. And it is necessary that those who encamped and fought by streams and rivers drink the water polluted by the blood of the dying being carried away downstream.

Alternative translation from the Fathers of the Church, vol. 112, John N. Suggit trans. (pp. 137-39)

24. The first angel went off and poured out his bowl on the earth, and foul and evil sores came upon those who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. (2) Then the second angel poured out his howl over the sea, and it became blood like that of a corpse, and every living thing died. (3) The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the fountains of water, and they became blood. (4) And I heard the angel of the waters say, "Just are you, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because of your judgments, (5) for they shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you gave them blood to drink, for they are worthy." (6) And I heard the altar say, "Yes, Lord God, sovereign of all, true and just are your judgments!" (Rv 16.2-7).

25. ... (7) It is of this angel appointed by God's providence over the waters, that he says, I heard him say, "You are just, you who are and who were, the Holy One." "You who are" signifies that God has no end; "you who were" signifies that God has no beginning: "the Holy One" is he who is altogether just in all things. (8) When he says, because of your judgments, he means that those who poured out the blood of the saints should drink blood. For those in war who are encamped by the side of the waters and rivers cannot but drink the water that has been befouled by blood from the bodies of the dying.

=============================

Andrew of Caesarea (aka Andreas of Caesarea) (d. 614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:4, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[1:4] John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne.

Through the phrase "who is" the Father is indicated, who spoke to Moses: "I am who I am." Through the phrase "who was" the Word is indicated, who "was in the beginning with God." And through the phrase "who is to come" the Paraclete is indicated, who always visits the children of the church in holy baptism but will come more perfectly and more clearly in the age to come. It is possible to recognize in the seven spirits the seven angels who have received the governance of the churches. These are not numbered with the most divine and royal Trinity but are mentioned together with it as servants, even as the divine apostle says: "I testify to you before God and the elect angels."  These phrases may be understand also in another manner. The phrase "who is and who was and who is to come" may signify the Father who encompasses in himself the beginning, the middle and the end of all things. "The seven spirits" may indicate the energies of the life-giving Spirit. Then follows Christ, our God, who for us became man. For in many places each of the divine persons are quite indiscriminately ordered, now before and now after.

=============================

Andrew of Caesarea (aka Andreas of Caesarea) (d. 614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:5, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

According to the blessed Gregory [See Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 29.12; 34.13 (NPNF 2 7:305,337], the phrase "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" refers to Christ. Nor is there anything strange when words similar to these are spoken a little later and there refer to Christ, and to these also the phrase "the Almighty" is attached without thereby any other person being mentioned for the first time or by way of repetition. The introduction in this verse of the phrase "and from Jesus Christ" seems to lend support to the interpretation offered by us. For it would be superfluous to add immediately the words "and from Jesus Christ" to a discussion concerning the divine Word and the person of the Son alone, as though the one seemed to be distinct from the other. Terms and phrases that befit God may refer equally to each divine person, to that which is common to the three, but not to the personal properties, or relations, as Gregory the Theologian says, or to the incarnation of the Word. From these considerations it is clear why we learn in the Gospel that the thrice-holy hymn of the seraphim is spoken to the Son, while we learn in the speech of Paul in Acts that is addressed to the Holy Spirit, and while int he offering of the awesome mysteries we address it to the Father, to whom we are wont to make such a prayer, as also the blessed Epiphanius says in his book On the Holy Spirit [TF: a footnote by the translator or editor here indicates that this work of Epiphanius appears to be lost]. We have made these comments to demonstrate that our interpretation is not opposed to the testimonies of the Fathers. With God's help we attend as closely as possible to the sequence of the text.

=============================

Andrew of Caesarea (aka Andreas of Caesarea) (d. 614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 1:8, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[1:8] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Here Christ is shown to be God who rules all things, who is without beginning and similarly without end, who is and who was before and who is without limit, since he is eternal with the Father. For this reason he gives to each the wages of their deeds.

=============================

Andrew of Caesarea (aka Andreas of Caesarea) (d. 614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 4:8, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[4:8] And they have no rest by day or night, saying, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"

There is no rest for these holy powers, for they never cease from their divine hymnody but proffer the threefold acclamation of holiness to the tri-hypostatic deity. For we have said that the phrase "who was and is and is to come" indicates the holy Trinity.

=============================

Andrew of Caesarea (aka Andreas of Caesarea) (d. 614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 11:15-18, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[11:15-18] Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and she shall reign forever and ever." And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, "We give thanks to you, O Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath came and the time of the dead."

Here again he says that the holy angels and those who live as do the angels send a hymn of thanksgiving to God, because for our sake he has become worthy to receive as man that kingdom that as God he possessed from the beginning. And having been patient with the unbelieving nations who were enraged at this as though it were a new and strange teaching, at the end he brings judgment on them.

=============================

Andrew of Caesarea (aka Andreas of Caesarea) (d. 614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, at Revelation 16:4-6, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation

[16:4-6] The third angel poured his bowl into the rivers and the fountains of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, "Just are you in these judgments, who is and who was, the Holy One. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is their due!"

As it was said above, here also it shows that the angels are placed over the elements.

=============================

At least one thesis has studied the text of Revelation used by Didymus of Alexandria (see here).  The only passage relevant to this particular post is:  

There was also an interesting textual critical comment about the Byzantine text time.  I note that Erasmus used the Andreas commentary text for his printed edition.

The reference to "ZA.COM" is a reference to "Zechariah commentary I"

Didymus the Blind (d. 398), Commentary on Zechariah 2, at vss. 8-9, pp. 59-60 of Fathers of the Church, vol. 111, Robert C. Hill trans.

It is not surprising that the almighty is from the almighty: he is also God from God and light from light, being consubstantial with the one who begot him and one with him who begot him, as the verse says, "I and the Father are one," and so all the Father has belongs to the Son. Now, what the Father has is being God, being light, being holy, being almighty, all of which belongs to the Son. The Son is thus almighty from the almighty, being king of all from the one who reigns over all. In John's Apocalypse the savior is undeniably confessed to be almighty, personally saying of himself, "This is what the faithful witness says, the ἀρχή of God's creation, the one who is and who was and who is coming, Lord God almighty."[FN33 Rv 1.5, 8; 3.14. The ambiguity of a term like ἀρχή, offering both "beginning" and "rule" as meanings, made such texts grist to the mill of both orthodox and heterodox in Christological debate, as well as some texts from Colossians and John. Theodore avoids this by not bringing Jesus into focus, simply confining himself to "the events themselves"-- πράγματα in preference to ὀνόματά, as Eustathius had reminded Origen's followers (KIT 83.16).] The one saying this is almighty, and is no creature such as does not have power over itself; it would be absurd, in fact, for the same person to be creator and created by itself, both ruler and subject. Even if the one we confess as God is called in the passage cited "ἀρχή of God's creation," he is called "ἀρχή of creation" because of his ruling as king and being almighty, which is the same thing -- in other words, his kingship controls and governs all creatures.

=============================

Tyconius of Carthage (fl. 380), Exposition on the Apocalypse, at Rev. 4:8, p. 66 of Fathers of the Church, vol. 134, Francis X. Gumerlock trans.  (Tyconius comments on Rev. 1:4 and 1:8 are currently lost.)

And they have no rest day or night, saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come. The church does not have rest, but praises God always, in [both] prosperity and adversity.

=============================

Tyconius of Carthage (fl. 380), Exposition on the Apocalypse, at Rev. 11:17, p. 119 of Fathers of the Church, vol. 134, Francis X. Gumerlock trans.  (There does not seem to be any commentary by Tyconius on the words of the verse, though the verse itself is present - it's unclear to me whether the verse is supplied by the translator, so I would be cautious about resting any weight on the reading.)

[17] saying: We give thanks to you, Lord God almighty, who is and who was and who is to come, because you have received your great power and you have reigned.

=============================

Tyconius of Carthage (fl. 380), Exposition on the Apocalypse, at Rev. 16:5, p. 150 of Fathers of the Church, vol. 134, Francis X. Gumerlock trans.  (There does not seem to be any commentary by Tyconius on the words of the verse, though the verse itself is present - it's unclear to me whether the verse is supplied by the translator, so I would be cautious about resting any weight on the reading.)

[5] And I heard the angel of the waters saying: You are just, you who were and will be, the Holy One, because you have judged these things.

=============================

Caesarius of Arles (d. 542), Exposition on the Apocalypse, William C. Weinrich trans. in Ancient Christian Texts, Greek Commentaries on Revelation is composed of homilies.  Caesarius hits on the major themes of the text, but does not address the "who was and who is," etc. readings.

Location of some of the relevant sources was based on the linked article.