[From Him, etc., ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος] It is a solecism (Revius). Erasmus denies that these words have sense, and Gagnæus after him: which saying is as impolite and audacious as it is false (Ribera). Therefore, they construe that in Exodus 3:14, I will be has sent me. Evidently nothing will be allowed to the Holy Spirit that is not pleasing to Priscianus. So that they do not allow that God pronounces His names as ἄκλιτα/indeclinable, who is Himself ἄκλιτος/unchangeable (Pareus). They ineptly reprehend this here as a barbarism, while no greater emphasis is able to be added for describing the essence of God (Apocalyptic Harmony). The construction is able to be freed from difficulty in a variety of ways (Gomar). 1. John wished to express the name יְהוָֹה/Jehovah, and its interpretation, Exodus 3:14 (Cluverus out of Beza, thus Apocalyptic Harmony, Schmidt), by which is signified He who is the fountain of being, unaltered in the eternal flux or present continuum (Apocalyptic Harmony): for אֶהְיֶה is used three times, Present, Past, and Future, and by this he signifies the most perfect stability of God (Beza out of the Hebrews). Therefore, he wished ὢν/being, ἦν, He was, and ἐρχόμενος/ coming to be taken, not as Participles, but as proper Names, that is to say, from the One who is, and He was, and the One who is Coming, and therefore the masculine article is set before. But, since proper Names also are inflected, why did he not say τοῦ ὄντος, etc? Response: Because the name יְהוָֹה/Jehovah is always uniform; therefore John does not wish even the article to be inflected, as if even that is a part of the proper name (Beza). He is unwilling to decline these articles and participles, so that he might show forth all the more the immutability of God; as Proclus says τοῦ ἕν, of the one, on Timæus, as we said on Mark 6:40. Indeed, because εἰμὶ , I am, does not have a past Participle, for the signification of the Past he was constrained to use a word in the Indicative mood. Thus also Revelation 4:8 and 11:17. Now, ἐρχόμενος signifies the same thing as futurus, going to be, in Latin, as in Revelation 4:8; John 16:13; Acts 18:21; and elsewhere. Thus the Hebrews use הבא, the coming one. Thus also 1 Thessalonians 1:10; τῆς ἐρχομένης is the same as τῆς μελλούσης in Matthew 3:7 and Luke 3:7. See also Hebrews 10:37 (Grotius). These three, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , who is, who was, who is to come, are here after the likeness of indeclinable names. For thus the ὁ ὢν is to be declined: ὁ ὁ ὢν, τοῦ ὁ ὢν, τῷ ὁ ὢν (Cotterius). He uses Greek Participles as ἄπτωτα, not involving different cases, and he declines, or makes them to be of a certain case, by means of the article set before. Thus in verse 5, ὁ μάρτυς, the Witness, is joined with the Genitive: and in Luke 22:20, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον agrees with αἵματί (Cocceius). 2. There is here an ellipsis of the word ὄντος (Gomar out of Camerarius, similarly Glassius), as in Matthew 22:21, τὰ Καίσαρος, the of Cæsar, understanding ὄντα/things: in Luke 2:49, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, in the of my Father, that is, οὖσι/things: 1 Corinthians 13:5; etc. (Glassius’ “Grammar” 3:2:1:170). 3. The article τοῦ could be put in the place of τούτου [as τῆς is put in the place of ταύτης in verse 3, according to Grotius], and the article set before, that is, ὁ, is in the place of ὃς/who: Neither is unusual in good authors, and [both] are found in Scripture (Gomar). [They render the words in this way:] Verbatim: Ab Ens, ab Id quod erat, et ab Is qui venturus est (Schmidt). From Who (or, from He who [Erasmus, Montanus]) is, and Who was, and Who is going to come (Beza, Piscator, Montanus, Erasmus, etc.). Thus also Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol, etc., treating of the Eternality of God, thus says, He was, and He is, and He will be gloriously. And certainly by this periphrasis Eternity is aptly expressed, which is soon signified by those phrases, τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, the Alpha and the Omega, ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, the beginning and the ending, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, the first and the last (Louis Cappel). It denotes not only eternity, or immutability, but rather a manifestation of Himself as the Sanctifier of men by grace: which manifestation has especially three occasions, 1. of promise: 2. of the exhibition of Christ: 3. of the kingdom consummated. He is said, therefore, to be, because at that time He was manifesting Himself by the preaching of the Gospel: to have been, because He had previously manifested Himself by the word of promise, and by deeds agreeable to that: to come, because He was going to manifest Himself afterwards, both on the day of judgment, and in those things which are described in this book; all which are forerunners of that day (Cocceius). He is God, that is, our Savior, as He promised from the beginning; and He was such even before the ages; and He is going to be certainly and invariably, or, He comes, about to reveal the riches of His beneficence in the next age (Cluverus). Now, this description is referred, either, 1. to the entire Trinity (certain interpreters in Cluverus, thus Pererius, Ribera), but indistinctly (Pererius), so that all parts pertain unto the individual persons (Ribera). Or, 2. unto the Father (Cotterius, Cluverus, Apocalyptic Harmony, Durham, Cocceius), as it is proven from the distinction from the other two persons (Cocceius), as the fount of Deity (Durham, Cluverus); yet in such a way that the Son and Holy Spirit are not excluded (Durham). Now, he makes use of this description, either, 1. so that the essence of God might be better expressed; so that tyrants might see with whom they have to do: or, 2. because of idolaters, adoring Creatures, not the Creator (Apocalyptic Harmony).
From him which is, and which was, and which is to come: these words are a description of God, particularly of Jesus Christ in his eternity and immutability: he was from eternity; he is now; and he shall be for ever. Or, (as some,) he was in his promises before his incarnation; he is now God manifested in the flesh; and he is to come as a Judge, to judge the quick and the dead. This was an ancient name of God, Exodus 3:14, I am that I am…. I AM hath sent me unto you. These words interpret the name Jehovah.
 A solecism is a violation of normal grammar rules. Note here the shift from the Genitive case (τοῦ, from Him) to the Nominative case (ὁ/who).
 Exodus 3:14b: “…Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי) unto you.”
 Priscianus Cæsariensis (late fifth, early sixth century) wrote a Latin grammar, Institutiones Grammaticæ. Priscianus’ illustrations of grammatical principles preserve portions of works which are otherwise lost.
 Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I am that I am (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am (אֶהְיֶה) hath sent me unto you.”
 Observe here that the participle is brought here to match the case of the Genitive article.
 Here, ἕν/one, in the Nominative or Accusative case, takes the Genitive article.
 Proclus was a fifth century bishop of Constantinople, and a friend of Chrysostom. He wrote a commentary on Plato’s Timæus.
 Mark 6:40: “And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties (καὶ ἀνέπεσον πρασιαὶ πρασιαί, ἀνὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα).”
 Ὤν and ἐρχόμενος are participles; ἦν is in the indicative mood.
 John 16:13b: “…but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (τὰ ἐρχόμενα).”
 Acts 18:21a: “But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh (τὴν ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐρχομένην) in Jerusalem…”
 1 Thessalonians 1:10: “And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come (ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης).”
 Luke 3:7b: “…O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come (ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς)?” The same expression is found in Matthew 3:7.
 Hebrews 10:37: “For yet a little while, and he that shall come ( 9O e0rxo/menoj) will come, and will not tarry.”
 Since the ὁ ὢν is not declined, the case is indicated by the article.
 Revelation 1:5a: “And from Jesus Christ (Ἰησοῦ Χριστου, in the Genitive case), who is the faithful witness (ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, in the Nominative case)…”
 Luke 22:20: “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup (τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, Nominative, neuter) is the new testament in the blood (ἐν τῷ αἵματί, Dative, neuter) of me, which is shed (τὸ—ἐκχυνόμενον, Nominative, neuter) for you.”
 Revelation 1:4b: “…Grace be unto you, and peace, from (ἀπὸ, supply ὄντος, the one, in the Genitive case, expected after ἀπὸ) who is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne…”
 Matthew 22:21b: “…Render therefore unto Caesar the of Caesar (τὰ Καίσαρος, supplying things)…”
 Luke 2:49b: “…wist ye not that I must be about the of my Father (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, supplying things)?”
 1 Corinthians 13:5a: “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not the of herself (τὰ ἑαυτῆς, understanding ὄντα/things)…”
 Revelation 1:3a: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy (τῆς προφητείας, with the article τῆς having the force of the demonstrative ταύτης/this)…”
 The relative pronoun in the Nominative case.
 Ab/from takes the Ablative Case; here, it takes the Nominative Ens, the being One.
 Ab/from takes the Ablative Case; here, it takes the Nominative Id/it. Literally: From It which was.
 Ab/from takes the Ablative Case; here, it takes the Nominative Is/He. Literally: From He who is going to come.
 Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol (c. 1021-c. 1058) was a Spanish poet and Neoplatonic philosopher.
 Verse 8.
 Verse 11.