Thanks for the conversation. I'm always glad to talk.

> Revelation 1:4

It's not explicitly clear why John makes the mention he does of "who is, who was, and who is to come." it's obviously meant to identify the one who gives grace and peace. A clue I get is from the symbolic number 7, which has the idea of completeness and totality. I would expect that his reference to "who is, who was, and who is to come" also pertains to completeness and totality. The mention of the "seven spirits before his throne" is usually (and I agree) thought to speak of the complete and perfect manifestation of the Holy Spirit. It could indicate that Jesus "who is" as the perfect manifestation of the great I AM of Exodus 3.14-15. John uses the same idea in John 1.2 and some of the terminology to speak of Jesus "who was" as eternal. The idea of Him "who is coming" often speaks of His permanent (eternal) covenant relationship with His people.

He then describes Jesus as...

[list]- The faithful witness: Jesus is the truth who will judge fairly and righteously.
- The firstborn of the dead: A messianic title denoting sovereignty due to victory
- Ruler of the kings of the Earth: sovereignty and authority
- Who loves us: an attribute of God
- Who has freed us from our sins by His blood: He effected atonement
- Made us to be a kingdom and priests: authority and access
- To him be glory and power: Jesus has the power and authority to judge the World and the save the Church
- For ever and ever: the idea of eternity
- He's coming on the clouds: Salvation history is coming to its rightful conclusion. Denotes divine presence.
- The Alpha and Omega: the idea of eternity
- Who is, was, and is to come: what we're discussing
- The Almighty: Authority and sovereignty.[/list]

It seems to me that the most often-mentioned attributes are authority and sovereignty, as you have mentioned. I guess the logical question would be whether transcendence or eternality speak more to authority. To me the first three verses of the prologue are also helpful. This is the God who reveals Himself (v. 1), who reveals His plan (1), who communicates to His servants (1), who allows Himself and His plan to be seen and understood (v. 2). These are not indicators of transcendence but rather of immanence. The source of His authority is His presence, His witness, His incarnation and resurrection, His love, and His redemption.

> Exodus 3.14

The "I AM who I AM" speaks to His personableness: The God Who relates to us. He is self-defined, active in revelation, a God of covenant relationship, and a God who is present. He exists in truth and will be present in covenant relationship with His people. This is not an indicator of transcendence but rather of immanence.

> Holy, holy, holy

Yes, clearly speaks of God's distinct otherness, His moral and divine transcendence. No argument there. I find Kittel's comment interesting: "This is the innermost description of God’s nature. It implies both omnipotence and eternity, and thus the essence of the Godhead, and a holy awe permeates the whole scene." Various other sources say that in numerology, "3" symbolizes goodness, sacrifice, pure love, and eternity. Hmm. It's a tough judgment call. All the ideas are in Rev. 4.8, as also in Rev. 16.5.

It's a tough judgment call. The idea of eternity would speak to His omniscience to judge rightly. Nothing escapes His eye. The idea of transcendence would speak to his not able to be conflicted or infected by anything less than righteous judgment.

So which is it? The idea that it speaks of immanence and transcendence is an intriguing one, to be sure. It does relate to His ability to know us (immanence) but still judge us (transcendent holiness and righteousness). But the idea of eternity makes sense, too. I guess, in my mind, the idea of immanence is far more infused in the text than transcendence. The main ideas I see are sovereignty, authority, eternality, and immanence. The only words that take me to the idea of transcendence are the triple crown of "holy, holy, holy." I think the other concepts are more prominent.

These are some interesting thoughts, but I'd like to respond to a few of them.

To your first and last point:

In Revelation 1:4, there's nothing there that indicates John is dependent upon any notion of "eternality" from which to derive God's authority. In fact, I'd argue that the concept of "transcendence", especially given John's own emphasis on the spiritual ascensive vision as basis of his own authority, would be in view here as a source of authority.

In regard to Exodus 3:14, there is also nothing there that points toward a concept of "eternality", but again the "I am who I am" phrase (אהיה אשר אהיה) seems to point more towards God's transcendence than any temporal idea. This is further supported by Moses's request for a "name" for God, which in the Ancient world was both a way of having power over the gods (by knowing their name) as well as a way of showing credentials (by linking the God to acts in history and myth). God's response, then, is not an affirmation that he is "eternal", but a declaration that he is beyond Moses, that Moses cannot grasp onto him in that way, and thus a statement about God's transcendence (while also, ironically, affirming God's immanence in so far as He is God of particular people in history).

To your second, third, and fourth point:

This fails to take into account the repetition of "Holy, Holy, Holy" that directly precedes the doxological phrase, and that is contextually more closely tied to the phrase, since it remains in the same part of the reported speech of the creatures. That concept of "holiness" more supports the doxological phrase as being about transcendence, since holiness itself is conceptually linked to transcendence. The praises of both the creatures and the elders is also explicitly "to give glory and honor and thanks to the one seated upon the throne", which again represents imagery of the transcendent rather than the eternal. Of course "forever and ever" shows that John is aware of God's eternality, but it is his transcendence and holiness that is emphasized here.

The same is also true of v. 11:17. While "forever and ever" occurs before the reported speech, the hymn of the elders itself is explicitly about God's transcendence and authority with respect to judgement. They state outright that they are giving praise to God "ο ων και ο ην" because he has "taken his great power and begun to reign".

Similarly, v. 16.5 connects the doxological phrase to the concept of holiness, and is contextually about judgement, authority, and rulership (imagery more consistent with the transcendence of God) rather than anything concerning eternality. In fact, since these passages all seem linked to a particular event in time (i.e. judgement), this seems to speak against God's eternality being in focus here.

Additional remarks:

I'd like to finally add that John's use of the doxology to highlight the transcendent/immanent paradigm is consistent with the larger theme of Revelation and the apocalyptic genre generally. The book itself highlights the transcendence of God, who sits above all human history as both observer and judge, as well as his immanence, in so far as he descends in Christ and draws all of history toward the eschatological climax of the book, wherein heaven and earth are united in the New Jerusalem.

I think the context, its other uses in Revelation, and the allusion to Ex. 3.14 all point us to it indicating the eternity of God.

[list][*] In Rev. 1.4, it is His eternity that gives Him the authority be the source and the executor of this Revelation.
[*] In Rev. 1.8, the mention of Alpha and Omega are reference to the first and last, without beginning or end.
[*] In Rev. 4.8, the point clearly lies in the repetition of "forever" (by the living creatures and elders).
[*] In Rev. 11.17, the "forever" aspect shows up again in v. 15 by the elders.
[*] In Rev. 16.5, the idea seems to be more His omniscience than His eternity.
[*] In Ex. 3.14, v. 15 clarifies that this is to be God's name forever.[/list]

As I read Rev. 1.4-8, it doesn't seem to me that John (as the writer), or Jesus (as the speaker) is concerned about His transcendence and immanence. The point is not particularly that He's neither near nor far, but the permanence of His covenant and his authority, as the sovereign who is omniscience because of His eternal outlook, that gives Him the authority to save the Church and judge the World.

I'm currently at SBL (an annual conference for Bible scholars) and heard an interesting presentation on the doxology found in Revelation, "Who is, and who was, and who is to come" (i.e. ο ων, ο ην, και ο ερχομενος). The paper in question suggested that this particular way of translating the doxology is, in fact, mistaken given recent Greek grammatical theories concerning verbal aspect in Greek.

For those not aware of how verbal aspect and tense work in Greek, the idea is that in certain moods (e.g. participles, as we have here in Revelation) the Greek verb actually doesn't express "tense" (e.g. past, present, future, etc.) but "aspect, which is essentially a proximate/distance relationship to the speaker (i.e. rather than "past", the verb represents the action as a distant completed whole, and rather than "present", the verb represents the action as a near and ongoing process, etc.).

In the case of the doxology in Revelation, we have a present participle (i.e. ο ων, usually translated as "who is") and in imperfect participle (i.e. ο ην, usually translated, "who was"), and finally another present participle (i.e. ο ερχομενος, usually translated "who is coming"). If we translate this particular passage with verbal aspect in mind, however, the presenter suggested that the typical translation that depicts temporality (i.e. who is, who was, etc.) is actually wrong. Rather, we should take this doxology as demonstrating the immanent and transcendent nature of God, rather than something referring to God's eternality.

In short, due to Greek grammatical considerations, we should translate this passage as something like "Who is near, who is afar, and who is coming". This doxology would then be emphasizing not God's eternality, but his nearness and yet transcendence above us, and the paradoxical way in which he draws ever closer (particularly in expectation of the second coming of Christ). That wouldn't necessarily imply God isn't eternal, just that this particular doxology is talking about something else.

I thought the presentation was pretty convincing and thought provoking, and thought I'd share it here. What are your thoughts? Even if you can't read Greek and can't really follow along with the grammatical argument, how do you feel about the proposed translation?