ὁ παντοκρατωρ [ho pantokratōr] , see commentary on Revelation 1:8.
who is and who was and who is to come
See commentary on Revelation 1:4. MT and NU texts omit and who is to come.1 Some see the omission of this phrase as support for the premillennial interpretation of the Second Coming, as an indication that He has already come at the time His reign is taken up.2 The expectation for the Coming One is clearly set forth at the first advent when Israel expected her coming King and His kingdom (Mtt. Mat. 11:3; Mat. 21:9; Luke Luke 7:19). They will not see the king until they ask for Him (Mtt. Mat. 23:39; Luke Luke 13:35).
ἐβασίλευσας [ebasileusas] , an ingressive aorist, did begin to reign.
1 The arbitrariness of the heuristics behind textual criticism and the prevailing bias of Critical Text advocates against the Byzantine texts are demonstrated in the reason given for rejecting and who is to come from the Critical Text: The addition of ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι [ho erchomenos hoti] . . . is a typical Byzantine accretion, in imitation of the tripartite expression in 1.4, 8; cf. 4.8.Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 672. It seems when a longer reading is favored by advocates of the Critical Text they reason that omissions are a common copyist error. When a shorter reading is favored then the longer reading is dismissed as a typical Byzantine accretion. The fact that the former are errors of omission, whereas the latter are errors of commission, doesnt seem to be considered. A copyist with any reverence for the text is much more likely to commit the former (resulting in the shorter reading) than the latter (resulting in the longer reading). Therefore, in lieu of other considerations, the longer reading should normally be favored.
2 Millenarian writers have always insisted that a personal [Premillennial] Advent is to be witnessed under the seventh or last trumpet. Now, Bengel in his Gnomon has shown, that by the authority of the earliest MSS. the phrases and art to come in Rev. Rev. 11:17+, and and shalt be in Rev. Rev. 16:5+, are to be rejected. This criticism is fully sustained by the authoritative Sinaitic MSS. discovered by Prof. Tischendorf. . . . Thy should the title of Who is to come, or the Coming One given in Rev. Rev. 1:4+, 8 and 4:8 be omitted in Rev. 11:17+ and Rev. 16:5+? The reason, so corroborative of our faith, was given long ago by Ansbert (as quoted by Bengel): They do not here subjoin, as they are accustomed, and Who art to come; they speak of Him as already present. This omission, as the weightiest MSS. (admitted by Anti-Millenarians, as Prof. Stuart, Com.) prove, is not accidental but intentional, showing that the Coming One is no longer expected to come, but has already come. It is a beautiful, incidental, and most powerful proof confirmatory of our position, indicative of a [Premillennial] arrival and presence.George H. N. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1978, 1884), 2:185.