It is not 'about to come,' for the act of the Lord's coming is not immediately before the mind. I will not say there is no allusion to the future awaited exercise of divine power; for in Daniel, not only is the Son of man brought before the Ancient of days, but the Ancient of days comes. In the words 'who is, and was, and is to come,' there is surely reference to the abiding nature of his being. 'Who is to come' seems to me thus to render more truly the sense than any other form of words. The Greek has the future sense. See Mark 10.30, Luke 18.30; and Mark 11.10 partly runs into this sense. 'The coming one' became a name of the expected Messiah, as in Matt. 11.3, and in Heb. 10.37. But note, 'essential being' is put first, 'who is;' and then 'time past, and to come.' 'Who is' asserts the essential nature of his being.
Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.
'Jehovah Elohim,' as Luke 1.32; see chs. 4.8; 15.3; 18.8; 21.22; 22.5,6.
'The Almighty' always has the article in Greek in the Revelation.
Hupomone, 'endurance:' see Jas. 5.7; so chs. 2.2,3,19; 13.10; 14.12. The words 'tribulation,' 'kingdom,' 'patience' are intimately connected, being brought together under one head by one article in the Greek.
Ginomai: see John 1.17. His being there was an event which happened on account of the word of God. So 'became,' ver. 10.
'In [the] Spirit' is a state into which he entered. See Note c, Matt. 3.11.
The 'dominical' or 'lordly' day -- characterized by belonging to the Lord, as 'Lord's,' 1Cor. 11.20.
Aorist, 'have it written and sent:' it is to be a complete thing done.
Or 'lampstands' (luchnia) but simply here, I think, 'lamps' as compared with Heb. 9.2, where it is clearly the 'candlestick' or 'lampstand.' If luchnos and luchnia are distinguished, luchnia is the stand. The words are so distinguished in Matt. 5.15, Luke 8.16; 11.33.
Or 'a Son of man.' See Dan. 7.13, also without the article. It is not likeness to a person John knew, but to the character known by this title in scripture. To have seen angels in heaven would have been no wonder, but to see one as 'Son of man' was. This chapter corresponds to Dan. 7: only now he was seen on earth. It was the title the Lord habitually took. This made it personal; but in Daniel, though surely the same person, it was characteristic. Here, too, it is characteristic. Still the person designated is now known, and it is difficult to say 'a Son of man,' because of excluding this. 'Son-of-man-like' is feeble, it might only mean a manner: see ch. 14.14.