PMW 2023-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In that I believe Revelation is dealing primarily with God’s judgment of Israel and her temple, I must explain certain images that seem to contradict this view. The “merchants of the earth” in Revelation 18 is just one such passage.

Rome or Jerusalem?

In Revelation 18:3 we read: the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality. Beale and others see this as referring to Rome’s extravagant luxury through trade, and the temptations that flow from it throughout the empire (Beale 895-96; Mounce 326; Royalty passim; Witherington 226; Smalley 445).

Yet, I would point out that John states that these merchants, like the kings, are “of the Land [tēs gēs].” In Revelation 17 and 18 John is expanding on the bowl-plague judgments (Beale 847; TDNT 1:514; Boxall, 2002: 74-75). These fall upon “the Land” (tēs gēs, 16:1, 2) wherein we find “the great city” (16:19) Jerusalem (cp. 11:8), which is pejoratively called “Babylon” (16:19; 18:2, 10, 21). Thus, the geographical locus here is primarily in “the Land,” and particularly focused on Jerusalem (“Babylon”). These merchants are Jewish merchants because they are not only associated with the fall of Babylon-Jerusalem here but are actually called “your [i.e., Babylon’s] merchants [hoi emporoi sou]” (18:23c).

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

Several textual indicators suggest that John is focusing on Jerusalem rather than Rome (cp. Provan 1996: 94). (1) In this very Judaic book the language of religious defilement in 18:2 would suggest a Jewish city is in view. (2) Babylon’s double punishment reflects the OT prophetic witness against Jerusalem (18:6; see below). (3) The “great city” (18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21; cp. 18:2) was previously introduced as the place of the crucifixion (11:8). (4) In 18:24 the killing of the prophets by Babylon reflects a familiar sin of Jerusalem (Neh 9:26; cp. 1Ki 19:10, 14; 21:13; 2Ch 24:19, 21; 36:14-16; Isa 1:15; Jer 2:30; 25:4; 26:20-23). (5) The bowl judgments in Rev 16 are being expanded upon in Rev 17-18. In the latter bowls “Babylon the great” was distinguished from the cities of the nations (16:19). (6) Rev 16:21 recalls God’s judgment on OT Jerusalem (Eze 13:13).

Geographical Focus

Smalley (445) is surely wrong when translates emporoi tēs gēs as “worldly merchants,” stating that “the description speaks more of their secular attitude than their geographical location.” His interpretation is unlikely in that: (1) This would be a unique usage of tēs gēs in Revelation. (2) Smalley does not translate the other appearance of the phrase in the same verse as “worldly kings.” Of this phrase at 17:2 he speaks of “the rulers of the nations” and their alignment with the katoikountes tēn gēn, which are “people the world over” (Smalley 427). There he even states of the expression basileis tēs gēs: “the interpretation of which in Revelation seems to be consistent.”

(3) It would be more in keeping with Johannine thought patterns to refer to that which is “worldly” by using kosmos (e.g., 1Jn 2:15-17; 4:4-5; 5:4). But though the geographical Land is in view, I would point out its significance not as a mere geographical matter, but as a covenantal one (Vanderwaal, 10: 82-85; cf. Chilton, 10-20). (4) We must wonder why the shipmasters and sailors are not declared “worldly,” especially since they too “became rich by her wealth” and lament her passing similarly (18:17b-19).

Four Views on the Book of Revelation
(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

With the focus on Babylon-Jerusalem, this scene of wealth “in the Land” must be associated with the temple. We expect this from the evidence in 17:4-5 which shows the harlot clad in costly high priestly attire. After all, “the centre of the Judaean economy was Jerusalem, which dominated all the neighborhood [in the Land!] as the head towers above the body (J.W. 3:5:4)” (Goodman 1987: 51). Indeed, “the Jerusalem temple constituted an economic entity in its own right.” Rowland (in Horbury 1991: 195–96) notes: “the regular flow of income to the Temple from all parts of the empire led to the enrichment of this institution and those who ran it. As far as Jerusalem itself was concerned, the Temple provided a central feature of the local economy,” so that it was “the most significant part of the Jerusalem economy.” According to Hamilton (1964: 366), M. Rostovtzeff states that “the temple of Jerusalem continued to be the place where Jews, both rich and poor, kept their money.” We see indications that the temple was used by the Jews as a bank (1Ki 7:51; 2Ki 18:15; 16:8; 1Ch 9:26; 28:11–12; 2Ch 36:18; Neh 13:12–13; Ecclus 42:7; Tob 1:14; 19:5; 2 Macc 3:10–11).

The pious give their tithes to Jerusalem. In Tobit 1:6b-8 we read: “I would hurry off to Jerusalem with the first fruits of the crops and the firstlings of the flock, the tithes of the cattle, and the first shearings of the sheep. I would give these to the priests, the sons of Aaron, at the altar; likewise the tenth of the grain, wine, olive oil, pomegranates, figs, and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi who ministered at Jerusalem. Also for six years I would save up a second tenth in money and go and distribute it in Jerusalem. A third tenth I would give to the orphans and widows and to the converts who had attached themselves to Israel. I would bring it and give it to them in the third year, and we would eat it according to the ordinance decreed concerning it in the law of Moses.” Cicero speaks in disdain of this enormous outflow of funds to Jerusalem (Flac. 28:67; cf. Dio 61:7:2). The tractate Shekalim (“The Shekel Dues”) in the Mishnah and Tosefta discusses various aspects of the half-shekel payment by all Jews, including the surplus that fell to the temple (e.g., m. Shek. 2:3, 5).

Conclusion
This is only a small sampling of my argument that I will be presenting in my forthcoming commentary on Revelation, The Divorce of Israel. Lord willing, it will be out this Fall. In the 1750 page commentary I have plenty of room to flesh out my argument.