My Differences With John Gill's Interpretation of Revelation

Yes, I'm done with John Gill's exposition after several months of reading it. It was a rich exposition though there are times I'm forced to only read one chapter instead of two or three. Some chapters are pretty long and they need more understanding than the rest. There are also shorter expositions which makes reading a little more easy. Then I reached the Book of Revelation where I had some disagreements with John Gill.

On the other hand, I do still have my problems with his commentary on Revelation. When it comes to my interpretation of Revelation, I'm in between futurism and historicism. I'm definitely not a preterist to believe that Revelation was fulfilled last 70 A.D. I'm definitely not a historicist in the sense that I believe that the Antichrist is a dynasty because 1 John 2:18 says that Antichrist shall come and right now there are many antichrists. There's a distinction between the Antichrist and an antichrist. Later Reformed preachers like Arthur W. Pink rejected the idea that the Antichrist was the papacy though many still considered the Antichrist comes from the papacy.

I believe in a semi-literal interpretation of Revelation. Although there's no literal seven headed beast but I don't want to believe that the Antichrist and False Prophets are dynasties. The late Ian Paisley a Calvinist viewed the Papacy as the Antichrist and the Cardinals as the False Prophet. The Bible only says only one person called the False Prophet even if there are many false prophets. There are many antichrist yet only one person is called the Antichrist. If I were to view the Pope as the Antichrist then the False Prophet should come out from the cardinals.

I have a more different view of the four horsemen. What shocked me is that earlier Reformed theologians such as John Calvin interpreted the four horsemen to be Jesus sending His judgment to the world. Yet, I side with other theologians who consider the four horsemen in Revelation 6 to be the Antichrist leading his forces. I have no reason to believe that the Lamb would immediately dress up as the first horseman. John F. MacArthur's sermon on Revelation also calls the first horseman the Antichrist. Me and MacArthur have more in common in interpreting Revelation than me and the earlier Reformed theologians.

For one though, I still think of the Roman Catholic institution as the Great Whore of Revelation. It's not just because she's a city set on seven hills. There are many cities set on seven hills but only one is a counterfeit Christian church. I believe that the Whore of Revelation 17-18 should be in a historicist view. She has the blood of the martyrs. The Roman Catholic system has been the biggest persecutor of Christians aside from other rival cults. She holds a golden chalice in her hand, she has purple and scarlet as her color. She looks like a Christian church because she holds some symbols of the Old Testament priesthood yet she's a counterfeit. She claims to be the true Church founded last 33 A.D. but she has maintained that lie for a long time.

But I could still use Gill's commentary in preparing an exposition and understanding the Bible. Either way, I'm glad I'm done reading the long commentary and I can go back to my regular cover to cover Bible reading.