Dearest——-,—It seems to me that the argument as to Revelation has no force at all, and must come from a person who has not taken the trouble to inquire much into the views of which he judges...
The city in chapter 21 I believe to be the church, because it comes down from heaven from God, and yet more because the prophet is invited to see the bride the Lamb's wife, the heavenly city in contrast to Babylon. Whereas the city in chapter 11 is a city on earth trodden under foot by the nations for forty and two months, where there is testimony before the God of the earth, and it is in connection with Christ's taking possession of earth and sea by power. The question to what the term city applies is in no way guided by the new Jerusalem, for that comes down from God out of heaven, and from this fact is evidently, as from its whole description, a figure, and more than a figure, a symbolic city. This is on earth before the other is revealed. The question to what city does chapter 11 refer must be judged by the conclusion to which we come as to the bearing of all this part of the book, and of chapters 10, 11 in particular. I believe a certain prolonged application can be given in the sense in which John said there were many antichrists, but they were not the Antichrist. In this moral sense, then, passages may have an application to the present order of things; but I do not doubt that the things which come after "the things which are" do not belong to the present order of things, but to the time when God is bringing in His only begotten into the world, when He is busied with the government of the world, and hence with the Jews who are the central object of that government. Hence it is said that the witnesses stand before the God of the earth.
The same argument applies in all its force to chapter vii., but more than that. It contrasts in the distinctest way the tribes of Israel, and those of the nations and tongues; to make this the same class is absurd, upon the face of it; to make the tribes the elect and the other not is equally so, for those of the nations are gathered out for blessing; a little serious simplicity soon decides this question. As regards the 144,000, which is a question of detail, I can understand that it leaves more room for doubt; but in chapter 7 I see all the servants of God of all the tribes sealed before the judgment. In chapter 14 I see a special class most particularly associated with the Lamb, having His Father's name (not their Father's) on their forehead; that is, I see, having passed through suffering from their nation, analogous to Christ, and marked according to this special place, and His cortege in the kingdom; I believe them therefore a class apart and marked out before the harvest, "first fruits" of the new system. Chapter 7 has no way this character. The number makes no difference; it is a mystic one, 12 by 12 by 1000.
As regards the application of Luke 15 to a Christian turned aside, I have often heard it, but I reject it altogether. The fact of God's graciously receiving back a wandered Christian is of course true, but such is not the purpose of the parable. The first verses show, as distinctly as possible, that that is not its purport. The question is between the Pharisees and Jesus eating with and receiving sinners. He thereon gives the picture of God's love in seeking and in receiving sinners. The two first describe the seeking (as I believe by Christ and the Spirit), the third the reception. The reception back of a Christian fallen had not its application here. Further, the introduction of the eldest son carries us back evidently to the Jew, or any legally self-righteous person, but literally to the Jew in "all that I have is thine." The principle is shown in the two first, joy in heaven over a sinner that repents, and the third the way of original departure and return. Hence all that is seen of the elder is not an original estate, but the Jews' jealousy of the admission of sinners of the Gentiles. The notion that "son" carries with it the reality of being born of God is all a delusion; because then the eldest ought to be one; whereas on the footing of grace (which makes sons) he would not come in. Adam was the Son of God; "Israel my firstborn." The remark you refer to is all a mistake, because the first parables show the seeking, the active love of God; this, the reception by the Father of one he returned. I have myself no kind of doubt of the true application....
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
Chaux-de-Fonds,
November, 1860.