When God called Abraham, while he was still in Syria, he entered the land of Canaan (later called Palestine) having been called there by God. There he was promised that in him all the world would be blessed, and this was later also promised to his seed (Genesis 12.3;18.18; 22.18; 26.4; 28.14).

But Abraham did not enter the land alone. In Genesis 14 we are told that he had three hundred and eighteen fighting men ‘born in his house’, in other words sons born to servants, camp followers and slaves. One of his own slave wives was an Egyptian (Genesis 16) and his steward was probably Syrian, a Damascene (Genesis 15.2). Thus Abraham was patriarch over a family tribe, all of whom with him inherited the promises, and it must be stressed that they came from a number of different nationalities. Only a small proportion were actually descended from Abraham directly.

Apart from one visit to Egypt in time of famine, Abraham remained in Canaan all his life. He was semi-nomadic, which meant that he and his family tribe would settle from time to time in one particular place, growing crops and associating with his neighbours, before then moving on to new pastures. We know that two of his favourite sites were Gerar on the Coastal Plain, and Hebron (Mamre) in the Judean hills.

From Abraham came Isaac through whom the most basic promises were to be fulfilled, for God said, ‘in Isaac shall your seed be called’ (Genesis 21.12; Romans 9.7; see also Genesis 26.3-5). Isaac was born of Abraham’s true wife, Sarah, who was of the ‘royal blood’. Ishmael his elder son was born of a slave wife and thus while he enjoyed participation in certain promises of God, he was excluded from the major line of promise, and because of his unwillingness to submit to the precedence of Isaac, was expelled from the tribe. He lived out his life in the Sinai peninsula in the neighbourhood of Egypt where he established his own tribe, which became one of many tribes of wanderers, moving from place to place, and acting as shepherds and goat-herds, while also probably being semi-brigands. While prospering, they would not be the people through whom the whole world would be blessed. And this was also true of Abraham's later sons born to Keturah, who also seemingly formed their own tribes, some of whom eventually moved to Arabia. Thus the large part of Abraham's descendants were at this stage already cut off from the full Abrahamic promises. As Paul puts it, 'In Isaac will your seed be called' (Romans 9.7).

There are no genuine historical grounds for seeing the vast majority of today’s Arabs as descended from Ishmael. By the time of Ishmael Arabia was already well populated by the ancestors of modern Arabs who had come mainly from North Africa (Genesis 10.6-7). The sons of Ishmael and of the sons of Keturah appear merely to have mingled with them.

Isaac prospered and produced two sons, Jacob and Esau. Esau left the family tribe and established his own tribe in Edom, becoming a force in his own right, and presumably eventually uniting with local tribes which resulted in Edom being seen as a brother nation to Israel.

Jacob, who was renamed Israel, was born of Isaac, and it was to him that the future lordship of people and nations was passed on (Genesis 27.29) and from his twelve sons came the twelve tribes of the ‘children of Israel’. But as with Abraham these twelve tribes would include retainers, servants and slaves. The ‘households’ that moved to Egypt (Exodus 1.1-7) would thus include such servants and slaves, the ‘seventy’ being accompanied by their ‘households’ comprised of wives, retainers, and their children. So the ‘children of Israel’ even at this stage would include people from many peoples and nations. They included Jacob/Israel’s own descendants and their wives, together with their servants and retainers, and their wives and children, ‘many ‘born in their house’ but not directly their seed (Genesis 15.3). Israel was already a conglomerate people. Even at the beginning they were not all literally descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Most were rather ‘adopted’ into the family tribe.

When eventually after hundreds of years they left Egypt they were then joined by a ‘mixed multitude’ from many nations, who with them had been enslaved in Egypt, and these joined with them in their flight (Exodus 12.38). So to the already mixed people of Israel were united a further ‘mixed multitude’ and Israel thus became even more of a mixture. At Sinai these were all joined within the covenant and became ‘children of Israel’, and when they entered the land all their males were circumcised as true Israelites (Joshua 5.8). Among these was an 'Ethiopian' (Cushite) woman who became Moses’ wife (Numbers 12.1). Thus we discover that ‘Israel’ from its commencement was an international community.

Indeed it was made clear from the beginning that any who wanted to do so could join Israel and become an Israelite by submission to the covenant and by being circumcised (Exodus 12.48-49). Membership of the people of God was thus from the beginning to be open to all nations by submission to God through the covenant. And these would then all connect themselves with one of the tribes of Israel, and would be absorbed into them, beginning to trace their ancestry back to Abraham and Jacob even though they were not true born. Thus they still often retained an identifying appellation such as, for example, ‘Uriah the Hittite’. (Whether Uriah was one such we do not know, although we think it extremely probable. But there must certainly have been many who did it). Indeed even while Moses was alive it proved necessary to make regulations as to who could enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and become one with Israel, and he laid out at what stage people of different nations could enter it (Deuteronomy 23.1-8), so that they could then become Israelites.

That this was carried out in practise is evidenced by the numerous Israelites who bore a foreign name, consider for example ‘Uriah the Hittite’ (2 Samuel 11) and many of the mighty men of David (2 Samuel 23.8-28). These latter were so close to David that it is inconceivable that some at least did not become true members of the covenant by submitting to the covenant and being circumcised when it was clearly open to them through the Law. Later again it became the practise in Israel, in accordance with Exodus 12. 48-49, for anyone who ‘converted’ to Israel and began to believe in the God of Israel, to be received into ‘Israel’ on equal terms with the true-born, and that by circumcision and submission to the covenant. These were later called ‘proselytes’. In contrast people also left Israel by desertion, and by not bringing their children within the covenant, when for example they went abroad or were exiled, and chose not to continue following the Law. These were then ‘cut off from Israel’, as were deep sinners. ‘Israel’ was therefore always a fluid concept, and was, at least purportedly, composed of all who submitted to the covenant.

Through the centuries God raised up many prophets whose aim was to bring Israel (and then Israel/Judah) back to God, for they had strayed by following, along with their worship of the true God, the gods of Canaan. But while some few responded to the call of these prophets, the majority refused to listen and continued in idolatry. Indeed the prophets make clear that only a remnant would be ‘saved’. Thus in the end, as a result of Israel’s failure to wholly respond to God, God sent ‘His own beloved Son’. This is vividly portrayed in the parable of the Tenants in which Jesus brought this out (Mark 12.1-12), a parable which clearly brings out the distinction between the messengers of God and finally God’s true Son. He was thus the ultimate One to Whom all others had pointed. While there would be many prophets after Him, calling men back to God, their essential task also would be to point to Him.

When Jesus came His initial purpose was to call back to God ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 10.6), that is, those in Israel who were seeking a Shepherd, and in the main, for the first part of His ministry, although with exceptions (e.g. John 4), He limited His ministry to Jews. But it should be noticed that according to Him those Jews who would not listen to His disciples were to be treated like Gentiles, for the disciples were to shake their dust off their feet when they left their cities (Matthew 10.14). This was the practise of religious Jews when leaving Gentile territory, indicating thereby that they were seen as ‘unclean’. So even during Jesus' ministry there was to be a cutting off from Israel as well as a welcoming. But after His dealings with the Syro-phoenician woman, He expanded His thinking, and His approach, further and moved into Gentile territory, preaching in the area of Tyre and Sidon, and of Decapolis. There is no indication that it was only to Jews, and He Himself declared that there were other sheep that He would also call and they would be one flock with Israel (John 10.16).

Thus when after His crucifixion and resurrection the Gospel began to reach out to the Gentiles those who ‘converted’ were welcomed as part of the one flock. It should be noted that the initial ‘church’ (congregation of the new Israel - Matthew 16.18) were all Jews. So the question now arose, ‘did these converted Gentiles need to be circumcised in order to become members of the new Israel?’ Was a special proselytisation necessary, as with proselytes to old Israel, which was to be evidenced by circumcision? That was what the circumcision controversy was all about. The Judaisers said 'yes' and Paul said 'No'. And the question was only asked because all saw these new converts as becoming a part of the true Israel. If they had not seen these Gentiles as becoming a part of Israel there would have been no controversy. There would have been no suggestion of a need for circumcision. It was only because they were seen as becoming proselyte Israelites that the problem even arose.

That is why Paul’s argument was never that circumcision was not necessary because they were not becoming Israel. He indeed accepted that they would become members of Israel. But rather he argues that circumcision was no longer necessary because all who were in Christ were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ. They were already circumcised by faith through oneness with Him in His death and resurrection. Hid sacrifice of Himself had replaced circumcision. His blood replaced the blood of circumcision. They thus had the circumcision of the heart, and were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11), and therefore did not need to be circumcised again.

That is why in Romans 11.17-24 he speaks clearly of converted Gentiles being ‘grafted into the olive tree’ through faith, and of Israelites being broken off through unbelief, to be welcomed again if they repent and come to Christ. Whatever else we therefore actually see the olive tree as representing, it is quite clear that it does speak of those who are cut off because they do not believe, and of those who are ingrafted because they do believe (precisely as it was to happen with Israel), and this in the context of Israel being saved or not.

But the breaking off or casting off of Israelites in the Old Testament was always an indication of being cut off from Israel. Thus we must see the olive tree as, like the true vine in John 15.1-6, signifying all who are now included within the promises, that is the true Israel, with spurious elements being cut off because they are not really a part of them, while new members are grafted in. Any difficulty lies in the simplicity of the illustration which like all illustrations cannot cover every point.

It should be noted in this regard that ‘olive tree’ is the very name by which YHWH specifically called Israel for in Jeremiah 11.16 we read, ‘YHWH called your name ‘an olive tree, green, beautiful and with luscious fruit’. The importance of this comes out in that those who are actually said to be ‘called by name’ by YHWH are very few (Adam, Jacob/Israel and Magormissabib, the last being an indication of the judgment that was coming on him in Jeremiah 20.3). So, as Paul knew, ‘olive tree’ was YHWH’s name for the true Israel.

This then raises an interesting question. If unbelieving Israel could be cut off from the olive tree, what in Paul’s mind is the olive tree? For this illustration suggests that unbelieving Israel had been members of the olive tree, and if the olive tree is true Israel then does that mean that they had once been members of true Israel?

Exactly the same question could be posed about the branches of the vine which are pruned from the vine in John 15.1-6 and are burned in the fire. They too 'appear' to have been members of the true vine. And the same could be said of those caught into the net of the Kingly Rule of Heaven who are finally ejected and brought into judgment (Matthew 13.47-50). They too 'appeared' to have been a part of the Kingly Rule of God. But the real emphasis is on the fact that they were never really part of the true. They were spurious. Thus while the olive tree, the true Vine and the Kingly Rule of Heaven are all seen as seeming to have contained false members the point is being made that such were never true members at all. True members were known by their fruit.

The contrary argument is clearly false for in John 15.1-6 the true Vine is Jesus Himself. Thus the fact that some can be cut off from the true Vine hardly means that the true vine is to be seen as partly a false vine. The illustration simply indicates that they should never have been there in the first place. They had outwardly attached themselves but in God’s eyes were spurious. Outwardly they may have appeared to have been members of the true vine, but inwardly they were not. Outwardly they had appeared to be a part of the olive tree, but inwardly they had not. The same can be said to apply to the Kingly Rule of God. Those who were gathered into the net of the Kingly Rule of God divide up into ‘children of the Kingly Rule’ and ‘children of the Evil One’. The latter were never thus children of the Kingly Rule. They were never a true part of the Kingly Rule. They were children of the Evil One all the time. Indeed their very behaviour revealed that they were not under God’s Kingly Rule.

In the same way then the olive tree is an Israel composed of true believers, and is such that unbelieving Jews are to be cut off because essentially they are proved not to have been a part of it. Outwardly they had appeared to be, but they were not. In each case it simply means that there were spurious elements connected with them that were masquerading as the real thing, which simply have to be removed. Rather than being in the basic concept, the problem arises from the difficulty of conveying the concept in simple pictorial terms. For the true Vine can hardly really have false members, otherwise it would not be the true Vine. In each case, therefore, it is can clearly be seen that in fact those ‘cut off’ or ‘ejected’ were never really a part of what they were seen to be cut off from, but had only physically given the appearance of being so.

The same is true of the ‘church’ today. There is an outward church composed of all who attach themselves and call themselves Christians, and there is a true church composed of all who are true believers and are ‘in Christ’. They are within the outward church but spiritually separate from it. It is only the latter who benefit, and will benefit, from all that God has promised for His ‘church’.

In the same way, as Paul has said, not all Israel are (or ever were) the true Israel (Romans 9.6). Many professed to be but were spurious ‘members’. They were fakes. Their hearts were not within the covenant. They were ‘not My people’ (Hosea 2.23). This stresses the difference between the outward and the inward. Not all who say ‘Lord’ Lord’ will enter the Kingly Rule of God, but only those will enter who by their lives reveal that they truly are what they profess to be (Matthew 7.21).

This idea also comes out regularly in the Old Testament where God made it quite clear that only a proportion of Israel would avoid His judgments (e.g. Isaiah 6.13). The remainder (and large majority) would be ‘cut off’, for although outwardly professing to be His people they were not His people. And thus it was with the people of Israel in Jesus’ day. They were revealed by their fruits, which included how they responded to Jesus.

But in Ephesians 2 Paul makes crystal clear that Gentiles can become a part of the true Israel. He tells the Gentiles that they had in the past been ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise’ (2.12). They had not been a part of it. Thus in the past they had not belonged to the twelve tribes. But then he tells them that they are now ‘made nigh by the blood of Christ’ (2.13), Who has ‘made both one and broken down the wall of partition --- creating in Himself of two one new man’ (2.14-15). Now therefore, through Christ, they have been made members of the commonwealth of Israel, and inherit the promises. So they are ‘no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (2.19-20). ‘Strangers and sojourners’ was the Old Testament description of those who were not true Israelites. It is therefore made as clear as can be that they have now entered the ‘new’ Israel. They are no longer strangers and sojourners but are now ‘fellow-citizens’ with God’s people. They have entered into the covenant of promise (Galatians 3.29), and thus inherit all the promises of the Old Testament, including the prophecies.

So as with people in the Old Testament who were regularly adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g. the mixed multitude - Exodus 12.38), Gentile Christians too are now seen as so incorporated. That is why Paul can call the church ‘the Israel of God’, made up of Jews and ex-Gentiles, having declared circumcision and uncircumcision as unimportant because there is a new creation (Galatians 6.15-16), a circumcision of the heart. It is those who are in that new creation who are the Israel of God.

In context ‘The Israel of God’ can here only mean that new creation, the church of Christ, otherwise he is being inconsistent. For as he points out, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters any more. What matters is the new creation. It must therefore be that which identifies the Israel of God. For if circumcision is irrelevant then the Israel of God cannot be made up of the circumcised, even the believing circumcised, for circumcision has lost its meaning. The point therefore behind both of these passages is that all Christians become, by adoption, members of the twelve tribes.

There would in fact be no point in mentioning circumcision if he was not thinking of the incorporation of believing Gentiles into the twelve tribes. The importance of circumcision was that to the Jews it made the difference between those who became genuine proselytes, and thus members of the twelve tribes, and those who remained as ‘God-fearers’, loosely attached but not circumcised and therefore not accepted as full Jews. That then was why the Judaising Christians wanted all Gentiles who became Christians to be circumcised. It was because they did not believe that they could otherwise become genuine Israelites. This therefore demonstrates that they also saw Gentiles who were converted to Christ as becoming Israelites. There could have been no other reason for wanting Gentiles to be circumcised. (Jesus had never in any way commanded circumcision). Paul, however, declares that circumcision is no longer required. He argues that they can become true Israelites without being physically circumcised because they are circumcised in heart. They are circumcised in Christ and in His death. So when Paul argues that Christians have been circumcised in heart (Romans 2.26, 29; 4.12; Philippians 3.3; Colossians 2.11) he is saying that that is all that is necessary in order for them to be members of the true Israel.

A great deal of discussion often takes place about the use of ‘kai’ in Galatians 6.16, ‘as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and (kai) on the Israel of God’. It is asked, ‘does it signify that the Israel of God is additional to and distinct from those who ‘walk by this rule’, or simply defines them?’ (If the Israel of God differs from those who ‘walk by this rule’ then that leaves only the Judaisers as the Israel of God, and excludes Paul and His Jewish supporters. But can anyone really contend that that was what Paul meant?) The answer to this question is really decided by the preceding argument. We cannot really base our case on arguments about ‘kai’. But for the sake of clarity we will consider the question.

Kai is in fact simply a vague connecting word. It cannot be denied that ‘kai’ can in some circumstances mean ‘and’, and as thus indicate adding something additional, because it is a connecting word. But nor can it be denied that it can alternatively, in contexts like this, mean ‘even’, and as thus equating what follows with what has gone before, again because it is a connecting word. In other words it does not always mean ‘and’, but simply connects and leaves the context to decide its meaning. ‘Kai’ in fact is often used in Greek as a kind of connection word where in English it is redundant altogether. It is not therefore a strongly definitive word. Thus its meaning must always be decided by the context, and a wise rule has been made that we make the decision on the basis of which choice will add least to the meaning of the word in the context (saying in other words that because of its ambiguity ‘kai’ should never be stressed). That would mean here the translating of it as ‘even’, giving it its mildest influence.

That that is the correct translation comes out if we give the matter a little more thought. The whole letter has been emphasising that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (3.28), and that this arises because all are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. So even had we not had the reasons that we have already considered, how strange it would then be for Paul to close the letter by distinguishing Jew from Greek, and Gentiles from the believing Jews. He would be going against all that he has just said. And yet that is exactly what he would be doing if he was exclusively indicating by the phrase ‘the Israel of God’ only the believing Jews. So on all counts, interpretation, grammar and common sense, ‘the Israel of God’ must include both Jews and Gentiles. It is the new Israel which is His new creation.

Furthermore in Galatians 4.26 it is made clear that the true Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem, the earthly having been rejected. It is this new heavenly Jerusalem which is ‘the mother of us all’ just as Sarah had been the mother of Israel. All Christians are thus the children of the freewoman, that is, of Sarah (4.31). This reveals that they are therefore the true sons of Abraham, signifying ‘Israel’. To argue that being a true son of Abraham through Sara is not the same thing as being a son of Jacob/Israel would in fact be to argue contrary to all that Israel believed. Their boast was precisely that they were ‘sons of Abraham’, indeed the true sons of Abraham, because they 'came' from Sara's seed.

Again in Romans he points out to the Gentiles that there is a remnant of Israel which is faithful to God and they are the true Israel (11.5). The remainder have been cast off (Romans 10.27, 29; 11.15, 17, 20). Then he describes the Christian Gentiles as ‘grafted in among them’ becoming ‘partakers with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree’ (11.17). They are now part of the same tree so it is clear that he regards them as now being part of the faithful remnant of Israel (see argument on this point earlier). With regard to the olive tree we are told that God said to Israel, ‘God called your name “A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit’ (Jeremiah 11.16). So the olive tree is very much a picture of the true Israel. This oneness is again declared quite clearly in Galatians, for ‘those who are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham’ (Galatians 3.7).

Note that in Romans 9 Paul declares that not all earthly Israel are really Israel, only those who are chosen by God. It is only the chosen who are the foreknown Israel. See 9.8, 24-26; 11.2. This is a reminder that to Paul ‘Israel’ is a fluid concept. It does not have just one fixed meaning. It can mean all Jews. It can mean all believing Jews. It can mean all unbelieving Jews, excluding believing Jews, depending on Paul's context. Thus 'they are not all Israel who are Israel' undeniably indicates already two definitions of Israel (Romans 9.6).

The privilege of being a ‘son of Abraham’ is that one is adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the twelve tribes who proudly called themselves ‘the sons of Abraham’ (John 8.39, 53). That is why in the one man in Christ Jesus there can be neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3.28). For they all become one as Israel by being one with the One Who in Himself sums up all that Israel was meant to be, the true Vine (John 15.1-6; Isaiah 49.3). For ‘if you are Abraham’s seed, you are heirs according to the promise’ (Galatians 3.29). To be Abraham’s ‘seed’ within the promise is to be a member of the twelve tribes. There can really be no question about it. The reference to ‘seed’ is decisive. You cannot be ‘Abraham’s seed’ through Sara and yet not a part of Israel. (If we want to be pedantic we can point out that Edom also actually ceased to exist and did become by compulsion, a part of Israel, under John Hyrcanus. Thus Israel was once again to be seen as an openly conglomerate nation. Furthermore large numbers of what were then seen as Galilean Jews (but some of whom had been Gentiles) had been forced to become Jews in the two centuries before Christ. Having been circumcised they were accepted as Jews even though not literally born of the twelve tribes. They were members of the twelve tribes by adoption).

Paul can even separate Jew from Jew saying, ‘he is not a Jew who is one outwardly --- he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and the circumcision is that of the heart’ (2.28-29 compare v.26). The true Jew, he says, is the one who is the inward Jew. So he distinguishes physical Israel from true Israel and physical Jew from true Jew.

In the light of these passages it cannot really be doubted that the early church saw the converted Gentiles as becoming a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. They are ‘the seed of Abraham’, ‘sons of Abraham’, ‘spiritually circumcised’, ‘grafted into the true Israel’, ‘fellow-citizens with the saints in the commonwealth of Israel’, ‘the Israel of God’. What further evidence do we need?

In Romans 4 he further makes clear that Abraham is the father of all who believe, including both circumcised and uncircumcised (4.9-13). Indeed he says we have been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). All who believe are therefore circumcised children of Abraham.

When James writes to ‘the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion’ (1.1) he is taking the same view. (Jews living away from Palestine were seen as dispersed around the world and were therefore thought of as ‘the dispersion’). There is not a single hint in his letter that he is writing other than to all in the churches. He therefore sees the whole church as having become members of the twelve tribes, and sees them as the true 'dispersion', and indeed refers to their ‘assembly’ with the same word used for synagogue (2.2). But he can also call them ‘the church’ (5.14).

Yet there is not even the slightest suggestion anywhere in the remainder of his letter that James has just one section of the church in mind. In view of the importance of the subject, had he not been speaking of the whole church he must surely have commented on the attitude of Jewish Christians to Christian Gentiles, especially in the light of the ethical content of his letter. It was a crucial problem of the day. But there is not even a whisper of it in his letter. He speaks as though to the whole church. Unless he was a total separatist (which we know he was not) and treated the ex-Gentile Christians as though they did not exist, this would seem impossible unless he saw all as now making up ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’.

Peter also writes to ‘the elect’ and calls them ‘sojourners of the dispersion’, but when he does speak of ‘Gentiles’ he always means unconverted Gentiles. He clearly assumes that all that come under the heading ‘Gentiles’ are not Christians (2.12; 4.3). The fact that the elect includes ex-Gentiles is confirmed by the fact that he speaks to the recipients of his letter warning them not to fashion themselves ‘according to their former desires in the time of their ignorance’ (1 Peter 1.14), and as having been ‘not a people, but are now the people of God’ (1 Peter 2.10), and speaks of them as previously having ‘wrought the desire of the Gentiles’ (1 Peter 4.3). So it is apparent he too sees all Christians as members of the twelve tribes (as in the example above, ‘the dispersion’ means the twelve tribes scattered around the world).

Good numbers of Gentiles were in fact already becoming members of the Jewish faith at that time, and on being circumcised were being accepted by the Jews as members of the twelve tribes, as proselytes. In the same way the Apostles, who were all Jews and also saw the pure in Israel, the Jews who had responded to Christ, as God’s chosen people, saw the converted Gentiles as being incorporated into the new Israel, into the true twelve tribes. But they did not see circumcision as necessary, and the reason for that was that they considered that all who believed had been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.

Peter in his letter confirms all this. He writes to the church calling them ‘a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession’ (1 Peter 2.5, 9), all terms which in Exodus 19.5-6 indicate Israel.

Today we may not think in these terms but it is apparent that to the early church to become a Christian was to become a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. That is why there was such a furore over whether circumcision, the covenant sign of the Jew, was necessary for Christians. It was precisely because all saw them as entering the twelve tribes that many saw it as required. Paul’s argument against it is never that Christians do not become members of the twelve tribes (as we have seen he actually argues that they do) but that what matters is spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision. Thus early on Christians unquestionably saw themselves as the true twelve tribes of Israel.

This receives confirmation from the fact that the seven churches (the universal church) is seen in terms of the seven lampstands in chapter 1. The sevenfold lampstand in the Tabernacle and Temple represented Israel. In the seven lampstands the churches are seen as the true Israel.

Given that fact it is clear that reference to the hundred and forty four thousand from all the tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 is to Christians. They are those who have been sealed by God. But it is equally clear that the numbers are not to be taken literally. The twelve by twelve is stressing who and what they are, not how many there are. There is no example anywhere else in Scripture where God actually selects people on such an exact basis. Even the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19.18) were a round number based on ‘seven’ as the number of divine perfection and completeness. The reason for the seemingly exact figures was to demonstrate that God has His people numbered and that not one was missing (compare Numbers 31.48-49). The message of these verses is that in the face of persecution to come, and of God’s judgments against men, God knows and remembers His own because they are numbered. But they are then described as a multitude who cannot be numbered (only God can number them).

It is noticeable that this description of the twelve tribes is in fact artificial, for it is artificial in another respect. While Judah is placed first as the tribe from which Christ came, Dan is omitted, and Manasseh is included as well as Joseph, even though Manasseh was the son of Joseph. Thus the omission of Dan is deliberate, while Ephraim, Joseph’s other son, is ‘excluded by name’, but included under Joseph’s name. (This artificiality confirms that the idea of the tribes is not to be taken literally. We may ask, was God really intending to exclude the whole of Dan? The answer can surely only be ‘no’, for in Deuteronomy 33 it was Simeon who was excluded). The exclusion of Dan here is probably because he was seen as the tool of the Serpent (Genesis 49.17), and the exclusion of the two names is because the two names ‘Ephraim and Dan’ were specifically connected with idolatry.

In Deuteronomy 29.17-20 the warning had been given that God would ‘blot out his name from under heaven’, when speaking of those who gave themselves up to idolatrous worship and belief, and as we have seen idolatry and uncleanness were central in the warnings to the seven churches. Thus the exclusion of the names of Ephraim and Dan are a further warning against such things.

It is unquestionable that the names of both Ephraim and Dan were specifically connected with idolatry in such a way as to make them distinctive. Hosea declared, ‘Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone, their drink is become sour, they commit whoredom continually’ (Hosea 4.17-18). This is distinctly reminiscent of the sins condemned in the seven churches. It is true that Ephraim here means the whole of Israel, as often, but John saw the name of Ephraim as besmirched by the connection with idolatry and whoredom.

As for Dan, it was a man of the tribe of Dan who ‘blasphemed the Name’ (Leviticus 24.11), it was Dan who were first to set up a graven image in rivalry to the Tabernacle (Judges 18.30) and Dan was the only tribe mentioned by name as being the site of one of the calves of gold set up by Jeroboam, as Amos stresses (Amos 8.14; 1 Kings 12.29-30; 2 Kings 10.29). Indeed Amos directly connects the name of Dan with ‘the sin of Samaria’. Thus Dan is closely connected with blasphemy and idolatry. And to cap it all ‘Dan will be a serpent in the way, and an adder in the path’ (Genesis 49.17). He is the tool of the Serpent. Typologically therefore he is the Judas of the twelve. How could he not then be excluded? It is also voices in Dan and Ephraim which declare the evil coming on Jerusalem (Jeremiah 4.15), closely connecting the two.

That what is excluded is the name of Ephraim and not its people (they are included in Joseph) is significant. It means that the message of these omissions is that the very names of those who partake in idolatry and sexual misbehaviour will be excluded from the new Israel (compare the warnings to the churches, especially Thyatira). The exclusion of the name of Dan is therefore to warn us that those who are not genuine will be excluded from the new Israel. But that does not mean that there were not many Danites who had become Christians, and we must remember that God’s care for Dan was revealed in His raising up of Samson.

So here in Revelation, in the face of the future activity of God against the world, He provides His people with protection, and marks them off as distinctive from those who bear the mark of the Beast. The one bear the mark of Christ, the other the mark of the Beast. God protects His true people. And there is no good reason for seeing these people as representing other than the church of the current age. The fact is that Christians have been continually liable to persecution through the ages, and while not all God’s judgments have yet been visited on the world, we have experienced sufficient to know that we are not excluded. In John’s day this reference to ‘the twelve tribes’ was telling the church that God had sealed them, so that while they must be ready for the persecution to come, they need not fear the coming judgments of God that he will now reveal, for they are under His protection.

In fact the New Testament tells us that all God’s true people are sealed by God from Abraham onwards. Abraham received circumcision as a seal of ‘the righteousness of (springing from) faith’ (Romans 4.11), but this circumcision is replaced in the New Testament by the ‘seal of the Spirit’ (2 Corinthians 1.22; Ephesians 1.13; 4.30). It is clear that Paul therefore sees all God’s people as being ‘sealed’ by God in their enjoyment of the indwelling Holy Spirit and this would suggest that John’s description in Revelation 7 is a dramatic representation of that fact. His people have been open to spiritual attack from earliest New Testament days (and before) and it is not conceivable that they have not enjoyed God’s seal of protection on them. Thus the seal here in Revelation refers to the sealing (or if someone considers it future, a re-sealing) with the Holy Spirit of promise. The whole idea behind the scene is in order to stress that all God’s people have been specially sealed.

In Revelation 21 the ‘new Jerusalem’ is founded on twelve foundations which are the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (21.14), and its gates are the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (21.12). This explains the twelve by twelve in Revelation 7. Indeed Jesus specifically said that he would found his ‘church’ on the Apostles and their statement of faith (Matthew 16.18) whilst the very idea behind the word ‘church’ (ekklesia) here was as being the ‘congregation’ of Israel. (The word ekklesia is used to refer to the latter in the Greek Old Testament). Jesus had come to establish the new Israel. Thus from the commencement the church were seen as being the true Israel, composed of both Jew and Gentile who entered within God’s covenant, the ‘new covenant’, as it had been right from the beginning, and they were called ‘the church’ for that very reason.

In countering these arguments it has been astonishingly said that ‘Every reference to Israel in the New Testament refers to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ And another expositor has added the comment, ‘This is true in the Old Testament also.’

These statements, however are not only a gross oversimplification, they are in fact totally untrue. They simply assume what they intend to prove, and can be shown to be completely incorrect. For as we have seen above if there is one thing that is absolutely sure it is that many who saw themselves as Israelites were not physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many were descended from the servants of the Patriarchs who went down into Egypt in their ‘households’, and were from a number of nationalities. Others were part of the mixed multitude which left Egypt with Israel (Exodus 12.38). They had been adopted into Israel, and had thus become Israelites, a situation which was sealed by the covenant.

Indeed it is made quite clear that anyone who was willing to worship God and become a member of the covenant through circumcision could do so and became accepted on equal terms as ‘Israelites’ (Exodus 12.47-49). They would then become united with the tribe among whom they dwelt or with which they had connections. That is why there were regulations as to who could enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and when they could do so (Deuteronomy 23.1-8). Later on proselytes would also be absorbed into Israel. Thus ‘Israel’ was from the start very much a conglomerate, and continued to be so. That is why prior to the time of Christ, once the Jews took over their land, many Galileans were forced to become Jews and be circumcised whilst at another time the Edomites were forced to become Jews en masse. From then on all were seen as part of Israel.

Nor is it true that in Paul ‘Israel’ always means physical Israel. When we come to the New Testament Paul can speak of ‘Israel after the flesh’ (1 Corinthians 10.18). That suggests that he also conceives of an Israel not ‘after the flesh’. It is a conclusion that cannot really be avoided, as Paul makes clear in Roman 2.25-29.

Furthermore, when we remember that outside Romans 9-11 Israel is only mentioned by Paul seven times, and that 1 Corinthians 10.18, one of the seven, clearly points to another Israel, one not after the flesh (which has been defined in verses 1-18), and that Galatians 6.16 is most satisfactorily seen as signifying the church of Jesus Christ and not old Israel at all (or even converted Israel), the statement must be seen as having little force. Add to that that in Ephesians 2.11-22, where he speaks of the ‘commonwealth of Israel’, Paul immediately goes on to say that in Christ Jesus all who are His are ‘made nigh’, and then stresses that we are no more strangers and sojourners but are genuine fellow-citizens, and are of the household of God, and the statement falls to pieces. For if that does not mean becoming a part of the true Israel it is difficult to see what could.

Furthermore in the other four references (so now there are only four out of seven) it was not Israel in its current status that was in mind. Rather the term was simply being used as an identifier in a historical sense in reference to connections with Old Testament situations. Thus the argument that ‘Israel always means Israel’ is not very strong. Again in Hebrews all mentions of ‘Israel’ are historical, referring back to the Old Testament. They refer to Israel in the past, not in the present. Whilst in Revelation two mentions out of three are again simply historical, while many would consider that the third actually does refer to the church (Revelation 7.4). (Mentions of pre-Christian ‘Israel’ obviously could not include the ‘church’, the new Israel. But they certainly do include Gentiles who have become Jews).

In Romans 9-11 it is actually made very clear that Israel can mean more than one thing. When Paul says, ‘they are not all Israel, who are of Israel’ (Romans 9.6) and points out that it is the children of the promise who are counted as the seed (9.8), we are justified in seeing that there are two Israels in Paul’s mind, one which is the Israel after the flesh, and includes old unconverted Israel, and one which is the Israel of the promise.

And when he says that ‘Israel’ have not attained ‘to the law of righteousness’ while the Gentiles ‘have attained to the righteousness which is of faith’ (9.30-31) he cannot be speaking of ‘all Israel’ because it was simply not true that none in Israel had attained to righteousness. Many believing Jews had done so. So the truth was that Jewish-Christian believers had also attained to ‘the righteousness which is of faith’, and had therefore attained the law of righteousness, for many thousands and even tens of thousands had become Christians as we have seen in Acts 1-5. Thus here ‘Israel’ must mean old, unconverted Israel, not all the (so-called) descendants of the Patriarchs, and must actually exclude believing Israel, however we interpret the latter, for ‘Israel did not seek it by faith’ while believing Israel did.

Thus here we see three uses of Israel, each referring to a different entity. One is all the old Israel, which includes both elect and non-elect (11.11) and is therefore a partly blind Israel (11.25), one is the Israel of promise (called in 11.11 ‘the election’) and one is the old Israel which does not include the Israel of promise, the part of the old Israel which is the blind Israel. The term is clearly fluid and can sometimes refer to one group and sometimes to another.

Furthermore in the same context ‘the Gentiles’ must mean those who have come to faith and not all Gentiles. It cannot mean all Gentiles, for it speaks of those who have ‘attained to the righteousness of faith’ (which was what old Israel failed to obtain when it strove after it), which most Gentiles had not. Clearly it means believing Gentiles. Thus that term is also fluid. (In contrast, in 1 Peter ‘Gentiles’ represents only those who are unconverted. Thus all words like these must be interpreted in their contexts).

When we are also told that such Gentiles who have come to faith have become ‘Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise’ (Galatians 3.29) we are justified in seeing these converted Gentiles as having become part of the new Israel, along with the converted Jews. They are now actually stated to be ‘the seed of Abraham’. This clarifies the picture of the olive tree. Old unconverted Israel are cut out of it, the converted Gentiles are grafted into it. Thus old Israel are no longer God’s people while the converted Gentiles are.

It may then be asked, ‘What then does Paul mean when he says that ‘all Israel will be saved’?’ (Romans 11.26). It clearly cannot mean literally ‘all’ of old Israel, both past and present, for Scripture has made quite clear that not all of them will be saved. Let us therefore consider the remaining possibilities:

• 1). Does it then mean all Israel at the time that the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? That is unlikely as there is no stage in world history where all the people of a nation have been saved at any particular point in time. It would also not be in accordance with God’s revealed way of working. But more importantly it would also make nonsense of those many passages where God’s final judgment is seen as being poured out on Israel, so that it is therefore clear that all Israel will not be saved. How can all Israel be saved and yet face His judgment?
• 2). Is he then referring to ‘all the true Israel’, that is, those elected in God’s purposes, ‘the remnant according to the election of grace’ (11.5), who will be saved along with the fullness of the Gentiles? That would certainly be a theoretical possibility, but only if we ignore all the Scriptures that we have looked at and see believing Jews as not made one with believing Gentiles (as Ephesians 2 says they were). But if there is to be a special movement in the end times it will require a final revival among the Jews in the end days bringing them to Christ. For there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which men can be saved. We would certainly not want to deny the possibility of God doing that. That may be why He has gathered the old nation back to the country of Israel. But that does not mean that God will deal with them as a separate people.
• Or does it mean ‘all Israel’ who are part of the olive tree, including both Jews and the fullness of the Gentiles? All the new Israel, made up of the fullness of the Gentiles and the fullness of the Jews? That seems to us to be its most probable significance, and to be most in accordance with what we have seen above. After all, ‘all Israel’, if it includes the Gentiles, could not be saved until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in, completing the number of the saved.

  It is important in this regard to consider what Paul’s message was in Romans 9-11. It was that God began with Abraham and then began cutting off many of his seed, leaving the remnant according to the election of grace, those whom He foreknew. Then He began incorporating others in the persons of believing Gentiles as we have seen, and these increased in proportion as a result of the coming of Christ, when all who believed became members of the olive tree. Thus this was now ‘all Israel’, those whom God had elected from eternity past.

But what in fact Paul is finally seeking to say is that in the whole salvation history God’s purposes will not be frustrated, and that in the final analysis all whom He has chosen and foreknown (11.2) will have come to Him, whether Jew or Gentile.

In the light of all this it is difficult to see how we can deny that in the New Testament all who truly believed were seen as becoming a part of the new Israel, the ‘Israel of God’.

But some may ask, ‘if the church is God’s true Israel why does Paul only tell us so so rarely?’. The answer is twofold. Firstly because of the danger that could arise from the use of the term, causing people to be confused. And secondly because he actually does so most of the time in his own way. For another way of referring to Israel in the Old Testament was as ‘the congregation’ (LXX church). Thus any reference to the ‘congregation (church) does specifically indicate the new Israel.

But does this mean that old Israel can no longer be seen as having a part in the purposes of God. If we mean as old Israel then the answer must be ‘yes’. As old Israel they are no longer relevant to the purposes of God for they have been ‘cut off’, and the true Israel are the ones who are due to receive the promises of God. But if we mean as ‘converted and becoming part of believing Israel’ then the answer is that God in His mercy will surely yet have a purpose for them by winning many of them to Christ in the end days. Any member of old Israel can become a part of the olive tree by being grafted in again. And there is a welcome to the whole of Israel if they will believe in Christ. Nor can there be any future for them as being used in the purposes of God until they believe in Christ. And then if they do they will become a part of the whole, not superior to others, or inferior to others, but brought in on equal terms as Christians and members of ‘the congregation’. It may well be that God has brought Israel back into the land because He intends a second outpouring of the Spirit like Pentecost (and Joel 2.28-29). But if so it is in order that they might become Christians. It is in order that they might become a part of the new Israel, the ‘congregation (church) of Jesus Christ’ founded on the Apostles and prophets. For God may be working on old Israel doing His separating work in exactly the same ways as He constantly works on old Gentiles, moving them from one place to another in order to bring many of them to Christ. It is not for us to tell Him how He should do it. But nor must we give old Israel privileges that God has not given them.

But what then is the consequence of what we have discussed? Why is it so important? The answer is that it is important because if it is the fact that true Christians today are the only true people of God that means that all the Old Testament promises relate to them, not by being ‘spiritualised’, but by them being interpreted in terms of a new situation. It indicates that much of the Old Testament has to be seen in the light of new situations. It is doubtful if today anyone really thinks that swords and spears will be turned into ploughshares and pruninghooks. For however we see it that idea surely has to be modernised. (Tanks being turned into tractors?). In the same way therefore we have to ‘modernise’ in terms of the New Testament many of the Old Testament promises. Jerusalem must become the Jerusalem that is above. The sacrifices must become the spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. And so on. But what is true is that Israel continues on in the true church (congregation) of Christ, being composed of all who have truly submitted to the Messiah.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?