Luke 21:36

‘But you, watch at every season, making supplication, that you may prevail to escape all these things that will come about, and to stand before the Son of man.”

Rather than partying, and becoming drunk, and being too involved with worldly affairs they are to be ever on the watch at all times, praying that they might ‘prevail to escape' all the things that will come about, by means of their being watchful, and by prayerful supplication, and may thus stand triumphantly before the Son of Man. To ‘stand before the Son of Man' is come to Him and be acceptable to Him as one of His own, receiving His commendation.

‘Prevail to escape' indicates a battle fought and won in escaping from what is false. Such a person has battled through the temptations of the flesh and of the world, and has won through, keeping his eye on Christ. He has not followed false signs or false teachers (Luke 21:8), he has not been bowed down by the problems of the world (Luke 21:9), he has maintained a good testimony (Luke 21:13) and faced up to persecution (Luke 21:12), he has patiently endured (Luke 21:19), he has escaped the lure of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20), and he has not been caught up in frivolous living or the cares of the world (Luke 21:34). And how has he done it? Humanly speaking he has done it by prayerful ‘watching', by ‘making supplication' to the One Who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13) and by ‘battling and prevailing'. Divinely speaking he has done it because God has chosen him from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

EXCURSUS 1. Is the Church The New Israel?

Is The Church the True Israel?

The question being asked here is whether the early church saw itself as the true Israel, and whether they had any grounds for doing so? In Matthew 16 Jesus spoke to His disciples of ‘building His church (assembly, congregation)' (Matthew 16:18) at a time when as far as the disciples were concerned He had come only to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew 10:6; Matthew 15:24). Thus here ‘church' certainly equated in their minds with ‘Israel', as indeed it did in its use in the Greek translations of the Old Testament where ‘the congregation/assembly of Israel' was translated as ‘the church (ekklesia) of Israel'. And it was on this basis that the early believers called themselves ‘the church', that is the congregation of the new Israel.

Furthermore in Acts 4:27 we read, “For in truth in this city against your holy Servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles  and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatever your hand and your council foreordained to come about.”

Note the mention of a king, a ruler, the Gentiles and ‘the peoples of Israel'. This follows as an explanation of a quotation from Psalms 2:1 in Acts 4:25:

‘Why did the Gentiles rage,

And the peoples imagine vain things,

The kings of the earth set themselves,

And the rulers were gathered together,

Against the Lord and against His anointed --.'

The important point here is that ‘the peoples' who imagined vain things, who in the Psalm were nations who were enemies of Israel, have become in Acts ‘the peoples of Israel'. Thus the ‘peoples of Israel' who were opposing the Apostles and refusing to believe are here seen as the enemy of God and His Anointed, and His people. It is a clear indication that old unbelieving Israel is now numbered among the nations, and that the Jews who have believed in Christ are the true Israel. As Jesus had said to Israel, ‘the Kingly Rule of God will be taken way from you and given to a nation producing its fruits' (Matthew 21:43). Thus the King now has a new people of Israel to guard and watch over.

The same idea is found in John 15:1. The false vine (the old Israel - Isaiah 5:1) has been cut down and replaced by the true vine of ‘Christ at one with His people' (John 15:1; Ephesians 2:11). The church is the new Israel, growing from the true vine. The old Israel has been cut off and replaced by believing Gentiles (Romans 11:17).

The new Israel, the ‘Israel of God', sprang from Jesus. It was He Who established its new leaders who would ‘rule over (‘judge') the twelve tribes of Israel' (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). They were Jews, and were to be its foundation (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14). All its first foundation members were Jews. As it spread it did so among Jews until there were ‘about five thousand men' to say nothing of women and children (Acts 4:4). Then it spread throughout all Judaea, and then through the synagogues of the world. Soon there were a multitude of Jews who were Christians. Thus the earliest church was almost fully Jewish. It represented faithful Israel. Then the proselytes (Gentile converts) and God-fearers (Gentile adherents to the synagogues) began to join and they were grafted in to the vine (John 15:1) and the olive tree (Romans 11:17). They became fellow-citizens with the Jewish believers (‘the saints', a regular Old Testament name for the true Israelites who believed). And so the new Israel sprang up following the same pattern as the old. Paul described the new church as ‘the Israel of God' (Galatians 6:16), because the Gentiles among them had become ‘the seed of Abraham' (Galatians 3:29).

Those who deny that the church is Israel must in fact see all these believing Jews as cut off from Israel. For in the 1st century AD the Israel for which those who deny that the church is Israel contend, that is the Jews as a whole, did not include them. They cut them off. To them the church was outside Israel.

Meanwhile the church, the new Israel did see themselves as Israel. They saw themselves as the true Israel of God. And that is why Paul stresses to the Gentile Christians in Ephesians 2:11 that they are now a part of the new Israel having been made one with the true people of God in Jesus Christ. In order to consider all this in more detail let us look back in history.

When Abraham entered the land of Canaan having been called there by God he was promised that in him all the world would be blessed, and this was later also promised to his seed (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:4; Genesis 28:14). But Abraham did not enter the land alone. In Genesis 14 he had three hundred and eighteen fighting men ‘born in his house'. One of his slave wives was an Egyptian (Genesis 16) and his steward was probably a Syrian, a Damascene (Genesis 15:2). Thus Abraham was patriarch over a family tribe, all of whom with him inherited the promises,  and they came from a number of different nationalities.

From Abraham came Jacob, who was renamed Israel, and from his twelve sons came the twelve tribes of the ‘children of Israel'. As with Abraham these would include retainers, servants and slaves. So the ‘children of Israel' even at this stage would include people from many nations, Israel's own descendants and their wives, and their servants and retainers, and their wives and children. Israel was already a conglomerate people.

When they left Egypt they were 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). At Sinai these were all joined within the covenant and became ‘children of Israel'. These included an Ethiopian (Cushite) woman who became Moses' wife (Numbers 12:1). Thus ‘Israel' from its commencement was an international community. Indeed it was made clear that any who would, could join Israel and become an Israelite by submission to the covenant and by being circumcised (Exodus 12:48). Membership of the people of God was thus to be open to all nations from the beginning by submission to God through the covenant. And these all connected themselves with one of the tribes of Israel, were absorbed, and began to trace their ancestry back to Abraham and Jacob even though they were not true born. There were indeed regulations as to who could enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and at what stage they could (Deuteronomy 23:1). They then became Israelites.

That this was carried out in practise is evidenced by the numerous Israelites who bear a foreign name, for example ‘Uriah the Hittite' (2 Samuel 11). See also the mighty men of David (2 Samuel 23:8). Later again it became the practise in Israel, in accordance with Exodus 12:48, for anyone who ‘converted' to Judaism and began to believe in the God of Israel to be received into ‘Israel' on equal terms by circumcision and submission to the covenant. These were called ‘proselytes'. People also left Israel by desertion, and by not bringing their children within the covenant. They were then ‘cut off from Israel', as were deep sinners.

When Jesus came His initial purpose was to call back to God ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew 10:6). But He later declared that there were other sheep that He would also call and they would be one flock with Israel (John 10:16).

Thus when the Gospel began to reach out to the Gentiles those converted were welcomed as part of the one flock. The question then was, ‘did they need to be circumcised in order to become members of the new Israel?' Paul nowhere argues that circumcision was not necessary because they were not becoming Israel. He accepts that they became members of Israel, but argues that circumcision was no longer necessary because they were already circumcised by faith. They had the circumcision of the heart, and were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11).

Thus in Romans 11:17 he speaks clearly of converted Gentiles being grafted into Israel through faith, and of Israelites being broken off through unbelief, to be welcomed again if they repent and come to Christ. Whatever we see actually see the olive tree as representing, it is quite clear that it is speaking of those who are cut off because they do not believe, and those who are ingrafted because they do believe, and this in the context of Israel being saved or not.

In Ephesians 2 Paul tells the Gentiles that they had in the past been ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise' (Luke 2:12). Thus in the past they did not belong to the twelve tribes. But then he tells them that they are now ‘made nigh by the blood of Christ' (Luke 2:13), Who has ‘made both one and broken down the wall of partition --- creating in Himself of two one new man' (Luke 2:14). 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 (outsiders to Israel), but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Luke 2:19). It is made as clear as can be that they have entered the ‘new' Israel. They have entered into the covenant of promise (Galatians 3:29).

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 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). 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.

But there would be no point in mentioning circumcision if he was not thinking of incorporation 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 accepted as full Jews. So when Paul argues that Christians have been circumcised in heart (Romans 2:26; Romans 2:29; Romans 4:12; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11) he is saying that that is all that is necessary in order to be members of the true Israel.

In Galatians 4:26 it is made clear that the true Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem, the earthly having been rejected. This new heavenly Jerusalem 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, Sarah (Luke 4:31). They are therefore ‘Israel'.

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 (Luke 11:5). The remainder have been cast off (Romans 10:27, 29; Romans 11:15; Romans 11:17; Romans 11:20). 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' (Luke 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. This 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. They are the foreknown Israel. See Luke 9:8; Luke 9:24; Luke 11:2.

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; John 8:53). That is why in the one man in Christ Jesus there can be neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28). For they all become Israel. 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. The reference to ‘seed' is decisive. You cannot be Abraham's seed through Sara and yet not a part of Israel.

That is why Paul can say, ‘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' (Luke 2:28 compare v.26). The true Jew is the one who is the inward Jew.

In the light of these passages it cannot really be doubted that the early church saw the converted Gentile as becoming a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. They are ‘the seed of Abraham', ‘sons of Abraham', spiritually circumcised, grafted in to 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 makes clear that Abraham is the father of all who believe, including both circumcised and uncircumcised (Luke 4:9). 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' (Luke 1:1) (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 that he is writing other than to all in the churches. He sees the whole church as having become members of the twelve tribes, as the true dispersion, and indeed refers to their ‘assembly' with the same word used for synagogue (Luke 2:2). But he can also call them ‘the church' (Luke 5:14).

There is not even the slightest suggestion anywhere in the remainder of his letter that he 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, but there is not even a whisper of it. He speaks as though to the whole church. Unless he was a separatist this would seem impossible. It is inconceivable that in the situation of those days he could have written an ethical letter to Jewish Christians and not have mentioned Gentile Christians once. For relationships with them would have been central. Thus he must have seen the ex-Gentile Christians as part of the dispersion to which he was writing.

Peter also writes to ‘the elect' and calls them ‘sojourners of the dispersion' and when he speaks of ‘Gentiles' (meaning unconverted Gentiles) is clearly assuming that those under that heading are not Christians (Luke 2:12; Luke 4:3). So it is apparent that 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 becoming members of the Jewish faith at that time, and on being circumcised were 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 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 now necessary, because all who believed had been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.

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 they were seen 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. 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 is to demonstrate that God has His people numbered and that not one is missing (compare Numbers 31:48). The message of these verses is that in the face of persecution to come, and of God's judgments against men, God knows, remembers and protects His own. 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 in Revelation is a little 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, although Manasseh was the son of Joseph. Thus there is a deliberate omission of the names of Dan and Ephraim, even though Ephraim is included under Joseph's name. (This artificiality confirms that the tribes are not to be taken literally). The exclusion of Dan is because he is a tool of the Serpent (Genesis 49:17), and the exclusion of the two names is because of their specific connection with idolatry.

In Deuteronomy 29:17 the warning was 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. They were particularly connected with idolatry.

For the names of both Ephraim and Dan are unquestionably 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). 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 connection with idolatry and whoredom as besmirching not the tribe but the  name  of Ephraim (Ephraimites are included under Joseph, it is the name that is excluded).

As for Dan, it was a man of the tribe of Dan who ‘blasphemed the Name' (Leviticus 24:11), it was Dan that was first to set up a graven image (Judges 18:30) and Dan was the only tribe mentioned 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; 2 Kings 10:29). 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 adder in the path' (Genesis 49:17). He is the tool of the Serpent. Typologically he is the Judas of the twelve. How could he not 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. Thus the message of these omissions is that 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 Dan is to warn us that those who are not genuine will be excluded.

So Revelation 7 is telling us that 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. God protects His true people. There is no reason for seeing these people as representing other than the church, the true Israel, of the current age. The fact is that we are continually liable to persecution, 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 it 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.

The New Testament tells us that all God's true people are sealed by God. Abraham received circumcision as a seal of ‘the righteousness of (springing from) faith' (Romans 4:11), but circumcision is replaced in the New Testament by the ‘seal of the Spirit' (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 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 here 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 (Luke 21:14), and its gates are the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (Luke 21:12). Indeed Jesus said that he would found his ‘church' on the Apostles and their statement of faith (Matthew 16:18) and the idea behind the word ‘church' (ekklesia) here was as being the ‘congregation' of Israel. (The word ekklesia is used of 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.

But what are the arguments against this? It has been said that  ‘Every reference to Israel in the New Testament refers to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'  And another expositor has taken the words and added the comment, ‘This is true in the Old Testament also.' But such statements are again an oversimplification. They assume what they intend to prove, and as we have seen, they are in fact completely incorrect. For as we have seen above if there is one thing that is 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 were adopted into Israel, and became Israelites, a situation which was sealed by the covenant.

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). They would then become united with the tribe among whom they dwelt or with which they had connections. There were indeed regulations as to who could enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and when (Deuteronomy 23:1). Later proselytes would also be absorbed into Israel. Thus ‘Israel' was from the start very much a conglomerate, and continued to be so.

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'. That conclusion cannot be avoided. When we remember that outside Romans 9-11 Israel is only mentioned by Paul seven times, that 1 Corinthians 10:18 clearly points to another Israel and is one of the seven verses, 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 doubted. In Ephesians 2:11 where he speaks of the ‘commonwealth of Israel' he 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 (outsiders from Israel) but are genuine fellow-citizens, and are of the household of God. If that down not mean becoming a part of the true Israel it is difficult to see what could.

Furthermore in the other four references the present status of Israel is not in mind, the term simply being used as an identifier in a historical sense with Old Testament connections. Thus the argument about the use of the word Israel is not very strong. In Hebrews all mentions of Israel are historical, referring back to the Old Testament. They refer to Israel in the past. In Revelation two mentions are simply historical, while many would consider that the other actually does refer to the church (Revelation 7:4).

In Romans 9-11 it is 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 (Luke 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 (Luke 9:30) he cannot be speaking of all Israel because it is simply not true that none in Israel have attained to the righteousness of faith. Many had become Christians as we have seen in Acts 1-5. Thus here ‘Israel' must mean old, unconverted Israel, and thus exclude Christian Israel, and thus they do not make up all of the so-called descendants of the Patriarchs.

So here we see three uses of Israel, each referring to a different entity.

· One is  all the old Israel, whether believing or not, which includes both elect and non-elect (Luke 11:11) and is therefore a partly blind Israel (Luke 11:25).

· One is the Israel of promise (called in Luke 11:11 ‘the election'), and which is therefore an Israel which excludes the old blind part of Israel. For not all of Israel who are descendd from Israel, are Israel (Romans 9:6).

· And one is the old Israel which does not include the Israel of promise (Luke 9:31). It is the part of the old Israel which is the blind Israel. The term ‘Israel' is therefore seen to be very fluid.

Furthermore here ‘the Gentiles' must mean those who have come to faith. 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). Thus that term is also fluid. (In 1 Peter ‘Gentiles' represents only those who are unconverted).

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 (Romans 9:6) while the converted Gentiles are.

What then does Paul mean when he says that ‘all Israel will be saved'? (Luke 11:26). It clearly cannot mean literally ‘all' of old Israel, both past and present. Scripture has made quite clear that not all of them will be saved (as also says Romans 9:27; Romans 11:7). 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 one point in time. It would not be in accordance with God's revealed way of working. It would also make nonsense of the many passages where God's final judgment is poured out on Israel. Does he then mean ‘all the true Israel', those elected in God's purposes who are physically Jews, ‘the remnant according to the election of grace' (Luke 11:5), who will be saved along with the fullness of the Gentiles? That is possible. And it does not require, although it might include, a final revival among the Jews in the end days. Or does it mean ‘all Israel' who are part of the olive tree, including both Jews and the fullness of the Gentiles? That seems to be its most probable significance, and to be most in accordance with what we have seen above. After all, ‘all Israel' including the Gentiles could not be saved until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in.

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 (Luke 11:2) will have come to Him.

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'.

End of Excursus 1.

EXCURSUS 2. What Does Matthew Mean In The Same Context By ‘Great Tribulation?'

If we set Matthew's version of the speech of Jesus about the destruction of the Temple alongside that of Mark and Luke we find that the verse containing the phrase ‘great tribulation' (no article) parallels Mark 13:19 and Luke 21:23. In other words it deals with the sufferings coming on Jerusalem (see the parallel versions of Mark and Luke above). The consequence of that has been evaded by claiming that in His speech Jesus actually taught both what Luke says, and what Matthew and Mark says, as two different parts of the same speech indicating two different destructions of Jerusalem. Now quite apart from the fact that the common phrases in the speeches reveal that that cannot be so, as comparison of the parallels between Mark and Luke have demonstrated, it is also beyond all reason. Is it really conceivable that Luke could have omitted a large chunk of Mark dealing with so important a subject as a second destruction of Jerusalem in the end days? Quite frankly it is not. Nor is it conceivable that when Mark records the disciples as asking, in response to the fact that Jesus says that the Temple they are looking at will be torn down, when that will be, he then does not include the answer that Jesus gives, but rather talks of another destruction and another temple. Exegesis on that basis can only be seen as making the text fit the theory without regard to common sense.

But if all are speaking of the one destruction of the Temple what then does the ‘great tribulation' (great affliction), so bad that none has ever been like it or will ever be, refer to. Luke gives us the answer. It refers to the sufferings of the siege of Jerusalem followed by the sufferings of the Jews throughout at least a part of the times of the Gentiles. No other nation has ever gone through such an experience, nor ever will.

This being so it is clear that it does not refer to any period in ‘the end days' called ‘The Great Tribulation'. If the latter is to be held it must be on the basis of other passages than this.

End of Excursus 2.