Revelation 7:4

‘And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the people of Israel.'

That this is made up of twelve times twelve thousand comes out in that there are twelve thousand of each tribe. The number twelve in Revelation is used of the twelve stars on the crown of the woman waiting to bear her man child (Revelation 12:1), who, as we shall see, represents the true Israel, the twelve stars representing the patriarchs of the twelve tribes.

The only other use in Revelation is of the new Jerusalem where the number twelve abounds (chapter 21). The twelve gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (Revelation 21:12), the twelve foundations bear the names of the twelve apostles (Revelation 21:14), the city is 12,000 x 12,000 x 12,000 furlongs (Revelation 21:16), the walls are one hundred and forty four cubits (12 x 12), there are twelve jewels (representing the twelve stones in the High Priest's breastplate), which make up the foundations and thus represent the twelve apostles, and the gates are twelve pearls. (There are twelve fruits on the tree of life for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:2) but these represent the twelve months of the year). Twelve is therefore the number connected with the redeemed church of Christ, for it is they who are built on the foundations of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20), including both Old and New Testament saints. The added ‘thousand' indicates a large and complete number.

There is divided opinion on whether the one hundred and forty four thousand represent the whole church of God or the faithful remnant of Israel. However, the omission of the tribe of Dan makes too literal an interpretation impossible, in view of the fact that numbers are given. It is hardly conceivable that God would exclude all Danites if He was referring to a literal Israel. If they are included while not mentioned then the number 144,000 would clearly not be correct. So whatever view we take the interpretation cannot be literal.

Furthermore the Apostles clearly saw the church as the true continuation of Israel. In Ephesians 2 Paul tells the Gentile Christians that they were previously ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise' (Revelation 2:12). 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' (Revelation 2:13), Who has ‘made both one and broken down the wall of partition --- creating in Himself of two one new man' Revelation 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, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Revelation 2:19). Thus they have entered the ‘new' renewed Israel. They are part of the ‘new nation' (Matthew 21:43).

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, compare Exodus 12:48), Gentile Christians too are seen as so incorporated. That is why he 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). In context ‘The Israel of God' can only mean that new creation, the church of Christ, otherwise he is being inconsistent.

The point behind both of these passages is that all Christians become, by adoption, members of the twelve tribes. 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. That is why Paul argues that Christians have been circumcised in heart (Romans 2:26; Romans 2:29; Romans 4:12; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11).

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 (Romans 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' (Romans 11:17). They are thus 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).

The privilege of being a ‘son of Abraham' is that one is adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel. It is they 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 ‘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.

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' (Romans 2:28 compare Romans 2:26). In the light of these passages it cannot really be doubted that the early church saw the converted Gentile as becoming members 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?

When James writes to ‘the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion' (James 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 (James 2:2). But he can also call them ‘the church' (James 5:14).

There is not even the slightest hint in the remainder of the epistle 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.

Peter also writes to ‘the elect' and calls them ‘sojourners of the dispersion' and when he speaks of ‘Gentiles' is clearly assuming that those under that heading are not Christians (1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 4:3). So it is apparent he too sees all Christians as members of the twelve tribes (as 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.

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 argues that they do) but that what matters is spiritual circumcision, ‘the circumcision of Christ', 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 here to the hundred and forty four thousand is to Christians. But it is equally clear that the numbers are not to be taken literally. There is no example anywhere else in Scripture where God selects people on such an exact basis (the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18) were also a round number based on seven as the number of divine perfection and completeness). The reason for the seemingly exact figures is in order 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 and remembers His own.

It is noticeable that this description of the twelve tribes 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 the omission of Dan is deliberate, and Ephraim, Joseph's other son, is included under Joseph's name. (This artificiality confirms that the tribes are not to be taken literally). The exclusion of Dan is presumably 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.

The names of both Ephraim and Dan are 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). 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 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 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 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 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 may refer 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.