all Israel", "according to the number of the tribes of Israel" (Ezra 6: 15-17). From this

time onwards the title "Jew" became a generic one, and was used without discrimination

of any member of the nation of Israel. It is a fallacy to imagine that it is unscriptural to

use the word "Jew" of an Israelite after the return from the captivity. Paul himself says,

"I am a man which am a Jew" (Acts 22: 3), and yet he also calls himself an "Israelite"

(Rom. 10: 1). Peter also calls himself a "Jew" (Acts 10: 28), in spite of the fact that he was

a Galilean (Acts 2: 7). The "Jews" who were assembled on the day of Pentecost were

addressed by Peter as "Ye men of Israel", and "All the house of Israel" (Acts 2: 22, 36),

while in Acts 4: we read that "all the people of Israel" were guilty of the death of

Christ, not merely Judah (Acts 4: 10, 27). To take further examples from the Acts, can

we believe that Gamaliel made a mistake in speaking to the "Jews" as "Ye men of Israel"

(Acts 5: 35), or that Peter was confusing things that differ when he told Cornelius that

"the word" was sent "unto the children of Israel", "in the land of the Jews" (Acts 10: 36,

39)? When Paul stood up in the synagogue in Acts 13:, he spoke to the assembly as

"men of Israel and ye that fear God", while, according to the record further on in the

chapter, those that heard him speak were "Jews" (Acts 13: 16, 42). The tribes of Israel

were certainly not lost when Paul stood before Agrippa and said:

The word "instantly" could only be used here of actual service; it could not have been

used if any of the twelve tribes had been lost.

James also addresses his epistle: "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad"

(James 1: 1). Could this letter have been so inscribed if the bulk of the ten tribes had by

this time lost their identity?

The suggestion that God would preserve the ten-tribed kingdom after their captivity

and bless them centuries later in the guise of Gentiles is quite unscriptural. According to

Scripture, the Lord said that He would "destroy the sinful kingdom from off the face of

the earth", but would not utterly destroy the "house of Jacob". The remaining members

of the twelve tribes, that had not been deported by the Assyrians, were to be "sifted

among all nations as corn is sifted in a sieve" (Amos 9: 8, 9), until the time came for

their ultimate restoration--for we read that "all Israel shall be saved". The northern

kingdom, however, was to be destroyed, and not preserved. There was a sufficient

number of every tribe left in the kingdom of Judah to ensure the continuity of the whole

house of Israel, and, though scattered for a time among the nations, the twelve tribes are

to be preserved until the end. Such is the testimony of Scripture. We have not covered a

tithe of the whole ground, but what we have seen of what has been revealed in the Word

concerning the fate of the house of Israel allows no room for doubt.

Into the supposed etymological and geographical "identification" of these so-called

lost tribes we do not propose to enter. The moment a person who has been falsely

reported as "lost" is discovered, all "identification" at once becomes valueless. To those

who believe in the inspiration of the Holy Writ, nothing more need be said. We have

demonstrated by citations from the Scriptures themselves that the tribes of Israel were