by Tyron Devotta
In today’s geopolitical climate, few questions are as quietly contentious as the relationship between Christianity and the modern state of Israel. For many believers (particularly within evangelical traditions) this relationship appears to be a given. Yet beneath this certainty lies a set of historical and theological differences that are often overlooked. To understand the issue clearly, we must return to three foundational identities: Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew.
Hebrew
The term Hebrew itself offers an important clue to this early identity. Derived from the word Ivri, it is often understood to mean “one who crosses over” or “one from beyond.” This likely refers to the migratory origins of Abraham, who is described as having crossed from one region to another, marking a journey not just of geography but of covenant. In this sense, the Hebrew identity was never primarily territorial or political; it was rooted in movement, transition, and a relationship with God that preceded the formation of any nation-state. To be a Hebrew, therefore, was less about belonging to a fixed land and more about participating in a calling; one that, in many ways, foreshadows the later Christian understanding of faith as a journey rather than a possession.
Israelites
The Israelites emerged later, as the descendants of Jacob (Abraham’s grandson), forming a confederation of tribes that eventually became a nation. The concept of the twelve tribes of Israel lies at the heart of the biblical understanding of Israelite identity. These tribes are traditionally linked to the house of Jacob, also called Israel. They are listed as Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, and then Ephraim and Manasseh in place of Joseph (Jacob’s son). This matters because the tribal structure was not merely symbolic; it defined ancient Israel as a covenant people in its fullest collective sense.
Here, identity begins to intertwine with land, law, and political structure. Israel, in this sense, was both a people and a polity, an ancient state with divine significance. This point deserves particular attention. The term “Israelite” is not an abstract label. It refers specifically to the descendants of Jacob’s sons and grandsons. Their identity was collective, covenantal, and deeply rooted in lineage.
Two Kingdoms
Following the reign of King Solomon, the united kingdom of Israel fractured into two distinct entities. The northern kingdom, retaining the name Israel, was composed of ten tribes, while the southern kingdom, known as Judah, was centred around Jerusalem and comprised primarily the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. This division was not merely political; it marked a deepening divergence in religious practice, governance, and identity. The northern kingdom established its own centres of worship, distancing itself from Jerusalem, while Judah maintained continuity with the temple tradition that had anchored the earlier united monarchy.
The fate of these two kingdoms would further reshape identity. The northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in the 8th century BCE, leading to the dispersal of its population, often referred to as the “lost ten tribes.” Over time, their distinct tribal identities faded from historical record. The southern kingdom of Judah, however, endured longer and, even after the Babylonian exile, retained a coherent identity rooted in its traditions, laws, and lineage. It is from this surviving entity that the term “Jew” ultimately derives, marking the continuity not of all twelve tribes, but of what remained of ancient Israel through Judah.
Jew
The term Jew has a more specific historical origin, deriving from the name Judah, one of the twelve tribes of Israel and later the southern kingdom centred in Jerusalem. Following the division of the united monarchy, and especially after the fall of the northern kingdom, it was the kingdom of Judah that preserved continuity of identity, tradition, and worship. Over time, the people of this kingdom came to be known as Jews, a term that endured through exile, return, and diaspora. Unlike the broader and earlier identities of Hebrew or Israelite, “Jew” reflects a more defined lineage; one that survived historical upheaval and became the primary identity associated with the followers of Judaism to this day.
Modern
This raises an important and often overlooked question: Can the modern state of Israel claim continuity with the full tribal identity of ancient Israel?
The answer, at best, is complex.
Modern Israel is a nation-state composed of a diverse population drawn from across the global diaspora, Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, and others, alongside non-Jewish citizens. While there is a powerful and legitimate historical continuity in terms of identity, the specific tribal structure that once defined “Israelite” identity is no longer intact in any clear or verifiable way. In that sense, the modern state reflects the continuity of the so-called Jewish people, but not necessarily the full biblical construct of Israel as the twelve tribes. This distinction matters.
Not the same
Because when modern Christians speak of “Israel,” they often move, sometimes unconsciously, across these categories, treating them as interchangeable. They begin with the Hebrews of Abraham, pass through the Israelites of the twelve tribes, and arrive at the modern state as if it were a direct and complete continuation of all that came before.
The New Testament shift
Christianity itself represents a decisive shift away from these layered identities. Through the teachings of Jesus Christ, and later articulated by Paul the Apostle, the idea of belonging to God was no longer confined to a specific lineage or land. The covenant was opened, expanded beyond the Hebrew, beyond the Israelite, beyond the Jew.
This was not a rejection of those identities, but a transformation of their meaning. Faith replaced ethnicity as the defining criterion. A crucial part of this transformation lies in how Paul reinterpreted the Law of Moses, the very foundation of Jewish religious life. For the Israelites and later the Jews, the law was not merely a set of rules; it was the framework of identity, covenant, and daily living. It defined who belonged and how one lived in relationship with God.
Reframing
Paul, however, introduced a radical reframing.
He did not dismiss the law as irrelevant. Rather, he repositioned it. The law became a preparation, a guide pointing toward fulfillment. With the coming of Christ, adherence to the law was no longer the pathway to righteousness. Instead, faith became.
Abraham
A further source of confusion arises from the Christian understanding of being “children of Abraham.” Drawing from the teachings of Paul the Apostle, many believers affirm that through faith they share in the promise given to Abraham. However, this connection is spiritual rather than territorial or ethnic. It does not confer inheritance of land, lineage, or political identity.
The promise, as reframed within Christianity, is one of faith and relationship, not geography or nationhood. To extend this spiritual kinship into a claim of alignment with a modern state is to blur a critical distinction. Christians may rightly see themselves as part of Abraham’s legacy, but not as participants in the historical or territorial identity that defined ancient Israel.
In this new understanding, the boundary markers that once defined the people of God, ritual, lineage, and legal observance, were no longer relevant. What mattered was belief. If righteousness is not obtained through the Law, then it is not restricted to those who inherit that Law. The covenant, once tied to a specific people and a specific way of life, becomes accessible to all. It is here that the modern tension emerges.
Political Entity
The state of Israel today is a sovereign political entity, shaped by the realities of the 20th and 21st centuries, war, diplomacy, migration, and security. It is the homeland of a people whose historical continuity as Jews is undeniable and deeply significant. But it is not, in any straightforward sense, the same as the Israel of the Bible, nor does it encompass the full tribal and theological meanings embedded in the identity of the Israelites.
To mix these is to blur history with doctrine. For Christians, this distinction is critical. If the faith is truly universal, if it transcends the boundaries that once defined Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew, then it cannot be anchored to any one nation-state, however historically resonant that state may be.
Importance
This does not diminish the importance of Israel, nor does it deny its place in the biblical narrative. The land remains sacred in memory. Its stories continue to shape the spiritual imagination of billions. For many, visiting it is an act of profound connection.
But reverence for history is not the same as political allegiance.
To suggest that Christianity requires support for the modern state of Israel is to reintroduce a form of territorial and ethnic exclusivity that the faith itself sought to transcend. It risks collapsing a universal message into a particular political alignment. And in doing so, it places theology in the service of power.
Recognising the difference
The better view (arguably the more faithful one) is to maintain the distinction. To recognise that while Christianity is rooted in the history of the Hebrews, the nationhood of the Israelites, and the enduring identity of the Jews, it ultimately moves beyond them. It speaks to all, not through land or lineage, but through belief.
A different viewpoint
In that light, the modern state of Israel must be referred to as what it is: a nation among nations, subject to the same moral scrutiny, the same ethical expectations, and the same political realities as any other. Christians may admire it, support it, critique it, or remain neutral. But they are not theologically bound to it. And perhaps that is the clearest way to honour both history and faith; by understanding where one ends, and the other begins.
P.s. If the citizens of modern-day Israel identify primarily as Jews, then historically they trace their lineage to the kingdom of Judah, the southern remnant of the ancient Israelite world. This continuity is real and significant.
However, it does not, in itself, represent the full collective identity of the twelve tribes of Israel that once defined the biblical nation. The northern tribes, long dispersed and largely lost to history, are not present in any clearly identifiable or unified form today.
This is where the complexity of language and identity begins to shape modern perception. When contemporary Christians speak of “Israel,” they often assume a direct and complete continuity with the biblical entity of the twelve tribes. Yet the reality is more layered. The people who inhabit the land today are part of an enduring Jewish identity rooted in Judah, but not necessarily a restoration of the entire tribal structure described in scripture.
This raises an important question for modern Christian thought: when engaging with the present-day state of Israel, are we responding to a political nation, a historical people, or a theological idea? Until that distinction is clearly understood, there is a risk of allowing terminology to shape belief, and belief, in turn, to shape political allegiance without sufficient reflection.
