I have made my post if you do not believe what is written, then look somewhere else.
Israel is God's chosen people and they are a different set of people than the church.
Respectfully, I cannot accept an assertion without an argument. If you can provide an
exegetical argument from Scripture demonstrating your view, I will gladly consider it.
The material you've shared reflects a dispensational framework. That system is not self-evident. It requires defense, not assumption. It is, of course, your prerogative not to engage in debate, but one must then ask what the purpose of your comments is. Simply restating a conclusion without textual argumentation is not discussion; it's declaration. And to characterize disagreement with your interpretation as "not believing what is written" is neither accurate nor charitable. It is not disbelief in Scripture to question your reading of it.
Your sources contain several interpretive problems:
1. They introduce a category confusion between covenantal and ethnic "people of God." Matthew's Gospel expands the definition of "His people" through the narrative itself. As I noted previously, passages such as 20:28 and 26:28 clearly have in view not ethnic Israel, but the believing community united to Messiah, both Jew and Gentile. See also 3:9, 8:11-12, and 12:48-50. Matthew himself excludes any restriction of "His people" to Israel alone.
2. The sources provided misuse σῴζω ("to save"). The claim that "save from sins" refers to national deliverance from Gentile rule is linguistically indefensible. Within Matthew, σῴζω consistently denotes spiritual or moral deliverance, not political liberation (cf. 9:2, 18:11, 26:28). When paired with ἁμαρτία, the semantic field is always moral, never geopolitical.
3. The context is ignored. The salvation described in 1:21 is grounded in the incarnation ("God with us," v. 23), not in future conquest. Furthermore, 1:1 presents Jesus as "the son of David, the son of Abraham." The Abrahamic covenant ("in you all nations shall be blessed," Gen. 12:3) already signals a universal horizon, not a Jewish-only expectation.
4. The hermeneutic used is anachronistic. Reading later dispensational constructs back into Matthew, particular the "Church-age interruption," is not textually derived. It is imposed from a later dispensational system. Matthew's narrative was written
after the Church's founding. Matthew's audience would have understood "His people" as the new-covenant community, comprised of Jews and Gentiles together, not a postponed ethnic nation-state.
I've twice asked whether you believe, as your view seems to imply, that Gentile salvation was a contingency plan. The question remains unanswered. If Matthew 1:21 awaits fulfillment until Israel's national repentance, then Jesus has not yet saved anyone "from their sins." This directly contradicts 9:6, 26:28, and 27:51, which all portray His atoning work as the
realization, not a delay, of 1:21.
So, the issue here is not disbelief in what is written, but a commitment to read what is written
as written, within its own context and linguistic integrity. I'm glad to continue the discussion if you wish to engage the text itself.
