The name Jesus means "God saves". It does not mean "God will save the select few" or something like that.
I've answered; you're not responding to what I answered. The issue isn't what the
name means in isolation. The issue is how the angel explains the name:
"You shall call His name Jesus, for he will save His people from their sins"
The future indicative σώσει is declarative and effectual. It is not probabilistic, partial, or tentative. Whoever falls under "His people" is
guaranteed salvation. You're trying to separate the
kind of salvation from its
scope, but nothing in the text allows that. The angel's words present a definitive promise.
Where does it say the angel reveals the whole extent of the mission on Earth?
Again, γὰρ σώσει defines the essence and scope of His salvific mission. The angel's explanation of the
name is itself a complete statement of the mission.
"Collective possessive
The Greek: τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ = “His people” (singular group noun)
ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν = “from their sins” (plural possessive)
Even though αὐτῶν is plural, it refers back to the group as a whole. This is called a corporate plural. The “sins of the people” are considered collectively, not necessarily as every individual sin accounted for one by one."
So the grammar guarantees that the group as a whole will experience salvation, not every individual within the group.
You're not understanding what you're quoting. The plural αὐτῶν refers to the
sins of the group, not the people themselves. Notice what you quoted: "
The “sins of the people” are considered collectively." (My emphasis)
So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to
sins, not to the
scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that
all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of
the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does
not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.
A stretch? Ok, where do "His people, My people, His own" in the Gospels refer to someone else than the covenant people of Israel?
As I already argued, what is relevant is how the author himself uses the language in context. And in Matt. 1:21, it is defined by redemptive belonging, not ethnicity.
Yes, Matthew broadens the catergory to include Gentiles, that is true, still the specific phrases "His people, My people, His own" always refer to the people of Israel. The expansion doesn’t change that fact.
Again, already answered. You are still making an unwarranted distinction between
lexical precedent and
authorial redefinition. It does not matter how the specific phrase is used in other contexts; what matters is how it is used
here. Even if the phrase
historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context. Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.
In other words, even if you view Matt. 1:21 as a partial disclosure of Jesus' mission, the
kind of salvation described necessarily individualizes the referent. A corporate, ethnic category simply cannot receive
forgiveness from sin in the sense Matthew uses here. Only those personally redeemed can fulfill that description. Hence, "His people" must refer to the redeemed community, not the Jewish nation as such.
Paul explicitly defines "Israel" not in ethnic but in redemptive terms ("not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" - Rom. 9:6). Matthew is working from that same covenantal reality: Jesus' "people" are those whom He truly saves from their sins. And since Matt. 1:21 ties that saving mission directly to Jesus' name and incarnational purpose, the redefinition of God's people is already implicit in the angel's announcement.
Yes, the true covenant community is beyond national bounds. But it all starts with the nation of Israel as the reference point. Salvation comes from Israel, the covenant people, and only then flows to the nations.
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
— John 4:22
"From" does not mean "limited to." John 4:22 speaks of historical origin, not covenantal scope. The Messiah arises from Israel according to promise, yet His saving work immediately transcends that boundary. Matt. 1:21 is describing the effectual scope of salvation itself, not the ethnic channel through which it comes.
The verse defines the nature of the salvation (from sins) and the certainty of its fulfillment. It's not a declaration of which individuals will receive it. So it neither collapases into faild national redemption or universal salvation. It simply shows God starts with the nation of Israel and for then later expand to the Gentiles.
Your interpretation divorces the "nature" of the salvation from its
object, which the text itself does not permit. You're splitting the angel's statement into two unrelated halves, as if the angel were saying, "Jesus will bring a kind of salvation from sins,
but I'm not specifying for whom." That's not a reading of what's there in the text. You're
looking for a way to make the text read how you want it to.
Grammatically, there are two ideas joined in a single purpose clause: σώσει
τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The
object ("
His people") and the
nature ("
from their sins") are bound together by the same verb (σώσει). You can't separate what kind of salvation it is from who actually receives it. The act of saving defines both simultaneously: the redemptive efficacy and the identity of the people for whom it is effective. If the salvation described is effectual and redemptive ("He
will save," not "He will
offer salvation"), then "His people" must be those who actually experience that redemption. To reduce it to a general announcement to ethnic Israel ignores both the verbal aspect and the theological intent. The mission defines the people; the people do not define the mission.
But the fact that it was written for Jews helps to explain why Matthew in verse 1:21 shows Jesus as the Savior of the covenant people of Israel as the starting point of God’s redemptive plan.
No, it doesn't. That's pure conjecture, not argument. As I've already pointed out,
literary audience and
referential scope are entirely distinct categories. The fact that Matthew's readership was Jewish in no way proves that every instance of "His people" must denote national Israel. In fact, as I already argued, the opposite is more plausible. It is precisely
because the audience is Jewish that Matthew labors to dismantle ethnic exclusivism and to redefine covenant membership around Christ. That gives him every reason to immediately recast the term "His people" in redemptive, not national, terms.
