• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Matthew 1:21 - He will save His people

Dikaioumenoi

Active Member
Jun 29, 2016
150
42
38
North Carolina
✟37,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
The Greek text reads: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

The emphatic αὐτὸς ("he himself") and the future indicative σώσει ("will save") describe a certain, effectual act: He will save, not He will try to save, or offer salvation. This is a declarative promise: Jesus will accomplish this on behalf of "His people." The phrase τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ("his people") is possessive and definite.

Who exactly are His people? If it means all humanity, then why isn't all humanity saved? But if it refers to the elect, then the angel's promise stands precisely fulfilled.

How do you interpret τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ?
 

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
14,043
5,956
60
Mississippi
✟330,944.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
-

That Jesus would saved Israel from their sins, spiritually and physically. Jesus would offer free forgiveness of sins and physically Jesus would restore a nation that was out of favor with God their Father. He, Jesus would deliver (save) Israel from the consequences of their sin.

So His people in Matthew 1:21 are the nation of Israel.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: zoidar
Upvote 0

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2024
4,027
2,204
76
Paignton
✟90,991.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I would say that "His people" refers to those elsewhere called His sheep, those whom the Father draws, from all nations.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
14,043
5,956
60
Mississippi
✟330,944.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
-

All of the nation of Israel will be a believer in Jesus, during the 1000 year rule of the Messiah.

The only unbelievers during that time will be gentiles, which is seen where the unbelieving gentiles. Will follow a released satan and attack the Jewish nation. Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20:7,8,9,10

 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
11,508
9,545
65
Martinez
✟1,185,843.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
" His people " are those who love Him, have repented from unbelief to belief, receive His Holy Spirit who will dwell in them and do the will of the Father. These are the Elect. The Elect are continously being drawn from the " harvest ", those who have an ear to hear.
Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Dikaioumenoi

Active Member
Jun 29, 2016
150
42
38
North Carolina
✟37,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
So His people in Matthew 1:21 are the nation of Israel.
Jesus was sent first to the Jews, but does this mean the Gentiles were never a part of the original plan? Were they "Plan B" only because the Jews rejected Him? Matthew 1:21 is a statement of the incarnation's purpose, not a historical note about whom He was first sent to.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
14,043
5,956
60
Mississippi
✟330,944.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
-
Jesus came to take away the sin of the world so any person Jew or gentile can believe in Jesus and have God's free gift of Eternal Life.

But that is not what Matthew is addressing as Matthew was written to Jewish believers about Jesus, Israel and after the Jewish rejection of the Messiah. The new way God will operate on earth for His Kingdom, The Church which began with the rejection of Jesus at His first advent until Jesus returns (to save Israel) at His second advent.
 
Upvote 0

Dikaioumenoi

Active Member
Jun 29, 2016
150
42
38
North Carolina
✟37,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure what you want me to do with a string of theological assertions. Your reply doesn't engage what Matthew 1:21 says; it makes a claim about what you think Matthew is about. What we need is exegesis.

The angel's statement isn't a comment on Matthew's readership or narrative scope. It's a divine explanation of the incarnation's purpose. "You shall call his name Jesus, for/because (γάρ) He will save His people from their sins." That's not a literary aside for a Jewish audience; it's a decree from heaven defining why the Messiah came.

So: Are we to understand the inclusion of the Gentiles as an afterthought? God's "Plan B" set in motion because "Plan A" failed?

If you're suggesting that this statement applies only within Israel's historical context, you've reduced a purpose clause to a period detail. The problem is that the grammar won't permit that. σώσει (future indicative) expresses certainty; it's an effectual promise, not a general possibility. The phrase τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is possessive and definite -- "His people," not "those to whom He happens to minister."

Matthew himself broadens that phrase as the Gospel progresses. In 20:28 and 26:28, Jesus defines His mission in Isaiah 53 terms, giving His life "as a ransom for many" and pouring out His blood "for many for the forgiveness of sins." Those "many" include both Jews and Gentiles, the covenant people ransomed by His death. The same redemptive mission announced in 1:21 is fulfilled through that substitutionary work.

So can you show from the text that Matthew 1:21 was intended merely as a comment about national Israel's expectation rather than the incarnation's purpose?
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
14,043
5,956
60
Mississippi
✟330,944.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
-
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
14,043
5,956
60
Mississippi
✟330,944.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
-
I will give you one more courtesy and post a link to an article that further discusses Matthew 1:21. As i am not into long drawn out theological debates over the internet.

Jesus Will Save His People – Grace Evangelical Society

What Did the Angel Mean, “He Will Save His People from Their Sins”? Matthew 1:21 – Grace Evangelical Society
 
Upvote 0

Dikaioumenoi

Active Member
Jun 29, 2016
150
42
38
North Carolina
✟37,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,057
1,804
60
New England
✟622,036.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good day,

He will save his people... He can not fail

All the Father gives to me come to me and I will raise them up on the last day. That is the will of the Father that I loose none that he has given me.

The giving (verb)of the Father to the Son is the singular sufficient, effective cause of ones salvation.

In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,730
4,691
Hudson
✟353,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching his people to be a doer of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, so repenting from our disobedience to the Law of Moses is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, and his people are those who have repented and are graciously being taught to obey the Law of Moses in accordance with believing the Gospel of the Kingdom.
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,549
2,695
✟1,070,548.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here you can see the distinction being made. His people are the Jews and the other people are the Gentiles.

And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
“Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace,
According to Your word;
For my eyes have seen Your salvation,

Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,

And the glory of Your people Israel.”
— Luke 2:25-32


I believe Matthew 1:21 refers to the group, the collective of Jews, not the individual.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dikaioumenoi

Active Member
Jun 29, 2016
150
42
38
North Carolina
✟37,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Would you say that the primary purpose of the incarnation was national deliverance of Israel, as opposed to redemptive salvation of individuals?

The problem with defining "His people" ethnically in Matt. 1:21 is that this is a theological statement about why the Son came to earth. So an ethnic restriction frames the salvation of the Gentiles as an afterthought, or a Plan B that wasn't part of the original purpose of the incarnation. How do you explain the phrase ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν ("from their sins") if the referent is national Israel rather than the redeemed remnant?

Luke 2:25-32 actually seems to contradict your claim, not support it. "A light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel" distinguishes two audiences of the same salvation, not two separate salvations (one for Jews, one for Gentiles). If "His people" in Matt. 1:21 refers only to ethnic Jews, then Luke 2:29-32 becomes incoherent, because the text declares that this salvation has been "prepared in the presence of all peoples." The universal scope is the point.

All that the Luke passage shows is that Jew and Gentile are distinguished. But that's not the point. The point is that God's plan of redemption has a universal scope including both Jew and Gentile, which is precisely why "His people" in Matt. 1:21 cannot be restricted to Jews only, because that verse is a purpose statement for God's plan of redemption. Matthew's own narrative redefines the true people of God as those who belong to Christ through faith (3:9; 8:11-12; 12:48-50; 28:19).
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,549
2,695
✟1,070,548.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Would you say that the primary purpose of the incarnation was national deliverance of Israel, as opposed to redemptive salvation of individuals?
No, why? The angel was only revealing part of the plan to Joseph.
I don't see it like the Gentiles were a plan B. I see no reason why that would be the case. For some reason the angel didn't reveal the whole plan to Joseph.

"From their sins"? That exactly what Jesus will do, save the Jewish people from their sins, not every indidual Jew though. The deliverance "from their sins" clarifies what kind of salvation the Messiah brings, spiritual redemption rather than political liberation, not who is included in the scope of that salvation.
Why do you believe the purpose of Matt 1:21 is to reveal the whole plan of redemption to Joseph?

In the Gospels where "His people, My people, His own" is mentioned it always refers to the Jewish people. Why then do you think there is this exception in Matt 1:21?

Also the Gospel of Matthew was primarily written to Jews. Scholars often call it the “most Jewish” of the four canonical Gospels. That gives us a reason why it was specifically pointed out in Matt 1:21 that Jesus is the saviour of His people, the Jews.

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
— Matthew 1:21

Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”
— Matthew 2:4-6

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of David His servant⁠—
As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old⁠—
— Luke 1:68-70

For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”
— Luke 2:30-32

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
— John 1:11-12
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dikaioumenoi

Active Member
Jun 29, 2016
150
42
38
North Carolina
✟37,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
No, why? The angel was only revealing part of the plan to Joseph.
The angel's words are a definitive explanation of the very name of Jesus. The γάρ explicitly grounds the naming. His entire identity and mission on earth are defined by this statement. So the angel's words cannot be only a partial disclosure of that mission.

But that reading isn't grammatically defensible. The future indicative σώσει ("He will save") expresses a definite, declarative act, not an attempt, offer, or possibility. The construction σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is a promise of fulfillment, not a general intention.

So your qualification, "not every individual Jew though," can only be introduced if defining "His people" in a way that likewise "does not include every individual Jew." Grammatically, the text doesn't allow for a subset within "His people." Whoever that phrase encompasses, their salvation is certain and complete. He will save "His people" from their sins.

In other words, either "His people" refers to all Jews (in which case the angel's statement fails, since not all Jews are saved), or it refers to the covenant people who truly belong to Him; that is, the ones who actually are saved. The grammar itself forces that conclusion.

Why do you believe the purpose of Matt 1:21 is to reveal the whole plan of redemption to Joseph?
Because the angel explicitly ties Jesus' name to His mission. The verse isn't a partial hint; it's the divine explanation of His very identity and purpose on earth: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Matt. 1:21 isn't a statement about who Jesus ministered to first; it's a statement defining His entire identity and purpose on earth.

In the Gospels where "His people, My people, His own" is mentioned it always refers to the Jewish people. Why then do you think there is this exception in Matt 1:21?
It often does, but claiming it always refers to ethnic Israel is a stretch. Lexical precedent doesn't control referential scope when the author himself redefines the covenant category in his own narrative. What matters is how Matthew uses the term in context, and the theological implications (like those mentioned above) of reading it ethnically in Matthew 1:21 are disastrous.

Matthew himself broadens the covenant category to include Gentiles and excludes unbelieving Jews (8:11-12; 12:48-50). John does the same: Jesus' "own" (τὰ ἐμά) are not limited to Israel, for He calls sheep "not of this fold" (10:14-16). Even John 1:11-12, which you cited, makes the point explicit: "His own" rejected Him, but whoever received Him, Jew or Gentile, became God's true children. Yes, "His own" refers to Jews there, but the point of the text is to redefine that. The whole point is that the true people of God is not defined ethnically.

Luke 2:31-32, which you also cited, likewise frames Israel's glory in the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Savior from Israel brings salvation "for all peoples." The covenant community, therefore, is not defined by national boundaries but by redemptive union with Christ. Yes, "His people" clearly refers to Israel there, but again the point is that the true covenant community is defined beyond national bounds.

Again, the critical issue is usage in context, not default semantics. Reading "His people" in Matt. 1:21 as merely "the Jewish nation" collapses the verse into either (1) a failed national redemption or (2) universal Jewish salvation, both of which contradict Matthew's entire theological purpose.

Yes, Matthew was written for a largely Jewish audience, but that fact does not tell us what "His people" means here. Authorial audience and referential scope are not the same thing. Matthew's Jewish readers were precisely the ones who needed to see that covenant membership is no longer defined ethnically but Christologically.

Hence, the "most Jewish" Gospel is also the one that most clearly dismantles Jewish exclusivism. From the Magi (Gentiles) in chapter 2, to the centurion's faith in chapter 8, to the Great Commission in chapter 28, Matthew's message is precisely that the promised Messiah of Israel brings salvation to all nations.
 
Upvote 0