Where Hal Lindsey and Dispensationalism Went Wrong

Luke J. Wilson | 12th March 2026 | Eschatology

Something bizarre happened in the White House Oval Office this week. Photographs circulated on social media showing President Donald Trump seated at his desk, surrounded by approximately twenty Christian pastors from across the country, their hands extended towards him in prayer. The image provoked sharply divided reactions: some saw it as a moving expression of faith; others found it deeply unsettling. Whatever one makes of the optics, it arrived at a charged moment. Trump held a prayer meeting in the Oval Office after his administration admitted the war with Iran will likely last weeks longer than promised | Credit: Dan Scavino's X account Days earlier, reports emerged that a military commander had told troops that the current US war with Iran is “all part of God’s divine plan,” and that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” These were not fringe internet rumours. They were filed as formal complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by an anonymous non-commissioned officer acting on behalf of fifteen service members — the majority of whom were themselves Christians. By Tuesday of that week, MRFF had logged more than two hundred similar complaints across fifty military installations, covering every branch of the armed forces. More than two dozen Democratic members of Congress have since called for a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation, citing what they describe as “glaring Constitutional concerns” and potential violations of DoD regulations on religious neutrality. The political questions about separation of church and state in the US are for others to address. What I want to do here is something more straightforward: examine what Revelation actually says, because the theology driving these claims does not hold up under scrutiny. And that matters here a lot; not as a partisan point, but as a question of biblical faithfulness. First, a Word About Context If you have read my previous article on Revelation some of what follows will be familiar ground. But it bears repeating, because the misunderstanding at the heart of this story is so widespread that it has taken on the feel of settled orthodoxy in many circles. The Book of Revelation is commonly thought to be written in the late first century ~95 AD, during or around the reign of Emperor Domitian. Though there is internal evidence that it was possibly written during Nero’s reign prior to 70 AD. Both of these emperors were most aggressive proponents of the imperial cult in Rome’s history. Domitian required that he be addressed as “lord and god,” had this title printed on coinage, and expected acts of religious reverence towards the Emperor as a demonstration of political loyalty. To refuse was to invite economic exclusion, marginalisation, and worse. Rome on seven hills It is into that precise context that John of Patmos writes. He is not composing a coded forecast of twenty-first century geopolitics. He is writing resistance literature — what scholars call apocalyptic literature — a well-established Jewish and early Christian genre which uses vivid symbolic imagery to pull back the curtain on earthly power and name it for what it truly is. The seven-headed beast of Revelation is Rome. The seven heads are the seven hills of Rome, an identification so widely acknowledged in early church scholarship that it barely requires argument. The mark of the beast, calculated through Hebrew gematria to 666 (or 616 in some early manuscripts), points directly to Nero Caesar (transliterated into Hebrew as נרון קסר, “nrwn qsr”) — the Emperor who became the archetype of anti-Christian persecution due to the levels of evilness he enacted. The second beast, which looks like a lamb but speaks for the dragon, performs signs to deceive, enforces the mark, and compels worship of the first beas...

Luke J. Wilson | 02nd April 2023 | Eschatology

It’s not often we read the text of the triumphant entry into Jerusalem as an eschatological text thinking about the return of Christ. Especially as at this point the in the Gospel narratives, Jesus is on earth in his first coming, and still a week away from his crucifixion! While the texts usually read across the world on Palm Sunday may be familiar to us (Luke 19:28–40), we might miss the connection with the preceding parables if we don’t read the whole of Luke 19 together. I won’t quote everything here, as you can read the whole text for yourself, but the pertinent verses come from the Parable of the Ten Minas in verses 11–27: Luke 19:11, 27As they were listening to this, He went on to tell a parable because He was near Jerusalem, and they thought the kingdom of God was going to appear right away. … But bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and slaughter them in my presence. This parable is pointing to the departure of Jesus (the king) who leaves his servants in charge (his disciples then and now) while he goes to receive “royal power for himself” (v.12) and has a delayed return in which he will slaughter those who opposed his kingship once he is back (v.27). This leads into the “Palm Sunday” day of Jesus coming as a rightful king and then later being rejected and leaving to receive his authority: (v.12) So he said, “A nobleman went to a distant region to receive royal power for himself and then return. This ties into Daniel 7 when the Son of Man (Jesus) goes to the Father (the “Ancient One”) and is given authority and a kingdom: Daniel 7:13–14As I watched in the night visions,I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven.And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.To him was given dominion and glory and kingship,that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away,and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. Coming on or with clouds is a metaphor often used throughout the Old Testament to signify the sovereign judgement of God coming upon a nation. If you want to understand more about this concept, see my other article: The Coming of Jesus: Coming on the clouds. When Jesus says that he is coming again, hinted at in the parable, and at other times that he will come “on the clouds”, we must remember that this is a reference to a prophecy set within a context of God doing some judging (Dan 7:10). This language isn’t unique to Daniel either, but is a typical example of apocalyptic imagery used by prophets. He then returned “in the clouds” in the Roman-Jewish War of AD 66-70 to bring that judgement on the “delegation” that didn’t want him to be king (Luke 19:14) — e.g. pharisaical Judaism; the Jews who rejected Jesus. The temple was abandoned by God and the Romans trampled it, as predicted: Luke 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. We can see how this played out in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, who reported what happened in Jerusalem and at the temple during the Roman-Jewish war. Moreover, at the feast which is called Pentecost, the priests on entering the inner court of the temple by night, as their custom was in the discharge of their ministrations, reported that they were conscious, first of a commotion and a din, and after that of a voice as of a host, “We are departing hence.”Josephus, Jewish Wars, 6.5 (circa 75 AD) We see a similar thing happening in Ezekiel when the glory of God was prophesied to leave the temple before the first temple destruction: Ezekiel 10:18Then the glory of the LORD went out from the threshold of the house and stopped above the cherubim. Then we have angelic visions above the city of Jerusalem prior to its...

Luke J. Wilson | 15th December 2021 | Eschatology

There’s been a lot of fuss on the internet lately about this new statue that the UN has erected outside their headquarters on the Visitor’s Plaza. I’ve seen screenshots of the original tweet shared on Facebook and other social media platforms, as well as copious articles flooding my newsfeed, all suggesting the same thing: this is the beast from Daniel 7. This of course carries with it the implication that it is also a fulfilment of that prophecy and therefore we should expect something more to happen soon, like “the antichrist” to rise up and consume the world. Or something along those lines. I don’t follow the Dispensational “end times” view anymore, so I try not to get my eschatology from newspaper headlines (or tweets). In nearly all of the other articles I’ve seen on the topic, no one is actually engaging with the Scriptures, but are quoting random tweets and Facebook posts as though that’s where we should derive our exegesis and conclusions. A guardian for international peace and security sits on the Visitor's Plaza outside #UN Headquarters. The guardian is a fusion of jaguar and eagle and donated by the Government of Oaxaca, Mexico @MexOnu. It is created by artists Jacobo and Maria Angeles.UN Photo/Manuel Elías pic.twitter.com/q8SSsQhz1L — United Nations Photo (@UN_Photo) November 9, 2021  If you can’t see the tweet above, the official UN Twitter account said: A guardian for international peace and security sits on the Visitor’s Plaza outside #UN Headquarters. The guardian is a fusion of jaguar and eagle and donated by the Government of Oaxaca, Mexico @MexOnu It is created by artists Jacobo and Maria Angeles. So with that said, let’s have a look at some of the claims and then compare with what Scripture actually says, rather than a bunch of tweets by people losing their minds. Three passages of Scripture are being thrown about: Daniel 7:2–4, Revelation 13:2, and 1 Thessalonians 5:2–3. But do these verses speak to this new statue? Daniel 7:2–4I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea, and four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human being; and a human mind was given to it. Alright, Daniel does say the first beast “was like a lion and had eagles’ wings”, which I will admit, is pretty similar to the statue (except that it’s not a lion). I don’t know if Daniel would have been familiar with Jaguars which is why people are pointing out the phrase, “like a lion” due to the similarities of the animals. But these details are really besides the point. The first, and most obvious point to me when I first saw this was that the “beasts” in Daniel 7 (all four of them) are representative of nations and kings. The visions Daniel has are about future kingdoms and their leaders. You only need to read the rest of the chapter to see this, as the angel with Daniel gives the interpretation to him! See below: Daniel 7:16–17I approached one of the attendants to ask him the truth concerning all this. So he said that he would disclose to me the interpretation of the matter: “As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth.   Disney Pixar’s “Coco” film poster (2017) Unless the statue outside the UN is actually a living person who rules a nation… trying to tie it to Daniel 7 is more than a stretch. It’s just nonsensical. The second point which came to my mind too, and anyone else who has seen the Disney film “Coco”, is that these Jaguar-Eagle beast things are part of Mexican culture and mythology (and were warrior classes of the Aztecs). It’s not a unique design the UN came up with, demonically inspired to fulfil prophecy. No, the statue is an “Alebrije” created b...

Luke J. Wilson | 21st September 2020 | Eschatology

Most people have some idea about what the rapture is – or do they? Generally there is an idea or concept of a form of escapism from the world when Jesus returns, which happens pre, mid or post tribulation and in some connection to the millenium. Now, if you understood any of those terms, you are most likely on, or aware of, the Dispensationalism side of things. There’s a lot of doctrine all bundled together in “end times” beliefs, and a fair bit of speculation around “the rapture” with its timing and logistics etc. which makes the whole thing a but murky, but nonetheless, it’s pretty much taken for granted as a staple belief within the Evangelical world. But has this always been so, and does it have any biblical basis? In short: sort of. What is The Rapture? This is the primary verse where the doctrine finds its footing: …then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. — 1 Thessalonians 4:17 On the face of it, that is a pretty obscure (and short) text, yet so much has been written on and speculated about around this event. I’m not going to cover every aspect of rapture doctrine here, but rather want to just highlight the context of this verse and its parallels in Paul’s other letters, as this seems to get lost under centuries of doctrinal baggage, which, incidentally, also the leads to the next point to look at: is the rapture biblical? The origin of The Rapture The word “rapture” itself comes from the Latin word rapere, which means: “to seize” or “to abduct”. It is a translation from the Greek word that is rendered as “caught up” (ἁρπάζω / harpázō) in our English Bibles today. For many, asking if this belief is biblical is a non-starter because it is assumed so based on 1 Thess. 4 so obviously it is. But this is a presupposition, reading the modern ideas of what “the rapture” means into the text. The modern idea being that Jesus comes back briefly (and maybe secretly), whooses all the Christians into the sky and takes them to heaven, away from all the troubles on the earth, before coming back later to do a proper “second coming”. John Nelson Darby, a 19th-century theologian, is often credited with creating this premillennial rapture doctrine, followed closely by C.I. Scofield who wrote a best-selling annotated Bible which promoted Darby’s rapture views in its footnote commentary. This particular Bible became wildly popular across America in the early 1900s and ended up solidifying the futurist dispensational viewpoint for generations to come within Evangelicalism. Despite the popularity of Scofield’s Bible, what it (and Darby) taught was a novel idea which had not been seen nor heard of before in the previous 1800 years of Church History, yet many Christians accepted it without hesitation, likely due to it being part of the exposition alongside the Scripture they were reading, and therefore a seeming authority. I realise there is somewhat of an irony here in that I’m acting similarly like an authority telling you that this belief is wrong whereas Scofield was writing as though it were accurate, but in an even more ironic twist, just a handful of verses later, the same letter to the Thessalonians says to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is what I would invite you to do: don’t just take my word for it, test everything and see if what I say is accurate. The context of The Rapture So what is the context of these verses, if not about being whisked away into the sky with Jesus? A couple of things, but one slightly more obvious than the other, though still overlooked by people, I’ve noticed; the other requires knowing some more about the ancient Greco-Roman culture of the time. Firstly, we only need go back a few verses to see what Paul is writing about here: he begins the passage in verse 13 by sayi...

Darwin to Jesus | 16th April 2025 | Atheism

Guest post by Darwin to Jesus Dostoevsky famously said, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” For years, as an atheist, I couldn’t understand what he meant, but now I do… Here’s a simple analogy that shows why only theism can make sense of morality: Imagine you just got hired at a company. You show up, set up your desk, and decide to use two large monitors. No big deal, right? But then some random guy walks up to you and says: “Hey, you’re not allowed to do that.” You ask, “What do you mean?” They say, “You’re not permitted* to use monitors that big.” In this situation, the correct response would be: “Says who?” We’ll now explore the different kinds of answers you might hear — each one representing a popular moral theory without God — and why none of them actually work. Subjective Morality The random guy says, “Well, I personally just happen to not like big monitors. I find them annoying.” Notice that’s not a reason for you to change your setup. Their personal preferences don’t impose obligations on you. This is what subjective morality looks like. It reduces morality to private taste. If this were the answer, you’d be correct to ignore this person and get back to work — big monitors are still permitted. Cultural Relativism Instead, they say, “It’s not just me — most people here don’t use big monitors. It’s not our culture.” That’s cultural relativism: right and wrong are just social customs, what is normal behavior. But notice customs aren’t obligations. If the culture were different, the moral rule would be different, which means it isn’t really moral at all. You might not fit in. You might not be liked. But you’re still permitted to use big monitors. Emotivism Here after being asked “says who?” the person just blurts out, “Boo, big monitors!” You reply, “Hurrah, big monitors!” That’s the entire conversation. This is emotivism. On this moral theory when we talk about right and wrong we’re actually just expressing our personal feelings towards actions, I boo rape, you hurrah rape. But shouting “boo!” at someone doesn’t create real obligations. You’re still permitted to use large monitors. Utilitarianism Here, the person says, “Your big monitors lower the overall productivity of the office. You’re not permitted to use them because they lead to worse consequences.” This is utilitarianism: morality is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But even if that’s true — so what? Who says you’re obligated to maximize group productivity? And what if your monitors actually help you work better? Utilitarianism might tell you what leads to better outcomes, but it doesn’t tell you why you’re morally obligated to follow that path — especially if it comes at your own expense. You’re still permitted to use large monitors. Virtue Ethics Here they say, “Using big monitors just doesn’t reflect the virtues we admire here — simplicity, humility, restraint.” This is virtue ethics. Morality is about becoming the right kind of person. But who defines those virtues? And why are you obligated to follow them? What if your idea of a virtuous worker includes productivity and confidence? Without a transcendent standard, virtues are just cultural preferences dressed up in moral language. If you don’t care about virtue or their arbitrary standards, then you have no obligation. You’re still permitted to use large monitors. Atheist Moral Realism But what if they say, “Listen, there’s a rule. It’s always been here. It says you can’t use monitors that large.” You ask, “Who made the rule?” They say, “No one.” You ask, “Who owns this company?” They say, “No one owns it. The company just exists.” You look around and ask, “Where is the rule?” They say, “You won’t find it w...

KingsServant | 12th March 2025 | Islam

This is a guest post by “KingsServant” In 2019 a book called Defying Jihad was published by Tyndale House, the reputable Christian publisher telling the story of “Esther Ahmad” a pseudonym used by the author alongside her co-author Craig Borlase, who has previously written alongside, well known Christian personalities such as Matt Redman the singer and Andrew Brunson, an American pastor imprisoned by the Turkish government. As I began to read this book over this past year I was expecting an encouraging account of how a former Jihadi found Christ and escaped her previous accomplices. Very quickly, however, I became uncomfortable, her descriptions of her background involved allegedly committed Muslims doing very un-Islamic things and the unnamed militant group doing unusual things that didn’t fit my knowledge gained from years of study of Islam and interactions with Muslims, including extremists. As my doubts about the authenticity of the book solidified, and yet I couldn’t find anyone else who had questioned these things before me, or on the other hand provided verification of her story. I decided to contact Craig. During our brief and cordial email exchange he told me that he had been in touch with people who knew Esther after she escaped her family home, but so far has not suggested he has any other lines of evidence confirming any of the key elements of her account before that time. As a result, I am writing this article to draw attention to the aspects that raise suspicion. According to “Esther’s” story, she was raised in Pakistan where she was sent to an extremist madrassa (or Muslim school) for girls, there they were shown images of victims of violence and told that Christians and Jews were responsible - the emphasis on Jews and particularly Christians by a militant group based in Pakistan is strange. All the terrorist groups in Pakistan direct their efforts towards Hindus (especially in Kashmir) or other Muslims, since Christians are such a tiny minority there. Things rapidly become even stranger when a Mullah displays weapons to the group of girls telling them “… one day you will get to handle these” as the book continues describing them being encouraged to aspire to physical violence towards Jews and Christians specifically, the description of “Aunt Selma” volunteering for and dying fighting Jihad is likewise out of place. Islamic terrorist groups very rarely recruit women for combat roles, as Devorah Margolin describes Hamas and ISIS as departing from convention by encouraging female participation in violence and even then in only a very restricted way under particular circumstances with a specific fatwa (or Islamic ruling) being issued.1 On page 33, the militant group leader “Anwar” suggests that Esther could find a husband in the west to bring him to Islam. It is strictly forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim man, the idea that they would be encouraged by a scholar to date is about as unbelievable. In a conservative Pakistani culture, she would more likely find herself the victim of a so-called “honour killing” for such a thing.2 After her initial chance encounters with her future husband “John” (not as a result of trying to follow “Anwar’s” advice), on page 92 it is recorded that he said to her “… I’m not against your faith and beliefs…”, it’s the kind of thing that we might expect a liberal in the west to say, but not a Pakistani believer who knows that Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for sinners. Following her conversion according to her account, she engaged in a number of public debates with clerics in which she defended her decision to leave Islam and follow Christ. It is not uncommon for apostates to have meetings with scholars arranged by their family members in the hope that they might be won back to Islam, but it is very surprising that her influential father would want to give his apostate daughter su...

KingsServant | 01st February 2023 | Apologetics

Matthew's theme - The divine presence of Jesus This is a guest post by “KingsServant”, see Part 1 here. Having covered Matthew’s introduction to his gospel in his nativity account, we will now consider the way Matthew “bookends” the gospel by beginning his work with the promise of God dwelling with his people (fulfilled in the incarnation) and ending it in the same way with Jesus’ comforting promise never to leave his followers. This theme of Matthew begins with his quotation of Isaiah 7:14, which we have already analysed in the previous article with regard to how it reveals Matthew’s teaching that Jesus is God. As noted before, in Matthew 1:23, Matthew draws special attention to the meaning of the name Immanuel and sees the birth of Jesus as necessary for its ultimate fulfilment. Matthew 1:23: “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” Matthew also ends his gospel, following the resurrection, with this promise of Jesus; (Matthew 28:20): “…teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew emphasises the point at both beginning and end that Jesus is “with us”. First, in 1:23 he combines this with calling Jesus God. Second, he records Jesus as claiming his perpetual presence with his people wherever they are. To understand the importance of Matthew’s choice of this theme an overview of this subject in the Old Testament is needed. In the book of Genesis man is created (and woman from his side), then they are placed in the garden of Eden where they enjoy the presence of God who walked with them, until they act disobediently to him after which he came to them and it is written; (Genesis 3:8): “Now they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” The result is a curse on the ground and the tempter who led them to sin. Along with this curse God pronounced judgement on them, man was driven out of the garden, separated from the presence of God and the tree of life that could enable them to live forever as sinners. (Genesis 3:24): “So He drove the man out; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.” Since then God has been working towards reversing this event, undoing the effects of sin, chief among them the broken fellowship mankind has with God. God chose Abraham as the one through whom his blessing will reach all nations (Genesis 12:3) and after calling his descendants out of Egypt orders the construction of the tabernacle saying (Exodus 25:8): “Have them construct a sanctuary for Me, so that I may dwell among them.” The tabernacle construction included details for how priests could enter the presence of God as representatives of Israel. Part way through this, Jehovah again comments on his purpose: (Exodus 29:42–45): “…where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. 43 I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My glory. 44 I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; I will also consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve as priests to Me. 45 And I will dwell among the sons of Israel and will be their God. 46 And they shall know that I am the Lord their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, so that I might dwell among them; I am the Lord their God.” King David wanted to build a more permanent building for God to dwell in, but this request was denied to him although permitted to his son Solomon. Notice the words of Jehovah through the prophet Nathan to David:  (2 Samuel 7:5–7): “Go and say to My servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: “Should you build Me a house for My dwelling? 6 For I have not dwe...

KingsServant | 22nd December 2022 | Apologetics

The titles “Jehovah” and “God” given to Jesus in Matthew 1 This is a guest post by “KingsServant”, see Part 2 here. In this series of articles, I want to present the case that Matthew teaches Jesus is God, from the arguments I made in 2 moderated debates with a Muslim apologist, Mohammed Abd al Razack, commonly known as Al Yemeni. Although I will be going into far more detail, not having to deal with the tight time controls of a debate format. The moderated debate on YouTube with me (KingsServant)   Matthew’s teaching of the Trinity and in particular that Jesus is God is by no means limited to the baptismal formula given by Christ after his resurrection in Matthew 28:19 a text of which the authenticity is often questioned despite not being in doubt. A sound assessment of what Matthew teaches about his main subject “Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), should begin by observing the structure of the book, specifically the way that Matthew chooses to begin and end his Gospel. Matthew, quite reasonably, begins his account of the life of Jesus by describing the circumstances of his birth (1:18). We are told that before having relations with Joseph to whom she was betrothed, Mary was found to be pregnant, Matthew tells us this was through the Holy Spirit, although this, of course, was unknown to Joseph, her husband to be. Certain questions arise immediately. First, we may note that Jesus being the Son of God in a unique sense (only-begotten) cannot be the result of his conception as a human by Mary as it is the Holy Spirit who begat Jesus as a man, rather than the Father. The Father is never identified as the Spirit and in 28:19 the Father, Son and Spirit are distinguished from each other. Since the Spirit is not the Father, but rather the Father is a distinct person from the Spirit, we can conclude that both the fatherhood of the Father and the sonship of the Son are not the result of his human conception. The second question is why is the virgin birth by Mary of a child begotten by the Holy Spirit necessary? What is the purpose of this? Challenging questions for an anti-trinitarian who wants to maintain that Jesus is a mere man to answer. But neither do we have to speculate about it because the answer is given in the text in short notice. Matthew 1:21“She will give birth to a Son; and you shall name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” The angel insists that the son to be born must be named Jesus which means either “Jehovah saves” or “Jehovah is Salvation”, a common name at the time, as we know from others in the New Testament who share this name (Matthew 27:16 variant reading, Acts 13:6, Colossians 4:11, Luke 3:29), the same name of the successor of Moses. There’s nothing shocking about the name itself, but a hugely significant point is the reason why the angel says that he must be given this particular name. “for He will save His people from their sins.” He is called Jesus – meaning Jehovah saves because he (that is Jesus) will save his (Jesus’) people from their sins. There can be no dispute that the word “he” at the beginning of this phrase is referring to the child, Jesus. The phrase in Greek[1]  includes the word “he” which is actually grammatically unnecessary and as a result can only have been included by the author to highlight that the child is to be given this name (Jehovah is salvation) because he himself is going to be doing the saving. As if this is not enough, the word is not only included but also placed in the emphatic position at the beginning of the phrase. In Greek, the word to be emphasised is placed at the beginning. Beyond all doubt, the angel is identifying Jesus himself as Jehovah who saves! Further, the Old Testament states that it is Jehovah who will save Israel from their sins, Israel being the group most naturally understood to be “his people” in verse 21 contextually (in both histo...