Are the Jews saved, apart from Jesus, because they’re Jewish?

This is an interesting question because, of the many times I have been asked this, I am not convinced the full ramifications of the question are apprehended by the inquisitor. For example: If the Jews are saved because they’re Jewish, then by the same faulty logic any member of any nationality is saved simply because they’re a member of a nationality! “Wait,” you say, “I was speaking of the Jewish ‘religion.’” “Oh,” I say, “well that makes even less sense.”

Even if the Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, religiously speaking, salvation still only comes to them through the Messiah according to their own religion (Judaism). In fact, until such Messiah appears, according to the Jewish canon, the Jews are not even sure where they go when they die. Thus, they certainly are not certain of any salvation. By the way, such salvation, as here referenced, is a Christian concept. The question of salvation itself is from a Christian perspective (which in and of itself defies the laws of logic by “stealing worldviews”).

Add to this that according to the Christian first principle (Scripture), Jesus exclaimed, “…No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6). This is an exclusive exclamation. There cannot be any exceptions to this truth statement. Therefore, if the Jews are not included in the “no one” then everyone and every religion is an exception. If Jesus meant, “no one except the Jews comes to the Father but through me,” then the statement becomes irrelevant by self-contradiction because it actually means anyone can come to the Father by any means other than Jesus. There is no way around this! Either Jesus is the ONLY way or He is no way at all, not even the Christian way.

Now, another contradiction in the assumption that Jews have some other way to God is the fact that Jesus Himself was Jewish. If He were not Jewish, perhaps, then one could argue for a different way. But He was Jewish, and therefore the Messiah and the means by which Jews, too, must be saved (otherwise, both the Old and the New Testament, are bogus and we’re wasting our time).

So, the real argument is, “Is Jesus really the only way to the Father and, therefore, salvation?” This question is for another time and different heading. But I will decidedly say that, “Yes, Jesus is the only way to the Father and to salvation (He being salvation Personified)!” If not, I warn you, all logic and reason falls to the ground for lack of Epistemology (bygones – that, too, is another conversation).

The 4th century B.C. philosopher, Aristotle, is given credit for the three original laws of logic. In the 17th century A.D. a German logician, Leibniz, formulated a so-called fourth law to close an assumed flaw concluded in the original three (which flaw, if valid, made the laws of logic, themselves, illogical). The ‘Laws of Logic’ (Formal Logic), without which rational discourse cannot be had, are as follows:

1. Law of Non-Contradiction
This law states that two opposing judgments cannot both be true. Both judgments can be false simply because neither one is true. (A) cannot equal (-A).

2. Law of the Excluded Middle
This law states that two opposing judgments cannot be at the same time true and false. One judgment must be true and the other false, for there is no third option (“middle ground”). If one is established as true the opposite judgment cannot also be true. If (A) is (A) then (A) cannot also be (B).

3. Law of Identity
This law states, for example, that each word in a given language must have the same meaning. If there are different meanings to a word (as there usually are in the English language) a proper meaning must be agreed upon in order to have a logical (or intelligible) conversation.

[It is argued whether or not a fourth law is necessary, or if simply qualifying the original definitions to the exclusion of a fourth law is in order.]

4. Law of Sufficient Reason (or Ground)
For example, concerning the original three laws, (A) can be (-A) if they are occurring in different places or at different times. The statement, “It is raining and it is not raining” can be true if the statement concerns two different places and/or at different times. So, (A) “it is raining” and (B) “it is not raining” can both be true in respect to two places and/or times. Without qualifiers {to the first three laws), this law is especially important concerning the third law (Identity) because sufficient reason is paramount when determining which meaning of a word is to be used. However, by simply adding the phrase “…at the same place/time” to the definitions of the laws, the necessity of another law is avoided. For example: (A) cannot, at the same time, equal (-A). Likewise, (A) cannot, at the same time, also be (B). And it cannot possibly be raining at the same place and/or time that it is not raining at that particular place and/or time.

There are other laws, categorized as “second-order laws” (for example, validity, and truth statements; as well as proof formulas, such as syllogisms), which are also a part of formal logic but are beyond the scope of this writing.

It is important to realize that the laws of logic are an expression of the mind of God. Because God has a mind, we, too, have the ability to think. And the laws of logic, whether we admit it or not (it logically doesn’t change the fact), give evidence that God exists.

I have been reading your blog and in the section that asked “Is homosexuality a sin” you made the statement “When God made humanity, He made Eve out of Adam. He took from Adam, not a rib (that is another conversation), but literally, a “part or compartment” and made from it Eve.” Can you explain this? I have not been able to find an explanation other than “a rib” that was taken from Adam.

The word “rib” in Hebrew is, “sela or tsela,” meaning: “side, side room, chamber; compartment, part.” It refers to building materials. An interesting thing about this Hebrew word is it is in the feminine tense.

Thus, it was not a “rib” (the English translation of “sela or tsela”) which God removed from Adam, but a part or compartment of him.

Incidentally, for centuries humanity believed that men are one rib short of women because of this translation. Later it was discovered that this was an inaccurate assumption. Humanity’s misinterpretation had began the downward spiral of faith (rather, the lack thereof) in the Scriptures. Not because Scripture is wrong, but that our interpretations (and translations) are flawed.

So, when God killed Adam (“deep sleep”) He took from Adam that which, afterwards, Adam no longer had. What God removed from Adam, Adam was thereafter missing, and it could only be found in Eve (“God closed up the wound where the thing was removed”).

Another interesting note is that the place where God “closed up,” in the Hebrew, is the masculine sense of “flesh,” or “body.” So from the masculine place God removed the feminine part, which was my argument in “homosexuality.”

Now, all this, though literal in my opinion, is but a “shadow” of a truer reality. For Christ was killed by God (put into a “deep sleep,” for three days) and what was produced from His death was His bride.

But what exactly is it that was in Christ and, therefore, Adam that a bride was made for each? Well, precisely that which each had in common as a human being – emotion of flesh.

The in-depth discussion of emotions is not within the scope of this writing. However, we do need to understand that woman is emotional, where man is logical. Not that women are not logical (some of the most logical people I have ever met are women and, likewise, some of the most irrational people I’ve ever met are men), but that the woman signifies 100% humanity (as the church entails 100% humanity) and, therefore, contain 100% emotion (that which was removed from Adam and that which was a part of Christ that made the church). If Christ was not human, the church was never instituted. And if emotion was not that which was removed from Adam, Eve was never created.

Adam was killed and from his side came his bride – “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.”
Christ was killed and from His “side” (the bloodshed) came His bride – “body,” the church – “bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh.”

There is no issue with the English rendering of “rib” as long as we understand the ramifications of that removed “rib.” But, theologically, a “rib” does not do justice to the matter at hand.