Can the law grant eternal life?

[Watchman of Naphtali]

You are saying that the New Testament isn't a part of the Bible?

It is not part of my bible, as I am not a Christian.

Nevertheless it is a part of the Bible for those who are Christians.

[Athanasius]

You are saying that the New Testament isn't a part of the Bible?

It is not part of my bible, as I am not a Christian.

Nevertheless it is a part of the Bible for those who are Christians.

Yes and you're banned.

[Fenris]

Yes and you're banned.

Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.

Oscar Wilde

[jeremiah1five]

Let's take a look at what transpired between Jesus and someone who asked Jesus an important question about "inheriting eternal life."

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mt 19:16–26.

This account is also found in Mark 10:17-27 and Luke 18:18-27, and Luke states this person was a "ruler" (Greek: "archon") which under Roman occupation meant he most likely was appointed to as some [chief] magistrate "over" the people.

Another point to consider is both Mark and Luke have him asking what he must do to "inherit" eternal life. Beginning with Isaac on through the generations of Hebrews to Jesus' day when it speaks of "inheritance" it mostly refers to the Abraham Covenant and the promises God gave to Abraham, who specifically asked God for someone "of his seed" to inherit his possessions, and Abraham had great possessions given him of God (Gen. 15.)

After this ruler [of the people] asked Jesus what he would "do" to inherit eternal life Jesus directs him to the Law of Moses (Matt. 19:17), specifically the Ten Commandments (Moral Law.) When the man asked Jesus, "which" commandments Jesus names off the six commandments from the second tablet: "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" clearly referring to his relationship with other Hebrews. The man then states he has obeyed all these commandments since he was a youth but asked further what more did he lack? Jesus instructs the man and says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

In order for the man to be "perfect" (Greek: "complete") Jesus states that, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

Jesus gives the man three things to "do" and he will be complete/perfect. They are:
1. sell everything you have
2. give it to the poor
3. follow me (Jesus.)

Out of these three things what was it ALSO that he lacked?
Ans. Follow Jesus.

Although he went away sorrowful "because he had great possessions" I believe the man eventually did follow Jesus and he may have been among the three thousand Jews that were born-again on the day of the Jewish Feast of Harvest (Pentecost - Acts 2), or even among the thousands that were born-again "daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47) in the days and weeks and months that followed.

What this conversation reveals to me is the connection between all three Hebrew covenants; Abraham Covenant "inherit"; Mosaic Covenant: "sacrifices for Israel's sins under the Law; and the New Covenant: "following Jesus" (Christianity.)

In Romans 11:26-27 Saul states, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (Romans 11:26–27.)

and in his letter to Jews and Jewish Christians in the Galatian region:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galatians 4:4–5.

From our perspective of looking at Hebrew history after the cross we see the joining of all three Hebrew covenants as part of the redemptive history of the Hebrew people. Beginning with the Abrahamic Covenant made between God, Abraham, and Abraham's seed (Genesis 12, 15, and 17), building upon that with the Mosaic Covenant between God and Abraham's seed, a people identified as the children of Israel (Exodus 19:5), culminating in a New Covenant in which Israel's sins are eternally forgiven and remembered "no more." (atoned - Jeremiah 31:34) by God.

The inescapeable fact is Scripture records the God of Abraham saving Abraham and his seed (family) through a series of covenant promises by God culminating in the redemption of the Hebrew people "in the fulness of time" which we now know was done by Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, sacrificed under the substitutional ritual Laws under the Mosaic Covenant. We see that while under the Law, which Jesus directed the man to obey the commandments of God, that his inheritance was not really "seeds as of many," but of one: Jesus, the One Jesus told the man to "follow" and he would be complete, nothing lacking, and his inheritance of eternal life secured.

That's what I see and how it played out for a Hebrew man and his request of what he must "do" for eternal life:

Follow Jesus. Follow Jesus while under the Law in order to get to the New Covenant which is really the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by and in Jesus.

[YeshuaFan]

Paul stated that no flesh shall ever be justified by the Law of god, for the Law is perfect, but sinners cannot ever keep it as God requires in order to get saved

[Fenris]

Paul stated that no flesh shall ever be justified by the Law of god, for the Law is perfect, but sinners cannot ever keep it as God requires in order to get saved

To say that people need to be "justified" and "saved" is not in the Hebrew bible, along with "eternal life". 

[YeshuaFan]

It would be in the NT new Covenant between Yahweh and Man

[Fenris]

It would be in the NT new Covenant between Yahweh and Man

Right, I get that. But Paul is making a statement nullifying something that the bible doesn't say.

[RabbiKnife]

But then again, Christians believe what Paul wrote is just as much Bible as the portions accepted by the Jewish faith

I see a new reality show…. The battle of the Bibles….

[Fenris]

But then again, Christians believe what Paul wrote is just as much Bible as the portions accepted by the Jewish faith

And it doesn't bother you in the least that he's making a strawman argument?

[RabbiKnife]

Not in context, no.

I take all of the writings as a whole.

Also, Paul was from all accounts a fairly serious student of the Law from the school of Gamaliel.  I think his take on the Law is significant due to his proximity to the times and issues expressed in the NT from the time period

[Fenris]

Not in context, no.

I take all of the writings as a whole.

None of the writings promise "justification" or "salvation" for following the law.

Also, Paul was from all accounts a fairly serious student of the Law from the school of Gamaliel.  I think his take on the Law is significant due to his proximity to the times and issues expressed in the NT from the time period

He claims.

His "legalistic" arguments do not follow general Talmudic rules. Furthermore, his quotes form the bible come from the Greek version. A student of Rabban Gamliel would be fluent in Hebrew and use that version.

He also claims to be a "Pharisee of the Pharisees". (Acts 23:6) Yet he came from faraway Tarsus, in Turkey. Pharisees were not common even in the Galilee, yet he claims to have come from very much farther, which strains credulity.

And lastly, he claims to be from the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1). Yet by the first century, people's tribal affiliations were lost to time (with the exception of the Davidic line and the priestly line, knowledge of which persists even into the present day).

Jesus was by all accounts quite popular with the commoners. Yet Paul was not. 2 Corinthians 11:24 "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one". Why would that be?

[RabbiKnife]

Ok
So you don’t like Paul.  I get that.  I now a lot of professing Christians that aren’t that fond of him, either.

Jesus was not popular enough as to avoid crucifixion with the approval of the Sanhedrin, so I don’t think popularity is a very good criterion for truth.

Paul was not popular with either the Romans or the Jewish persecutors because, oh yes, he radically stood the Law fulfilled by Jesus right on its head and upset the status quo, which was all about the pax Romani and the continuous flow of tax and tribute from occupied territories, including the fragile peace between the Romans and Jews throughout Asia Minor, the land of Israel, and its environs.


We all know how that fragile peace ended

I’m surprised Paul lasted as long as he did.

You will forgive me if I find recitations of or allusions to those historical sources that deny the deity of and Messiahship of Jesus to be less than convincing

We all have to deal with confirmation bias.

[Fenris]

Ok
So you don’t like Paul.  I get that.  I now a lot of professing Christians that aren’t that fond of him, either.

I don't dislike him. I just don't believe that he was always truthful about his background. The bigger issue with him is that a lot of his musings, which became Christian theology, seem in conflict with what Jesus himself said, let alone what Jewish prophets said.

Jesus was not popular enough as to avoid crucifixion with the approval of the Sanhedrin, so I don’t think popularity is a very good criterion for truth.

Jesus was popular with the commoners. I do not believe that the Sanhedrin tried him for a whole host of reasons (the Sanhedrin never met on the eve of a holiday to try capital cases, confessions were never accepted as evidence, and so on) but regardless that isn't even relevant. Jesus's appeal was that he sided with the commoners against the political powers that be. Paul wasn't even liked by the commoners themselves. Because of things that he said? That certainly should mean something.

Paul was not popular with either the Romans or the Jewish persecutors because, oh yes, he radically stood the Law fulfilled by Jesus right on its head and upset the status quo, which was all about the pax Romani and the continuous flow of tax and tribute from occupied territories, including the fragile peace between the Romans and Jews throughout Asia Minor, the land of Israel, and its environs.

This is exactly the problem that Jesus caused, which is why he was crucified, the common punishment for political rebels against Rome. More than 100,000 Jews were crucified in the first century for rebelling against Rome. So were the followers of Spartacus, for that matter.

You will forgive me if I find recitations of or allusions to those historical sources that deny the deity of and Messiahship of Jesus to be less than convincing

It's not the denial of his divinity that's convincing to Jews. The opposite, the burden of proof was on Jesus to prove that he was the promised messiah. And we find the evidence to be lacking.

[Mr.E]

The Mosaic Law was never intended to provide a way of salvation.

Salvation was by faith in the God that has revealed Himself. Remember, Romans 1 informs us what people know about the Creator. All people are condemned so God can be merciful to all. See verses 19 and 20:

19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.

God took total responsibility for Adam and Eve's original sin. But, sin has no relationship to eternal condemnation, the LOF. Nobody is sent to hell for personal sins. All sins have been paid for by Christ on the Cross. In fact, God has redeemed all unbelievers, and because sins have nothing to do with eternal condemnation, His redeeming them does not ipso facto mean they are saved.

You can call it original sin or actual sin, the bottom like is that God has provided the way for all people to be saved, in fact, that is God's desire that all people will be saved.