That is your opinion, FK, not a fact. Hebrews 8 tell a different story. The entire OT is a series of attempts and failures to bring the Jews to stay with God.
No, God's plan never failed. Everything that happened did so exactly according to design. In Hebrews 8, presumably you are zooming in on this:
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God. He is not doing so here. Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory. It was not a failure. The sacrifices the OT priests offered were not sufficient to save. Only the sacrifice of the ONE was sufficient. Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example:
Rom 5:18-19 : 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men , so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men . 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
Apparently, even the New Covenant failed with them and had to be assumed by non-Jews (although that is revealed more as an afterthought than a plan). What purpose did God have to play dice with Hebrews?
God does not have "afterthoughts". He is omnipotent and omniscient. His entire plan was formed before the foundations and has always been, and is now being perfectly executed. God plays dice with no one. God wills, and it happens. The God of the Holy Bible is not a God who scrambles to pick up the pieces when something He tries doesn't work out. Such would be some other god.
***No, God’s plan never failed. Everything that happened did so exactly according to design.***
Planning? God is out of time and space. A plan is designed over time through space.
***God does not have “afterthoughts”. He is omnipotent and omniscient.***
Very true, but how would you reconcile the Reformed theology of all men being frogmarched when God spent the entire OT and most of the New failing to get the Jews to accept the Messiah?
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
The Bible seems to suggest otherwise, FK. God repented having made man in Genesis 6:6 and in Hebrew 8:6 the scipture palinly reveal that the new covenant is better than the mperfect Old One. The imperfection being impicit in calling the new one better.
But if you think about it, either God was leading the Jews into failure, knowingly, or God allowed the Jews to fail, but out of His goodness continued to offer them chances to repent. We see the same in Christ's sacrifice: His atonment is sufficient to make it possible for every man to be saved. But just as the OT God does not force the Jews, neither does Christ fore anyone; in both cases God offers us repentance. That is consistent throughout both Testaments.
And how do we reconcile that Christ sent His disciples to minister to the twelve tribes of Israel knowing that they would fail?!