The Bible seems to suggest otherwise, FK. God repented having made man in Genesis 6:6 and in Hebrew 8:6 the scripture plainly reveals that the new covenant is better than the imperfect Old One. The imperfection being implicit in calling the new one better.
By this we seem to be left with several unpleasant options, such as that God is inept and makes mistakes, OR that God doesn't care what happens to man (compared to a human parent), it is all up to him, OR that the Bible is in grievous error and therefore cannot be trusted on its own. Another option, though, would be that a different interpretation is correct, one that preserves both God as an omnipotent being who is Good, and also preserves the revelation that He intended to give man via written word.
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.
The idea that God would continue to offer chances to those who failed, after HE failed, is solely an Apostolic one (if it is even that). "Failure" has to be distinguished between God's and man's. God cannot fail, but man sure can. God chose from among all the people living in OT times, just as He chose from among all people today. To some He will show mercy and to others He will not. There is no "failure" in that.
And how do we reconcile that Christ sent His disciples to minister to the twelve tribes of Israel knowing that they would fail?!
Well, what would you have considered their "success"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I infer from all of your recent comments that if the Gospels had immediately spread like wildfire among the Jews, and been accepted, then the Gentiles would have been locked out forever. From my standpoint, I sure wouldn't call that success! :) However, since God ALWAYS intended to reach the Gentiles en mass, then what you call the failure of the Jews I would call the success of God. :)
Kosta: 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.
FK: The idea that God would continue to offer chances to those who failed, after HE failed, is solely an Apostolic one (if it is even that).
It is not "Apostolic." Allowing failure based on our choices is not God's failure.
God chose from among all the people living in OT times, just as He chose from among all people today. To some He will show mercy and to others He will not. There is no "failure" in that.
There is no Christ in it either.
Kosta: And how do we reconcile that Christ sent His disciples to minister to the twelve tribes of Israel knowing that they would fail?!
FK: Well, what would you have considered their "success"?
Well, given that it wasn't meant for the tribes of Israel to accept them, you call that success? Buy why send them there?
but I infer from all of your recent comments that if the Gospels had immediately spread like wildfire among the Jews, and been accepted, then the Gentiles would have been locked out forever
There is nothing in the NT that says Christ came because of the Gentiles.
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[Mat 15:24]
Yeah, only. How much clearer can that be? Did the OT say anywhere that the messiah was going to come to save the Gentiles? Or to teach them (the OT) God's justice?
However, since God ALWAYS intended to reach the Gentiles en mass, then what you call the failure of the Jews I would call the success of God
And that's based on what? So, next time you see a homeless person why don't you congratulate him?