Well, I don't know if "method' is the right word but in any case, yes, I believe that's exactly what God was doing. Jesus came in the "fullness of time", apparently because any earlier time would've been too soon for humanity, just as we as individuals aren't necessarily ready to accept and embrace the gospel until we're ready. Why didn't Jesus simply atone right after Adam's sin? Or why didn't God simply prevent Adam from sinning to begin with? The reason is that God gave man freedom so that he might come to freely choose the good for himself, and the experience of life in a relatively godless world provides knowledge which can help us make that choice. But that takes time. Wisdom isn't gained overnight for created beings.
You have a point. Freedom is what determines the time element in the process. But when we talk about God trying plan A, it don't work, then plan B, then we're no longer talking good sense. God didn't invent an inferior plan--it was all one plan. God didn't change in the process in how He approached Man--it was always via His word. God is, without question, consistent in all that He does. He doesn't change.
The Law was not a flawed model--it was exactly what God intended in the run up to the atonement of Christ. It fit the need of the moment, and worked as such. Israel's failures did not mean God's failures.
Rom 3.3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.
Rom 9.6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
It is a legitimate question to ask why God waited so long before providing His final atonement. Why even have a preliminary atonement?
I can't say why myself--I just don't claim that God's preliminary system, ie the Law, was flawed or an errant step on the way to redemption. I would rather suggest something like a nation had to be created 1st in order for Messiah to approach the whole society of men with the choice for or against redemption.
And there's a corporate aspect to the experience and knowledge and wisdom gained by humanity. Sin, driven by human self-righteousness/selfishness/pride, had caused great amounts of harm and victimization and suffering down through the centuries. The law, alone, could not overcome this even in the Chosen People, a truth that they demonstrated repeatedly over time.
Neither the Law nor the Gospel was designed to immediately bring an end to injustice in the world. Rather, they reached out to people who were willing at the time, regardless of the fact some would reject them and regardless of whether the entire society rejected them at some point in their history.
I could hold a glass of cold water out to you and to a group, and the offering would prove its worth when you accept it and when the society accepts it. It may not solve the problem of thirst for all time but that does not thereby make the gift worthless or a failure.
Not even if in the future you reject this gift does it mean the offering was a failure because at one time you did accept it. And even if the society as a whole rejects the glass of water that doesn't mean the offering was fraudulent, a failure, or worthless--some did accept it, and at one time even the whole group benefited from it. The fact it was not a permanent fix for thirst does not invalidate the gift.
That's the way it was with the Law, and that's the way it is with the Gospel. Neither was has been a failure, and the fact the Law fell short of a permanent fix did not mean it lacked validity.
Paul's own "righteousness" as a Pharisee was insufficient.
You have to explain *why* Paul's righteousness as a Pharisee was insufficient. Was it because the original role of Pharisee was corrupt, or was it because the Pharisees at some point lost their way?
If a lawyer is corrupt should we say that the man failed because he was a lawyer? No. Neither should we say Paul failed righteousness simply because he held a religious office while under the Law. The Law was a perfectly acceptable system, as Jesus himself said. Jesus even said the Jews of his time should follow their teaching, when it corresponded with the Law.
It is not being under the Law that makes a man unrighteous. The Law was God's perfect standard for Israel at the time. Rather, the Law simply showed that Man was already a sinner even before he came under the Law. The Law was designed to remedy the separation between God and sinner in a temporary way, until final redemption had been won.
Jews could not obtain eternal Salvation while under the Law not because they were unrighteous but rather because their record of righteousness had to be dealt with by the grace of Christ's atonement. Their flaws, keeping them from the Tree of Life, had to be erased. And that could not come by human works, but only by Christ's works. A perfect man and a divine man was necessary to forgive sinful Man his sin.
