Jesus, God's plan "B" for the human race

[Brits Van Wyk]

Why would you possibly need a "plan B," unless the original plan went wrong? Yes, there is a New Covenant--just as God revealed there would be through the prophet Jeremiah--while still under the original covenant. Yet, this does not represent some contingency plan, readied for when the first one failed. Rather, the new covenant is the "final stage" of the original: personified in Jesus, who said He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The old covenant was designed, not only to teach the law, but to demonstrate to man that he could never fully keep it--that he was incapable of attaining a righteousness acceptable to God, by his own efforts; and needed a perfect, sinless "kinsman-redeemer" to measure up to God's standards. Enter: Jesus.

Paul explained that the law was intended all along to be temporary, until Jesus came: Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. (Gal 3:24 LT)

He taught that the law could not do for us, what needed to be done, and that we needed "the law of the Spirit of life" in Jesus to save us:
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1-4)
We cannot be saved by keeping the law, no matter how hard we try. Rather than tablets of stone, we have to have the law supernaturally written on our hearts by the new birth experience--whether Jew or Gentile. The OT only serves to demonstrate the futility of our best efforts to meet the standards of God, while the NT rescues us from that helplessness. So then, Jesus s not a plan "B," but rather the completion of a single, two-stage plan.

Hi Sojourner55

You guys have sooo much passion, it is awesome !

Just one question if you please...... Are you perhaps under the impression that the Plan "A" in this post refers to the Mosianic law? -

If so, please note that Plan "A" is actually referring to Adam (not a covenant) and plan B refers to Jesus (not in the sense of Him being the replacement for the law, but rather the perfect way to restore relationship between man and God as was intended by God, with the creation of Adam (prior to the fall).

Love

Brits

[Brother Mark]

Hi Sojourner55

You guys have sooo much passion, it is awesome !

Just one question if you please...... Are you perhaps under the impression that the Plan "A" in this post refers to the Mosianic law? -

If so, please note that Plan "A" is actually referring to Adam (not a covenant) and plan B refers to Jesus (not in the sense of Him being the replacement for the law, but rather the perfect way to restore relationship between man and God as was intended by God, with the creation of Adam (prior to the fall).

Love

Brits

Hi Brits. A couple more thoughts on this. With God, the pattern is, it's almost always the second, not the first.

For instance, it's Jesus, not Adam.
It's David, not Saul
Jacob, not Esau
NT not OT
second Jerusalem not the first Jerusalem

and on and on.

[Brits Van Wyk]

Hi Brits. A couple more thoughts on this. With God, the pattern is, it's almost always the second, not the first.

For instance, it's Jesus, not Adam.
It's David, not Saul
Jacob, not Esau
NT not OT
second Jerusalem not the first Jerusalem

and on and on.

What a great observation !

This looks like there is always some kind of a process where the latter is better that the former.. What a great God !

I still like the expression / definition of faith being " a good expectation " ... now I may change it to "a great expectation of good" he he he.

Love
Brits

[Sojourner55]

Hi Sojourner55

You guys have sooo much passion, it is awesome !

Just one question if you please...... Are you perhaps under the impression that the Plan "A" in this post refers to the Mosianic law? -

If so, please note that Plan "A" is actually referring to Adam (not a covenant) and plan B refers to Jesus (not in the sense of Him being the replacement for the law, but rather the perfect way to restore relationship between man and God as was intended by God, with the creation of Adam (prior to the fall).

Love

Brits

Hi Brits,
I can see why you would ask that. I didn't make the premise of my point very clear. "The law" began in the garden with the commandment "thou shalt not." The disobedience of Adam and Eve broke fellowship with God, and the long road to redemption was inaugurated. I believe the same type of animal sacrifice we see practiced by Noah and Abraham, and later established under Moses, began in the days of Adam, as alluded to in Gen 4:4. (I think we can safely assume that the sacrifice offered by Cain was rejected by God because it was not a blood sacrifice like Abel's, as required). As such, both "the law" as we understand it, and the blood sacrifice, were introduced soon after the banishment from the garden, rather than some 2000 years later, as we commonly think. The establishment of the law and the Levitical priesthood therefore, were simply a more structured continuation of what began earlier, and continued until the resurrection of Jesus.

So, then, I view Jesus as the second stage and ultimate completion of the one plan of redemption, after demonstrating that was incapable of keeping the commandments of God on His own. So to me, Adam represents the failure of the law, and Jesus, the law of the Spirit, that did what the law could not do. In this sense then, Adam, as the embodiment of our failure to measure up to God's standards, is the starting point, and Jesus the end, of a single plan--as opposed to the plan "A" and plan "B" premise suggested by the OP. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for calling my attention to that seeming disconnect. Sometimes we're so focused on the main point, we forget about lines of perspective. God bless.

[ewq1938]

(I think we can safely assume that the sacrifice offered by Cain was rejected by God because it was not a blood sacrifice like Abel's, as required)

That's unsafe.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.


They were to bring the best of what they had. Abel took care of a flock, Cain's job was to farm. Cain did not bring the best of what he had grown. Cain's responsibility was not to bring an animal so lack of blood has nothing to do with it.

[John146]

It is the case:

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

That is not a case of Plan A failing and then being replaced by Plan B. It was part of Plan A for the first (old) covenant to vanish away in favor of the second (new) covenant. It was part of Plan A for the animal sacrifices of the first covenant to not be able to permanently take away people's sins and that only Christ's sacrifice could do that. It was part of Plan A for the animal sacrifices of the first covenant to foreshadow the new covenant sacrifice (Heb 10:1), which was Christ's sacrifice. It's not as if the first (old) covenant was plan A and then God, to His surprise, saw that it failed, and then had to come up with Plan B (the second, new covenant). No, it was God's plan from the beginning for the first covenant to be faulty and eventually be replaced by the better, new covenant. There is no Plan B.

[ewq1938]

There is no Plan B.

There always was a plan B. Plan A wasn't supposed to be the winning plan. It was a temporary plan until the time for plan B had arrived.

[Sojourner55]

That's unsafe.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.


They were to bring the best of what they had. Abel took care of a flock, Cain's job was to farm. Cain did not bring the best of what he had grown. Cain's responsibility was not to bring an animal so lack of blood has nothing to do with it.

I'm speculating here, but so are you. Where in the text, do you see that Cain did not bring his best produce? Admittedly, we are told very little about the specifics, but the fact is, God had earlier shed the blood of two animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve, thereby setting the stage at the very outset, for instilling the concept of the shedding of innocent blood. Moreover, Gen 6:6-8, makes it clear that Noah was aware of the types of animals acceptable for sacrifice, as well as those for eating--making a case that laws concerning sacrifice and dietary laws was known prior to the Flood. It's conceivable therefore, that the type of sacrifice so familiar to Noah, began much earlier, even as far back as Adam's day. At any rate, I'm neither stating nor defending a dogmatic view.

I believe the fact that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof, strongly implies an animal sacrifice. That certainly fits the description of a "sacrifice," better than simply bringing a few living lambs to the Lord. I believe Cain chose to bring produce to God--arrogantly bringing the fruit of his works, rather than procure a proper sacrifice. And that is why his sacrifice was rejected. At any rate, all this is speculative, and a digression from the main point of my post, so I'll leave it at that. This might make a good topic for a future thread, so let's consider that, and not further derail this thread.

[ewq1938]

I'm speculating here, but so are you. Where in the text, do you see that Cain did not bring his best produce?

It's not speculation. Both brought an offering, Abel's was the best he had because it was firstlings as well as fat, but Cain's was not acceptable. The only reason why it was unacceptable was that it wasn't a high enough quality.

Admittedly, we are told very little about the specifics, but the fact is, God had earlier shed the blood of two animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve, thereby setting the stage at the very outset, for instilling the concept of the shedding of innocent blood.

You positive it was two animals? Why not one huge animals or many small ones?

I believe the fact that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof, strongly implies an animal sacrifice.

Of course. He tended the flock and his offering had to be animal related. Not so with Cain.

[John146]

There always was a plan B. Plan A wasn't supposed to be the winning plan. It was a temporary plan until the time for plan B had arrived.

You can think of it however you want, but as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, people normally think of Plan A as being the best plan and then we have to resort to Plan B if Plan A doesn't work out, but that is not the case here. It was never God's plan for salvation to come through the first (old) covenant but rather through the second (new) covenant. The first covenant foreshadowed the second covenant. So, it's really just one plan that God had with different stages to it.

[ewq1938]

You can think of it however you want, but as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, people normally think of Plan A as being the best plan and then we have to resort to Plan B if Plan A doesn't work out, but that is not the case here.

People can think what they want about it. There was a plan, it didn't work, a new plan which was made better was then instituted. Not only that but it is written that "plan A" is now gone, withered away etc etc. Doesn't sound like this all is just plan A since that one is long gone and replaced.

[Brother Mark]

You can think of it however you want, but as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, people normally think of Plan A as being the best plan and then we have to resort to Plan B if Plan A doesn't work out, but that is not the case here. It was never God's plan for salvation to come through the first (old) covenant but rather through the second (new) covenant. The first covenant foreshadowed the second covenant. So, it's really just one plan that God had with different stages to it.

As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!

[Sojourner55]

As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!

Absolutely. God spoke of Jesus as the future Seed of the woman, immediately after the fall in the garden--the Bible's first prophecy.

[ewq1938]

As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!

Yep, all the shadows of what was to come are part of the first temporary plan always looking forward to the next plan, or stage of plan if you like. The whole point of "plan a" and "plan b" is to show that the first things were meant to be replaced.

[Watchman]

When you use it in that sense, I really would have no argument. It is the same as saying phase 2.

W