Genesis 15 Faith Counted As Righteousness

Justification by Faith and the Prodigal Son

Rick, could you open us a prayer?

Sure.

Our Father, we are thankful for this opportunity to look into your word and to be fed, and we pray that you would bless Jeff as he encourages us, and we thank you for his preparation, and ask that you would find an opportunity for us to share your word as well.

Thank you, in Jesus' name. Amen.

Amen. I want to open with a parable, and you tell me what's wrong with my parable. There once was a son who desired to go explore the world and experience all the pleasures that this world has to offer, so he asked his father for his share of the inheritance.

And he took all of that wealth with him and squandered it on wild living. And he just emptied himself pursuing pleasure until he had nothing left, and he began to have to work on the farms, and then before long he even wanted to feed himself with the leftover pig food, until he came to an end to himself, and he realized that even the servants back on his father's farm had better off than he, and so he decided in his heart, let me go back and tell my father that I've sinned, and that I would like to be welcomed even and treated like a servant at the home that he left behind.

So when the prodigal son returned home, the father waited in his house to receive him.

Didn't he go outside?

You've already figured it out. And when the prodigal son came into the house, the father looked down at his son with some disapproval for what he had done, and then he said, all right, I'll welcome you back, if, and then began a list of conditions, which would include working the farm, and working well and diligently, proving himself to be a true and worthy son.

And after many years of this infused righteousness, where he's proven that he has essential righteousness, not imputed righteousness, the father finally accepts him as the son. What's wrong with my parable?

Oh, the whole thing.

I completely agree.

He welcomes him home with no conditions.

Doesn't it make your skin crawl to hear the other version?

Oh, yes.

It's awful. Horrible story. The point of the prodigal son is that at the moment of repentant faith, he's welcomed and accepted. What does the father do? He runs to him.

He hugs him.

He puts a ring on his finger. He kills the fattened calf, and he declares the one who was dead is alive. The one who was lost is found. It is a full, hearty, no-holding-back welcome of the son. And this is a picture of what we call imputed righteousness, justification by faith.

At the moment of repentant faith, the sinner is regarded as just, just as if he had never run off and committed all those sins. He's welcomed and declared righteous. So let's look up a couple verses before we go into Genesis 15, because this is the great gospel doctrine, isn't it?

Legal justification. Romans 3 .26. Who'd like to get that for me? Romans 3 .26. Barbara, do you want to go there? Puts you on the spot. Romans 8 .33 and 34. How about Rick? You got that one? Mike, you just walked in.

You'll look up Acts 13, 38, and 39. While you find those scriptures, let me just set this up again. Guys, you just missed a complete butchering of the parable of the prodigal son. I gave a version in which the father requires the prodigal son to work and earn something in order to be accepted.

But, of course, that is a butchering of the parable. The one Jesus told is a complete welcoming at the moment of repentant faith. And this is biblical. This is the distinction between the true gospel and any gospel of works.

Justification by works. John Calvin described justification by faith this way. It is to acquit from the charge of guilt regarding us as if innocence were proven. That as if is very important. It's an acquittal from the charge of guilt regarding a person as if he had been entirely innocent and that innocence were proven.

The idea here is forensic. John Calvin makes the point that justification is a legal declaration. It is not something related to the actual practice of the person. Now, when John Calvin wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, he received incredible pushback from the Roman Catholics.

And the primary opponent theologically against Calvin was a man named Oseander. And he tried to propose what is called essential righteousness. And that is the idea of in the union of Christ there is a blending of the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the person actualized.

Does it make sense? So his term would be infused righteousness, not imputed righteousness. Calvin argued for imputed righteousness. What is imputed righteousness? Given. That's the perfect word. It's given, it's credited, it's counted, it's accounted.

Like a scorecard where the righteousness of Christ is tallied to your side of the ledger. It's an accounting, a legal exchange, not an infusion of something that you then have to maintain. So the debate between Oseander and John Calvin is really the debate between gospel truth, the prodigal son declared righteous, and any kind of works righteousness.

Essential righteousness is a lie. It requires the person to earn something to declare themselves worthy.

Mike?

Where did they get that from? Where did they get the infusion of location?

Right.

Even the idea of that.

Isn't there an inherent desire in man to do something? Don't just stand there and do something.

It's the blind mind. It is the blinded mind, but it's missing Romans 3 .26 through 4 .5. I even debated Gary Machuda, who's a prominent Roman Catholic apologist. And as he came to Romans 3, he did not see the works of the law as referring to any and every kind of work to establish yourself, but only particularly the law of Moses.

So as long as the Roman Catholic doesn't seek to establish himself by circumcision and by obeying the Ten Commandments, there is another new covenant law, which would be Roman Catholic sacraments, penances, and the mass, to maintain your justification.

So what they've done is they've played fast and loose by narrowing that argument to only the law of Moses at the end of Romans 3.

So their scripture—I don't want to say theirs, because their Bible does have different books in it. Is that where it kind of comes from? Because I can't seem to find—you know how you have a doctrinal difference where you can kind of see where people can differentiate between maybe this, maybe that?

I can get there. I struggle to get there.

The case here with Gary Matuda and the Roman Catholic apologist going all the way back to Oseander, because Matuda's only following the train of thought, which the Catholic Church produced in the Counter-Reformation, right?

It's not a matter of textual variation. It's not going back to Maccabees or Bell and the Dragon, the few apocryphal books that they include. It's just poor reading, because the argument that Paul unfolds is what then comes of boasting?

It is eliminated. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by a law of faith. So Paul's reasoning in the context of the flow is that all boasting is eliminated by this law of faith. So they're just not following a train of thought.

It's a fruit of your faith.

Yes.

Less than the core of your faith.

Right. And it's very important that we have—and here's where the real confusing in the mind of the Roman Catholic takes place. That because sanctification and justification are both biblical and connected, that means that they're not in any way distinct.

So if you read the book of James, it's like, well, genuine faith produces works. See, there's a connection between justification and sanctification. Absolutely true. They're connected. The one is the product of the other.

The tree produces the fruit. There's a connection. But what happens in Roman Catholicism is justification and sanctification are collapsed together as if there is no distinction. So they're not seeing a difference between regeneration and new life, which is progressive through the life of the believer, versus this once and for all legal declaration that is justification.

They collapse those two things together. Justification and sanctification become essentially the same. You're maintaining your justification. No. Different categories here. Justification is a legal, forensic declaration of righteousness at the moment of repentant faith.

Subsequently, and because of that, you have sanctification that goes on through the life of the believer. And then ultimately, glorification is that final step in salvation. Salvation is the banner over all of it.

But you have to make distinctions where the Bible does. And that's where they fail. So, yeah. So we've got Romans 3, 26. So the issue here is the justice of God. And you can't understand that concept without the context that went before Romans 3, 21 and this section.

And that is the wrath of God. We were just talking, Neil, Rick, before we came in. The importance of the wrath of God to understanding justice and legal declaration of innocence. All of this sin is the case in our lives, but righteousness is credited, it is imputed by faith.

And this, how then does God remain just if he's crediting righteousness to someone who's committed all these sins? That's the question, right? How is God just? And the justifier. The answer, of course, is in 3, 21 to 25.

He makes propitiation. He turns away wrath in the blood of Jesus in a one-time sacrifice. That's how he's just. He did punish sin in a substitute. So he's both just, having exerted his wrath and satisfied that wrath against the Son of God and the justifier of the one who has faith in him.

It's a big idea of the gospel. If you don't have that, you don't have the gospel. What does that imply about Oceander? And there's a new Catholic priest at St. Isaac Joe's around the corner. I'd like to go meet him and talk to him as he's moved into town.

What does that imply about the gospel that Rome preaches?

What did he just move in?

No, he's an example of someone who preaches that and carries on that tradition, right? Is it a gospel at all?

Words triggers faith.

Right.

They sell.

Is it possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved? Is it because of Oceander's doctrine? Or despite Oceander's doctrine, they've come to believe something else? There are many Roman Catholics who have left in their hearts the doctrine of Rome.

But by some family tie or some tradition, they keep going. And we pray that they'll grow out of that. My good friend Bill Leukerman was part of a charismatic renewal that happened. The charismatic renewal that happened in Catholicism.

And he remained a Roman Catholic for a little while until he realized, wait a minute. Now that he's in the Bible, he's seeing that none of these doctrines line up with what the Word of God says.

Right.

So then he came out of that and became a pastor and eventually founded the Calvary Chapel in Marlton. So sometimes there's a process there of recognizing. So you can have a Roman Catholic who gets saved, but it's not through Rome's gospel.

That's the important point. It's by faith in the Son of God, a legal declaration of righteousness. Okay, next is Romans 8, 33 and 34.

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is more than that, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Consider the context of Romans 8, 33 and 34. What's the issue there? Who can bring any charge against God's elect? It's God who justifies. So justification is legal. Paul has in mind a charge being brought against someone.

They're guilty as charged, and yet they're justified by faith on account of the merits of the perfect innocent Son of God. If he's your intercessor and he's pleading his own righteousness on your behalf, how can any charge ever stand against you?

Can't.

You're legally justified. So the point here is that the charge here, as you continue to read Paul and his context, which sadly, Matuda and the other Roman Catholic apologists just lose the train of thought, right?

It's a reading problem, context problem.

They're obsessed with Paul, which is mind-boggling.

Yeah, yeah. And that's why we recognize that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces. There's a blinding. The enemy blinds the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Okay, Acts 13, 38 and 39.

39?

Yes.

Acts 13.

That through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. And by him is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Keep going.

That's good right there. Forgiveness of sin is proclaimed. Not a self-righteousness, but the sins no longer counted. And a person being freed from what they otherwise could not be freed of. It's clearly justification based on faith.

That's what's proclaimed in the gospel. Okay, so the counting of Abraham's faith as righteousness is actually a precursor to the great Christian doctrine of justification by faith. Let's turn there. Genesis chapter 15.

Abraham, Isaac, and the Promise of the Seed

Because it is quoted in Romans 4 as Paul's first example of justification by faith, this chapter becomes very important for us to remember. And really, all of Genesis is foundational, isn't it? The first 11 chapters, the foundations of life, God, overall, marriage, maleness, femaleness, sin, judgment in the flood, the mercy of God after the flood, nations, the importance of nations, mystery, Babylon, and pagan religion at the Tower of Babel, the dispersing of the nations, and then the calling of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to come and receive the promised land and the promised sea.

Chapters 12 to 50 of Genesis I summarize as the creation of the nation Israel to mediate blessing to the world. That's what God is doing here in Genesis. I got that phrase from Charlie Baylis of Dallas Seminary.

But it's all about how Israel came into being, the creation of Israel. Now, who is Israel? This is a nation that descends from Abraham. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and then the 12 sons. That's the book of Genesis.

So by the end of Genesis chapter 50, you have the 12 sons, and we know what comes next. They go into captivity, as we're about to read about here in Genesis 15. God told Abraham that they would go into captivity.

The big idea comes in verse 6. That's what Paul will quote, and we'll read from 15, first of all, 1 to 3. And Bob, would you read Genesis 15, 1 to 3?

Genesis 15. The word came to Abram in a vision, saying, Do not be afraid of exceedingly great reward. But Abram said, Look, God, what will you give me in the heir of my house? Then Adam said, Look, you have given me no offspring.

It's kind of a funny scene because he's so far gone childless, and here's Eliezer over here. Abraham is like, This guy's going to be the one to inherit all my stuff. Poor Eliezer's thinking, Well, what am I, chopped liver?

Wow, that's not very nice, Abraham. But really what's happening here is the promise was to his seed, and yet he hasn't had a child. So in verse 1, it says, The word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision.

Fear not.

How good is it for us to hear fear not? They say it's listed 365 times throughout the Bible, one for every day of the year. We need to hear that. Fear not, because fear is paralyzing. And when you look at the dangers of this world, it's rational to be afraid.

There's so many dangers everywhere. What had just happened in chapter 14? Chedolomar and his band of kings had come and crushed the four kings of the valley. But God sent Abraham to chase down the horde and receive Lot and the people back.

This great victory that he encounters Melchizedek. Notice also, he denies the reward that was offered to him. The king of Sodom said, Take it all. And what did Abraham say? No, I'm only going to take Lot and what belongs to us.

Lest people would say that the king of Sodom made Abraham rich. He wants the glory to go to God. He rejects that earthly reward. But now what is he told in verse 15? I am your shield. Your reward shall be very great.

Ultimately, Abraham's reward is God himself. But here he's going to get a promise first of a seed and then a land. 1 to 6 is the seed promise and then 7 to 21 is the land promise, the promised land. So verses 2 if you read 4 to 6.

And behold, the word of the Lord came to him saying, This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir. Then he brought him outside and said, Look now toward heaven and count the stars if you were able to number them.

And he said to him, so shall you be.

And 6, this is the crucial verse.

And he believed in the Lord.

So God and his sovereignty will quote this verse as the first argument for justification by faith, right? In Romans 4, 1 to 5. Why did God wait until this particular point in time to give this legal declaration of righteousness?

He didn't do it in Genesis 12, 1 to 3. When he left Ur of the Chaldees to go to the promised land, he had twice built altars. Abraham had shown that he had faith. He had built altars and called upon the name of the Lord.

Even after Egypt, he comes back and he's calm. So why wait till chapter 15 to make this legal declaration? It doesn't seem exactly to be the outset of Abraham's faith. I think the answer to that is in the substance of what's promised.

This is all about the seed promise. And who is ultimately the seed of Abraham? Christ Jesus. Without Christ, there is no inheritance. There is no reward. Christ himself is the promise. So chapter 15 is about the seed of Abraham.

If you look here, this man, verse 4, shall not be your heir. Your very own son shall be your heir. He's referring to Isaac. But he's also referring to Christ. The seed promise is that Abraham would not be Christless.

Ultimately, Abraham is believing the word of the Lord, verse 1, with regard to the coming Christ.

That's where Melchizedek comes in.

And Melchizedek was an encounter with pre-incarnate Christ, or at least a figure of him.

Yes.

He believed there. He tithed up. And now, right after that event, that's the very end of chapter 14. Right after that event, you have Abraham dealing with God. And the covenant will be made with a sign of that covenant, which we'll see requires the shedding of blood.

So I think this pictures Christ. And the reward is God himself. He had declined the earthly rewards in favor of the truly valuable treasure, which will be Christ himself.

Yeah.

Do you think there's any—I was always curious about this.

Yeah.

The battles. So when the Lord tells in this specific time, it comes right after he's in the battle.

Yeah.

And in many other cases, people that didn't do—.

Like Saul was supposed to wait on the priest to offer a sacrifice.

Those little—it sounds like a little thing.

He did it himself.

Right, yeah.

That was a death of hatred.

Or like, wipe everybody out. Don't do this. Do that. Do this. It's very specific in when it all is in the battles. And I was always curious on why that wasn't—like it came directly after he did exactly what the Lord asked him to do.

Yeah.

It's interesting.

Yeah.

It's a great question. Even broadening it from battles, the idea of affliction, a furnace, a furnace of affliction. That's where our faith is demonstrated to be genuine. So I think that's the case there.

Whether you're in a battle, whatever battles you're called to fight, these bring forth the purity of your faith and refine your faith.

They demonstrate faith.

Like, you don't really get a chance to do when you're not suffering, when you're not in the furnace of affliction. But here, Abraham is clearly a believer in God. He went into battle with faith, and now he gets the child promise.

And again, verse 6, this is Old Testament, and yet it's saying the same thing that Paul said.

It's amazing.

Also, in Psalm 32, David will write a psalm that will say the same thing. Blessed are those whose sins are forgiven, the ones in whom God will not count righteousness, reckon righteousness.

Legal.

And that Psalm 32 concludes with the righteous. That's the idea. Righteousness is by faith, and it's declared by God. So notice in verse 6 that you could circle it in your Bible because it's such a key word, counted.

Abraham believed the Lord, and he, that is the Lord, counted it. What is the it? What's that preposition referring to?

Faith.

Believing. It wasn't anything that Abraham did. He believed the promise at that point in the coming seed. And in the offspring, the illustrious children of God will be like the stars. I think there's a picture there.

In Genesis 13, 16, he'd already been told his descendants would be like the sand. That means the physical offspring, just so numerous. How many descendants of Abraham? But here it talks about like the stars.

So numerous that nobody could count them. And Abraham didn't know the half of it, right? He could probably see 2 ,000 stars in the sky at that time without any telescope. How many are there in actuality?

Billions, beyond counting. We don't know the number, right? But we know it's billions or trillions or beyond what we can imagine.

One of the neat things when we were out in Colorado, we replaced our list.

Yes.

It's not like here.

I'm sure it was a cloudless night when God said, look at this. And part of the idea was the stars are illustrious. The sons of God, Daniel will say, we shine like stars. Paul says that in Philippians 2.

And Daniel in chapter 12 says, like those who win souls are wise and will shine like stars. Many shining. The sons of God, whether the physical offspring or those by faith, because Romans 4 will conclude that we are children of Father Abraham.

That's us shining like stars in the universe. So Abraham saw a picture of all these coming believers who are righteous by faith, just like he was righteous by faith.

Good illustration.

I might even be able to pull myself out of bed for that. If it's a cloudless day.

All right.

May I ask a question?

Yeah.

And then you're going to read Genesis 15 -7.

Yes.

The word that I have in the NAS is reckon.

Yeah.

And what is the difference between that and counting?

So both are translation words. Neither are numbers. But it's the same idea. And the key here, and I'm glad you said that, because reckoning or counting is a legal forensic thing. It's not an urn infusion.

So the difference there, it's something that's reckoned by God, or counted, or considered, or given.

Do you see that?

What's the ESV?

What was the word?

ESV was counting.

Oh, it was counted instead of reckoned.

Counted, yeah.

Oh, okay.

It's almost like a ledger.

A ledger.

Like a book.

Exactly.

A book of life.

A scorecard.

Yep.

And it adds a little more depth to the word reckon when you see count. And you go back and think about reckon. I like to put those words together.

Right.

That's key.

That's why I like to have the other translation word.

I like that.

The word is credited.

Credited.

That's another perfect word.

Good one.

Bob, would you continue on in verse 7?

Yes.

Verse 7. And he said to him, I am the Lord who brought you out of the Chaldeans to give you.

Okay, now the promise is slightly different. In 1 to 6, we're talking about the seed promise. What's the promise in 7 and following?

Land.

Land promise. Specifically, the land promise. Notice in verse 8, he said, oh Lord, how am I to know that I shall possess it? Does that sound like faith?

No.

It's a little bit of uncertainty there. And it's not condemned, but there's some wavering here. He wants a sign to increase his own certainty. Maybe for his future faith, because he knows, Lord, I believe.

Help my unbelief. Or maybe even to give an assurance to those who will later receive this promise. To give that sign to them.

I read it that he didn't know where the land was. He didn't know what the land was, specifically.

Oh, the content of the land promise versus the certainty.

The land could be where?

What land? Yeah.

Well, so it says, how am I to know that I shall possess it? In the ESV. So the concept there is he wants a sign, and that's what's going to happen. So 9. Candy, would you read 9 and 10 for us?

He said to him, there's no agreement without atonement.

Without the shedding of blood, there's no covenant. The covenant with Adam, after the fall of man. The promise of a coming offspring was sealed with a blood sacrifice. Because he made clothes by sacrificing an animal in the garden.

With Noah, the covenant marked by the rainbow, the sign of the rainbow. There was an animal sacrifice there as well. The sweet aroma pleased the Lord. With Abraham, there's going to be shedding of blood.

Same thing with Moses, the Passover lamb. And the offerings and the sprinkling of the blood, Exodus 24. To initiate the Mosaic covenant. The people are sprinkled with blood. David's initiation of covenant at the temple when they make sacrifices.

Then the glory of the Lord fills the temple. And then in the new covenant of Jesus' blood. This is gruesome. Now I want you to picture what happens in verses 9 and 10. He has to saw a heifer in half. A female goat, 3 years old.

And a ram, 3 years old. Now a 3-year-old ram is a pretty big animal. And he has to cut through that vertebrae. Yeah, he doesn't cut the birds. I guess because they're just small. But he has to kill them.

That was my question.

And separate.

I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that. They're less valuable maybe. Perhaps it's a 5th day, 6th day difference. Birds are 5th day creatures. Animals are 6th day. And they're the ones that stand in for man.

I don't know.

But there are dove offerings and different kinds of. Poor people could bring turtle doves like Mary and Joseph did. Yeah, well that's coming up next. We'll talk about that in just a second. That's how covenant was initiated.

Right, yeah. And I don't know why. It doesn't tell us why. But they were not. But that jumped out to me too. But he did not cut the birds in half. Seems like they'd be easier to cut in half than a giant animal.

Yeah, maybe so. Well, that's the next thing. And I think this is a good picture for us to think about. Because it says, when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. Spiritually, do we ever have to drive anything away when something related to our faith is assailed?

What about those troubling thoughts?

Those fearful thoughts.

Those tempting ideas that come into your mind. They're like vultures that want to destroy your faith. And draw you away from the sacrifice and ruin your relationship with God. We have to fight off the vultures just like Abram did.

Those troubling thoughts. I picture that often as vain thoughts. They're like these fowl that must be driven away. You can't just let your mind run in any direction. You know, demons can introduce thoughts into your brain.

Dark things that you would never think of on your own. Temptations that you're surprised to have. These are vultures that come and you must drive them away. When the birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

Now notice though, in the initiating of covenant, does he keep the vultures away? Interestingly, in verses 12 and following, God puts him asleep. Which I think indicates this is all unilateral. It's an unconditional God-initiated covenant.

He's not relying on Abram's work. Because Abram is going to be asleep at this point when it's brought in. So Dave, would you mind reading for us? We're at Genesis 15. Would you mind reading verses 12 through 17?

And then verse 17. And I wanted to put those together because I think there's a connection between the promise and the imagery. Why did God initiate the covenant with a smoking furnace? Or a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch?

Why is that the image that passes through the pieces? Now, you have to understand, the covenant is initiated as the blood sacrifice is separated. And the two in covenant agreement would walk between the pieces.

That was a form of establishing covenant or agreement. But here, God himself is the only active one. Abram is asleep. And there's this dark, weighty presence over him. He can tell this is a holy moment.

Like, take off your shoes. This is heavy. But it's a flaming fire pot, a furnace, and a lamp. And I think that the imagery there refers to the furnace of affliction. Because what's going to happen, he's told, is your ancestors, the seed, is going to be taken down for 400 years as slaves to be mistreated in Egypt.

But it won't destroy the nation. Like a smoky furnace, the furnace of affliction, there will be a lamp in that affliction. That light, the light of God. So the lamp and the furnace. The furnace of affliction, the lamp of comfort.

Affliction and comfort. God with his people, taking them through this dark time that's coming. They will be tested in the furnace of affliction. But he will be their lamp. He will guide them and ultimately lead them back.

So what's the content of this promise, this certain promise? Your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs. And will be servants there. And they will be, here's our word, afflicted. Furnace of affliction.