Genesis 15: The Logical Problem

Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast,

making Theology Central.

Good afternoon everyone, it is Thursday, March the 12th, 2026.

It is currently 3.33 pm central time and I'm coming to you live from the Theology Central

Studio located right here in Abilene, Texas.

Now here's a question, where do you think the most devastating critique of a theological claim

comes from?

Well, how do you think we arrive at the most devastating critique of a theological claim?

If you want to find, if you want to figure out how to really critique a theological claim

and a devastating way, what is the best way to do that?

What is the best way to do that?

Now I think the best way is whatever the theological claim is, is to stop and take it to its logical

conclusion.

And I believe in many cases when you take the claim to its logical conclusion, then the

critique of that claim becomes devastating.

I can give you a couple of examples, right?

When someone says that when the Bible says that if anyone is in Christ, they are a new

creature, old things are passed away, all things that become new.

And they teach and preach that, like that's true on a practical level that that actually

is true of you and me.

When I became a Christian and I'm in Christ, I'm a new creature, old is gone and everything

has become new.

If that is the case, then take it to its logical conclusion, I should be perfect.

The old is completely gone, everything is new that would mean I no longer have an old

nature, I no longer have an old heart, I have a new heart, a new nature, so I should

be perfect.

So that you take it to its logical conclusion, then the critique of that theological claim

becomes absolutely devastating.

And I could go, I could give you more than one example, but one is sufficient.

You see that that becomes a problem.

So to me, the most devastating critiques of theological claims that don't always necessarily

come from a scholar, that don't necessarily come from a theologian.

They typically come when someone, someone is willing to really think about the claim

and then simply follow the logic of that claim.

And then when they arrive at the destination, then when they arrive at the final destination,

they look around going, wait a minute, this theological claim is absurd.

It doesn't make any sense.

It falls apart logically.

And sometimes it's very difficult to get Christians to take things to its logical conclusion, because

we have been trained to just throw out theological slogans, theological cliches, and we don't

really think about what we're claiming.

We say things that sometimes I sit back and I'm baffled and I'm confused, right?

So many times it's like a one hand Christians will say, nothing happens apart from the sovereign

to you of God.

And then a problem will happen, a tragedy will happen and they'll say, well, let's pray

to God.

I'm like, wait a minute.

We're praying to the God who sovereignly decreed that thing to happen, allowed that thing

to happen.

So now we want God to fix what he sovereignly decreed to happen.

We want God to intervene and what he let happen.

Whenever you're praying to God about some tragedy, some difficulty, some pain, some suffering,

you're praying to the very God who at the very least allowed it to happen and at the

very most decreed it to happen.

So what are we going to pray to God to do?

We take sometimes our claims about God to its logical conclusion.

So much of the church practice and a lot of our clichés fall apart.

So taking things to a logical conclusion can be absolutely devastating.

Now, I want you to keep that in mind because in our last episode that we did in our series

on systematic theology, we did another episode, Christ in every page.

I think this time it was Christ in every page part five.

And we examined a claim made in the systematic theology book about Genesis chapter 15.

Remember the claim.

So remember, we're working through the introduction to systematic theology by Paul zero on, right?

And he's in this section in the book where he's trying to prove that the Bible has a unified,

redemptive message through Christ.

And to prove this claim, he gives us all of these Old Testament passages and he says,

see Christ is on that page, see Christ is here, see Christ is here, see Christ is here.

So when we arrived at Genesis chapter 15, the book made this claim.

God passing alone through the divided sacrifice of Abraham, right?

With that section where God passed alone through the divided sacrifice of Abraham, Genesis chapter 15.

When God passed alone through the divided pieces of the sacrifice,

it indicated that he would fulfill his covenant with Abraham.

And then the systematic theology said, this foreshadows Christ fulfillment of the covenant

through his sacrificial death.

That's the claim the book made, right?

Now, after I demonstrated and I'll talk about it here in a second, a lot of the problems with that,

after I looked at that and I showed some problems like, no, I don't think Christ is on that page.

I don't think when we talk about God having Abraham take these animals, cutting them apart,

Abraham goes to sleep, God passes through this, that this is pointing to Christ.

I think there's a problem with that.

And so I pointed out some of those problems.

But after the episode aired, someone left a comment on YouTube that did exactly what we're supposed

to do with theological claims, they took the idea and followed the logic and the conclusion

they arrived at was shocking, disturbing, and it should make every Christian, every pastor,

and every church that says, Genesis 15, you see these animals that have been sacrificed,

and God, what this is about, Jesus, it should make everyone stop and go, wait a minute,

if we follow that logic, this is a problem.

Because if Genesis 15 really predicts Christ's death, then the ritual would imply something

about God that should make every Christian go, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, we're not saying that.

And that's what we're going to talk about.

Now, this is not supposed to be a full teaching episode.

This is just to say, I want to point out the importance of following logic.

I want to point out what this person pointed out.

And I want us all to go, whoa, that's that's important.

And that's really good.

All right.

So here's first, I'm just going to go ahead and get this out of the way.

Does Genesis 15 actually say, hey, you see these animals?

You see them being cut a sunder?

You see Abraham going to sleep and God walking through this?

This is pointing to Christ.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

What?

I want you to ask, does this really, does Genesis 15 really point that about Christ,

does it really point towards Christ?

And I think the answer is an emphatic, loud, no, Genesis 15 is a covenant passage.

It's about God's promises to Abraham.

It's about his descendants.

It's about nationhood.

It's about land. It's about God binding Himself to His Word.

And then when the New Testament refers back to Genesis 15,

guess what it emphasizes? It doesn't emphasize this to sacrifice.

It doesn't emphasize God walking through the pieces. It emphasizes this, speaking of Abram,

and He believed in the Lord, and He counted it to Him for righteousness.

It emphasizes that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to Him for righteousness.

The New Testament does not say that the divided sacrifice in Genesis 15

foreshadows Christ's sacrificial death. It never says that.

So the claim being made by the systematic theology is not something that arises from the text.

It's something that is being brought to the text by a theological system.

All right? I cannot stress that enough.

All right. Now, here is the claim, or here is the comment that came in on YouTube.

And I think it's important because the commenter wants to push the logic of the issue

to its natural end. And in doing so, it exposes something very dangerous, and just how dangerous

it can be to make theological claims that the Scripture never makes.

All right? Here's the comment. If Jesus' death is related to Genesis 15,

then it was not for man's transgression, but God's. It would be a recognition that He has not

and will not fulfill the covenant. This resulting in His death just bringing the theory to its

natural conclusion. I want you to hear that again. You may not get it yet, but I'm going to explain

it. All right? So again, the systematic theology, your church, your pastor probably will make some claim

when they preach Genesis 15 that this is a picture of Jesus' sacrifice. They what may attach it

to Jesus and His sacrifice in some way shape or form. This person on YouTube says,

if Jesus' death is related to Genesis 15, if Genesis 15 is somehow pointing us to the death of

Jesus, then His death was not for our transgressions, was not for man's transgressions, the death of

Christ would be for the transgression of God. You're like, what are you talking about?

Because it would be a recognition that He has not and will not fulfill the covenant. So this

would result in His death. Now, you still may not get it. Just stay with me. I'm going to explain

it, right? I want you to think this through carefully. In the covenant ritual of Genesis 15,

right? You can go to Genesis 15. I know some of you are like, I don't know if I get it,

just stay with me. I'm going to make sure you get this as clearly as possible, right?

So Genesis 15, right? Abraham believes it's counted him to righteousness. Verse 7,

he said unto him, this is Genesis 15, 7, he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought the out of

the earth of the counties to give thee this land to inherit it. There's the land. And he said,

Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, take me a heifer

of three years old, a shegoat of three years old, a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove

in a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these and divided them in the midst and laid each piece

once against another, but the birds divided he not. And when the fowls came down upon the carcass,

Abraham drove them away. And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abraham,

and low, a whore of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abraham, no of a surety that

thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall

afflict them for a hundred years. And also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge,

and afterward they shall come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers and

peace, thou shalt be buried, and a good old age. But in the fourth generation, they shall come

hither again for the iniquity of the Emirates is not yet full. And it come to pass, when the sun

went down, it was dark, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed

between those pieces. And the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying unto thy seed,

have I given unto this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river Euphrates.

And it goes on and gives more information, right? God makes this amazing covenant, this

this powerful ritual that would have been known at the time. Now in this ritual in Genesis 15,

the one who passed between the peace, that's God, not Abraham, Abraham is asleep.

And so anyone who passed through the animal pieces is saying, is accepting in a sense the covenant

curse. The symbolism is something like this. If I fell to keep this covenant, may what happened to

these animals happened to me. That's the force of the ritual. And in Genesis 15, Abraham,

Abraham does not pass through the pieces, only God. That means the covenant rests on God's faithfulness.

It means God is binding himself to his word. He's binding himself to his faithfulness. It means

God is guaranteeing a promise he made to Abraham, but now follow the logic. If someone comes along in

your church or on sermon audio, go listen to sermons on Genesis 15. If someone comes along and says

that ritual is foreshadowing the sacrificial death of Jesus, then the question becomes, well why would

Christ die in relationship to that ritual? And the only way this works logically is if Christ's

death is functioning as the covenant curse attached to Genesis 15. But if that's the case,

then what would the death of Christ mean? It would imply. It would yell that the one who passed

through the pieces, God failed to fulfill the covenant. And therefore, God has to bear the covenant

curse. And that is a theological disaster. And that is the disaster. The person making the comment

on YouTube was exposing. Now, I want to make it very clear. I'm not saying Christ died because God

failed. Absolutely not. I believe God kept the promise and will ultimately keep the promise. And

Israel will be regathered, regenerated and get the land. I am trying to show you the force.

I'm trying to say that if I'll say this way, if you're trying to force Genesis 15 into a prediction

of Christ's sacrificial death, the logic is going to lead you to, oh, well Jesus died because God

failed. That is a theological disaster. The problem is not with Genesis 15. The problem is with

the interpretation that pastors impose on Genesis 15. And that's what happens when theology,

let me make it very clear, when theology starts making claims, the text itself never makes.

And this is what happens when your theological system, your hermeneutic saying Christ is hidden

in every page. Christ is in every verse. You're going to start shaping those passages to fit that

assumption. And it may sound spiritual. It may even sound Christ centered. It may even sound

rich. It may even sound profound. And everyone in the church may say, Amen. I've never seen that

before. But when you follow the logic, the interpretation creates confusion. It creates

contradiction. It creates theological problems that the passage never introduced. It creates a problem

where Jesus is dying for God because God failed to keep the covenant. See, this is not some minor

issue. It's not just about some weird interpretation, a systematic theology book made.

It's about a larger hermeneutical problem inside Christianity. Pastors and teachers constantly

make claims that the Bible itself never makes. They say things that sound good in a sermon. They

say things that preach well. They say things that fit their theological system. And because it

sounds spiritual, everyone just nods and says, Amen, brother, preach it.

But the claim is not actually grounded in the text. And that leads to serious problems. In Genesis

15, maybe one of the best examples that we could use. The passage is already important. It teaches

that God's covenant with Abram, with Abraham, depended ultimately on God's faithfulness,

not on the faithfulness of Abram, not on the faithfulness of Abraham, and not on the faithfulness

of His descendants. It lays the foundation for the promises of descendants of nations and

important, very importantly, and of land. It becomes enormously significant for understanding

Israel's future. It becomes very important in understanding the prophets and the new covenant

promises found in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. It does not have to be turned into, here's a hidden

picture of the crucifixion. We don't have to find something that's not there in order for it to be

powerful. And when we force it into saying something it doesn't say, we do not enrich the text,

we distort the text. When God established the covenant with Abraham and Genesis chapter 15,

the entire point of the ritual was that the covenant depended on God being faithful to his own

word. God is the only one who passed through the pieces. God is the only one bound to the promise.

God is the one who guaranteed what he spoke. Now, if God is faithful to his word,

if God binds himself to what he has spoken, then how should we approach his word?

Should we not approach it with the same kind of faithfulness, or at least try to?

Shouldn't we let the text say what it actually says? Should we stay away from trying to fit the

text into our theology? Are trying to fit our theology into the text? Shouldn't we stop trying to

force it into our system? Should we not honor? Should we not honor what the text says and not

honor our interpretation and our theology over the words of Scripture? Because the moment we do

that, we stop being faithful to the text and we start, and you know what we do? We start being

faithful to ourselves. Genesis 15 reminds us that God is faithful to his promise,

and that should challenge you and I to be faithful to the way we interpret those promises.

If God honors his word, we should honor his word enough to just let it say what it says,

and that means resisting the temptation to make every scripture say more than God himself chose

to reveal. So in Genesis 15, if we make it about Jesus, what we're ultimately claiming is

Jesus had to die because God did not fulfill the covenant. Jesus died for God. That's insane.

That's crazy. But pastors will not, oh, this is see, he took the animal, he devised,

this is a picture of Jesus. No, no, it's a picture of God saying I'm going to make a covenant with

Abram, with Abraham, about land, about descendants, about nations. Abraham, you can go to sleep. God,

I'm going to pass through these pieces because I'm making a covenant and it's on me. The fulfillment

of this is upon me. I am going to fulfill this based on my faithfulness based on my word alone.

And if I fail to do this, well, then I'm bringing the curse upon myself, but God is not going to

have a curse upon him because he will fulfill that covenant. And so if you make it about Jesus,

then Jesus is dying because God did not fulfill the covenant. That's a problem.

That's a major problem. Now, what I would challenge you to do today, look up some famous

devotionals and see if they do anything with Genesis 15, see if Spurgeon handled it in

morning and evening. And then just start looking for sermons on Genesis chapter 15. In fact,

if I go to sermon audio, let's just see how many we find. How many think do we think we find? Let

me look here. I'm going to go to home. I'm just going to go Genesis 15. Let's see what we find.

All right, we have sermons. Well, this is going to go, this is going to cover so many different

issues. So we probably would have to see if we, let me see if we limit it. Hang on,

go Genesis 15. Let's go with hang on versus, we'll go nine,

nine, nine through 13. So I'm going to go Genesis 15,

nine through 13. Let's see what we find here. Genesis 15, nine through 13. Let's see here.

Okay, none of these titles are going to give me everything that we need, but I don't know how

you get sacked. So well, some press, some reformed church turned it into a thing about the

sacraments. I don't know how you get the sacraments out of Genesis 15. That's majorly, that's

that's majorly problematic. Okay. Now, this one has why a tree of death. Now that one, it sounds

like you're going to, oh, look at this one. The ram is a type of Christ, Genesis 15. There's

this one's making it about Jesus. The other one, why a tree of death, that seems to be making it

about Jesus. So immediately, you can probably see how some of these are already going to make it

about Jesus. And if they make it about Jesus, I want you to see the logical problem.

Now, the covenant God made with Abram was based on himself, his faithfulness. The only,

the only reason anyone would have to die is if it would be God and it would be God because he

wasn't fulfilling his covenant. So Jesus being the eternal son of God, second person of the

Trinity, did God die because God failed? That changes every, that's problematic.

So I want you to just think about that. And I want you to just see sometimes the best way to see

a problem in theology is taking things to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying it always works,

but it's always important to see if there's theological, there's logical consistency.

Where do you end up when you take it logically? When you get in that car and like, okay, here's

the theological claim. Let's drive to the destination and you get out of the car and look around

going, this is absurdity. This is ridiculous. This is, this is almost blasphemous. This is

problematic. Then you may want to get back in the car, put it in reverse, go back to the original

issue and go, let's rethink our theology here. All right, maybe we'll do some sermon reviews

on this, but I think it's very important. I want to thank the commenter on YouTube. Man,

that's some good stuff. I already, I was focusing on, hey, this is not about Jesus. I mean,

I can demonstrate that. The text doesn't say that in the New Testament. When it uses Genesis 15,

it doesn't use anything about the sacrifice. It just talks about Abraham believing it was counted

under him for righteousness. So if none of the New Testament writers make it about Jesus, I don't

know why pastors do that. So okay, great. But I was ready to move on. And when I saw this comment,

I'm like, that's brilliant. So thank you for doing what I should have done. I failed the YouTube

commenter stepped up and did what I didn't do. And now we all benefit greatly from it. So next

time you hear a sermon on Genesis 15 about the animals being sacrificed there and they're like,

this is a picture of Jesus. You may want to go, oh my goodness. He's just making a claim that

Jesus had to die because God fell of the covenant. I know that he won't realize that's what he's

saying. But logically, that's what he's saying. So we need to honor God's word by just letting

the scripture speak and not forcing our theology onto it and into it. All right, God bless.