Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Does Romans 4:13 Universalize Israel’s Land Promises?

by Michael J. Vlach

Romans 4:13 has become a hotly debated verse lately between those who believe in a literal future fulfillment of Israel’s land promises and those who do not. Here Paul declares:

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:13). 

Much discussion involves what Paul means when he says Abraham is “heir of the world.” Some non-dispensational scholars see this verse as evidence that Israel’s land promises in the Old Testament have been universalized in such a way that there is no longer an expectation of fulfillment of particular land promises for national Israel. Thus, Romans 4:13 allegedly transcends the Old Testament expectation of the land promises to Israel. Theologians such as N.T. Wright and Gary Burge, along with others, have promoted this view. Concerning Romans 4:13 Burge says,

The formula that linked Abraham to Jewish ethnic lineage and the right to possess the land has now been overturned in Christ. Paul’s Christian theology links Abraham to children of faith, and to them belongs God’s full domain, namely, the world” (Gary Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology, 86). (emphasis mine).

N. T. Wright declares:

In Romans 4:13 Paul says, startlingly, “The promise to Abraham and his seed, that they should inherit the world.” Surely the promises of inheritance were that Abraham’s family would inherit the land of Israel, not the world? Paul’s horizon, however, is bigger. The Land, like the Torah, was a temporary stage in the long purpose of the God of Abraham. It was not a bad thing now done away with, but a good and necessary thing now fulfilled in Christ and the Spirit. It is as though, in fact, the Land were a great advance metaphor for the design of God that his people should eventually bring the whole world into submission to his healing reign. God’s whole purpose now goes beyond Jerusalem and the Land to the whole world.   (N.T. Wright, “Jerusalem in the New Testament,” pp. 9-10, (emphases mine).

To summarize, this sort of argument can be put in the following form:

            --The Old Testament contains particular land promises to national Israel.
            --The New Testament universalizes Israel’s land promises to all Christians.
--Therefore, no longer is there an expectation that particular land promises to Israel will be fulfilled with Israel.

But I do not believe this understanding is biblical. What I will argue below is: (1) Paul's main point in Romans 4:13 is about people who are descendants of Abraham, not land; and (2) universal blessings do not rule out particular blessings.

Romans 4:13 and People
The context before and after Romans 4:13 is speaking of people—descendants of Abraham, both Jew and Gentile. Paul is not directly speaking of land or earth. With Romans 4:1-8 Paul expounded the great truth of justification through faith alone. In doing so he uses examples of two great covenant heads—Abraham (Abrahamic covenant) and David (Davidic covenant). The fact that these two important men were saved through faith alone is evidence that salvation for any person or group is through faith alone, apart from works.

Then, with Romans 4:9-12, Paul explains that the principle of salvation through faith alone applies equally to both Jews and Gentiles. Since Abraham was justified through faith before his circumcision this allows Abraham to be the "father" of two distinct but related groups: (1) Gentiles (uncircumcised) who believe; and (2) Jews (circumcised) who believe. In verses 11-12, the term “father” describes Abraham’s relationship to both groups. Thus, Romans 4:1-12 reveals that Abraham is the father of both believing Gentiles and believing Jews.

When we come to verse 13 and Paul’s statement: “the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world” it seem obvious from the context that Abraham’s status as “heir of the world” is focused on people—descendants who are Gentiles and Jews who have expressed faith in God like Abraham. This is also bolstered by what comes after verse 13, particularly Romans 4:16-17a:

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, “A father of many nations have I made you”).

Again, the emphasis is on believing Jews and Gentiles being related to Abraham. Abraham is also called “A father of many nations.” In fact, we can say that Abraham is “heir of the world” in the sense that he is “A father of many nations.” Land or earth is not the main issue here.

This does not mean land/earth is irrelevant to discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole, because the Abrahamic covenant is multi-faceted and includes matters related to Israel's land and beyond (Gen 26:3-4). But Paul’s specific point in Romans 4:13 is that Abraham is “heir of the world” in the sense of believing people. To conclude that this verse teaches or implies the transcending of Israel’s land promises goes way beyond what Paul is saying here.

This understanding is bolstered by Paul’s use of kosmos for “world.” Sometimes this word is used of the physical world (Matt. 24:21; 25:34), but it is often used in Scripture for people (see John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Context will determine which sense is best. There is another Greek term for “earth” or “land.” The term specifically refers to land, ground, or earth (see Matt. 4:15; 5:5). And if Paul would have used  in Romans 4:13 it would be clear he meant physical geography and not people. But he uses the broader kosmos term. 

In summary, to claim that Romans 4:13 is indicating a universalization of Israel’s land promises makes no sense since land is not primarily in view. If geographical land is not Paul's point, then certainly Paul is not universalizing Israel’s land promises.

Israel and Israel’s Land as Means for Blessing the Earth
Here I want to make a broader theological point that involves how particular and universal fulfillment relates to land. Beyond Romans 4:13, if one considers the Abrahamic covenant as a whole we do see a relationship of the covenant to land. First, Israel was promised a particular land with certain dimensions (see Gen. 12:6-7; 13:14-17; 15:18-21) as part of the Abrahamic covenant. Fulfillment of the land promise is even reaffirmed hundreds of years later during times of national apostasy:

but, ‘As the Lord lives, who brought up the sons of Israel from the land of the north and from all the countries where He had banished them.’ For I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers (see Jer. 16:15). (emphasis mine).

Second, both Israel and Israel’s land will be used by God to bless all people groups of the world, not just with salvation but blessings to the whole earth (Gen. 12:2-3; 22:17-18; Isa. 2:2-4; Ps. 72:18-19 Zech. 9:10). As Israel is blessed, ultimately through the Messiah, blessings will spill over to other nations and their lands. Isaiah 27:6 states: “In the days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will blossom and sprout, and they will fill the whole world with fruit.” Thus, Israel and Israel’s land function as microcosms of what God will do for all nations and their lands. As God blesses Israel, blessings will come to other nations (see Isa. 19:15-25).

So it is theologically true that planet earth and the nations of the earth will be blessed. But it is through the means of Israel and Israel’s Messiah that this will occur. God has determined that particular blessings to Israel are the means for bringing blessings to the nations. The particular (Israel and Israel’s land) is the means for universal blessings (Gentile nations and their lands). This is a “both/and scenario,” not an “either or.” (The complete fulfillment of these universal land blessings awaits Israel's salvation and the second coming of Jesus and His kingdom [see Rom. 11:12, 15, 26-27; Matt. 19:28]).

What is wrong about the arguments of those like Wright and Burge concerning Romans 4:13 is that they assume universal blessings do not coincide along particular blessings to national Israel. Allegedly, universal fulfillment does away with particular promises to Israel. But this does not have to be the case and is refuted by other Bible passages and the Bible's storyline as a whole.

Let us just assume for argument’s sake that Paul in Romans 4:13 is speaking of Abraham being “heir of the world” in a universal sense involving the earth for all believers, Jew and Gentile. Does this rule out the fulfillment of land promises to Israel? No, because universal fulfillment does not exclude particular fulfillment. In fact, particular fulfillment is the means of universal fulfillment. This is explicitly predicted in Genesis 12:2-3 when God tells Abraham that the nation to come from him (i.e. Israel) will be the means to bless the families and nations of the earth (see also Gen. 22:18). So even if Paul were thinking of land or earth in a universal sense in Romans 4:13, this would not rule out particular fulfillment of land promises to national Israel. Both could be true at the same time.

It seems like some who hold to a universalization of the land promise to Israel based on Romans 4:13 are approaching this verse as a proof text apart from its context or assuming certain things that are not accurate. In the cases of Burge and Wright, both believe the New Testament reinterprets or redefines the storyline of the Bible. 

For example, Burge declared a hermeneutic of “reinterpretation”:

For as we shall see (and as commentators regularly show) while the land itself had a concrete application for most in Judaism, Jesus and his followers reinterpreted the promises that came to those in his kingdom. (Jesus and the Land, 35) (emphasis mine).

N. T. Wright uses “redefining” in regard to Jesus and His kingdom:

Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Jesus and the Victory of God, 471). (emphasis mine).


I recently talked to a good friend of mine with a keen theological mind. As we talked about this issue of Romans 4:13, he asked a good question that goes something like this: 

“Imagine assembling a list of all the passages in the Bible that speak of land promises to Israel. You compile all these many passages in a column. Then you put Romans 4:13 next to this long list in another column. Do you think the average Christian is going to conclude from this that Paul is claiming that the land promises to Israel will not be fulfilled?’” 

In my estimation, it is hard to see how they would. Romans 4:13 does not do this.

The issue of fulfillment of Israel’s land promises involves looking at many passages and issues. And here we have only looked at one. But for those arguing for the transcending of Israel’s land promises, the search will need to go elsewhere since Romans 4:13 teaches no such thing.

 (For more detailed discussion on a biblical view of Romans 4:13 see this article by Nelson Hsieh, and the chapter, “Zionism in Pauline Literature: Does Paul Eliminate Particularity for Israel and the Land in His Portrayal of Salvation Available for All the World,” in The New Christian Zionism.) 


  1. Quote: “Imagine assembling a list of all the passages in the Bible that speak of land promises to Israel. You compile all these many passages in a column. Then you put Romans 4:13 next to this long list in another column. Do you think the average Christian is going to conclude from this that Paul is claiming that the land promises to Israel will not be fulfilled?’”

    Yes! I've tried to point this out to others. Great article.

  2. Thank you Alf. Sounds like we are thinking alike.

  3. Does Israel receive land blessings distinct from the church?

    I've always struggled trying to sort out which blessings are for Israel and which are for the church since we spend eternity living in "the new Jerusalem"

    I've always thought of the land as part of the Romans 11 root, where Israel is broken off, the church is grafted in, and Israel will be grafted in again. But do you see distinctly Israel blessings that the church does not take part in?

    1. Israel as a nation was not broken off, only unbelieving Israelites as individuals. The unbelieving Israelites would be regrafted back in as they repented from their unbelief.

  4. Hello James, I think Jewish members of the church will possess the land of Israel and Gentile members will possess the lands of their nations. When you get to the eternal state the New Jerusalem is the capitol city and home of all believers but Rev 21:24, 26 also speaks of nations outside the New Jerusalem bringing their cultural contributions into the city. Once you hit Revelation 20 the people of God are referred to as the nations. That will certainly include those who in this age are part of the church.

  5. Great article Mike - thanks. Whilst I fundamentally agree, I have two questions! 1) How could the promise that Abraham would be heir of the world be not only to him, but also to his seed (v.13)? 2) How then could heirship of the world in terms of its peoples also be to Abraham AND be guaranteed to his seed (v.16)? If 'the promise' is taken as becoming the father of many nations, surely this is a personal promise to Abraham alone. Hope that makes sense!

    1. It is fascinating that Abraham actually receives his promise fulfillment through Christ. The patriarch died without receiving any of his covenant promises. He will not receive them personally until he is resurrected, which of course fully depends on the finished work of his own descendant, the Messiah Jesus.

  6. There are some interesting things I've read in my studies regarding the covenants and promises and that intriguing word "KOSMOS".

    One thing regarding a dispensational view that Jesus said:

    Matthew 11:13 KJV — For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

    Thus the land will happen, because the Lord said so of old.

    But when Jesus "takes the kingdom" away from them..

    Matthew 21:43 KJV — Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

    And then he gave it to "the little flock"...

    Luke 12:32 KJV — Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

    Their destined place seems to change. For Jesus said after...
    John 14:2 KJV — In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

    This I think is the city;) Heb.11:10-16.

    KOSMOS... in the Greek is interesting.
    Strongs G2889 - these are some of the ways it is used...
    an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government.
    ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3.
    the world, the universe.
    the circle of the earth, the earth.
    the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family.

    Just like the beginning...

    Genesis 1:1 KJV — In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    There are TWO realms. Heaven and earth.
    I will read your booklet on dispensationalism and then I will get back with you.

    Thank you for sharing your studies!
    Blessing to all Brethren.

  7. What if the one of the people-promises was always going to be worldwide;
    And what if in the fulfilment of that promise, any land-specific promise wasn't explicitly revoked... wouldn't follow then that the future must involve commemorative animal sacrifices, would it?
    The future could still be gospel-shaped, couldn't it - even without any land-specific promises having been revoked?
    Like a bucket of water poured into the ocean does't lose its unique droplets - but it is characterised as part of the sea.