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, http://ntwrightpage.com/files/2016/05/Wright_Jerusalem_New_Testament.pdf). (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 gē
specifically refers to land, ground, or earth (see Matt. 4:15; 5:5). And if Paul would have used gē 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).
Conclusion
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.)
