Promises Fulfilled in Christ and Covenant Theology Claims

Covenant theology often argues that Christ, as the true Israel, is the exclusive heir of the promises given to Israel, and that believers share in those promises only as they are "in Christ." A key text appealed to is 2 Corinthians 1:20: "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."

This verse certainly affirms that God’s promises are confirmed, secured, and guaranteed in Christ. It does not, however, say that promises originally given to specific recipients (for example, to Abraham or to national Israel) are thereby canceled for them and absorbed solely into Christ in such a way that they no longer apply to those recipients.

Asking Why This Interpretation Is Pressed

First, it is useful to ask why some covenant theologians insist on this reading. Their system faces a difficulty if the Old Testament promises to national Israel retain a future, literal fulfillment in Israel as a people and land. A robust future for ethnic Israel with a distinct kingdom undermines a strictly unified covenant-people model.

Thus, there can be a strong theological motive to read 2 Corinthians 1:20 as saying that all promises terminate in Christ alone in such a way that they are no longer to be expected for Israel as Israel. Recognizing this motive helps frame the discussion: an ambiguous or multi-possible text is being given a very specific role in service of a larger system.

What 2 Corinthians 1:20 Actually Says

The verse states:

"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."

It affirms:

• Christ is the ground of God’s faithfulness---the reason we can say "yes" and "amen" to God’s promises.
• In him, the reliability and eventual fulfillment of all God’s promises are secured.

It does not explicitly state:

• That promises made to Israel as a nation are now only for Christ and no longer have any national or territorial realization.
• That promises made to other specific parties (for example, the promise of eternal life to believers) are absorbed in such a way that the promised benefits no longer accrue to the named recipients.

If one were to press the covenant-theology reading consistently, even New Testament promises that covenant theologians gladly claim (for example, that believers shall not perish but have everlasting life) would be, in strictness, "yes and amen in Christ" in a way that would threaten their direct application to believers.

In practice, covenant theologians do not read the verse that way when it comes to promises they apply to themselves; they restrict this absorption principle primarily to those promises that pose a difficulty for their ecclesiology and eschatology (notably, Israel’s land and kingdom promises).

An Inconsistent Use of Promises

A helpful way to respond is to:

• Identify promises that covenant theologians themselves claim personally (for example, promises of forgiveness, preservation, peace that passes understanding).
• Ask whether, by their own logic, these should also be regarded as wholly subsumed into Christ such that the specific believer has no direct claim.

If they insist those promises do apply to believers directly, then they are already reading 2 Corinthians 1:20 in a way that does not erase the original recipients (in this case, individual believers). They have, in effect, created a selective rule: promises inconvenient for their system (Israel’s) are said to be only for Christ; promises convenient for their system (church-related) are allowed to come to the stated recipients.

This reveals that the driving factor is not exegesis of 2 Corinthians 1:20 but a prior theological commitment.

Christ as Guarantor, Not Eraser, of Promises

A more balanced reading sees Christ as:

• The guarantor and mediator of all divine promises.
• The One in whom God’s faithfulness is displayed and through whom every promise will be fulfilled, to the proper recipients, in the proper way.

Promises made to Abraham about his seed and the land are secured in Christ, yet they still involve Abraham’s physical descendants and the specified land. Promises to the church about salvation and spiritual blessings are secured in Christ and come to those who are his body. The fact that all of this is "yes" in Christ does not flatten the distinctions between Israel and the church, nor does it cancel covenant commitments to Israel.

A Measured Response

So, to respond to covenant theologians who claim that Christ is the sole inheritor of Israel’s promises and covenant blessings:

• Acknowledge that all of God’s promises are indeed rooted in and guaranteed by Christ.
• Point out that the text they often cite does not say what they are making it say about canceling or absorbing Israel’s specific promises.
• Show that their own practice with promises they personally claim is inconsistent with their proposed principle.
• Affirm that Christ’s centrality in promise-fulfillment does not eliminate the original, named recipients of those promises; rather, he ensures that each promise is fulfilled exactly as God has pledged.

This keeps Christ at the center without using his centrality as a pretext for dissolving Israel’s future in God’s plan.