To Remember His Holy Covenant (Part 1): God's Covenant of Grace

In Luke 1:67-79, Zechariah the priest responded to the coming birth of the Lord with praise. He praised God for redeeming his people in faithfulness to his holy covenant. God's covenant faithfulness and mercy was shown in the coming of the Lord Jesus. The birth and work of the Lord Jesus is properly understood in light of God’s promise, his oath, his holy covenant.

What is this covenant God made? How is the coming of Christ related to it? And how are you related to it? Those are the questions I want to address in a series of three articles based on a sermon I gave on this passage: (1) God’s covenant of grace, (2) Christ and the covenant, and (3) you and the covenant.

Zechariah said that God raised up this Savior “to remember his holy covenant.” What is a covenant? A covenant is a bond between two parties that establishes a relationship between them and defines the nature and obligations of the relationship, binding them together. A covenant typically states the parties to the covenant and its basis, promises, conditions, obligations, sanctions, and seals.

Some examples of covenants between humans are those made between kings and their vassals, between friends (like David and Jonathan) or peoples (like the Israelites and the Gibeonites), and the marriage covenant between husband and wife (see Malachi 2:14 - “she is your companion and your wife by covenant”). When God makes a covenant with people, he establishes a mutual bond of fellowship with them, takes them under his special care, and promises them eternal life and blessing.

The first covenant that God made with man is commonly called the covenant of works. He did not need to do it, but he voluntarily drew near to man, making a covenant with him. This is recounted in Genesis 2. As the Shorter Catechism says, “When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death” (WSC 12). As the Larger Catechism further explains, the tree of life was a pledge of this covenant and its promise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a commandment given in addition to the moral law to demonstrate the condition of the covenant: personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to God (WLC 20). But the covenant of works was soon broken by the sin of our first parents. Unless redeemed by God, all the heirs of Adam are condemned as treacherous covenant-breakers. Fellowship with God was lost.

As early as Genesis 3:15, God published another covenant, a covenant upon different terms. This second covenant was made with sinners in need of salvation. God declared that he would put enmity between his people and the serpent and would raise up the offspring of the woman to crush the serpent’s head. We call this covenant his covenant of grace. We might also call it his covenant of mercy, "the mercy that he promised to our fathers" (Luke 1:72), for God entered into it out of his tender mercy, beholding us in our misery. 

The covenant of grace is the abiding covenant God continued to renew with his people from generation to generation and which Zechariah mentions in his hymn. In the covenant of grace, God promises salvation to sinners on the basis of the obedience and sacrifice of Christ. In it, God requires that we believe in Christ and repent, faith in Christ being the only means by which we have a share in Christ’s mediation. Salvation and the everlasting inheritance is obtained by Christ and shared with those who are united to him. In this covenant of grace, sinners are saved by God to be his people, that they might glorify and enjoy him forever.

Thus, it is the case that the coming of Christ had been spoken of by the holy prophets from of old (Luke 1:70). Faith in God’s provision of Christ has been the only way of salvation for every generation. This was the covenant that God established with Noah and his household, saving them from judgment. As much of humanity wandered back into apostasy, this covenant was established with Abraham and made more fully known in his household. And thus Zechariah goes on to explain God’s holy covenant in terms of its administration to Abraham.

Zechariah gives an excellent description of God’s holy covenant. He says that God’s holy covenant was “the oath that he swore to our father Abraham.” What did God swear to Abraham? God swore “to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (Luke 1:73-75). This is a summery of the covenant promises God gave to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17, and 22. This is a reversal of man’s fall. Through sin, we fell into the hand of our enemies, oppressed by the devil through fear of death, living in impurity and unrighteousness, separated from God’s fellowship, all our days. But God swore an oath, establishing a covenant, to deliver a people from this misery unto himself, making reconciliation, forgiving their sins, renewing them unto righteousness, that they might glorify and enjoy him forever.

God continued to renew this covenant with Abraham's descendants, with Isaac (Gen. 26:2-5) and Jacob (Gen. 28:13-15). Most dramatically, God renewed this covenant with the children of Israel in the days of Moses.

In those days, according to his covenant promise to Abraham, God delivered Israel from the hand of their enemies (i.e. Pharaoh) so that they might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all their days (Exod. 4:22-23, 6:2-8, Deut. 7:7-11). They were brought out of Egypt to serve the Lord as his people. The Passover, Exodus, and coming to Sinai to worship God were expressions of the covenant and a type of what more was promised, their ultimate hope: salvation from sin unto God through Jesus Christ.

This covenant was formally renewed with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex. 20-24) and again in Moab (Deut. 29-30), and again in the promised land under Joshua, at the beginning and end of the conquest (Josh. 8:30-35, 24:1-28). The covenant was externally administered differently before Christ than it is now. Then, God called his people to faith in Christ through promises, sacrifices, circumcision, passover, and other symbols and ceremonies foretelling the Christ to come. This administration of the covenant is called the old covenant. The covenant of grace is now administered more simply and powerfully in light of the Christ who has come, through the ministry of the Word, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. This administration is called the new covenant. The difference between the old and the new is in the externals, not the substance. It is the same bond, the same principles, the same way of salvation - not two parallel covenants, but the same covenant for two different eras.

After Israel had settled down in the promised land, God made it clear that a greater fulfillment of this covenant would be brought about through the king of Israel, specifically, through King David and his heirs (2 Sam. 7, Ps. 72, 89, Is. 9:1-7). It would be from the line of David that the promised one would arise who would deliver God's people from their enemies and lead them in righteousness and peace forever, bringing all the nations under his blessed reign. This continued to be the prophetic hope even after the monarchy fell and Israel was scattered and began to return.

And so, God’s holy covenant, which Zechariah refers to, is his covenant of grace, “the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (Luke 1:73-75).

Hodge, Machen, and Murray on Christian Education

I recently noticed that three seminary professors, A.A. Hodge, J. Gresham Machen, and John Murray, all wrote what proved to be their final journal articles on the same topic - Christian education.

The last article that A.A. Hodge, professor at Princeton Seminary, wrote before his death on November 11, 1886 was "Religion in the Public Schools" (published January, 1887).

J. Gresham Machen was professor at Princeton Seminary and then at Westminster Seminary. The last article he wrote for the Presbyterian Guardian was a plea for Christian education he wrote in Chicago on his way to North Dakota, where he would die on January 1, 1937. The article was published on January 9, 1937: “Shall We Have Christian Schools?”

John Murray was a professor at Westminster Seminary for about 36 years before moving back to his native Scotland. His last article published in the Presbyterian Guardian, written in 1973 and published in October, 1975 after his death on May 8, 1975, was “Christian Education.”

All three of these seminary professors, in three different generations, were thinking of the same thing shortly before they died - the problem of secularized education and the importance of Christian education.

Baird, Hart, and the King of Kings

King of Kings: A Reformed Guide to Christian Government, by James Baird. Founders Ministries, 2025, xx + 95 pages, $21.98.

As they teach the whole counsel of God, pastors will give instruction from the Bible concerning various relations and callings. As Solomon did in his proverbs, and Peter and Paul did in their letters, so pastors will give instruction from God about marriage, family, work, church, and the commonwealth and its government.

Last year, James Baird, a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, wrote a short book on Christian government, giving special attention to the question of whether civil government ought to promote Christianity. In the May issue of Ordained Servant, Dr. D.G. Hart argued in a review article that “Baird’s argument, no matter how positive and winsome, is wrong.” I contend that Baird’s argument is right and that his book is quite good.

Baird’s main argument is straightforward. “First Premise: Government must promote the public good. Second Premise: As the only true religion, Christianity is part of the public good. Conclusion: Government must promote Christianity as the only true religion” (p. 22). God has ordained the civil authorities for “his own glory, and the public good” (WCF 23.1, cp. Rom. 13:4), and true religion is part of the public good. Romans 1:18-32 describes the bad consequences of turning away from true religion. Those who exchange the truth about God for a lie are given over to dishonorable passions and all manner of unrighteousness. True religion is good for everyone and for every people. Not only does the gospel bring deliverance from condemnation, but it also brings sanctification in Christ, creating a people transformed by the renewal of their minds who are zealous for good works. The influence of true religion extends even to the unregenerate who pick up good ideas, attitudes, and practices from Christians.

Baird reviews fundamental Christian teachings concerning civil government, leading readers through the 23rd chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (the version used by the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church). This includes the statement that magistrates ought especially to “maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth” (WCF 23.2). Magistrates rule for the public good not only by maintaining justice and peace, but also piety. I have written more on this point here. While multiple biblical texts are cited by the confession for this statement (Ps. 82:3-4, Ps. 2:10-12, 2 Sam. 23:3, 1 Tim. 2:2, 1 Peter 2:13), the classic text that brings all three together is 1 Timothy 2:2. There Paul exhorts Christians to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” In other words, the aim of civil government, that we should pray is achieved, is the flourishing of peace, godliness (that is, piety towards God), and honesty (that is, justice among men). 

In the fourth chapter of the book, Baird notes how kings like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah promoted true religion. Recognizing someone might object this was something unique to God’s covenant people, Baird shows this was also true of Gentile rulers when they were at their best. It was good in the eyes of God and good for the people of Nineveh when their king decreed a fast and called his people to repentance (Jonah 3:7-9). It was likewise good when Nebuchadnezzar made a decree against blaspheming the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3:29). When Nebuchadnezzar neglected Daniel’s warnings to repent and proudly boasted of his kingdom, God made him eat grass like an ox. When he was delivered, he publicly honored the true God as the King of heaven (Dan. 4). Baird brings up the decree of Darius (Dan. 6) and the support given to God’s people and worship by Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-3). He also compares these historical examples with the teachings of Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 23:3, and Romans 13:1-7.

Is it the case that Baird “manufactures” such examples by a “sleight of hand,” committing the “anachronism of using ancient, divine-right monarchies as examples for modern republican government,” as Hart claims? Or is Baird showing that the Bible presents this as a thing all civil authorities ought to do? Psalm 2 does not limit its exhortation to ancient, divine-right monarchies. Romans 13 does not say that only kings are God’s servants. Nor does the Westminster Confession limit its statements to one form of government. Ancient monarchies and modern republics are both civil governments with the same basic duties. We should take into account relevant differences, but the differences between them will not so much change the basic duties of government as much as how those duties are fulfilled.

In his review, Hart claims the only political instruction the New Testament church received was “to honor the emperor, a Roman official who sometimes persecuted and killed Christians.” It is true that most New Testament instruction on the civil government has to do with the duty of subjects, given that most Christians then were subjects, not rulers. Yet these instructions were given in such a way that they taught the nature and duty of civil government, reaffirming the lessons found in the Old Testament (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Tim. 2:2, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Rev. 1:5, 21:24). Acts 12 gives vivid instruction about how magistrates ought to promote the honor of God.

In chapter five, Baird reviews how the law of God and prudence play a role in good government and the promotion of true religion. In chapters 6-7, he anticipates the objection that this idea is foreign to the American context, describing how early America continued to see Christianity as essential to the public good and something to be promoted by the civil government in various ways. In the remaining chapters, Baird writes of how it is loving to seek the good of one’s country by promoting good government, how wisdom and prudence is needed in the exercise and reform of government, and how we should pursue this earthly reform with proper perceptive, as citizens of heaven, as exiles like Daniel, seeking the good of the city where we dwell.

More could be said in support of Baird’s argument than is found in this short book. I think his argument could have been further strengthened by a discussion of Christ’s mediatorial kingship. I understand that this omission was a strategic choice on the author’s part to keep the argument focused and brief. A good book on that doctrine is Messiah the Prince by William Symington, a book that was also commended by A.A. Hodge when it was republished in 1881.

So why then does Hart argue that Baird’s argument is wrong? Hart writes that the errors in this book “fall into at least two categories—ones of definition or logic and others of history.” The supposed error of definition or logic is that Baird does not account for demographic changes and “does not adapt his basic category of ‘public good’ to the current circumstances of the United States.” Is this really an error of definition or logic? If a people becomes less Protestant, does this mean true religion is no longer part of the public good? Would true religion cease to be good for that people? The fact that a certain people is religiously diverse does not alter basic principles of civil government. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Baird does write that particular policies for the public good must be adapted to particular situations, but the category of the public good transcends current circumstances. All peoples ought to seek what is good, and true religion does not cease to be good for a people when its demographics change.

What about errors of history? Hart writes that Baird “avoids entirely the reasons that led all the original states to embrace Jefferson’s position and abrogate government support for established churches…” First, the promotion of true religion is not limited to government funding of established churches, nor is that the focus of Baird’s argument. Second, as Miles Smith points out in Religion and Republic: Christian American from the Founding to the Civil War, Jefferson’s position on religion and the state was more extreme than merely opposing church establishment and was not generally embraced during that period. Smith’s book is another good book to read alongside of King of Kings, providing more history of the government’s promotion of Christianity in the American context.

Hart argues that Baird is too abstract and that if he had given attention to the history of, say, Calvin’s relationship to Geneva’s city council, he would have seen how well past Protestant governments have adhered to the ideal model. Should we conclude that since civil rulers do not live up to the ideals espoused by the theologians, that the principles are wrong or our work is in vain? I think such an attention to history shows that, through much work and difficulty, Calvin left Geneva and its government in a better condition than he found it.

Hart also argues that Baird failed to situate American forms for government within the broader sweep of Christian history. Does such a broad sweep of Christian history undermine Baird’s argument? The main lesson Hart draws from this sweep is that political change in a country like the United States is difficult and moving “a nation from its current political configuration back in time to a golden era is impossible.” The problem is that Baird does not advocate a return to a golden age. He argues for a return to a historic doctrine taught in Scripture and its prudent application in the present. He does not say advocating for Christian government will be easy. He warns it will be difficult.

Has history stopped? History shows that America, and the relation of Christianity and civil government in general, is not static. Much has changed in America even within the past eighty years. For example, Sunday laws were in operation within living memory. Could things change again? Also, American government is not entirely separate from religion even today. Our leaders call days of thanksgiving and days of prayer. Our military and legislatures have chaplains. Our national motto is “In God We Trust.” Not only are there things the government could start doing, but there are things it is already doing that could be done better, and which could go the way of Sunday laws if they are not valued and maintained.

Thus, I remain convinced Baird is right. God has appointed civil government, and so the civil authorities, as God’s ministers, ought to honor God (Rom. 13:1-7). Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and so nations and rulers ought to honor and submit to him (Matt. 28:18-20, Ps. 2). Nations and their rulers should countenance and maintain the church of the Lord Jesus (WLC 191), for the nation that will not serve her shall perish (Is. 60:12). Rulers ought to be “nursing fathers” toward the church, and in time they shall be (Is. 49:23, 60:10, 16, WCF 23.3). Since civil magistrates are ordained for God’s glory and the public good (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17), and true religion is part of the public good, therefore magistrates ought to promote true religion. The apostles did not need to teach rulers their duty to promote religion since even the Gentiles understood this duty, but the apostles did need to teach them the true religion. We likewise need to make God’s word known to all, that all might embrace the King of kings and serve him according to their place and calling. We ought to be diligent in prayer for all in authority, that they might rule in a way that promotes the flourishing of piety, justice, and peace in our land.

Those who serve as civil rulers should seek to lead their people in a good direction, praising what is good and suppressing what is evil. But where should nations and their rulers get their ideas of good and evil, of religion and morality? From God. He has made himself and his law known in his creation order, but especially in his word. Christianity reveals true religion and true morality. It reveals the true God and the only way to God and law of God. May Christian principles guide the peoples and their governments, and may peoples and their governments promote Christianity and the reign of the King of kings.