Dr. Kevin DeYoung | Our Only Comfort

Sunday Evening, January 4, 2026
Given by Dr. Kevin DeYoung | Senior Pastor, Christ Covenant Church

Our Only Comfort

Heidelberg Catechism—Lord’s Day 1

Watch on YouTube

Download our mobile app

Transcript

Since its publication in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism has been published in scores, if not hundreds, of languages and has been widely praised as the most devotional, perhaps most-loved catechism to come out of the Reformation. It has been estimated that after the Bible, John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Thomas a Kempis's The Imitation of Christ – after those three bestsellers, the Heidelberg Catechism is the most widely circulated book in the world. A few of you grew up with the Heidelberg Catechism, as I did. I had to memorize large parts of it as a child in Sunday school. I'm glad now that I had to. I had to read through the Heidelberg Catechism with my pastor before I joined the church when I was in fourth grade. Went through the whole thing and sat down in his office, very intimidated, and answered questions as best I could. And if that weren't enough claim to fame, this is probably the most important, likely: my wife and I are the only people in the church who named a child after the Heidelberg Catechism. Now, you say, “Really? I don't remember any children named Heidelberg.” Our eighth child – child ocho – Andrew has the middle name Trost. And trost is the German word for comfort, found here in question and answer number one and found many times throughout the catechism. Andrew very much wanted to come up on stage and make that known to you himself, but perhaps another time. Andrew Trost. In hindsight, it's very hard to say those – Drew Trost – we call him Toast instead. 

The Heidelberg Catechism became part of the three forms of unity, as they're called: the Belgic Confession 1561, the Cannons of Dort 1619. Those two, together with the Heidelberg Catechism, were adopted by the Dutch Reformed Church, among others. So, in North America at least, and there is a strong contingent of this in Canada as well, the Heidelberg Catechism is most familiar to those who grew up as a part of the Dutch tradition – as I did, as Tom Groelsema did – even though the catechism originated, as we'll learn, in what we would now call Germany, not in the Netherlands. I understand that many of you may be approaching the catechism for the first time. There are a number of resources out there if they're still available. If not, we'll make sure to get more. We'll be using the translation that's found in this very handsome volume, Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader's Edition, edited by Chad Van Dixhoorn. So, this has Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian. This is a nice book to have on your shelf, regardless. And the ESV makes several editions. I have one here with the ESV Bible Crossway puts out, and in the back – they have all of those confessions in the back of your Bible if you wanted them to travel with you. We will also be printing them each week in the bulletin. So, you might not have them with you to bring back and forth. They'll be in the bulletin, and often we will read through the question and answer, as we'll do a little bit later, although sometimes they don't always lend themselves to great recitation. 

Tonight, as we begin a year-long series in the Heidelberg Catechism, in good catechetical fashion, let me begin before we actually get to the catechism with three preliminary questions. Number one, what is a catechism? You may have in your mind creed, confession, catechism – and they may all blend together, but they're different, though overlapping, categories. A creed is usually something that is ancient, from the first centuries of the church. Creeds are usually focused on God, the Trinity, the person of Christ. Those creeds distinguish heresy from orthodoxy – the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene creed. Confessions – and our confessions come from this Reformation period in the 16th and 17th century – confessions tend to be much longer than creeds, more comprehensive in scope, and they have come to distinguish among various traditions, and today we would call them denominations. To use C.S. Lewis's analogy in Mere Christianity, the creeds are perhaps the hallway of the great manor, while the confessions get you into the different rooms. And as Lewis says, you're not meant to live in the hallway – you need to get in the hallway, that's what the creeds do – but the fellowship, the food, the warmth are found in those traditions, in those rooms. And so, in a Presbyterian church like Christ Covenant, we have the Westminster Standards. 

A catechism – creed, confession – a catechism teaches the faith by questions and answers. Katechesis is a Greek word meaning “oral instruction.” So, it's designed not so much to distinguish, though there is some of that, as it is to pass on. Catechisms were written to help pass on the faith, to teach it to new believers, to pass on the faith to the children of believers. So that's the first question. 

Second, why would we preach through a catechism? That may seem strange and out of sorts, and perhaps, you maybe even say, "Well, I'll put up with it for a year, I guess, but it'd be nice to have some Bible." Well, there's a long history. During the Reformation, many churches devoted the second service on Sunday to catechetical preaching. Why? Because people needed to be instructed in the Reformed faith. It was new to most people coming out of Roman Catholicism, and they needed that second service to help cement, in a systematic way, what the faith was. This has been carried on, largely in the Dutch tradition and more conservative churches to the present day. Tom was probably brought up in it more strongly in the Christian Reformed Church than I was in the Reformed Church in America, but we've both had our share of catechism lessons and sermons over the years. Now, it is true that it is likely less necessary to do catechetical preaching than it was 450 years ago. You think about all the advantages we have that they did not have 450 years ago. We're literate. People can read. We have an unimaginable sea of good resources and books, not to mention websites. We have Bible studies, small groups, Sunday school. We are much more educated. And so, we, perhaps, don't have the same need for it, and yet, it is an effective way to focus God's people on the most important truths and to pass them on to others. Hopefully, it will be clear as we move through this series that preaching through a catechism – we really want to stress preaching, that it is not the same as giving a theological lecture. And I love giving theological lectures, and there'll be elements, I suppose, of that. We do hope to use the Bible. Some will be directly from a text, summarizing biblical text. Others might land on a particular text or use the catechism to give explanation and application. But we hope that these messages over these 52 weeks will be personal, passionate sermons, not a dry, academic discourse. 

Well, the third question: why aren't we using the Westminster Shorter or Larger Catechism? What is it with you Dutch Reform people? You have to smuggle all of this in. You're Presbyterian now, and happily so. Well, there's a reason for this. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, which is wonderful, and we subscribe to it, as we do the Larger Catechism, simply was not designed to be a tool for preaching. Doesn't make it a lesser catechism, it's just different. In fact, the Shorter Catechism, and in particular the Westminster Larger Catechism, they do some things that the Heidelberg doesn't. They are more technical. They're more comprehensive. They do better to split important hairs. If you know your history, we're talking the 1640s with Westminster, and this is from 1563. So, you have 80 years of doctrinal development and writing and thinking and new controversies, so the Westminster Standards tend to be more comprehensive, more precise, a bit deeper, and all of those are good things. The Heidelberg, however, was designed to be preached. You can see it's divided into 52 Lord's Days. And not only that, with its divisions, but the very nature of it – you're going to find throughout the catechism words, often, like comfort, benefit. The catechism has lots of “my,” “you,” “us.” It was designed to be a personal devotional instrument in the way that the Westminster Shorter Catechism was not. You can compare some interesting differences between the two. The Heidelberg Catechism – some, wanting to just play rivalry between Westminster and Heidelberg, might say, "Well, the Heidelberg Catechism starts with us – what's your comfort? – when the Westminster Confession starts with God and his glory.” True. And then you might say, conversely, the Westminster Catechism starts with what you have to do – glorify God and enjoy him forever. And the Heidelberg Catechism starts with what God has done for us. But of course, those are false dichotomies. Both are appropriate ways to start a catechism, either thinking about our chief end, to glorify God and enjoy him forever, or to think first about God and what he has done for us in Christ. The simple fact is that the Heidelberg Catechism, by its divisions, its relative simplicity, and its personal nature, is very well suited for preaching. 

So what I want to do tonight is give some history and a little bit of the structure and then an exposition on the very familiar question and answer one and two. But we need to take some time in this first lesson – it won't be like this every sermon – to give some history, so we know where did this catechism come from? Well, it's called the Heidelberg Catechism, as you can imagine, because it was written in the city of Heidelberg, in large part by the faculty at the University of Heidelberg. That university was founded in 1386, Germany's oldest university. And although he wasn't the author, the catechism owes its creation to a man named Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate. Now, just to get your Reformation history very confused, this man, Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate, is not to be confused with Elector Frederick III of Saxony. Well, come on guys, just come up with a different name. Enough with the Freds. That elector of Saxony figures very prominent in Luther's story – is often called Frederick the Wise. This elector of the Palatinate, a certain region in the Holy Roman Empire, what we would see today on the map as Germany – this man was known as Frederick the Pious. And he was a very pious, sincere Christian. This region of the Holy Roman Empire, the Palatinate, was ruled prior to Frederick by a man named Otto Henry from 1556 to 1559. 

If you know a little bit of your church history, or even Western civilization, you may remember the date 1555 – The Peace of Augsburg – which handed down this dictum: “whose region, his religion.” See all these little principalities, all these little areas in the Holy Roman Empire – which was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire, as the saying goes, but that's what it was called – all of these little areas, you almost could think of them like counties. If you had Mecklenburg County wanted to be, well, let's make them Reformed, and Union County wanted to be, well, probably Baptist or something, and all of the counties wanted – of course, there weren't Baptists quite yet in 1563. If all of these counties wanted to be their own thing, 1555, the Peace of Augsburg says, "Okay, whoever is the prince or the leader or the elector in that region, he can choose his religion.” And Otto Henry was a Protestant. As the leader in that region, a prince, he had the responsibility to fill church vacancies and political vacancies and academic vacancies. It was a kind of patronage system, and the prince appointed that person for the university and for the town magistrate and for the churches, and for whatever reason – we aren't quite sure why – but Otto Henry put all different kinds of Protestants into these positions. Maybe he had a dream of bringing Protestants together. Maybe he was a political animal and liked to keep everyone happy. Maybe he just didn't know the difference. But he put in various groups. One you can think of as the genuine Lutherans. The genuine Lutherans – that's not what they called themselves – but they have been called that since, because they were the Lutherans that, in particular, held to Luther's view of the real presence – that is, with the Lord's supper, Luther believed in the real, bodily presence – not quite transubstantiation, as Rome taught, but it's come to be called consubstantiation – but he believed in a real, bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's supper. Well, those were some of the Lutherans. Then there was another shade of Lutherans, called, now, Philipists after Philip Melanchthon, who was one of Luther's right-hand men, one of his successors, the great systematizer of Lutheran theology. And though Calvin and Luther didn't have a relationship – maybe a letter or two passed between them – Philip Melanchthon and Calvin were close friends. 

So, if you're sort of moving from the Lutheran to Reformed, you have those Lutherans, you have the Philip Melanchthon kind of Lutherans, and then you had the followers of Zwingli, or his successor in the Swiss lands, Heinrich Bullinger. So you have these Lutherans, Philip Melanchthon, then Zwinglians, and then Calvinists – full-on Calvinists, the followers of John Calvin, from France and from Geneva. So, these are the four different groups. Henry Otto died in 1559, bringing Frederick III to the throne, and he inherited this Protestant region with this diverse set of Protestant influences and stakeholders. So, it was a bit of a challenge to know how to keep all of these groups together. And one of the first things Frederick had to deal with was a fight in the church. You think, well, surely in the sunny days of the Reformation, nobody was fighting. Well, they were. In the most important church in the region, the Church of the Holy Spirit in Heidelberg, on the one side was the man Tilemann Heshusius. He was a Lutheran professor, the head of the theological faculty, the superintendent of the churches. He believed the Lord's supper was eating the physical body and blood of Christ. And then there was a man there who was more Zwinglian, a university student and a deacon, named Wilhelm Klebitz. And he thought this other man's view was too much like Roman Catholicism. So, you have this university student and a deacon, and this faculty – the leading professor – who are having an argument over the Lord's supper. Frederick tries to keep the peace. When that doesn't quite work, he does what sometimes politicians deem necessary – he kicked both men out of the church. No soup for either of you. They both were gone. 

Melanchthon wrote a treatise defending Frederick's actions, and he urged everyone to just settle down. He said, "Let's not try too hard to penetrate into the mystery of the sacrament." And he argued that all the Protestants should find common ground in believing that the supper was a participation, a koinonia in the body and blood of Christ. And of course, that's from 1 Corinthians 10:16. Melanchthon said, "Maybe we shouldn't try to go farther into the mystery than all agreeing it's a participation in the body and blood of Christ." Melanchthon died in 1560, and after that, Frederick moved from the sort of Lutheran/Philip Melanchthon influence over to look at Switzerland and Geneva and more Calvinist influence. It may or may not be the case that Frederick became a full-blown convert to Calvinism, but he at least was moving in that direction. So, all of this is to say why Elector Frederick thought something needed to be done and a new catechism needed to be written. He ordered for the drafting of this catechism to serve three purposes. One, a tool for teaching children. Two, a guide for preachers. And three, as a form for confessional unity among Protestant factions. 

Some catechisms or confessions have an aim at distinguishing, and that's important – not this, but that. And the Heidelberg Catechism is going to do that in several key areas, but for the most part, it's a catechism in a broadly Reformed area trying to say, "Let's find what we can agree on." And he commissioned a team of professors and ministers to draft a new catechism. He selected three groups of men. Theological faculty members (three of those), superintendents of the churches (there were nine of those), and then a few other “distinguished servants” (trained laymen, a physician). So, there were around 15 men, including Frederick himself, who took an active part in the process. The drafting of the catechism and the final adoption was a team effort. There was a man named Caspar Olevianus who used to be thought of as a co-author of the catechism, but now he's seen as simply one valuable member. There is little doubt now among scholars that the chief author was Zacharias Ursinus. Ursinus. Think about if you know any constellations – isn't Ursinus like a bear? Well, that's the Latin word for bear. His name in German was Baer. B A E R. Ursinus is the Latin word for bear, so, Zacharias Ursinus is his Latin name. I think his German name, Zach Bear – that's like a middle linebacker, that's pretty good. So, Zach Bear, and actually our firstborn son has a middle name Zachariah, so two kids named after the Heidelberg Catechism. 

Ursinus was a professor at the university in Heidelberg, born July 18, 1534 in what is today a part of Poland, but at that time was a part of Bohemia, in the Holy Roman Empire. He was the chief architect of the Heidelberg Catechism. We know this, because we can compare – we won't do it here – but he wrote his own shorter catechism and his own larger catechism, and there are many one-to-one correspondents between that catechism he wrote and then this Heidelberg Catechism. And in fact, the ones he wrote, and then this Heidelberg, which he was the initial drafter, they show Ursinus's spirit, which is firmly Protestant, Calvinist leanings, and a warm, irinic pastoral spirit. He wrote the catechism – ready for it? – when he was 28, having just received his doctorate in theology. He went to the University of Wittenberg. He was taught by Philip Melanchthon – as I said, Luther's successor. So that was a major influence. Later, he met Calvin, and he was also influenced by Zwingli's successor, Heinrich Bullinger. He was also influenced by an Italian Calvinist, Peter Martyr Vermigli. So, he had major influences from various streams of Protestant theology on the continent. 

If you think about the three forms of unity and why we have the Westminster Standards, it's really the difference between the Reformed faith that came through the continent of Europe (that's what we're talking about here – Germany, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Italy, Poland – that's all the continent of Europe). Those Protestant, Reformed Christians often have the three forms of unity – Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Cannons of Dort – where the expression of Reformed theology that came through the British Isles (namely Ireland, England, Scotland) – they have the Westminster Standards. They're very complimentary in the theology. You would be hard-pressed to find too many differences, though there are a few important differences here or there, but really the reason for the three forms of unity and for the Westminster Standards are different cultural/linguistic traditions. And so, being a Presbyterian church, which come, originally, from – most of them – from Scotland, and before that the Westminster Assembly that met in London. 

This new catechism, drafted by Ursinus, then refined by this committee of 15 men, and finally given the sign-off by Frederick himself, was first published on January 19, 1563. It went through a couple of revisions in the next two months to account for the new promulgations coming from the Council of Trent, which is the Catholic Counterreformation. And months from now, when we come to question and answer 80, which is about the Roman Catholic mass – that one was added in the third edition of the Heidelberg Catechism. But don't say, well, maybe it shouldn't be there. No, it happened within the first two months, and that third edition has become the received edition of the Heidelberg Catechism. It was quickly translated into Latin and Dutch – so, written originally in German, translated into Latin and Dutch – and then into French and English, and over the next decades, it wasn't long before Hungarian, Greek, Romansh, Czech, Spanish, and today, it is in many, many languages. Like most catechisms, the Heidelberg Catechism is largely a commentary on three things: the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. All of that, then, let's turn to your bulletin, and I will read the question for question and answer number one, and you will respond. 

What is your only comfort in life and in death? 

That I am not my own, but belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood and has delivered me from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven. In fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ by his Holy Spirit also assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him. 

How many things must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort? 

Three. First, how great my sin and misery are. Second, how I am delivered from all my sins and misery. Third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance. 

In many ways, the remaining 51 weeks help to explain the riches of question and answer number one. But let's reflect on it just these last 10 minutes or so. I think I've said these words at every funeral I've ever attended or ever conducted, and they are precious words, and I'm sure they're precious to many of you. That word “only” is key. If you were to say, "What is your comfort?" We have lots of comforts. We have comfort foods. You have comfort music. You have comfort pajamas or a fireplace or a comfy couch. There's lots of things that bring us comfort. And the word “only” here isn't meant to eliminate anything else that brings you joy. It is to say, however, what is the ultimate source, what is the highest, what, finally, when we come to the end of life will be our only true comfort? And it is this: that we are not our own, but we belong to Jesus. The church is not doing its job if it is not teaching people how to die well. That may sound morbid. It's much easier to draw a crowd just by promising people their best life now, but the church is not serving you in its songs, in its prayers, in its sermons, if it is not giving you the truth to enable you to die well. I think many of us – I know I feel this – both within our own community and within my own extended family and group of friends, doesn't it just seem like in the last weeks, or month or two, hearing of deaths of those who are far too young? Cancer in those who are barely in their 20s. And maybe it's just being middle aged, or maybe it's having a wide network of church and school and friends, but I'm sure many of you sense the same thing. You only have to have your ears and your heart open a little bit to sense and be reminded that this is a sad world we live in. Think about how common death was, how much more common, in some ways, in the 16th century. Of course, they all died. We all die. But infant mortality rates were so much higher. Childbirth was extremely dangerous. The plague came through Heidelberg later in 1563, and Ursinus, the author of this catechism that we are studying 450 years later, he died at my age – 48. Olevianus died at 50. In 1564, Calvin would be dead – 54. In the centuries ahead, Jonathan Edwards died at 54. Whitefield at 55. Machen at 55. We do not know the number of our days. And this first Lord's Day gives us the overarching theme for the whole catechism. You will find over and over again that question. How does this give us trost, comfort, in the Latin, consolatio – consolation, solace, hope. It's asking the question, what is your only real security? What is your one true protection? What is your one lasting solace in life? You think of what Jesus said in John 10:28, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can snatch them from my hand.” That's comfort. When Jesus grabs ahold of you, nobody can take you out of his hand. 

We find our comfort in what Christ does. The catechism rattles through six things that will be unpacked in the weeks ahead. He has fully paid for my sins. He has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He watches over me with his sovereign care. He works all things for my salvation. He assures me by the Spirit of eternal life. And he makes me willing and ready to live for him. That is comfort. And what must we know to live and die in the joy of this comfort? The catechism tells us: to have communion with this Christ, we must know three things – often given to us as guilt, grace, gratitude. The catechism famously follows the same pattern as the Romans road. And the catechism will deal first with man's misery in 3-11, then man's deliverance in questions 12-85, and then our response in 86-129. Guilt, grace, gratitude. 

The first thing we must know is how great our sin and misery are. R. Scott Clark, in his massive new commentary on the catechism, points out that the answer here is not simply that you need to know your finitude. We talked about that this morning, and that's important, but it's not enough that you would just know – it's not just a problem of your being, that you're the wrong sort of being, that you're human instead of divine. If that's the case, if that's ultimately the problem, then the solution is to be swallowed up in the life of the divine. But the problem is not just one of ontology, it's one of our positive wickedness. And if that's the problem, then the solution must be redemption, forgiveness, and an undeserved alien righteousness. Guilt, grace, and the only proper response is gratitude. 

And remarkably, as we'll see, the catechism puts the Ten Commandments in the gratitude section. Be a much more Lutheran way to put it in the guilt section – and that's one of the uses of the Ten Commandments, of the law, to show you your sin. But very deliberately puts the Ten Commandments – here's not only how you become aware of your guilt, but this is how you live a life of gratitude to God. If you opened any Christmas presents, and I imagine that most of us did, and you found yourself disappointed with what you received, as can happen to the best of us at the worst of times. When that feeling creeps up in your heart, it is a sign that you wanted something else, you thought you deserved something else, you had your heart set on something else. When we know that we don't deserve God's grace, and that what we need more than anything is God's grace, then how can we not respond with gratitude? Because when we know Christ, we are getting what we wanted better than we hoped for and eternally more than we deserve. 

And let me finish by noting the radical, countercultural statement that the catechism makes here at the very outset. It's easy to think of this as a great balm for sufferers – and it is that – as a beautiful paragraph to be read at funerals, to go hand in hand with Psalm 23, as we read earlier. Put your only comfort in life and in death in Heidelberg Catechism question and answer one, and we're right to do so, but we would miss something if we only thought of this as a warm blanket when we face the chilly winds of sin and death, because this first question and answer is more than funeral balm. It is a radical, profound, culture-shaping, counterculture-denying statement of human identity. Some of you may have come across this before. I think I've read it once or twice. It's from a woman named Virginia Satir, and it's called “I Am Me.” It's decades old now, but see if this doesn't sound like a lot of the air we breathe. And I want you to think of these few paragraphs, and then think of the Heidelberg Catechism. Here's what she writes: 

“I am me. In all the world, there was no one exactly like me. There are persons who have some parts like me, but no one adds up exactly like me. Therefore, everything that comes out of me is authentically mine, because I, alone, choose it. I own everything about me. My body, including everything it does; my mind including all its thoughts and ideas; my eyes, including the images of all they behold; my feelings, whatever they may be – anger, joy, frustration, love, disappointment, excitement; my mouth, and all the words that come out of it – polite, sweet or rough, correct or incorrect; my voice, loud or soft; and all my actions, whatever they be or others, to myself. I own my fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears. I own all my triumphs and successes, all my failures and mistakes. Because I own all of me, I can become intimately acquainted with me. By doing so, I can love me and be friendly with me in all parts. I can then make it possible for all of me to work in my best interests. I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me and other aspects that I do not know. But as long as I am friendly and loving to myself, I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and for ways to find out more about me. However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is me. This is authentic and represents where I am in that moment in time. When I review later how I looked and sounded, what I said and did, how I thought and felt, some parts may turn out to be unfitting. I can discard that which is fitting and keep that which proved fitting and invent something new for that which I discarded.” And then here's the final peroration: “I can see, hear, feel, think, say, and do. I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive, to make sense and order out of the world, of people and things outside of me. I own me, and therefore I can engineer me. I am me, and I am okay.” 

Be hard-pressed to find in six paragraphs a better summation of the way in which many, many westerners think today. I am me. I own all of me. Perhaps some of you are dealing with that. If you think about what you do with your body – some of you have kids, nieces, nephews, friends, grandchildren who have imbibed that spirit of the age. I am my own. I am me, and I am okay. Or we could listen to the Bible. First Corinthians chapter 6: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God. You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” So I said, this is more than comforting funeral balm. It is also a countercultural statement of human identity. You will set your life, your marriage, your child rearing, everything about you on two different trajectories. Do you say, first of all, about yourself, “I am all that I own. Me, my, myself. I am me. I can engineer me. I am okay. Whatever comes from me is my authentic self.” Or do you first confess, as the Heidelberg Catechism states, you want to know who I am? I don't belong to me. And remember the question – this is not rubbing your nose in it. This is the answer to the question, what is your only comfort? The world is giving you false comfort, a false gospel, telling you “if only you claim your authentic self, you will be happy.” And those are usually the most unhappy people of all. What is the song that you are singing? Heidelberg Catechism, echoing 1 Corinthians 6, gives the song of God's people. And here's the song we are going to sing: “Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song, the joy of my heart, and the boast of my tongue. Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last, has won my affection and bound my soul fast.”

Heavenly Father, thank you for your word, which is truth. Sanctify us by your truth. Give us the song to sing that will truly give us comfort in life and in death. In Jesus, we pray. Amen.