Brought up as I was on Westminster's Shorter Catechism, I never really appreciated the depth and beauty of the Heidelberg Catechism. Yet it preceded Westminster's by some 80 years, and became one of the so-called Three Forms of Unity along with the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt.

One of the great strengths of the Heidelberg Catechism is its structure. The 129 questions are divided into three main sections. The first section, on the Misery of Man, deals with the Fall and man's natural condition; the second, on the Deliverance of Man, deals with the redeeming and saving work of Christ; the third, on the Gratitude man owes for such deliverance, deals with conversion, the commandments and the Lord's Prayer.

More than that, however, the Catechism is also divided into 52 'Lord's Days', so that the churches which adopted it made conscience of going through the main topics of the Catechism week by week. The practice still obtains in many Dutch churches, but the Scottish churches have, to a large extent, neglected it.

It is a good practice, however; and perhaps we ought to give thought to reviving it. After all, the rich deposit of biblical doctrine summarised in our catechisms is the very stuff of the Gospel.

The best preaching in the history of the church was the preaching that focussed on the objective truths of our redemption; and I know of no better way to prevent a slide into subjectivism than to highlight these truths in regular, systematic form. And I also agree with B.B. Warfield: Catechism boys grow up to become Catechism men.

On at least one question, however, the Heidelberg Catechism is woefully inadequate. On the Sixteenth Lord's Day, the Catechism offers us its Question 41: 'Why was he also buried?' The reference is to the work of Jesus Christ for our salvation – a work which included his life on earth, his trial, his crucifixion and his burial. The answer offered to the question is: 'Thereby to prove that he was really dead'.

The truth of the answer to the question cannot be refuted, of course. Jesus Christ's burial did prove the reality of his death. His death on the cross was no sham; he did not swoon, only to be revived later. He died, to be raised later. Zacharias Ursinus, one of the co-authors with Caspar Olevian of the Heidelberg Catechism, enlarges on the question in his exposition, but without it, the Catechism is just stating the obvious.

But we might well ask the question – why was Jesus also buried? After all, is it not that he died for sinners at Calvary that is the heart of the Gospel? Certainly it is; but we forget that his death meant not only a moment of expiration, in which Jesus's heart stopped beating and his lungs stopped breathing. His death was also a descent into further self-emptying and abnegation; he died and stayed dead until it was no longer possible for death to hold him.

So, as the Old Testament had predicted, he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death. He was brought to the dust of death, and in him the sign of the prophet Jonah was fulfilled: just as the disobedient prophet had remained in the depth of his watery grave until the third day, so the obedient Son remained in the heart of the earth until the resurrection morning.

In his excellent work 'The Fountain of Life opened', the Puritan John Flavel deals with the subject of the burial of Christ. Flavel invites us to Jesus' funeral, 'such a funeral as never was since graves were first digged.' It is an amazing spectacle, he declares: 'The Lord is dead, and he that wears the keys of the grave at his girdle, is now himself to be locked up in the grave'

Flavel explores the limited biblical material on the topic of Jesus' burial. He highlights the preparations for it, as the body of Jesus was begged and perfumed, the bearers who carried his body – two disciples who now showed openly what they believed inwardly, the attendants who followed the hearse – women who would be last at the cross and first at the grave.

He speaks of the grave which received Jesus, and the disposition of his body in it. Then Flavel comments on the solemnity of the whole scene: 'it was, indeed, a funeral as decently ordered, as the straits of time, and state of things would then permit; but there was nothing of pomp or outward state at all observed: few marks of honour set by men upon it; only the heavens adorned it with divers miraculous works'.

So why was he also buried? The Heidelberg Catechism is not wrong in stating that it was to prove that Jesus was really dead. But that was only the beginning. First, he was buried to complete his humiliation. His degradation was not over with the cross. The corn of wheat had to fall into the ground. Just as the womb of Mary had held him at the beginning, the womb of the cursed ground held him at the end.

Second, he was buried to fulfil all the Old Testament prophecies and types which said as much. The great, messianic King, who would enter the glory, must enter Sheol, the realm of the dead. The threads of Old Testament messianism run down the long corridors of death. God's anointed King must see the grave, though he will see no corruption in it.

Third, he was buried in order that he might take the sting out of death. He entered death as a grave-robber, as one who would bind the rich man and plunder his goods. To use Flavel's words, 'the great end and reason of his interment was the conquering of death in its own dominion and territories'. Jesus was buried to defeat death on its own ground.

Fourth, he was buried in order that there might be a definitive break with sin on my part. In Paul's language, we are 'buried with him'. The funeral is not only his, it is also ours. Just as Jesus died and was buried, so that the place that knew him once knew him no more; so, in union with him, we too can live in new life.

'Come, see the place where the Lord lay'.

iaind@backfreechurch.co.uk