Cremation or Burial

[Lewis]

Which do you prefer, Cremation or Burial, some Christians say that cremation is not Biblical. With cremation you return to dust much faster. While being buried, if you are embalmed right, and because you are underground where it is cool, you can last up to 35 or more years before you waste away, providing ground water has not breached your casket. So what do you say, Cremation or Burial ? And if you don't agree with cremation why ? And if you don't think that it is Biblical, prove it.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Cremation is the way to go. It is only our earthly bodies that are burning. I dont think there are any instructions biblically stating we have to be buried. Want my ashes thrown into the ocean when that day comes.

 

[handy]

This is a disagreement that cropped up in my own family last year when death was being discussed. I think it's kind of a generational thing. Mom and Dad were against cremation and felt that burial was a significant symbol for resurrection. However, as the summer progressed, both of them seemed to realize that cremation would have no effect on resurrection. They wouldn't choose cremation for themselves, but they really got to a point of believing that it truly didn't matter.

I'm OK with cremation. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. This is from the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer:

Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

 

[Lewis]

Use to hear that prayer at every funeral

 

[Vic C.]

Cremation. Burial is expensive, it is a waste of time and money. Personally, I find traditional burials very ritualistic. BTW, most of the ashes from a cremation are from the simple box you are in when cremated. Some of what's in there are leftover, crushed up bones. Since the body is mostly water and moisture, the bulk of you evaporates.

Physical bodily resurrection is debatable anyway since it's our heart and soul which is saved.

 

[Drew]

Mom and Dad were against cremation and felt that burial was a significant symbol for resurrection.

I think that Mom and Dad are right, for precisely the reason stated. When we choose cremation, we are, I suggest, not properly projecting the Christian story to the world. If we understand the Scriptures properly, we realize that our future state will be in physical bodies. So while, of course, God can and will resurrect a cremated person (as you state), the very act of cremation very subtly implies a denial of this. Why? Because cremation implicitly buys into a non-Biblical body-spririt dualism by enacting the entire incineration of the body - as if the body were just a shell that housed our real essence.

The issues here are symbolic ones - I am in no way suggesting that cremation prevents full bodily resurrection. Its just that when you make the intentional effort of incinerating a body, you implicitly deny the importance of our "physicality".

There are, of course, other considerations. If we start to run out of "room" to bury people, that is an argument for cremation. But I do not think one can under-estimate the symbolic value of conventional burial - it says to the world "here I lie in the goodness of my physicality awaiting the resurrection".

 

[Free]

What's interesting is that cremation and the placing or spreading of one's ashes in a certain location is traditionally found only in Eastern religions (no concept or hope of physical resurrection) while burial was and still is practiced by Jews and Eastern Orthodox (hope of physical resurrection).

While the Bible remains silent on cremation it certainly speaks of burial. Cremation isn't biblical in that the Bible says nothing of it. So the onus isn't on those that think it unbiblical but on those who think that it is okay as Christians to do so.


Ahh...looks like Drew beat me to the punch. ;)

 

[Drew]

Physical bodily resurrection is debatable anyway since it's our heart and soul which is saved.

As I think you know, I think it is clear that we will enjoy an entirely embodied, and therefore, physical existence as our ultimate end state.

I am always surprised when I read people questioning bodily resurrection. Jesus clearly had a resurrection body and Paul declared it to be the same kind that we will get - arms, legs, head, eyes, stomach - the whole nine yards.

Besides, bodily resurrection is the ultimate sign that God is indeed affirming the goodness of the very physical world that He created and declared to be "very good". I suggest that God is engaged in a long plan of redemption of all of His creation, rescuing not just us, but the entire cosmos. This idea is endorsed in places like Colossians and Ephesians.

If God ends up "burning the cosmos away to nothing" and having us in a disembodied "spirit" state for eternity, that plan seems to have only partly been successful.

 

[Lewis]

Here is a article that I found

Question: "What does the Bible say about cremation? Should Christians be cremated?"

Answer: The Bible does not give any specific teaching about cremation. There are occurrences in the Old Testament of people being burned to death (1 Kings 16:18; 2 Kings 21:6) and of human bones being burned (2 Kings 23:16-20), but these are not examples of cremation. It is interesting to note that in 2 Kings 23:16-20, burning human bones on an altar desecrated the altar. At the same time, the Old Testament law nowhere commands that a deceased human body not be burned, nor does it attach any curse or judgment on someone who is cremated.

Cremation was practiced in biblical times, but it was not commonly practiced by the Israelites or by New Testament believers. In the cultures of Bible times, burial in a tomb, cave, or in the ground was the common way to dispose of a human body (Genesis 23:19; 35:4; 2 Chronicles 16:14; Matthew 27:60-66). While burial was the common practice, the Bible nowhere commands burial as the only allowed method of disposing of a body.

Is cremation something a Christian can consider? Again, there is no explicit scriptural command against cremation. Some believers object to the practice of cremation on the basis it does not recognize that one day God will resurrect our bodies and re-unite them with our soul/spirit (1 Corinthians 15:35-58; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). However, the fact that a body has been cremated does not make it any more difficult for God to resurrect that body. The bodies of Christians who died a thousand years ago have, by now, completely turned into dust. This will in no way prevent God from being able to resurrect their bodies. He created them in the first place; He will have no difficulty re-creating them. Cremation does nothing but “expedite†the process of turning a body into dust. God is equally able to raise a person’s remains that have been cremated as He is the remains of a person who was not cremated. The question of burial or cremation is within the realm of Christian freedom. A person or a family considering this issue should pray for wisdom (James 1:5) and follow the conviction that results.
http://www.gotquestions.org/cremation-Bible.html

 

[Vic C.]

If God ends up "burning the cosmos away to nothing" and having us in a disembodied "spirit" state for eternity, that plan seems to have only partly been successful.

I never implied that. I believe it is clear that God will be "issuing" us new, incorruptible bodies, out with the old and in with the new; flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom; He makes all things new. My hope is not in this body of mine. My hope is in salvation and whatever method God chooses to reunite my soul and spirit.

Why cling to this ol' body that can be seen as an earthly treasure which is prone to corruption anyway? Instead, cling to the hope (and promise, btw) that God will give us something greater than we could ever conceive. Why put a brand new engine that will last an eternity in an old rusted out body and chassis?

Lewis, thanks for the article.

At the same time, the Old Testament law nowhere commands that a deceased human body not be burned, nor does it attach any curse or judgment on someone who is cremated.

 

[Drew]

Why cling to this ol' body that can be seen as an earthly treasure which is prone to corruption anyway?

I have already argued for why cremation sends a less than ideal message. Perhaps those arguments are not convincing, but they are what they are.

I think an important subtlety is often overlooked about Jesus' resurrection that speaks to the point you raise. When Jesus was resurrected, did He get an entirely "new" body? Not really. The graveclothes were empty - Jesus' resurrection body was formed out of His old one. If that were not so, we would still have Jesus' 'corruptible' body in the tomb. And what about the marks of the crucifixion in his hands.

It is pretty clear that Jesus' old body was not "tossed out" - it was "re-worked" or transformed. The old body was not "discarded", with a new one replacing it. Instead, the new sprang from the old.

This is relevant to the topic since cremation implicitly, albeit subtly, denies this important truth. By cremating the body, you send the world the message that God is not going to redeem his fallen creation. Why does cremation send such a message? Well, when you intentionally burn away the "old", you are, by that very action, declaring the old to be "valueless" and worthy of incineration.

That denies an important theological truth - God is in the "repairing" business, not in the "replacing" business.

 

[Vic C.]

No one saw Jesus in HIs glorified state, because He had not ascended yet. Jesus even mentions this in John 20:17. We just don't know what He looks like now.

Anyway, I didn't come in here to argue and I'm not trying to convince you or anyone of anything other than using sound logic and personal convictions. The simple fact that the Bible makes no restrictions against cremation is fine for me. In this case, I will not rely on spiritualizing or resorting to the symbolic nature of funerals and burials, which come from man anyway. You like logic, please read the article Lewis posted. It dismisses any legalism involved in how we are to dispose of this flesh once it expires.

How you wish to be disposed of once dead is a matter of conscience.

 

[Vic C.]

That denies an important theological truth - God is in the "repairing" business, not in the "replacing" business.

From the article Lewis posted:

The bodies of Christians who died a thousand years ago have, by now, completely turned into dust.

Later! I'm out of this thread.

 

[Drew]

No one saw Jesus in HIs glorified state, because He had not ascended yet. Jesus even mentions this in John 20:17. We just don't know what He looks like now.

I doubt it. Can you please tell us precisely what you means by a glorified body - what further transformation has Jesus yet to undergo following the resurrection?

In this text from 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is saying that the resurrection body we will get is like the one that Jesus already has:

42So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Paul is telling us what kind of body we will get, and he refers to Jesus already having a spiritual body. The argument loses flow otherwise. Paul talks about resurrection in terms of all these transitions: perishable to unperishable, dishonour to honour, weakness to power, natural to spiritual. Now clearly we know what the first term in all these comparisons denotes – it is our present corruptible bodies. Equally, we know that the second term in the comparisons denotes the resurrection body.

Paul then caps the series of comparisons with an Adam to Christ comparison. Now unless Paul does not know how to construct a proper argument, we know that that Adam figure is being put forward as an example of the fallen body and the Jesus figure (the last Adam) is being put forward as an example of the resurrection body. Is he referring to Jesus’ body as it will be in some future “glorified†state? No. He is referring to Jesus in terms of what has already happened to him – He has already become a life-giving spirit.

Also, consider this from earlier in the chapter:

22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at (AJ)His coming,

Now clearly Paul is talking resurrection here – stating that Christ has already been raised and we will also be raised at his return. Now think back to first text – the one with comparisons capped with the Adam to Jesus comparison. The question one needs to ask is this: Would Paul, in verses 22-23, suggest the already accomplished resurrection of Jesus as the model for our future resurrection and then later (in verses 42 and following) refer to the already risen Jesus as providing the prototype for the resurrection body, and expect us to conclude anything other than the resurrection body of the believer.

The point of all this is to re-affirm that God will not “replace†our bodies, precisely because He did not “replace†Jesus’ body. Jesus’ is the template – the first-fruits, the model. So if God created Jesus’ resurrection body “using up†the material from his “mortal bodyâ€Â, this is a strong, albeit subtle endorsement of the goodness of the present created order, including the human body.

And when we incinerate it away, we send the wrong symbolic message. Of course, God can and will resurrect the cremated. But cremation is not ideal for the Christian since it endorses the notion that the present body is not part of God’s plan to redeem, fix, and transform hi created order. Instead, it suggests a “replacement†model. And there are huge theological problems with the message that sends.

 

[Drew]

You like logic, please read the article Lewis posted. It dismisses any legalism involved in how we are to dispose of this flesh once it expires.

Of course, I am not making any kind of a "legalistic" argument. My argument is what it is, but it is certainly not an appeal to "legalism", it is an appeal to the symbolic power of our actions in the telling the story of redemption to the world. And a cemetary full of "non-cremated" bodies of believers sends the powerful symbolic message that we are awaitng the trumpet to have our dead and decaying bodies transformend and renewed, not replaced.

 

[Drew]

That denies an important theological truth - God is in the "repairing" business, not in the "replacing" business.

From the article Lewis posted:

[quote:og7oin0d]The bodies of Christians who died a thousand years ago have, by now, completely turned into dust.

[/quote:og7oin0d]
I am not sure what your point is here, but the fact that saints have died and returned to dust does no damage at all the symbolic benefit of conventional burial. Obviously, we return to dust. Do you think I do not realize this? But, as has been argued already, our intentional incineration of the body sends the wrong message to the world.

 

[Free]

The main problem I have with God issuing a new body as opposed to restoring the current one is that such an argument could be used to support Gnosticism--physical is bad, spirit is good. Similarly, that is why I wouldn't want "who shall change our vile body" spoken at my funeral. Everything physical that God created he declared to be good. He is in the process of restoring creation, physical bodies included.

 

[Lewis]

Why cling to this ol' body that can be seen as an earthly treasure which is prone to corruption anyway?

I have already argued for why cremation sends a less than ideal message. Perhaps those arguments are not convincing, but they are what they are.

I think an important subtlety is often overlooked about Jesus' resurrection that speaks to the point you raise. When Jesus was resurrected, did He get an entirely "new" body? Not really. The graveclothes were empty - Jesus' resurrection body was formed out of His old one. If that were not so, we would still have Jesus' 'corruptible' body in the tomb. And what about the marks of the crucifixion in his hands.

It is pretty clear that Jesus' old body was not "tossed out" - it was "re-worked" or transformed. The old body was not "discarded", with a new one replacing it. Instead, the new sprang from the old.

This is relevant to the topic since cremation implicitly, albeit subtly, denies this important truth. By cremating the body, you send the world the message that God is not going to redeem his fallen creation. Why does cremation send such a message? Well, when you intentionally burn away the "old", you are, by that very action, declaring the old to be "valueless" and worthy of incineration.

That denies an important theological truth - God is in the "repairing" business, not in the "replacing" business.

Question, what happens to the saved, who gets blown to bits in war, or the ones who burned up in 9/11. And one more thing embalming considered heathen also, in Old and New, I think Joseph was the first man of God to use it, but the Bible does not promote it, but yet we do it world wide.

 

[Drew]

Question, what happens to the saved, who gets blown to bits in war, or the ones who burned up in 9/11

I really tried to be clear about this, but perhaps I wasn't. I am not, repeat not, saying that being cremated in any sense whatsoever affects whether one will be resurrected.

Instead, I am arguing that cremation sends a less than ideal symbolic message to the rest of the world re the content of the Christian worldview.

 

[Lewis]

And one more thing embalming is considered heathen also, in Old and New, I think Joseph was the first man of God to use it, but the Bible does not promote it, but yet we do it world wide. The Bible does not tell us to drain the blood out of our bodies, puncture our organs with a trocar and glue our eyes shut, it tells us none of that, but yet it is done to Bible folks every second of the day around the world.