Let’s Talk about Cremation–Theologically

[Bert Perry]

Well, I don’t ever remember claiming to be an expert in the ancient languages, but one thing I can say is that when I read my references by world renowned experts like Kittel, Moody, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and the like, what they do to establish the sense of a word is to look at its usage in a range of settings. Simply “taking a poll of the translators of a single word in a single use”, as Rajesh proposes, pretty much violates the most basic principle in linguistics, that “usage determines meaning”—meaning “usage in a variety of settings”, of course. Kittel will use extraBiblical use, OT, NT, and the like to determine the sense of a word, for example.

(I was led to Christ by a linguistics major who’s now a professor, for reference, and was taught a touch of Hebrew by a now retired professor who taught me the same principle)

Since my method is a somewhat truncated version of what the actual experts do, I think I’ll follow their example, not Rajesh’s.

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.
Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”
According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.
Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

[RajeshG]

Bert Perry wrote:

Well, I don’t ever remember claiming to be an expert in the ancient languages, but one thing I can say is that when I read my references by world renowned experts like Kittel, Moody, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and the like, what they do to establish the sense of a word is to look at its usage in a range of settings. Simply “taking a poll of the translators of a single word in a single use”, as Rajesh proposes, pretty much violates the most basic principle in linguistics, that “usage determines meaning”—meaning “usage in a variety of settings”, of course. Kittel will use extraBiblical use, OT, NT, and the like to determine the sense of a word, for example.

(I was led to Christ by a linguistics major who’s now a professor, for reference, and was taught a touch of Hebrew by a now retired professor who taught me the same principle)

Since my method is a somewhat truncated version of what the actual experts do, I think I’ll follow their example, not Rajesh’s.

I had two years of Hebrew translation/exegesis in my doctoral program and know very well how the meaning of a particular word should be evaluated and determined.

Bert Perry drops names as if those names lend credibility to his statements. He mentions Brown-Driver-Briggs in his comments above.

Here is the BDB (full) entry in BibleWorks 10 for the Hebrew noun in question in Eccl. 6:3:

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.

Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”

According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.

Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Well, I don’t ever remember claiming to be an expert in the ancient languages, but one thing I can say is that when I read my references by world renowned experts like Kittel, Moody, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and the like, what they do to establish the sense of a word is to look at its usage in a range of settings. Simply “taking a poll of the translators of a single word in a single use”, as Rajesh proposes, pretty much violates the most basic principle in linguistics, that “usage determines meaning”—meaning “usage in a variety of settings”, of course. Kittel will use extraBiblical use, OT, NT, and the like to determine the sense of a word, for example.

(I was led to Christ by a linguistics major who’s now a professor, for reference, and was taught a touch of Hebrew by a now retired professor who taught me the same principle)

Since my method is a somewhat truncated version of what the actual experts do, I think I’ll follow their example, not Rajesh’s.

I had two years of Hebrew translation/exegesis in my doctoral program and know very well how the meaning of a particular word should be evaluated and determined.

Bert Perry drops names as if those names lend credibility to his statements. He mentions Brown-Driver-Briggs in his comments above.

Here is the BDB (full) entry in BibleWorks 10 for the Hebrew noun in question in Eccl. 6:3:

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.

Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”

According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.

Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

Is the meaning of this word limited to the type of burial commonly done at the time of the writing, or would it include any cultural type of burial?

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Well, I don’t ever remember claiming to be an expert in the ancient languages, but one thing I can say is that when I read my references by world renowned experts like Kittel, Moody, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and the like, what they do to establish the sense of a word is to look at its usage in a range of settings. Simply “taking a poll of the translators of a single word in a single use”, as Rajesh proposes, pretty much violates the most basic principle in linguistics, that “usage determines meaning”—meaning “usage in a variety of settings”, of course. Kittel will use extraBiblical use, OT, NT, and the like to determine the sense of a word, for example.

(I was led to Christ by a linguistics major who’s now a professor, for reference, and was taught a touch of Hebrew by a now retired professor who taught me the same principle)

Since my method is a somewhat truncated version of what the actual experts do, I think I’ll follow their example, not Rajesh’s.

I had two years of Hebrew translation/exegesis in my doctoral program and know very well how the meaning of a particular word should be evaluated and determined.

Bert Perry drops names as if those names lend credibility to his statements. He mentions Brown-Driver-Briggs in his comments above.

Here is the BDB (full) entry in BibleWorks 10 for the Hebrew noun in question in Eccl. 6:3:

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.

Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”

According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.

Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

Is the meaning of this word limited to the type of burial commonly done at the time of the writing, or would it include any cultural type of burial?

Ecclesiastes is divine revelation given by inspiration of the Spirit. Solomon was given exceeding wisdom from God to know and disseminate divine truth to an extent far greater than any man who had ever lived prior to Jesus of Nazareth. We can be confident that Solomon was speaking about burial that was acceptable to God.

To discuss further and properly what that type of burial might have been would require a thorough examination and discussion of all biblical references to types of burial. That study is not what I believe is appropriate when the topic of discussion of a thread is at a more fundamental and important level of whether God even wants people to buried or He does not care what people choose to do.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Well, I don’t ever remember claiming to be an expert in the ancient languages, but one thing I can say is that when I read my references by world renowned experts like Kittel, Moody, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and the like, what they do to establish the sense of a word is to look at its usage in a range of settings. Simply “taking a poll of the translators of a single word in a single use”, as Rajesh proposes, pretty much violates the most basic principle in linguistics, that “usage determines meaning”—meaning “usage in a variety of settings”, of course. Kittel will use extraBiblical use, OT, NT, and the like to determine the sense of a word, for example.

(I was led to Christ by a linguistics major who’s now a professor, for reference, and was taught a touch of Hebrew by a now retired professor who taught me the same principle)

Since my method is a somewhat truncated version of what the actual experts do, I think I’ll follow their example, not Rajesh’s.

I had two years of Hebrew translation/exegesis in my doctoral program and know very well how the meaning of a particular word should be evaluated and determined.

Bert Perry drops names as if those names lend credibility to his statements. He mentions Brown-Driver-Briggs in his comments above.

Here is the BDB (full) entry in BibleWorks 10 for the Hebrew noun in question in Eccl. 6:3:

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.

Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”

According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.

Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

Is the meaning of this word limited to the type of burial commonly done at the time of the writing, or would it include any cultural type of burial?

Ecclesiastes is divine revelation given by inspiration of the Spirit. Solomon was given exceeding wisdom from God to know and disseminate divine truth to an extent far greater than any man who had ever lived prior to Jesus of Nazareth. We can be confident that Solomon was speaking about burial that was acceptable to God.

To discuss further and properly what that type of burial might have been would require a thorough examination and discussion of all biblical references to types of burial. That study is not what I believe is appropriate when the topic of discussion of a thread is at a more fundamental and important level of whether God even wants people to buried or He does not care what people choose to do.

I’m simply asking about your personal belief based on the study you have already done at this point. One doesn’t have to do that intensive, all-encompassing research in order to come to a personal inclination as to what the Bible is teaching. Do you not even have a personal opinion about this question? Are you saying that, since you haven’t studied it out, that being buried only in supulchres could actually be the only proper way of burial?

[RajeshG]

I had two years of Hebrew translation/exegesis in my doctoral program and know very well how the meaning of a particular word should be evaluated and determined.

Bert Perry drops names as if those names lend credibility to his statements. He mentions Brown-Driver-Briggs in his comments above.

Here is the BDB (full) entry in BibleWorks 10 for the Hebrew noun in question in Eccl. 6:3:

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.

Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”

According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.

Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

Notice that Rajesh does not even acknowledge, let alone address, my argument; that since the acknowledged experts in linguistics build the semantic range of a word from a range of uses, it is a fool’s errand to, as he did, simply take a “poll” of translations of one word in one verse and call it good. It violates the most basic principle in linguistics. Moreover, BDB bears out my point—that the linguistic sense of a word is derived not from one use, but rather from a number of uses. Look at the citations in his quote. An honest man would catch on to this and concede the point.

Now add to that a personal attack, a diversionary tactic, and appeal to his authority, and we’ve got a grab bag of logical fallacies on his part. Rajesh, you could put 14 earned doctorates behind your name with decades of experience, but if you don’t start getting the basics in place, your work is utterly worthless. In terms of your actual ability to exegete the Scripture, you are far behind most first semester Bible college students.

[Bert Perry]

RajeshG wrote:

I had two years of Hebrew translation/exegesis in my doctoral program and know very well how the meaning of a particular word should be evaluated and determined.

Bert Perry drops names as if those names lend credibility to his statements. He mentions Brown-Driver-Briggs in his comments above.

Here is the BDB (full) entry in BibleWorks 10 for the Hebrew noun in question in Eccl. 6:3:

8407 ] קְבֻרָה8408) [Hebrew) (page 869) (Strong 6900)

† [קְבֻרָה] , and )4 t.קְבוּרָה ( n.f. grave, burial;—abs. קְבוּרָה Is 14:20 + 2 t.; cstr. קְבוּרֵת Je 22:19, קְבֻרַת Gn 35:20 +; sf. קְבֻרָתוֹ Dt 34:6 + ;—1. grave > Gn 35:20, 35:20, 47:30, Dt 34:6, 1 S 10:2, 2 K 9:28, 21:26, 23:30, Ez 32:23, 32:24; שְׂדֵה הַקּ׳: 2 Ch 26:23, 2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19.

Notice carefully that this lexical entry in BDB has two renderings for this noun (grave, burial) and then notice carefully which rendering BDB says is the one that they judge to be the right one for Ec 6:3: “2. burial, Is 14:20, Ec 6:3; קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר Je 22:19; bold added to the original.”

According to BDB, this noun is to be rendered “burial” in Eccl. 6:3.

SI forum users should understand that Bert Perry totally lacks any credibility in making these comments in which he in effect suggests that I do not know that “usage determines meaning,” etc. and that “world renowned experts like … Brown-Driver-Briggs” support his “method” and claims.

Moreover, Bert Perry’s comments about my citing how the vast majority of translators have rendered the noun seem to display his seriously faulty apparent view that the translators of all these major versions also do not understand that “usage determines meaning,” etc. In reality, good translators do understand such things and do examine such things when deciding how they believe a word should be rendered in a particular context.

Notice that Rajesh does not even acknowledge, let alone address, my argument; that since the acknowledged experts in linguistics build the semantic range of a word from a range of uses, it is a fool’s errand to, as he did, simply take a “poll” of translations of one word in one verse and call it good. It violates the most basic principle in linguistics. Moreover, BDB bears out my point—that the linguistic sense of a word is derived not from one use, but rather from a number of uses. Look at the citations in his quote. An honest man would catch on to this and concede the point.

Now add to that a personal attack, a diversionary tactic, and appeal to his authority, and we’ve got a grab bag of logical fallacies on his part. Rajesh, you could put 14 earned doctorates behind your name with decades of experience, but if you don’t start getting the basics in place, your work is utterly worthless. In terms of your actual ability to exegete the Scripture, you are far behind most first semester Bible college students.

First, lexicons do assemble definitions from a range of uses. However, a word only means one thing in a given context (aside from a double entendre). So a semantic range is where you decide a particular usage from.

Second, to the point at hand, it is unlikely that Ecc 6:3 refers to the method of disposition of the body based on the idea that wisdom literature often works by contrast. The contrast is between what seems like a good life (many children and many years) and a burial. The contrast to “many children and many years” is “not satisfied with good things and not a proper burial.” In this contrast, it would make little sense to say that you had many children and a long life, but you had a hard life and then they burned your body.” It would make much more sense (in life and in the argument of Ecclesiastes) to say, “you have many children and a long but hard life, and no one mourned you at your funeral.” Talk about confusing. You had a large family and no one missed you when you were gone.

Third, to both Bert and Rajesh, please restrain your rhetoric. Disagree agreeably or sit it out.

I’m curious how we should classify the handling of Saul’s body. Was this cremation or something else?

1 Samuel 31

11Now when the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 all the valiant men arose and traveled all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth Shan; and they came to Jabesh and burned them there. 13 Then they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

It certainly doesn’t correspond to the normal burial practices of ancient Israel as I have always understood them. Thoughts?

[pvawter]

I’m curious how we should classify the handling of Saul’s body. Was this cremation or something else?

It certainly doesn’t correspond to the normal burial practices of ancient Israel as I have always understood them. Thoughts?

After the death of Saul, instead of burying him, the Philistines intentionally desecrated his body by decapitating it and fastening it to the wall of Bethshan. This mistreatment was something Saul was hoping to avoid (1 Sam 31:4). Because of Saul’s earlier kindness to them, the men of Jabesh-gilead attempted to rectify this humiliation and give him a proper burial, which they do in 1 Sam 31:13. The big question is why did they first burn his corpse, especially when that was normally considered to be a contemptable action (cf., Amos 2:1)? Commentaries have suggested a couple reasons – (1) prevent the decayed body from becoming a contagion, or (2) preventing the Philistines from exposing the body once again. Later on, in 2 Sam 21:12-14, David regathers the bones of Saul (and Jonathan) and provides an even more appropriate burial.

The story highlights the pains (“valiant men arose and went all night…”) those in biblical times to give people a proper burial. If circumstances warranted the unusual need to burn the dead body, it was not completely incinerated.

@pvawter: I happened through this passage the other day and I think the ESV Study Bible suggested #2 from AndyE’s options above, and it seems plausible. Or I’d add that the burning was a kind of reversal to the desecration that already happened, in addition to preventing further desecration.

It seems vaguely analogous to proper flag burning. In one context (public protest), flag burning is a kind of symbolic violence; but US code actually prefers that you burn a flag that’s too worn out to keep using.

[Larry]

Second, to the point at hand, it is unlikely that Ecc 6:3 refers to the method of disposition of the body based on the idea that wisdom literature often works by contrast. The contrast is between what seems like a good life (many children and many years) and a burial. The contrast to “many children and many years” is “not satisfied with good things and not a proper burial.” In this contrast, it would make little sense to say that you had many children and a long life, but you had a hard life and then they burned your body.” It would make much more sense (in life and in the argument of Ecclesiastes) to say, “you have many children and a long but hard life, and no one mourned you at your funeral.” Talk about confusing. You had a large family and no one missed you when you were gone.

This morning, I created a blog post that I believe shows that Ecclesiastes 6:3 does stress the badness of not actually being buried and not (just) the badness of not having a funeral.

Here is the content of that post:

Does the Bible teach that having a burial is important? Scripture has much to say about that issue, including a key statement by Solomon:

Ecclesiastes 6:3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

Although Ecclesiastes 6:3 speaks explicitly about not having a burial as a very bad thing, some believers today hold that the verse is not talking about having a burial per se. Rather, they hold that the verse is teaching about the importance of not having a funeral and not necessarily the importance of a person’s not being buried.

Lamenting and Mourning Distinguished from Being Buried

Examining the following passages that speak about burial shows us that this interpretation is wrong because all the passages distinguish lamenting and mourning for the dead loved one, which is typically a very important part of funerals, from burying that loved one:

Gen. 50:7 And Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt . . . 10 And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad, which is beyond Jordan, and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation: and he made a mourning for his father seven days . . . 13 For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.

1 Sam. 25:1 And Samuel died; and all the Israelites were gathered together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah. And David arose, and went down to the wilderness of Paran.

1 Sam. 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.

2 Sam. 3:32 And they buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept.

2 Sam. 3:33 And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth?

2 Chr. 35:24 His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.

2 Chr. 35:25 And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.

Acts 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

Moreover, other passages clearly distinguish lamenting and mourning for dead people from burying them by revealing that none of these proper actions that are distinct from one another would be done for them:

Jer. 16:4 They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

Jer. 16:5 For thus saith the LORD, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go to lament nor bemoan them: for I have taken away my peace from this people, saith the LORD, even lovingkindness and mercies. 6 Both the great and the small shall die in this land: they shall not be buried, neither shall men lament for them, nor cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them:

Jer. 25:33 And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.

Conclusion

Scripture plainly teaches us that burying someone is distinct from lamenting and mourning his death. Based on what all these passages teach, Ecclesiastes 6:3 does not speak (merely) of how bad it is for a person to not have a funeral—it greatly stresses just how bad it is for a person not in actuality to be buried!

Examining the following passages that speak about burial shows us that this interpretation is wrong because all the passages distinguish lamenting and mourning for the dead loved one, which is typically a very important part of funerals, from burying that loved one:

It seems to me that what you've done is simply copy out a bunch of verses just because they contain the words "bury" and "lament" without them having much contextual tie to Eccl. 6:3. The way I see it, the verses you posted don't show a distinction between lamenting and burying as much as they show how closely tied together the two normally are.

Is it your position that Eccl. 6:3 does not refer to the lack of lament at all but is solely and completely focused on the physical disposition of the physical body?

It seems to me that what you've done is simply copy out a bunch of verses just because they contain the words "bury" and "lament" without them having much contextual tie to Eccl. 6:3. The way I see it, the verses you posted don't show a distinction between lamenting and burying as much as they show how closely tied together the two normally are.

Is it your position that Eccl. 6:3 does not refer to the lack of lament at all but is solely and completely focused on the physical disposition of the physical body?

Of course, the verses that I cited show plainly a distinction. In particular, the divine statements of the denial of multiple things to certain sinful people proves that lamenting is not the same thing as burying, etc.

My position is that Eccl. 6:3 is certainly divine revelation that speaks of how bad not being buried is. Regardless of whether it is also communicating some other points indirectly, including about lamenting, mourning, having a funeral, etc., it shows that the Bible explicitly teaches (by way of a strongly negative statement about the badness of not being buried) that actually being buried is vitally important.