"Is Cremation Christian"?

[Craig Toliver]

RajeshG wrote:Hijacking threads is very effective in preventing those with opposing viewpoints from conducting discussions about subjects from the Bible the way that they want to discuss them.

Here it is: “Try to stay on topic. This is a famously subjective call. Do your best. If you think your comment might be seen as unrelated, include something to help us see the connection.”

The thread is “Is Cremation Christian”

My point of view is that it’s the best choice, my choice, but a 3rd order doctrine. I’m completely on topic. You don’t like it but I’m in the room and I will not be shut down or bullied by you

[Larry]

Rajesh, When you post a topic, you cannot prevent people from commenting. You are free to ignore comments or people that you don’t wish to respond to. Do not start another thread on the same topic. Confine it to this thread.

This thread is not being hijacked. People are expressing disagreement with you and telling why. That’s the way a discussion works.

[Craig Toliver]

Also you dodge conversation points (many examples in this thread) that you seem to be befuddled to answer. Example from way up this thread - how did Paul deal with the cremation issue.

[Craig Toliver]

RajeshG wrote:I believe that it is being hijacked because I want to discuss Bible passages but they want to discuss 1st order vs 3rd order doctrines, etc.

Not really true!

This instead: “Is Cremation Christian? Is cremation vs burial vs the half of dozen other ways to dispose of a body (like this (joking) ) a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd order doctrine?!

Ultimately, the Bible is God’s self-revelation of Himself and His mind. Paying attention to what God Himself has ordained and done concerning burial, etc. is absolutely and fully legitimate and vital to a proper understanding of His mind and what He wants His people to do.
To that end, I have presented 4 passages so far that all explicitly deal with divine actions:
divine promise of burial, divine command for burial, divine burying of a human, and divine choice of not burning two sinful Israelite priests to powder.

[Craig Toliver]

RajeshG wrote:

Ultimately, the Bible is God’s self-revelation of Himself and His mind. Paying attention to what God Himself has ordained and done concerning burial, etc. is absolutely and fully legitimate and vital to a proper understanding of His mind and what He wants His people to do.

To that end, I have presented 4 passages so far that all explicitly deal with divine actions:

divine promise of burial, divine command for burial, divine burying of a human, and divine choice of not burning two sinful Israelite priests to powder.

“And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes, and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.” Numbers 11:1

[Craig Toliver]

“And all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, “Lest the earth swallow us up!” And a fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men offering the incense.” Numbers 16:34-36

Same Hebrew verb is used here as in Lev. 10 and Num. 11 and does not mean burned their bodies (to powder; i.e., cremated).

[Craig Toliver]

“If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.” Lev 20:14

[Craig Toliver]

“all the valiant men arose and went 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.” (1 Samuel 31:12)

[Craig Toliver]

Basically my view:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/to-bury-or-burn-c…

Full paper: https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/static-blogs/justin-taylor/files/20… (13 pages)

After reviewing some of the key historical, Biblical, and theological considerations that have been a part of the moral discussion of cremation within the Judeo-Christian tradition, ultimately the practice must be viewed as an adiaphora issue [i.e., something biblically indifferent]. This being said, however, it seems legitimate to draw the following three conclusions.

1. First, church history witnesses considerable opposition toward cremation with the normative practice of the church being burial.
2. Second, while Scripture is silent on the specifics of how to treat the deceased, both the example of Biblical characters and the general trajectory of related passages seem to be in a pro-burial direction.
3. Third, the body is theologically significant; thus, both the act of and the imagery conveyed by the treatment of the deceased ought to be weighed carefully.

Certainly not all deaths will afford loved ones an opportunity to choose the method of interment. Indeed, factors such as the location and manner of death, nation-specific legal parameters, as well as the resources of the surviving family will bear upon funerary practices and decisions. Yet, if given a choice, those left behind ought to consider carefully what is being communicated in their handling of the body of a decedent. After all, within the Christian tradition, funerals are not simply ways of disposing of dead bodies, nor are they solely about remembering the departed or expressing grief. Rather, for believers, funerals ought to be Christ-centered events, testifying to the message and hope of the gospel.

I posted the following elsewhere tonight. It reveals fierce divine judgment on those who burned the bones of a human being to powder and teaches us plainly about God’s mind:

Amos 2:1-3 is direct divine speech that reveals fierce divine punishment on a pagan nation for burning the bones of a pagan king into lime:

Amos 2:1Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime: 2 But I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the palaces of Kirioth: and Moab shall die with tumult, with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet: 3 And I will cut off the judge from the midst thereof, and will slay all the princes thereof with him, saith the Lord.

God provided this revelation on purpose because He wanted to communicate truth not just about the sinful people involved–most importantly, He wanted to communicate truth about Himself and His mind.

To understand and profit fully from this revelation, we need to ponder the answers to two key questions:

What does this passage teach us about God?

Why does God want us to know this information?

If God judged the pagan Moabites for burning to powder a pagan king, what do the following verses imply about His mindset about those who burn the bodies of believers to powder?

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

We are a royal priesthood! We are kings unto our God and Father! We will reign on the earth!

Because God was intensely displeased when pagans burned the bones of a pagan king to powder, how much more intensely displeased is He when anyone burns the body of one of His royal saints to powder!

Our bodies belong to Him. We are not free to do whatever we want to them.

Through this revelation, He has made known that He does not want human bodies burned, etc. to powder (except when He may have specifically authorized it as a form of judgment). Burial—not cremation—is the mind of God for His own!

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

A careful reading of the passage reveals an important truth about God’s use of fire to judge them:

Lev. 10:4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.

5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.

Because their cousins carried them out in their coats, we know that the fire that God used to kill them neither consumed their clothing nor burned them to powder.

I really don’t think these verses are saying what you think they are saying. I don’t see any reason to assume that God miraculously spared the clothing of Nadab and Abihu when He burned them up.

Look closely at the first part of verse 5. Who is that part referring to? Who is the “they”? I understand it to be referring to Mishael and Elzaphan. Moses told them to carry their brethren in the previous verse. So they (Mishael and Elzaphan) went near, and carried them (Nadab and Abihu) in their (Mishael’s and Elzaphan’s) coats. I get the picture of Mishael and Elzaphan pulling their coats a little bit away from their bodies, forming a sort of pouch in front of them, into which they put the ashes of their brethren. This shows that there were very little ashes remaining since they could carry the ashes out in the folds of their own coats. It looks to me that Nadab and Abihu pretty much were burned to powder.

(bold in original; underlining added to original; The Bible Knowledge Commentary: OT, 189)
I will check others as well, as time allows.
It seems especially bizarre to me that you think that the cousins used their own coats to carry the supposed dust of Nadab and Abihu out.

Come on, Rajesh, you should have learned this at BJU. You
should not be making mistakes like this with your level of
training.

Really, Rajesh’s exegetical method reminds me of the old joke
where a man is looking for guidance from God, and decides
he’ll get it by opening the Bible and reading whatever he saw.
So he opens first to Matthew 27:5, and then, rather sad about
that lack of guidance, opens next to the second half of Luke
10:37.

Come on, Rajesh, with your training, you should have learned
by sophomore year that a lot of these things are word pictures
and not absolutes. You can do (or at least ought to be able
to do) better than this.

Are there any fair-minded people on SI who would be willing to voice their objections to this kind of inexcusable conduct of repeated personal attacks and insults?
Why does this person get to do this repeatedly to me on a Christian discussion board? Voicing disagreement is one thing, but this is not right.

[Bert Perry]

Rajesh, if you’re that worked up about “you should have learned” or “you can do better”, how on earth did you survive college?

Really, if I’m that out of line in claiming that using narrative passages to establish doctrine is dangerous business, you ought to be able to prove that I’m wrong. But the fact of the matter is, as others besides myself have noted, that narrative tends to show what was, but not necessarily what is absolutely right or what must be.

So again, Rajesh, you should know better than to do things like this, because it’s standard fare in first semester exegesis classes, and you’re claiming to have a PhD in New Testament Interpretation. And that’s why I brought up the joke about the guy who opens first to “Judas went and hanged himself”, and then “you go and do the same.” It’s the same abuse of exegetical principles, using narrative for doctrine and taking verses way out of context.

[Craig Toliver]

Your own church doesn’t view burial as a 1st or 2nd order issue!

From your own testimony below:

https://apeopleforhisname.org/about/about-rajesh-gandhi/

I have been attending Mount Calvary Baptist Church since I first came to Greenville and became a member in 1996

I noticed that there are ordination statements posted of two ordained by Mount Calvary Baptist Church

https://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/pages/resources/detail/1/14

Neither even mention cremation / burial! Proving that for these 2 men and your church cremation / burial! is NOT a 1st or 2nd order issue!

Under non-negotiables https://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/pages/about/detail/2/10

Cremation / burial is not even mentioned - Proving that cremation / burial! is NOT a 1st or 2nd order issue for Mount Calvary Baptist Church!

Ditto for your church’s position on the gospel: https://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/the-gospel/

Your church views cremation is an adiaphora issue and you should as well!

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Your claim that the antecedent of “their” in “their coats” is the cousins is a strange and unnatural reading of the passage.

I don’t think it’s a strange or unnatural reading at all. I think it’s bizarre that you would hold that the clothing was miraculously spared when God burned up Nadab and Abihu. What would be the purpose of that miracle?

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Your claim that the antecedent of “their” in “their coats” is the cousins is a strange and unnatural reading of the passage.

I don’t think it’s a strange or unnatural reading at all. I think it’s bizarre that you would hold that the clothing was miraculously spared when God burned up Nadab and Abihu. What would be the purpose of that miracle?

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

(5) And carried them in their coats.—Better, and they carried them in their tunics, the long white, garments in which they ministered, and which were the most characteristic part of the sacerdotal vestments. In ordinary cases the cast-off dresses of the priests were converted into wick for the lamps of the sanctuary, but in this case they were buried with the persons, for, apart from their becoming unclean by their contact with the corpses, no one would have used them, having been worn at a time of so awful a visitation.

Out of the camp.—Burial places in ancient times were outside the towns in open fields. (See Genesis 23:9; Genesis 23:17; Matthew 27:7; Luke 8:27.)

Benson Commentary

Leviticus 10:5. In their coats — In the holy garments wherein they ministered; which might be done, either, 1st, As a testimony of respect due to them, notwithstanding their present failure; and that God in judgment remembered mercy, and when he took away their lives, spared their souls. Or, 2d, Because, being polluted both by their sin, and by the touch of their dead bodies, God would not have them any more used in his service.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Coats - See Exodus 28:39. Life had been extinguished as if by a flash of lightning, but neither the bodies nor the dresses were destroyed.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

4, 5. Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan—The removal of the two corpses for burial without the camp would spread the painful intelligence throughout all the congregation; and the remembrance of so appalling a judgment could not fail to strike a salutary fear into the hearts both of priests and people. The interment of the priestly vestments along with Nadab and Abihu, was a sign of their being polluted by the sin of their irreligious wearers.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary

In their coats; in the holy garments wherein they ministered; which might be done either,
1. As a testimony of a respect due to them, notwithstanding their present failure; and that God in judgment remembered mercy, and when he took away their lives, spared their souls. Or,
2. Because being polluted both by their sin, and by the touch of their dead bodies, God would not have them any more used in his service.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

So they went near,…. To the place where the bodies lay, having an order from Moses so to do, let them have been where they will:

and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said; or bid them do; they took them up in their clothes as they found them, and carried them in them; not that these men carried them in their own coats, but in the coats of the dead, as Jarchi expresses it; and had them without the camp, and there buried them, probably in their coats in which they had sinned, and in which they died: the Targum of Jonathan says, they carried them on iron hooks in their coats, and buried them without the camp.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

5. their coats] their priestly garments. See on Leviticus 8:13.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 5. - They went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp. Their coats were the tunics which they had put on as their priestly attire (Leviticus 8:13). The lightning flash which had struck them down had not injured their clothes. As Mishael and Elzaphan became ceremonially defiled by contact with the corpses, and as the Passover was now at hand, it has been thought that it was in reference to their case that the concession was made, that those d, filed by a dead body might keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the second instead of the first month (Numbers 9:6-11). The defilement caused by death ceased when Christ had died. Leviticus 10:5

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Moses then commanded Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel Aaron’s paternal uncle, Aaron’s cousins therefore, to carry their brethren (relations) who had been slain from before the sanctuary out of the camp, and, as must naturally be supplied, to bury them there. The expression, “before the sanctuary” (equivalent to “before the tabernacle of the congregation” in Leviticus 9:5), shows that they had been slain in front of the entrance to the holy place. They were carried out in their priests’ body-coats, since they had also been defiled by the judgment. It follows from this, too, that the fire of Jehovah had not burned them up, but had simply killed them as with a flash of lightning.

I regret that I have to share the following information on a Christian discussion board.
I only do so because I believe that I have been relentlessly attacked on SI by Bert Perry (and a few others) on a personal level concerning my qualifications, training, and capabilities.
In defense of my qualifications, training, and capabilities:
I graduated as a co-valedictorian of my high school class and earned many scholastic honors. In my university education, I was at or near the top of my class for all 4 of my earned degrees.
I earned an A (A- in one class) grade in every undergraduate and graduate Bible and seminary class that I have taken in my seminary education for both of my graduate seminary degrees.
I have preached and taught numerous times in many churches here in the US and overseas. In response to my ministering of the Word of God, many people have given me recommendations of my ministry.
In order to defend myself against Bert Perry’s unjustified, repeated attacks against my qualifications, training, and capabilities that he has engaged in during nearly my entire time on SI, I appeal to every fair-minded reader of SI to read these recommendations:
A People for His Name | Recommendations
Again, I would never have done this under other circumstances, but it simply is not right that Bert Perry has assailed me over and over again concerning my qualifications, training, and capabilities.
I hope that these recommendations from seven pastors will serve to counter Bert Perry’s ongoing campaign against me.

[Dan Miller]

I admit to following this thread only from a distance.

SECOND, here are my thoughts…

I have seen discussions about the destiny of Saul. He was [filled] with the spirit early and prophesied. But he seems to have died in a state of unbelief and orientation against God’s will. But I have never seen his cremation offered as evidence of his lost state.

Does this question matter?

Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, and many others were burned. In the case of Wycliffe, the Church of Rome decided this wasn’t bad enough, so later they dug up his ashes and scattered them in the river.

Will those men not see resurrection because their bodies were burned?

[josh p]

Rajesh,

In my ten or so years on SI there has been a pretty wide range of views presented. I myself have put forward some views that have not been well-received which I am fine with. Some have moved on after their views were repeatedly challenged. SI is not a blog but a discussion forum. One should expect to have their views challenged. We are after all iron sharpening iron.

As for Bert’s challenge surrounding your credentials, I can only say that I was surprised to hear that you have a PHD. I mean no disrespect so please don’t take it that way. You are obviously intelligent and dedicated to the Lord and the study of His word. It’s just that, and I think some here would echo this, your interpretive method is sometimes unusual. I am on record in the first or second post in this thread agreeing with you about cremation, although I qualified it to say that I don’t have confidence to bind another’s conscience about it. However, I would not make the argument the way that you have been and frankly, I don’t think your hermeneutic is legitimate. I have a lowly undergrad in Bible and theology but not doing what you are doing (descriptive–>prescriptive) was pretty strongly warned against. I have read many books (maybe a handful would be more accurate) on hermeneutics and interpretation and they all consistently condemn the type of argument you are making. You make the same type of argument in your various music threads. I don’t know how else to say it but your interpretations just seem novel.

I consistently see this pattern: You say you want to have a conversation about a specific Bible passage. You make illegitimate biblical inferences from said passage. People point it out and you (seemingly and probably sometimes legitimately) get offended at the way you are responded to.

I can understand being offended if you feel you are being directly insulted but, with a PHD, you are among the more highly educated people here and it should be pretty easy for you to shrug off disagreement; or even better, overwhelm us with solid biblical persuasion. In general I read your threads with interest until you begin to make illegitimate hermeneutical connections and then I read only sporadically.

I’m thankful for your presence here and you have helped me to think through some things and sharpen my understanding. I hope you will not allow people disagreeing with you on the internet to offend you and will instead reevaluate your positions to see if you can be more convincing.

[Dan Miller]

I thought you would agree about the resurrection.
And I wasn’t replying to anything you said regarding Saul. Just thinking out loud about the topic.