"Is Cremation Christian"?

The article, “Is Cremation Christian?” is an excellent article that treats why the pagan practice of cremation is not Christian.

Poll Results

“Is Cremation Christian”?

Cremation is not legitimate for Christians. Votes: 1
Cremation is legitimate for Christians. Votes: 12

(Migrated poll)

N/A
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 0

Discussion

[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

I have not done anything to try to shut you down or bully you. My original comment to which you responded was not directed toward you. I got an email notification about your original comment that showed that you misread what I wrote as if I was speaking to you or about you. I have a screenshot of that original comment by you that shows that you misread what I wrote and then changed it from “I …” to say that “Dave … “
My comment was in response to what I believe Dave implied about what he would do if I were to have another thread. You jumped into a comment that was directed toward Dave, misread it, and now are trying to make it look I targeted you.

Aside for Rajesh: you’re doing a commendable job to:

  • Raise the issue
  • Trace burial narratives and passages (Kudos on God buried Moses. Excellent point and thanks)

Frankly I’m convinced burial is the choice I should make

The weakness of your presentation thus far is making it a 1st or 2nd order doctrine. I’m not even convinced you buy into the concept of doctrinal triage. Perhaps you could comment on that.

Further aside and this is personal: Perhaps face to face you’re easier to have a conversation with, but online you seem to take a very unnuanced view of things. Peripheral teachings are very black and white to you. Using words and phrases like “hijack” the thread and “suppress” the conversation are not helpful.

Moderators - feel free to edit this post if it is deemed offensive.

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.

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.

[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.

I disagree with your assessment, but will comply since you are a moderator. 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.

[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.

I am not befuddled to answer “conversation points.” I am not going to get into a premature discussion that will divert the thread from a discussion of actual passages. I will respond to your statement about Paul much later after I have treated a lot more Bible to lay the foundation for my answer.

[RajeshG] 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?!

[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?!

I am not interested in any discussion of your notions about fundamentalists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd order doctrine, etc. and will not be commenting on such things at any point in this thread.

[RajeshG] I am not interested in any discussion of your notions about fundamentalists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd order doctrine, etc. and will not be commenting on such things at any point in this thread.

Fine but perhaps others will find it valuable AND here’s why it’s important:

  • Because “In 2021, the US cremation rate was 57.5%. In 2020, 56.1%. By 2025, the US cremation rate is projected to reach 64.1%”
    • My sense is that the practice is growing b/c it’s the cheaper option AND
    • Because tradition burials are getting so expensive AND
    • Because Christians (as consumers) are strapped financially and have failed to to adequately prepare
  • Because Christians are choosing this option for themselves and for their loved ones: Anecdotes:
    • A friend didn’t even have a funeral for a parent … the parent was cremated and the remains sent 1000 miles away for interment
    • A dear friend (a godly man) died in 2021 and was cremated
    • I’ve know of cases where cremated remains are stored in the back of closets …
  • Because elders either have or will soon confront the issue
  • If cremation is a 1st order doctrine, church doctrinal statements should be updated and sinners (if it’s a sin) should be confronted

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.

[RajeshG]

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

“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

“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

“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]
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

The Heb. verb “consumed” here is the same verb as in Lev. 10 where it did not mean burned to powder (Nadab and Abihu were carried out in their coats after they had been burned). As God used fire to kill Nadab and Abihu but not to burn their bodies (to powder; i.e., cremated), so He did likewise here when He judged these people.

[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

This same Hebrew verb is used in Lev. 10:6 to speak of what happened to Nadab and Abihu whose bodies were not burned to powder (i.e, cremated). Lev. 20:14 was not a command to cremate these to powder.

[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)

The men of Jabesh Gilead did not cremate Saul and his sons. They did burn their bodies but their bones were preserved and later buried (1 Sam. 31:13). David did not commend them for burning their bodies. He only commended them for burying them (2 Sam. 2:4-6).

Basically my view:

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

Full paper: https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/static-blogs/justin-taylor/files/2… (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.

[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.

What is so conspicuously absent from all these summary points of this information is the total lack of attention to divine actions and the non-attention to Christ’s burial—it is no wonder that they come to faulty conclusions. Point 2 is flat out wrong. God did issue a command to the Jews. That command must be explained and examined for its significance for what it reveals concerning Christ’s burial and for what it implies about the mind of God for ordinary situations.

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!

[RajeshG]

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.

[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.

Of course, “they” in verse 5 refers to the cousins. I even said as much: “Because their cousins carried them …”
Your claim that the antecedent of “their” in “their coats” is the cousins is a strange and unnatural reading of the passage. I will check the Heb. grammar of the verse to see if it has anything to say about this question.
The first commentary that I checked says the following:
“10:4-5 In obedience to Moses’ command two cousins of Aaron carried the bodies of Aaron’s two sons outside the camp …”

(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.

[RajeshG]

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?

[RajeshG]
Craig Toliver wrote:

“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).

OK, yes, the fire “ate”, Strong’s 398, ‘akal, the bodies, but let’s be serious here. What happens when fire consumes a substance? Last time I checked, a fire leaves a “powder” called “ash”. So what you’re saying is a distinction completely without significance. The verses in question are drawing a picture which would have been understood by anybody as being in many ways equivalent to cremation.

(side note; my guess is that Saul’s body and that of his sons were burned because quite frankly they were festering in the sun, and those who recovered the bodies didn’t want to smell it and get totally sick…..it was a way they could bring part of their bodies home and in their tomb without endangering their own health and lives)

Regarding “burning the bones to powder”, one of the grosser things about actual cremation is that, as a matrix of mineral with protein, bones don’t actually burn to powder, especially at the temperatures (~500F-1000F) of an ordinary fire. It does often break up into small chunks, but typically crematoria crush the remaining bones to put in the urn. So in a very real sense, claiming that one who is cremated is necessarily “burned to powder” really misses the nature of the process.

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.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

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.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[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.

Nonsense. Refuting your completely false global assessments of my training and exegetical abilities and practices should not be part of the discussion of a subject on a Christian discussion board.
Furthermore, you use such unethical tactics to try to buttress your positions instead of sticking to actual, honest discussion of the text. Your pronouncements that I am wrong and unqualified and that you are right in making your false assessments carry zero weight and ought to be called out as unethical conduct.

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!

[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!

None of this is relevant to the thorough discussion of the Bible passages that I want to have in this thread. You are wasting your time posting such content, but that is your choice.

[RajeshG] None of this is relevant to the thorough discussion of the Bible passages that I want to have in this thread. You are wasting your time posting such content, but that is your choice.

It’s relevant to the question “Is Cremation Christian?” and is part of the discussion I want to have!

[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?

According to the rules of proper English grammar, syntax, and writing, the right interpretation is that “their” in the prepositional phrase “in their coats” refers to “them” and not to “they.”
“So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.”
Had it been the writer’s intent to say that the coats were those of their cousins, the writer could have written the following:
1. “So they in their coats went near, and carried them out of the camp; as Moses had said.”
To specify that the cousins used their own coats to carry them out, the writer could have said,
2. “So they went near, and using their own coats, carried them out of the camp; as Moses had said.”
In proper English writing, antecedents of pronouns precede the pronoun and are the nearest noun or pronoun that agrees with the pronoun. In both #1 and #2, “their” agrees with “they,” and “they” would be the antecedent because it would be the nearest preceding pronoun that agrees.

[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?

All the commentators cited below agree that in Lev. 10:5, the coats were those of Nadab and Abihu:

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.

[RajeshG]

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 admit to following this thread only from a distance.

FIRST, things have unfortunately moved to personal attacks, which really ought to stop and perhaps a couple apologies.

SECOND, here are my thoughts…

  1. I think that there is no explicit Biblical command not to cremate.
  2. There’s no Biblical statement that cremation (or any other body destruction) impedes God’s ability to resurrect a person.
  3. The bodies of Noah, Abraham, David, etc. are now broken down by natural processes.
  4. 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.
  5. This isn’t a sin one can commit on himself. Even if you include suicide, killing yourself by burning isn’t stated to be more sinful than jumping off a cliff.


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?

In the end, I think Rajesh has made a case that strongly suggests some kind of Christian flavor for burial, more so than cremation. But cremation is a faux pas without injunction, guilt, or consequences.

[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?

Of course, people whose bodies were burned will see the resurrection.
I am not familiar with people who have offered Saul’s “cremation” as evidence of his being lost. I certainly have not made any such remark. Moreover, Saul’s bones were buried; they were not reduced to powder, dust, or ashes by burning, crushing, or any other means.

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.

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.

[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.

Thanks for the feedback, Josh. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. I do have problems with people making my qualifications repeatedly an issue as an add-on cheap shot.
I also have no problems with your saying that you think that my hermeneutic is illegitimate and that you are not convinced, etc.
Let’s back up and discuss specifically the details of one passage at a time where you think that I have engaged in an illegitimate hermeneutic. It will not do for you to make global assessments that infer whatever positions you think I hold.

[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.

Thanks for clarifying.