# pls share the correct position on buriel



## Raj (Apr 26, 2007)

Friends, I have been thinking about our dead when they die. There are so many difficulties in the villages, when somebody of the Christian faith dies. The Other faith people dont want to touch or help. They simply watch how we Christians will do the last rites. Some times it is very hard to take the decision where to bury the dead as there are no Christian cemetries in the new fields. 

Some times Difficulty in making a coffin box or to find the matriel needed for the Box.

some time the relative of the dead believer get angry..why we take the dead believer to another village or far place for buriel. Since in the common buriel place of the village the believers are not allowed so we do that.

My question to learn here is that, "Does the Bible command us to bury our dead exclusively and can't we burn them as the Hindu (without doing what the Hindus do) or as the Buddhist do?"

Is it a command from the Lord or was it a custom of the local people?

What is the better option or biblical teaching about it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2007)

I think Abraham is a good example. All he asked to buy from from the pagans was a plot to bury his dead. Do we need a box? Burials for ages took place in cloths. Ancient Christians' bones are stacked in the catacombs of Rome to this day, when the pagans refused them burials elsewhere.

"The earth is the Lord's," not the Hindu's or Buddhist's, or Muslim's. If they get offended in burying the dead in their cemetaries, because the Christians don't follow their meaningless rituals, and so refuse, then some other place must be found.

Burying is preferable to other means of disposal, "for dust we are, and to dust we shall return." But God is able to raise up a body from the dead regardless of how it was destroyed--by worms, or by disintegration to dust, or by eaten by fish, or being burnt to ashes. "The dead shall be raised incorruptible."

There are no biblical examples of funeral pyres. There is no need to "free the soul" from the body, the body has value, it will be raised up--burial is a testimony of that. But what harm can the nonbelievers do, ultimately, if they deny us burial? Nothing. We must treat the body with as much respect as we are allowed. But if it _must_ be burned, better that than the disrespect shown to it by giving it up to the scavengers (see 2 Sam 21:9 & 10, 13 & 14)


----------



## Civbert (Apr 26, 2007)

Did you know that in some states (maybe most) that a body must be embalmed before it can be cremated. Does that make sense??

Is there a biblical argument against cremation. It's not something I've really looked into, and I figured cremation is a good way to go. 

I personally don't want people going to my grave after I'm with the Lord. I'm not there any more.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 26, 2007)

I always loved the problem as posed by Merril Tenney in his book, _The Reality of the Resurrection_:



> When the body of Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, was exhumed for reburial, it was found that the root of an apple tree had penetrated the head of the coffin and had followed down Williams' spine, dividing into a fork at the legs. The tree had absorbed the chemicals of the decaying body and had transmuted them into its wood and fruit. The apples, in turn, had been eaten by people, quite unconscious of the fact that they were indirectly taking into their systems part of the long-dead Williams. The objection may therefore be raised: How, out of the complex sequence of decay, absorption, and new formation, will it be possible to resurrect believers of past ages, and to reconstitute them as separate entities?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 26, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> There are no biblical examples of funeral pyres. There is no need to "free the soul" from the body, the body has value, it will be raised up--burial is a testimony of that.



That raises a interesting point. I don't think we want to imply any religious significance to cremation if one goes that route - so it would be good to avoid making a cremation into a religious ceremony. 

As far as the practical effect of cremation - it seem to be a quick way to returning the body to dust. So I don't see a real problem with it. Could it be the Jewish faith does not burn the dead because it would seem like an offering to God? 

Raj, could a cremation be done without being part of a funeral ceremony? Is the presence of a body even necessary for a funeral service? Will non-believer be confused into thinking a cremation has religious significants even if not part of a ceremony?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 26, 2007)

<bump>

Anyone else go an opinion on this?


----------



## SRoper (Apr 26, 2007)

Civbert said:


> I personally don't want people going to my grave after I'm with the Lord. I'm not there any more.



I don't think it is correct to say you aren't there anymore. While you may be present with the Lord in spirit, it is still proper to say that you are in the ground.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 26, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I don't think it is correct to say you aren't there anymore. While you may be present with the Lord in spirit, it is still proper to say that you are in the ground.



Debatable. But I was hoping someone would answer Raj, not me.


----------



## Raj (Apr 27, 2007)

*hoping some more reflections*

Did anyone faced same problems in the Church planting ministries, As I mentioned above?

(The last rites performed by the Hindus in the villages is, to collect firewood and _uple_ dried cowdung from the whole village community and then if still the firewood lacks for the body pyre then buy from the market and burn the dead person.

Then collect the ashes of the person and throw in the river with mantara chanting.)


----------



## Poimen (Apr 27, 2007)

Civbert said:


> <bump>
> 
> Anyone else go an opinion on this?



The resurrection hope is a new body just as Christ was given a new body. We bury the body in the assurance of God's promise concerning our resurrected selves. 

*Dr. Scott Clark shared this with us in seminary who, in turn, got it from Dr. S. Baugh.* 

*1 Corinthians 15:35-38; 42-49*

But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 27, 2007)

My father-in-law tells us that when he dies he wants us to throw his body in the back wash and let the coyotes have at it.  Whoops...wrong omoticon.


----------



## caddy (Apr 27, 2007)

How interesting a story is that. Thanks Bob.  




BobVigneault said:


> I always loved the problem as posed by Merril Tenney in his book, _The Reality of the Resurrection_:


Quote:
When the body of Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, was exhumed for reburial, it was found that the root of an apple tree had penetrated the head of the coffin and had followed down Williams' spine, dividing into a fork at the legs. The tree had absorbed the chemicals of the decaying body and had transmuted them into its wood and fruit. The apples, in turn, had been eaten by people, quite unconscious of the fact that they were indirectly taking into their systems part of the long-dead Williams. The objection may therefore be raised: How, out of the complex sequence of decay, absorption, and new formation, will it be possible to resurrect believers of past ages, and to reconstitute them as separate entities?


----------



## KMK (Apr 27, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I always loved the problem as posed by Merril Tenney in his book, _The Reality of the Resurrection_:
> 
> When the body of Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, was exhumed for reburial, it was found that the root of an apple tree had penetrated the head of the coffin and had followed down Williams' spine, dividing into a fork at the legs. The tree had absorbed the chemicals of the decaying body and had transmuted them into its wood and fruit. The apples, in turn, had been eaten by people, quite unconscious of the fact that they were indirectly taking into their systems part of the long-dead Williams. The objection may therefore be raised: How, out of the complex sequence of decay, absorption, and new formation, will it be possible to resurrect believers of past ages, and to reconstitute them as separate entities?



I have heard hyper-preterists use this argument against a future bodily resurrection.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 27, 2007)

The fact is that God not only has numbered our very hairs but our molecules as well AND He remembers where he put each of them. Awesome!


----------



## KMK (Apr 27, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> The fact is that God not only has numbered our very hairs but our molecules as well AND He remembers where he put each of them. Awesome!



I agree. Just because we do not understand how, does not make God's promises false.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 27, 2007)

KMK said:


> I have heard hyper-preterists use this argument against a future bodily resurrection.



Augustine addresses this in book 22 of _City of God_:

"And though [the flesh] had been absolutely annihilated, so that no part of its substance remained in any secret spot of nature, the Almighty could restore it by such means as He saw fit. For this sentence, uttered by the Truth, 'Not a hair of your head shall perish,' forbids us to suppose that, though no hair of a man's head can perish, yet the large portions of his flesh eaten and consumed by the famishing can perish."


----------



## KMK (Apr 27, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Augustine addresses this in book 22 of _City of God_:
> 
> "And though [the flesh] had been absolutely annihilated, so that no part of its substance remained in any secret spot of nature, the Almighty could restore it by such means as He saw fit. For this sentence, uttered by the Truth, 'Not a hair of your head shall perish,' forbids us to suppose that, though no hair of a man's head can perish, yet the large portions of his flesh eaten and consumed by the famishing can perish."



Excellent quote brother!  I can't wait!!!


----------



## Civbert (Apr 27, 2007)

OK. So far no one has really given any argument saying that cremation is a sin. And the only concern I see is how it might cause others to think it has religious significants. The resurrection of the dead is irrelevant because God will resurrect the cremated too, and we will have new bodies, not rotten corpses. 

Raj, I think it would be okay to cremate as long as it can be done in a way so it doesn't appear to have religious significants. You are probably the best judge of that. I don't know if there are any other options for you.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 27, 2007)

It's probably like the "meat offered to idols" problem in the Greco-Roman world. If no one attaches religious significance to it, it's less of a problem. Burying the body speaks of belief that it will be restored but sometimes sanitation demands that it be burnt. I am more worried about the Hindu and Buddhist neighbors.


----------



## KMK (Apr 28, 2007)

To quote Sam Waldron...



> Burial is not a matter of precept, but of propriety.



Perhaps burial better represents the Christian hope.


----------



## Herald (Apr 28, 2007)

[bible]Matthew 27:52-53[/bible]

The individuals in this passage are saints (believers). They were buried and their bodies were raised. While there is no definitive statement against cremation in the bible, one could make a case that burial is the preferred method of respecting the body after death.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2007)

I think the best position for burial is lying down. If you're standing up then the formaldehyde will just go to your feet.


----------



## caddy (Apr 28, 2007)

LO.................................................................L 





BobVigneault said:


> I think the best position for burial is lying down. If you're standing up then the formaldehyde will just go to your feet.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 29, 2007)

I personally want to be cremated after my spirit is called to the Lord. I have considered the matter, and read what I could (all against it), and am still of a mind it is proper and holy. "Unto the pure all things are pure..." (Tit. 1:15), "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (1 Cor. 11:23)

In an age where grave desecration is increasing (and the possibility of denying burial), this seems to me a reasonable provision, especially if one has the enmity of a culture for the witness to a holy God.

I realize this is not usual practice for the churches in the West (but so also is preaching without a tie or collar), and I would make the cremation a private affair, and the sprinkling of the ashes (or whatever is done with them) that which is public, with godly decorum. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."

If I am in New York when I go, I've asked my wife to have my ashes poured into the Millstream in my beloved Woodstock (NY), or into whatever river or ocean is nearby. My Savior will reconstitute my body on the Day of His appearing.

I hope this gives you some help, Raj.

Anthony, we agree on something at last!

Steve


----------



## Civbert (Apr 29, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Anthony, we agree on something at last!
> 
> Steve


 Exactly what I what thinking as I read your post.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 30, 2007)

Civbert said:


> OK. So far no one has really given any argument saying that cremation is a sin. And the only concern I see is how it might cause others to think it has religious significants. The resurrection of the dead is irrelevant because God will resurrect the cremated too, and we will have new bodies, not rotten corpses.
> 
> Raj, I think it would be okay to cremate as long as it can be done in a way so it doesn't appear to have religious significants. You are probably the best judge of that. I don't know if there are any other options for you.



I agree that cremation is not a sin but I think you need to take a look at 1 Corinthians 15 again (as per the citation above). We 'plant' the body in hope of the resurrection body. What could be clearer than that?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 30, 2007)

Hi,

Here is a post from the Heidelblog on this topic.

rsc


----------



## Raj (May 1, 2007)

*thanks each one of you*

Dear friends!
It is wonderful to listen to each one of you on the topic of buriel. Certainly, you have taught me alot on the topic. As I return back to serve our people , I definatly, shall use this knoweldge to serve our people. 
Thanks again. Your thoughts are worthy of appreciation.
God bless.


----------



## Civbert (May 1, 2007)

Poimen said:


> I agree that cremation is not a sin but I think you need to take a look at 1 Corinthians 15 again (as per the citation above). We 'plant' the body in hope of the resurrection body. What could be clearer than that?



That's similar to the argument used by the Mormons to justify baptism for the dead. Paul is defending the resurrection of the dead.
[bible]1co 15:29[/bible]

But the counter to this is Paul's who argument is defending the _resurrection of the dead_, not the baptism of the dead. So that particular verse is an ad hominem argument, showing the folly of their own actions. 

Now we see that the same argument applies to burial. Why bury the dead, if you deny the resurrection of the dead. Again, an ad hominem argument. 

But it we say alone justifies burying the dead, it would also justify baptism of the dead. 

And Paul speaks very clearly that will will have a_ new _body. Thus the body that is buried will not rise again, yet _we_ will. And if what rises is supposed to be us as persons, then we can not say that our old body is an essential element of our person-hood. When we die, we (our persons) are separated forever from our old unessential bodies. Yet we are still persons, and will receive new incorruptible bodies at a later time. 

So now none can say that Paul is supporting burial of the dead since it does not go against the reservation of the dead, because the resurrection of the dead does no involve our old corrupted flesh. And I'd even say that cremation is a greater demonstration of faith because it reinforces the biblical truth that we will be raised with new and incorruptible bodies.

P.S. Do we not also sow by casting out seed (not necessarily digging a hole for it)? Then scattering of our ashes could be considered sowing our old bodies in acknowledgment of the raising up of our new incorruptible bodies.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 2, 2007)

"Paul speaks very clearly that [we] will have a new body. Thus the body that is buried will not rise again"

Anthony, was it not Christ's actual body that was raised? "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44). It still had the wounds, although now "raised in glory...[and] in power" (15:43).

Steve


----------



## Civbert (May 2, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "Paul speaks very clearly that [we] will have a new body. Thus the body that is buried will not rise again"
> 
> Anthony, was it not Christ's actual body that was raised? "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44). It still had the wounds, although now "raised in glory...[and] in power" (15:43).
> 
> Steve


 

...

 


That's a good point. It was a spiritual body. So then, what is a spiritual body, and what happened to the natural body? Was it transformed? 

I'll retract what I said about said about the old body not rising since that is more than I can certainly say (and possibly wrong to boot). I still think we will have new bodies, but maybe these will be formed from our old natural bodies. Nor can I go so far as to say what the final substance of the new body will be, if it's physical/material. Christ did show his wounds and they were touched. But then he rose up into the air and is in heaven, contrary to the "laws" of physics.


----------



## Raj (May 3, 2007)

*This page wonderful*

I thank God and you for showing this kind of rich knowledge. It is really helpful.

Raj


R. Scott Clark said:


> Hi,
> 
> Here is a post from the Heidelblog on this topic.
> 
> rsc


----------



## Peter (May 3, 2007)

caddy said:


> How interesting a story is that. Thanks Bob.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is actually a problem the early church struggled over quite a bit. Augustine in his _City of God_ for example says (so I've read else where) that the matter which was taken from one human body to another will be restored to it origin. In any case the early fathers were insistent the resurrection body will be the same but new in the sense of being glorified and perfected. That's a great quote about Roger Williams.


----------



## KMK (May 3, 2007)

Civbert said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Elijah had a physical body and he also rose up into the air and is in heaven, contrary to the "laws" of physics.

It is my understanding (limited) that 'psuchikos' and 'pneumatikos' in 1 Cor 15:44 are refering to the 'driving force' of people, not their physical body. Kenneth Gentry's illustration is this regarding the words 'spiritual body': "If I tell you about a Coke bottle, am I talking about a bottle made of Coke? No it is a bottle that contains and is identified with Coke." (THIS QUOTE IS FROM MEMORY)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 3, 2007)

Abraham Hellenbroek's _A Specimen of Divine Truths_ (see also Nicholas Greendyk's commentary on the same):



> Of the Resurrection
> 
> 1. Q. Will there be a resurrection?
> 
> ...


----------

