What Do Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60 Teach about Burial?

[Van]

One possible reason for the myth that scripture proscribes burial and condemns cremation is the "dry bones" prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14. Here, what is read into the text is that this method of resurrection is the only one, and God can not or does not resurrect believers whose remains do not consist of "dry bones." Nonsense. Note the the sea gives up her dead, so if those bones exist, they are not dry.

Thus once again we see that speculation, reading more into the text than stated, is the mother of false doctrine.

 

[JonC]

You appear to be wrongly claiming that the word "burial" has no inherent meaning to it and is just an empty shell or placeholder that you can fill with whatever meaning you want to. That's not how language works. The word itself has a meaning. If you want to say legitimately that a word has a particular core meaning, you have to prove it.

I am not reading anything into the text. I am rightly stating that the word "burial" in both Testaments never does and cannot refer in any way to cremation.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of Peter.

You claim that the definition of "burial" in the NT has "as the focus is on the rite or traditions." Do you have any proof of that or do you think that your merely asserting makes it so?

You say, "Words have meanings, and you are prescribing a contemporary meaning to an English word representing an ancient Greek word. You are wrong."

I have not prescribed "any contemporary meaning to an English word representing an ancient Greek word." The Greek words in the NT and the Hebrew words in the OT for bury/burial never have anything to do with cremation. It is you who wrongly asserts that the modern conception of the English word "cremation" fits with the meaning of those ancient Greek and Hebrew words.

It is telling that you do not actually go to Scripture and treat it in detail to support your claims.

It does have an inherent meaning. That is what I claimed. I said "words have meaning".

The word "bury" (θάπτω) in Matthew is referencing traditional Hebrew funeral rites. The disciple was asking to "bury" his father prior to following Christ.

What did "bury" mean here?

The duty of burial, although primarily an obligation on the heirs (Gen. 23:3 and 25:9), ultimately rests with the whole community. The son had a duty within this context. His father's body had to be washed, wrapped, and placed in a tomb. Afterwards there were rites that consisted several days. The son also had a traditional period of morning (the text does not indicate if the son was seeking this observance).

As far as cremation, there is no biblical evidence that cremation, while not a typical practice, was considered wrong.

The men of Jabesh-Gilead burned the bodies of Saul and his sons. This is not spoken of as a desecration, but as part of their loyalty to their overlord (I Sam. 31:9–13; II Sam. 2:5).

 

[JonC]

2 Samuel 2:5 David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said to them, “May you be blessed of the Lord because you have shown this kindness to Saul your lord, and have buried him."


How did the men of Jabesh-gilead bury Saul?

They cremated the bodies and took the bones, buried the bones and fasted.

Where was David's outcry at the men cremating those bodies? Why did David thank them rather than cursing them for burning the bodies?

 

[Salty]

You may assume whatever you like. I am not interested in sharing any information about this matter.

I do not want any such considerations to be one more way that the discussions are diverted away from actual discussion of the Bible itself. No one needs to know anything about such things to be able to assess what is being said about the Bible.

Reasonable people do willing share their educational background, as that will giver others an ideal of where they are coming from.

By hiding that info (if you even have any) will make most to disregard you opinions.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I patiently wait your well thought out and properly exegeted answer.

You have misunderstood my positions.

Since we are not allowed to use context to properly interpret

This is a misrepresentation of my position. I do not hold this notion that you claim I hold.

I reject the claims that you and others make that the "context" renders what Christ said about burying in His response invalid.

I have already presented what I believe the text to be teaching.

 

[Revmitchell]

You have misunderstood my positions.



This is a misrepresentation of my position. I do not hold the view that you claim.

I have already presented what I believe the text to be teaching.

the text? You said you dont need to be faithful to the context?

 

[JonC]

I have already presented what I believe the text to be teaching.

You believe the text is teaching about burial methods???

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

the text? You said you dont need to be faithful to the context?

No, I did not say that. That is what you are wrongly asserting that I believe.

I reject the notion that the context means Christ's teaching is solely about discipleship and does not have anything to say about burial. To take that view is an illegitimate truncation of the inspired text.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

You believe the text is teaching about burial methods???

Part of what Christ taught in His response explicitly pertains to what He commanded concerning burial.

 

[JonC]

Part of what Christ taught in His response explicitly pertains to what He commanded concerning burial.

Is that a "yes"? You actually interpret the passage as teaching about burial methods?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Is that a "yes"? You actually interpret the passage as teaching about burial methods?

The passage has something to say about burial. You can deny it all you want; the Spirit inspired what the text says, and Christ did issue a command concerning burial. The "larger" teaching about discipleship does not invalidate what He said about burial.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, I did not say that. That is what you are wrongly asserting that I believe.

I reject the notion that the context means Christ's teaching is solely about discipleship and does not have anything to say about burial. To take that view is an illegitimate truncation of the inspired text.

sure you did post # 44. You assert that you can interpret a word in a way other than the context of that passage.

 

[Lodic]

An excellent article: Is Cremation Christian?

I agree that this article is both interesting and well-written. I understand the author's (and yours) views, but I completely disagree with the conclusions you have drawn. To reiterate my earlier point, Jesus was teaching about the cost of discipleship, not about how to dispose of the body at death.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

sure you did post # 44. You assert that you can interpret a word in a way other than the context of that passage.

I did not. This is what I said in #44:

This remark shows that you either do not understand how systematic theology is done or deny its legitimacy. Either way, you are wrong.

Systematic theology takes a subject and looks at everything in Scripture that pertains to that subject, regardless of whether passages are "about" that subject, as you and many others understand what it means for a passage to be "about" something.

According to your approach to Scripture, passages that show the deity of Christ but do not have His deity as "the main point" are not teaching "about" His deity. Taking that approach, you would wrongly truncate the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ.

Similarly, you are mistaken in your assertions about my handling of these verses.

What I said is not what you claim I said.

For example, most people say that Matt. 28:18-20 is "about" the Great Commission. Matt. 28:19, however, is not just truth about the Great Commission; it also has truth about the Spirit that is important revelation about the Holy Spirit:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

It does not matter that the passage is not "about" the Holy Spirit. Both New Testament theologies and systematic theologies cite that verse in their theology of the Spirit as one of the texts that shows the deity and full equality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. That is what I was and am talking about.

 

[JonC]

The passage has something to say about burial. You can deny it all you want; the Spirit inspired what the text says, and Christ did issue a command concerning burial. The "larger" teaching about discipleship does not invalidate what He said about burial.

Yes. The passage us s the word "burial" and Jesus tells the disciple to just follow Him.

But Jesus' teaching was in no way a teaching about burial. It was His responces to the man wanting to bury his father before following.

By your logic Matthew 21 is teaching us that we should ride donkeys.

What makes your eisegesis even more wrong is had you a knowledge of Systematic Theology you would have gone to passages where men were praised in Scripture for cremating bodies and then burying the bones.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Yes. The passage us s the word "burial" and Jesus tells the disciple to just follow Him.

But Jesus' teaching was in no way a teaching about burial. It was His responces to the man wanting to bury his father before following.

By your logic Matthew 21 is teaching us that we should ride donkeys.

Jesus issued two commands in those verses and both of those commands were to the disciple. The incarnate Son of God issued a divine command to the disciple concerning burial. You can deny it all you want, but the inspired text has two commands, not one.

There is no point in continuing this discussion about that aspect of those verses. We are not going to agree. It is time to leave it there.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

What makes your eisegesis even more wrong is had you a knowledge of Systematic Theology you would have gone to passages where men were praised in Scripture for cremating bodies and then burying the bones.

False. David does not mention their burning the bodies at all. He only commends them for burying him--not for cremating him. First Samuel 31 does not say that cremation was part of their burial.

 

[JonC]

Jesus issued two commands in those verses and both of those commands were to the disciple. The incarnate Son of God issued a divine command to the disciple concerning burial. You can deny it all you want, but the inspired text has two commands, not one.

There is no point in continuing this discussion about that aspect of those verses. We are not going to agree. It is time to leave it there.

The first was to the man to let the dead bury their dead. You do understand that "dead" does not mean the same thing in the verse, right? What He was teaching had nothing to do with the dead and then burying their dead. It had to do with leaving worldly affairs to follow Him.

Do you believe Jesus' request to travel via donkey was a command that we travel by donkey? Of course not, because you read into the Bible what you want to see.

The fact is Scripture commends the men who cremated Saul. God is immutable (this means He does not change).

 

[JonC]

False. David does not mention their burning the bodies at all. He only commends them for burying him--not for cremating him. First Samuel 31 does not say that cremation was part of their burial.

By your logic he should have condemned them for cremating the body. But the fact is what mattered in their tradition was the bones (not the body).

The Hebrew people buried their dead by laying them in a tomb, head first, and then retrieving the bones. They would wash the bones and then there would be a second burial.

Are you opposed to embalming people (i.e., trying to prevent what God said would occur)? What about coffins and vaults? Are they also wrong because they are associated with paganism?

 

[Revmitchell]

I did not. This is what I said in #44:

This remark shows that you either do not understand how systematic theology is done or deny its legitimacy. Either way, you are wrong.

Systematic theology takes a subject and looks at everything in Scripture that pertains to that subject, regardless of whether passages are "about" that subject, as you and many others understand what it means for a passage to be "about" something.

According to your approach to Scripture, passages that show the deity of Christ but do not have His deity as "the main point" are not teaching "about" His deity. Taking that approach, you would wrongly truncate the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ.

Similarly, you are mistaken in your assertions about my handling of these verses.

What I said is not what you claim I said.

For example, most people say that Matt. 28:18-20 is "about" the Great Commission. Matt. 28:19, however, is not just truth about the Great Commission; it also has truth about the Spirit that is important revelation about the Holy Spirit:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

It does not matter that the passage is not "about" the Holy Spirit. Both New Testament theologies and systematic theologies cite that verse in their theology of the Spirit as one of the texts that shows the deity and full equality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. That is what I was and am talking about.

you continue to misuse the word systematic theology. Ive already showed you the error of your use.

Further you never responded to my earlier question. Since Jesus said let the dead bury the dead who are the dead? Why can only the dead bury the dead?