Sunday Morning Greek Blog

The following article is long overdue, at least from my perspective, because I’ve been stewing on it as I get older and must make decisions about the disposition of my own body upon death. The question I’ve been stewing over is whether cremation is an appropriate final disposition for those who consider themselves Christ followers.

If we only look at the obvious difference between cremation and traditional burial, that is, the rapid reduction of the body and bones to ashes versus the slow decay of the embalmed body over time in a tomb or coffin, one might think the cremation is perhaps more environmentally friendly, and there are certainly antagonists to traditional burial ceremonies.[1] But as with all things that relate to our spiritual lives and disposition, this temporary habitation we call Earth will not survive the final judgment and is thus a secondary concern to the spiritual realities.

Now before I go into my analysis, I want to emphasize that my conclusions should NOT be considered a theological tenet, as the Bible has no explicit “Thou Shalts” or “Thou Shalt Nots” regarding the disposition of the bodies of those who have gone before us. After looking at all the Scriptures that mention “bones” (since that is ultimately the difference in what remains after the different means of disposition), I have discovered that most of those passages are anecdotal at best, but they do seem to reveal a broader worldview about the disposition of the dead. My intention here is not to criticize or condemn those who have chosen cremation for themselves or loved ones, because there is no ultimate biblical basis to do so.

My main purpose here, then, is to let my family know in no uncertain terms what my wishes are for the disposition of my body. I absolutely do NOT want to be cremated. After studying these passages, as you will see in my analysis below, I believe the Judeo-Christian worldview (as well as that of several other Middle Eastern, northern African, and southern European cultures represented in the Scriptures[2]) has a high regard, even sacred view, of the bones of their dead on the one hand. The corollary to this view is that keeping the bones of the dead either intact, or at least collected in an ossuary, sends a signal that there was hope of a resurrection, much as the Egyptians mummified their dead because they believed they had their own journey in the afterlife.

On the other hand, when judgment is involved, especially on the enemies of God’s people, the desecration of their bones serves as insult added to injury. A corollary to this is that the desecration or total destruction (crushing, breaking, etc.) of the bones in conjunction with that declaration of judgment sends a signal that there is no hope of resurrection or redemption of those so judged.

Setting the Tone With the “Clone” of the Bone

Of course, the first reference we have to a bone is in the creation story in Genesis 2:21–22. The Hebrew word for rib (צֵלָע ṣē·lāʿ) in this passage is typically a generic word for “side,” but this is the only time it is understood as “rib,” perhaps based on Adam’s “bone of my bone” (עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י ‘eṣem mē‘ăṣăma^y) comment in vs. 23. I think there is a greater significance to this than just a poetic statement about Adam’s new female human companion, Eve. Without getting too technical, the bone contains marrow, which is responsible for creating a constant supply of red and white blood cells as well as platelets in the body as those cells do their part to carry oxygen, fight infection, and promote healing, respectively.[3] God apparently had distinct medical reasons to use a bone for such a purpose.

If, as Leviticus 17:11 says, “the life of a creature is in the blood,” then the “life” of the blood is in the bones. This would make a bone, with some flesh attached, the perfect primitive source for God to “clone” another human being. Another thing to consider here: only males carry both X and Y sex genes. As such, to create another human of a different gender in the way God did would require a male donor. God could create a female from a male bone, but could he create a male from a female bone? I guess the answer to that questions depends on whether you think God would respect the natural order he created. This doesn’t take away the miracle of creating an adult human being out of a rib. But I do believe it sheds some light on how important God considers the human body even after death. One final thought here: our DNA can survive in our bodies long after we’re dead even with standard embalming practices.[4] DNA can also still be recovered from burnt or cremated remains in the bones or teeth, but not for quite as long a period.[5]

I believe Genesis 2:21–23 confirms, anecdotally at least, why the bones of a person are considered sacred: they constantly produce what the body needs to maintain life when not hindered by disease. We don’t really hear about bones again in Genesis until the very end of chapter 50, where Joseph insists that the Israelites must carry his bones out of Egypt when they return to the Promised Land. We are reminded of that promise in Exodus 13:19 when Moses ensures that the bones of Joseph are among the spoils of the exodus and again in Joshua 24:32 toward the end of the conquering phase in the Promised Land when we learn that Joseph’s bones were buried at Shechem. In the New Testament, the final mention of bones is found in Hebrews 11:22, when we’re again reminded that Joseph’s bones were to be removed from Egypt.

Elsewhere in the Torah, we see that the Passover lamb was not to have any bones broken (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12). The bones could be separated at the joints, but the individual bones themselves were not to be broken. In fact, all sacrificial animals had to be “without blemish,” which included not having any broken bones. This was true of Jesus as well, as prophesied in Psalm 34:20 and fulfilled in John 19:36.

Bones and the Resurrection

The connection of bones to a resurrection motif is found in 2 Kings 13:21, where some Israelites, faced with a band of marauders, hastily threw a body into the tomb of Elisha instead finishing the burial, and the man came to life when his body touched Elisha’s bones. Perhaps the most stunning connection to the resurrection, though, is the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37. The Lord commanded Ezekiel to prophesy to the dead bones, and they “reconstituted” themselves into an entire army. Another word of prophecy filled them with the breath of life. The conclusion of that event still speaks to us today, especially when we feel defeated by the world: “These bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’” O, that we would have faith to allow God to renew us with his mighty breath!

There is an interesting translation issue with Ecclesiastes 11:5 that may tie into the sacredness of the bones. Two recent translations have the following:

ESV: ⁵ As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.^[6]

NRSV: ⁵ Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb, so you do not know the work of God, who makes everything.^[7]

These are very literal translations of the passage, and the translators see a causal connection between the הָר֔וּחַ (harû^aḥ wind/spirit/breath) and the כַּעֲצָמִ֖ים (bones). However, most other translations (as the NIV below) would seem to respect the zāqēp̄ qāṭōn (^:) accent over הָר֔וּחַ, which indicates the main break in the first half of a Hebrew sentence:

⁵ As you do not know the path of the wind,
     or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
     the Maker of all things.^[8]

As such, as much as the NRSV and ESV translations of Ecclesiastes 11:5 may hint at an enhanced sacredness of the bone, I don’t think the Hebrew text supports their translation. This does not, however, negate the fact that “bones” is a metonymy for the precious human fetus.

Other signs of the sacredness of human bones would include Numbers 19:16–18, where touching bones out in the open wilderness caused one to be unclean. Israel apparently had a special class of people (“gravediggers”) who were responsible for handling the bones of the dead, especially in a battlefield (Ezekiel 39:15).

“Bones” in the Poets and Prophets

The poetic and prophetic books in the OT have several figurative uses of the word for “bone.” In many cases, it signifies the inner self or the inner soul, sometimes in a positive sense (Jeremiah 23:9), but many times reflecting angst or pain in the deepest part of our souls. Other times bones visible in the malnourished frames of a starving people reflect the oppression or severe trials of the people (Job 33:21; Proverbs 17:22). Proverbs 15:30 and 16:24 speak of the importance of how good news can strengthen our “bones,” our inner self. Even though the figurative uses of the word “bone” don’t have much bearing on the concept of the disposition of one’s earthly body, this still shows the intimate connection we have with our inner self. I’ll save further discussion of this for another time.

One other aspect of how the OT treats the subject of actual human bones does, however, have a huge bearing on the cremation vs. burial debate. Several times in the OT, we see the refusal to bury human bones (Jeremiah 8:1) or the burning of human bones was used as a means of desecration, shaming, or cursing. In 1 Kings 13:2, there is a prophecy about Josiah burning human bones on pagan altars, which was fulfilled in 2 Kings 23:14–20 (see also 2 Chronicles 34:5), which defiled the pagan altars. I can’t help but make the comparison here to a common practice with cremation: scattering the ashes, typically in some memorable location. The latter practice, however, is not typically done with the intent, but more on this below.

What Is Cremation?

Cremation doesn’t consume the bones. A full skeleton remains after cremation, so the bones are pulverized (“cremains”) such that the whole “collection” fits into the urn or other chosen container.[9] Given what the Bible says about the problem of human bones scattered on the ground (e.g., Ezekiel 6:5), I personally would have to think long and hard about scattering someone’s ashes. But I emphasize that I am only making an educated guess here, not promulgating a theological tenet.[10]

Even with the cremains, there still may be recognizable bone or tooth fragments, so imagine how you might feel hiking in some scenic location and finding a couple partially charred fragments of human teeth. I can understand the sentiment involved in scattering a loved one’s ashes, but how might others feel about that? I can’t answer the question, but I can’t avoid asking the question either: Is scattering someone’s ashes a desecration in the view of the Bible or the biblical worldview? I think people need to decide that for themselves, because as I said at the beginning of the article, there is no “Thus saith the Lord” on that question. My mom had my stepdad cremated a couple years ago, but she just recently had the small wooden casket, if that’s what you call it, buried in his prepurchased burial plot, so his cremains are sealed in one place.

“Bones” and Resurrection in the NT

On the whole, we can learn much more about the significance of how human bones are treated in the OT, but I want to turn to the one significant reference to bones in the NT to wrap up this study. Before looking at this reference, however, I want to cite a couple passages that will help support my argument. John 12:24 says, “Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” Chapter 15 in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians gives a detailed description of his view of the resurrection. I would encourage you to read that whole chapter, but I think it will do to cite 1 Corinthians 15:42–49:

⁴² So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; ⁴³ it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; ⁴⁴ it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. ⁴⁵ So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. ⁴⁶ The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. ⁴⁷ The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. ⁴⁸ As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. ⁴⁹ And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.^[11]

The two passages above both suggest the idea that burial is akin to “planting” a seed. My question is, then, to what degree should we take that as a metaphor? And if it is a metaphor, to whatever degree, what is the spiritual (or physical?) reality behind it that makes it meaningful? What role do the bones play? Remember what I said above about the purpose bones serve in the body. They create life-giving blood. You can also extract DNA from the bones long after the flesh has begun to deteriorate. Add to that the reverence shown to bones in the OT that I documented above, and I think I can make a pretty strong case that our bones are the “seed” of the spiritual body Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 15.

Doubts? Look no further than the accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances and what he says about himself. What does he say to his disciples at his first appearance?

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

Of course, Jesus had just recently died, so there was no visible deterioration to his body, but he still apparently showed the scars of his crucifixion. Was Jesus’s body the “spiritual” body that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15? Suppose for a moment Jesus had been cremated? Would his resurrection body have still showed the scars? It’s hard to say. I do believe we will recognize one another in heaven, but we have no way of knowing on this side of eternity what that might look like save for the resurrection appearance of Jesus. Jesus’s whole body was resurrected, and I would expect my remains would be resurrected as well. I believe my coffin will be empty at the resurrection.

Final Questions

Before I get to my conclusion, I want to include here several questions that occurred to me after I finished writing the main article. I let things stew sometimes to see if any other issues arise, and I thought some of these question worth asking, even if they could never be answered. As I said above, I believe the preservation of the bones was a sign of the hope of the resurrection. But after considering the two NT comparisons to “planting,” I’m wondering: Is there something about the bones that may “facilitate” the resurrection in God’s economy?

If the bones contain DNA long after a person’s death, is there something about God’s design in creation where he might use the person’s DNA to facilitate the resurrection? You might think that’s silly but hear me out. If God is all-powerful that he could resurrect us with just a word, would he not also be all-efficient? Does God in fact use what he already created (i.e., our DNA, our skeletal remains) to facilitate the resurrection process, that is, as the “seed that dies”? Does he speak a word and our DNA is “supercharged,” so to speak, to renew our bodies into their eternal spiritual form, similar to how he created Eve from Adam’s rib? Or would our eternal bodies even have DNA? It’s not clear whether Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances are in his final heavenly body or if he’ll be transformed upon his ascension. But what does seem to be clear is that the graves of the faithful will be empty after the resurrection.

Conclusion

My conclusion here is a very simple one. The Jews (and other cultures) believed that preserving the bones was a means of preserving one’s hope for a resurrection, and that worldview carries over to the NT and thus the Christian faith. (In the case of the Egyptians, it was belief in a whole new journey in the afterlife. NOTE: I’m not saying I believe in Egyptian cosmology; I’m only saying that their view of burial and the afterlife is not at odds with the Hebrew worldview.) I have a strong hope in that resurrection, and I want my dead body left intact as an enduring sign of that hope.

I do want to be sensitive here to those who have had loved ones cremated. If God created Adam from the dust of the earth, then I believe he can resurrect us from whatever the final state of our bodies is, whether they are ashes scattered on a mountainside, a corpse at the bottom of the ocean, or a body in a buried coffin. But for me, and again, I’m not claiming this is any sort of gospel truth, the fact that God can resurrect us from ashes doesn’t necessarily mean I should have my body reduced to ashes and pulverized bone fragments. I prefer to follow the pattern of the ancients and keep my body intact in its own coffin. Please don’t cremate me; I don’t want to take a chance that I’ve interrupted God’s divine design for resurrection.

My opinions are my own.

Scott Stocking

[1] Environmental Impact of Burial Funerals, What Funeral Homes Don’t Want | Safe Passage (safepassageurns.com) Accessed 12/03/23.

[2] For example, see Journey to the afterlife: mummification in ancient Egypt | Reading Museum Accessed 12/06/23.

[3] Bone Marrow: What it is & Why it is Important (clevelandclinic.org) Accessed 12/03/2023.

[4] How Long Does DNA Last? – Investigative Sciences Journal Accessed 12/06/2023.

[5] Is DNA Destroyed During Cremation? (knowyourdna.com) Accessed 12/06/2023.

^[6] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2016. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[7] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

^[8] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[9] Cremation: The Process Of Reducing The Human Body To Bone Fragments – FuneralDirect Accessed 12/05/23.

[10] The death of Saul and the disposition of his body should be mentioned here. Saul’s body (and the bodies of his associates) were hung from a wall, so there probably had already been some significant deterioration of their bodies by the time they were recovered. The bodies were burned, most likely because of the deterioration and the difficulty of trying to embalm the bodies in such a condition. But the bones were still buried, twice (1 Samuel 31:12–13, then moved to the tomb of Saul’s father, 2 Samuel 21:12–14).

^[11] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.