The topic of cremation has been circling around again in Christian circles, largely because of a video clip shared on Twitter featuring Voddie Baucham (whom I respect and agree with on many things). In a Q&A format, Voddie was asked whether there is any biblical reasoning against cremation. He responded:
“Yes, there is biblical reasoning against cremation. Number one, because we have the example of burial throughout the Bible. Number two, because cremation is a pagan practice and has always been a pagan practice. And the pagans cremate because they do not respect the body. They believe that what’s really important is the spirit and that the body is kind of this cage of in which the spirit finds itself. So Christianity has always been about the respect of the body because we’re made in the image of God. Only paganism has promoted cremation and Christians are buried. The idea of the resurrection of the body uses the language of being raised from the ground. The idea of baptism, baptism is about being buried and then being raised again from the ground. So yes, our respect from the body is based on the biblical ethic. And cremation is based on a pagan ethic that does not respect the human body.”
Now, it’s worth saying up front: this was a brief Q&A clip, not a full lecture or essay. Voddie may well have a more developed case elsewhere, and if he does, it’s only fair to take that into account. That said, I want to interact with the actual paragraph presented and with some common arguments generally made against cremation.
NOTE: Before I begin, those for and against cremation recognize that it is ultimately a matter of conscience. Most anti-cremation individuals will not call it a sin but say it doesn’t best align with the Christian hope. I point this out because I’m in the minority here, yet I recognize it is a matter of conscience, and hopefully, you can not take (major) issue with me likely disagreeing with you on such.
Also note that since the format is laid back, I mix my address of Baucham’s statements with general statements on the topic. I am not attributing such general statements to Baucham.
Paganism and Cremation: Is it that simple?
First, I want to focus on the claim that cremation is inherently “pagan.” In the quote, Baucham nearly seems to frame the discussion in a way that states pagans only cremated while Christians are exclusively buried. This paints with too broad a brush and oversimplifies the debate, especially if we account for all Christian history, which in fact does have Christians choosing cremation today (growth beginning post-WWII among conservative Christians). I bring this up because he invokes the present tense, “Christians are buried.” This, in my opinion, raises pastoral concerns. Such a statement risks implying that Christians who choose cremation are not truly Christian or are acting against Scripture on a matter that, notably, is not explicitly addressed (more on this below).
Baucham is correct that pagans promoted cremation in the ancient world, but we can’t neglect that pagans didn’t exclusively cremate, nor did they do so simply because of a disrespect for the body. Pagan practices weren’t uniform; some even mirrored aspects of Jewish or Christian tradition. Take Egypt, for example, they practiced burial, not cremation, and they did so precisely because they valued the body. They believed it was essential for the soul’s continued existence. The embalming of Joseph in Genesis 50:26 reflects that influence (which also raises questions about embalming in general).
Similarly, both Greeks and Romans had mixed practices. Yes, cremation was practiced predominantly, but so was burial, depending on the era, class, and even family preference. In Rome, the poor were buried plainly in trench graves, while the wealthy were buried in ornate sarcophagi (See Toynbee’s work, Death and Burial in the Roman World, for more on that). Furthermore, the deceased were often honored with processions, rituals, and care.
When cremation was chosen, it wasn’t necessarily out of disdain for the body. In pre-Christian Slavic culture, cremation was standard not because of a disdain for the body in itself, but because they believed it aided the soul’s journey (not too unlike some Christians who did and still believe burial aids resurrection) and because they believed cremation protected the body from harm and desecration. In some cultures, it was a mark of status, in others, a means of protecting against dishonor, such as mutilation and decay, and in others, it was seen as swift, purifying, and dignified. The idea that pagans always cremated and did so only because they disrespected the body is simply not historically accurate.
James Donohue, writing in The Encyclopedia of Christianity (vol. 2), notes that while early Christian eschatology and funeral practices were distinctive, Christians shared with their pagan neighbors a ritual care for the dead and an interest in the afterlife. In fact, “initially Christians and pagans were buried side by side in public cemeteries. Christian graves were distinguished by theological imagery rather than by burial method.” Moreover, pagan funeral practices, such as libations and meals for the dead, were rooted in the belief that the body continued to matter after death. This challenges the idea that cremation (or even pagan burial) was always motivated by disdain for the body. It also complicates any strict “pagan = cremation/disrespect” vs. “Christian = burial/respect” binary.
This is where the “pagans did it, therefore it’s bad” argument falls apart. Pagans also practiced forms of baptism and even symbolic death-and-rebirth (e.g., Babylon, Egypt, Mithraism, etc). Circumcision was also common in Egypt before it became a sign of the covenant with Israel. That doesn’t automatically invalidate baptism or circumcision. Practices themselves are not made unclean by association if their intent and theology differ. Further, obviously, these are appointed by God directly, so don’t think I’m equating burial practices with such on that particular level. If something is directly condemned, like divination, then obviously, it being a pagan practice is a problem. However, with topics such as cremation, such a simplistic argument does not do. At the end of the day, pagans don’t own the world or practices not forbidden in scripture.
So why raise the issue of pagan funeral practices at all? Because modern Christian objections to cremation often hinge on this assumption: that cremation is inherently pagan, and therefore inherently dishonoring to the body or incompatible with Christian faith. But history tells a more complicated story. Pagan cultures were not monolithic, and many cultures cremated for reasons tied to dignity, protection, or belief in an afterlife. Their reasons for cremation were not necessarily tied to contempt for the body or Gnostic dualism.
By exposing this historical oversimplification, we can shift the conversation back to where it belongs: the lens of Scripture, conscience, and Christian wisdom. Yes, in ancient times, pagans promoted cremation. But that doesn’t make cremation inherently pagan or disrespectful to the body.
Disrespecting the body?
Regarding respect for the body, I agree that burial can be understood as a respectful practice. But the assumption that cremation is inherently disrespectful begs the question. Some have argued that cremation is iconoclastic (a concern among Catholics at times) or that it reflects a low view of the body, but the former doesn’t make sense to me, and the latter just isn’t necessarily true. For many Christians who choose cremation, it’s not a disdain for the body that led to it, but a personal choice for a number of reasons. Such a choice doesn’t come with a rejection of bodily resurrection, nor does it objectively devalue the body anymore when compared with decomposition in burial.
Symbolism, some Scripture, and Ethics
Voddie also mentions the imagery of being “raised from the ground,” tying that to resurrection and baptism. But it is symbolic (again) rather than prescriptive. First, many who are cremated still have their remains buried or scattered, so “raised from the ground” still applies. Second, the phrase is symbolic; resurrection is about being raised from death, not necessarily from six feet under (it does make you wonder about those who opt for burial at sea, for example, where does this fall?). “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism.” (Romans 6:3-11).
To say burial reflects a biblical ethic while cremation reflects a pagan one is to imply more than Scripture does. The Bible doesn’t offer explicit commands on the matter.
Johnston, in the Dictionary of the OT (Pentateuch), plainly notes,
“Perhaps surprisingly to the modern reader, the pentateuchal burial accounts contain no reference to religious ceremony, except for the Egyptianized mourning for Jacob (Gen 50:11). Similarly, there is no legislation dealing directly with burial, except for the immediate burial of criminals. Burial was not seen as an act of obvious religious significance. The only relevant legislation (1) prohibits trimming one’s hair and mutilating one’s body in mourning, probably because of their non-Yahwistic associations (Lev 19:27–28; 21:5); (2) prohibits eating part of the tithe in mourning (Deut 26:14, see below); and (3) concerns defilement from contact with corpses and graves. Such contact necessitated exclusion and purification (Num 5:2; 19:11–22) or postponement of Passover celebration (Num 9:6) and was forbidden altogether to the high *priest and to Nazirites (Lev 21:10–11; Num 6:9).” (Under “Burial and Mourning”).
With that said, you could just as easily argue that putting a body in the ground to decompose over decades slowly isn’t obviously more respectful than “reducing it to ash” in a matter of hours.
Still, it is fashionable on internet forums such as Reddit to pithily argue that such a comparison is like saying “murder is no different from letting someone die of old age.” Such an analogy is logically flawed and confuses categories. Obviously, murder is explicitly condemned while cremation is not. The analogy begs the question by assuming that burial is inherently good and cremation is inherently evil. Yet, the latter is the very point in dispute. This, of course, neglects the distinction between taking a life and handling a body post-mortem. Such analogies, while provocative, aren’t helpful.
The reality is, regardless of how you slice it, a body buried and fully decomposed and a body cremated will end up as inorganic remains, dust back to dust, cremation simply accelerates what burial prolongs (especially with the ‘pagan practice’ of embalming).
When it comes to ethics, while those who are anti-cremation will also push back against the financial argument for cremation, the biblical ethic to love those around you surely can include the principle of not burdening them with a hefty bill alongside their grief. Some will dismiss the financial aspect of it all as a compromise (which begs the question) or pragmatics, and it’s true, we shouldn’t let cost override conviction. Still, we also shouldn’t burden grieving families with a false guilt over a choice scripture does not forbid. Some will also dismiss the financial argument by suggesting a “modest box” or cloth burial as a remedy, which doesn’t necessarily strike many as more “dignified.” Quite the contrary, because finances are rarely the only consideration, such suggestions can feel even less dignified, as they seem more focused on merely preserving a tradition without truly honoring the person’s convictions.
At the end of the day, to act as if financial concerns are ethically irrelevant is to overlook the biblical principles of stewardship (Luke 16:10–12; Proverbs 21:20), love for neighbor (Galatians 6:2; Mark 12:31), provision for one’s family (1 Timothy 5:8; Proverbs 13:22), and, of course (as I’m arguing) freedom of conscience (Romans 14:5–12). These are not mere conveniences; they are moral considerations, especially concerning stewardship and what one’s family will be left with to have and deal with. Those who dismiss this have yet to show why these questions don’t belong in ethical reflection.
More Beyond Baucham: Resurrection and the Power of God
Some argue that burial “demonstrates belief in resurrection,” while cremation supposedly undermines the resurrection. But again, this is a matter of interpretation, not doctrine. I would say burial symbolizes it but no more demonstrates it than cremation. Those who favor cremation often argue that it’s because we believe in resurrection that the method of bodily disposal is less significant; God will raise the dead, whether from dust, ash, sea, or flame. One can argue that our strong faith that God will raise anybody is demonstrated in not being concerned with our body’s decomposition being sped up. This reality is admitted by anti-cremation individuals as well, so why the argument is framed as if cremation denies the resurrection is unknown to me.
Of course, related to the topic of resurrection is that Scripture affirms that even the wicked will be bodily raised (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:11–15), including those who were cremated, something that seems to be forgotten, the bodily resurrection of all for judgment. This includes every scattered remains, fossilized bones, fully decomposed bones, etc. And of course, the Martyrs who were burned at the stake aren’t disqualified from resurrection.
God is not constrained by decomposition or combustion. One could thus further argue that those who cling too tightly to burial over cremation are putting too much into preservation of the flesh when, again, the result is the same, and God will raise everyone anyway.
Biblical Texts on the Topic and Proof Texts
Now, it is true that burial is the predominant biblical example, and Jesus Himself was buried. It is also true that the majority of Christian history has considered it to be the best option (with many eras strongly opposing cremation). That makes burial a noble and meaningful option. Still, in terms of the scriptural witness, most pro-burial advocates will admit these texts are descriptive, not prescriptive. They will (generally, and ultimately) acknowledge that this is a matter of conviction, and even some will admit that cultural conceptions play a role. Culturally, the Jewish concern was less about burial vs. cremation (especially as we know cremation today, obviously) and more about avoiding disgrace, often meaning a body left exposed to the elements (Deut. 28:26; 1 Kings 13:22; 2 Kings 9:10, etc.).
Texts that mention burning as a punishment (Joshua 7:25) or as part of judgment imagery (Isaiah 30:33) do not address cremation at all, despite how they are brought up in these discussions. Neither are those texts on burnt offerings. These just aren’t in the same category. Few will (in my opinion, erroneously) point to 2 Kings 23:16 and Amos 2:1 as evidence against cremation. Yet, I suspect one of the reasons few will use this as proof for the claim is the reality of context. The desecration of pagan altars in 2 Kings and Moab’s vengeful war crime in Amos says nothing concerning respectful cremation.
Interestingly, Saul and his sons are burned in 1 Samuel 31:12-13 and their bones are buried afterward. There’s no condemnation of this. In fact, David later honors those who carried it out (2 Samuel 2:4–6). In the case of Saul, he was burned, and his bones were buried, yet (unless fossilized) those bones are now dust. To be clear: this doesn’t prove cremation is acceptable and indeed is an atypical circumstance in scripture, but it certainly softens any claim that it’s inherently dishonoring. It challenges those who try to oversimplify the subject.
Some will argue, “But his bones were buried.” Yet those individuals must answer: “If cremation is dishonoring unless bones remain and are buried, is it then permissible to cremate so long as the bones are released and buried? (which is both possible and occurs). 1 Samuel challenges the black and white categorizations that cremation is inherently dishonorable, especially in that it wasn’t shamed despite royalty being cremated. In fact, if we pressed harder, we could say: either cremation is not inherently dishonoring, or Scripture fails to condemn what would otherwise be an egregious act toward God’s anointed.
Amos 6, particularly verse 10, offers a fascinating and often overlooked description. The broader chapter is a prophetic critique of the complacency and indulgence of Jerusalem and Samaria, culminating in a pronouncement of judgment. In verse 10, we read: “One’s uncle, or the one who burns his bones, will lift him up to bring the bones out of the house.” The interpretation of this line is widely debated, but most understand it to describe a situation where burial was not possible, likely due to war, pestilence, or natural disaster. Thus reflecting an exceptional circumstance in Israel’s culture, where burial was normative.
Yet significantly, the act of burning is not condemned ( nor praised). And given that this passage is part of a judgment oracle, where Israel’s arrogance and excess are explicitly critiqued, it is notable that no moral shame is assigned to the burning of bones. If such an act were inherently disgraceful, it would be reasonable to expect some prophetic censure here. Instead, the silence may suggest that the act itself, while unusual, was not viewed as intrinsically dishonoring.
While arguments from silence are typically rocky, Amos does condemn other things directly in the same passage. If burning bodies were inherently dishonoring, as some argue based on texts like Amos 2 and 2 Kings 23, we would reasonably expect prophetic condemnation in Amos 6 as well, especially in a passage already filled with judgment (in fact, a minority of scholars propose different readings from “burning” to avoid the cremation implication; cf. The Tyndale Commentary on Amos).
The Body is a Temple
What about the body being a “temple of the Holy Spirit”? That’s true (1 Corinthians 6:19), but Paul’s context is focused on moral conduct, not burial practices. To apply the text to burial practices, I suppose we’d need to ask, is the Holy Spirit indwelling the corpse being buried and cremated while the soul departs? Scripture elsewhere refers to our bodies as tents that we’ll one day discard (2 Corinthians 5:1 4; 2 Peter 1:14). We’re awaiting a body, a “building from God, a house not made with hands” that won’t decay, unlike the ones we are going to discard. A richer theology of the body can argue that our current perishable bodies aren’t those worth preserving in light of the transformed bodies we will receive (cf. John 6:63).
Concluding Reflections
At the end of the day, much of this is opinion shaped by culture, tradition, and personal conviction. Burial is a strong choice, and I am convinced the majority of Christians, for quite some time, will stick with it. It has a rich biblical and historical pedigree. But it is not commanded, and cremation is not forbidden. Many arguments against cremation amount to assuming what they need to prove: that it’s undignified or irreverent in a way that burial is not.
For many, cremation is more dignified and avoids the discomfort of knowing a loved one’s body is slowly decomposing over decades with the help of creatures underground. Even the claim that cremation “destroys the person’s image” falters when one considers what happens to a buried body after 10–15 years, and how the image is preserved or honored in the decomposition process isn’t actually clear. One could argue that leaving a body to the creatures that aid in decomposition and decay is actually more “disturbing.” Not even the expensive sealed vaults prevent that forever.
Many other arguments go back to trying to focus on the ‘destruction’ of cremation as if decomposition is not equally ‘destructive.’ Perhaps it is easier when it is ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ Additionally, something that also seems to be neglected in the talks of ‘honoring the dead’ or “dignity” are the departed’s wishes themselves. Such ‘dishonor’ is a non-issue for those who desire cremation over burial. Other arguments of association or poisoning the well (cremation has increased because of secularists) don’t really need to be bothered with, as far as I’m concerned.
Ultimately, I think we’re dealing with wisdom and conscience issues here. Burial has tradition, history, and description on its side, but it is not a command. Cremation does not contradict or deny the resurrection, nor does it dishonor the image of God or disrespect the body in any objectively measurable way. We must be cautious about turning personal convictions into doctrinal demands.