Tattoos

[theLords]

I'm afraid I don't understand why you are asking me this. I said tattoos were against the law by were covered by grace.

Aren't you imply that tattoos are sin, but even so [those sins] are "covered by grace"? First, you seek out the Law of Moses to support your case, but even that reference is to not marking the body for the sake of false gods. The Bible seems to show that there are two types of markings: (1) one made on the body for Jehovah, and (2) another made on the body for false gods. And, secondly, grace does not cover rebellion.

 

[Denique Coelum]

As we all know, the law of the Old Testament applies to us. Some of it applies in a literal way, some of it applies in a moral way, but it still applies all the same. Nothing is excised or thrown away.

We know that it's God's will that we don't immolate our children, or lie with animals or persons of the same gender, or persons to whom we're related.

We know that not mixing textiles in our garments and not eating pork applies to us to no lesser extent, yet it applies in a moral way, not a literal way. We don't mix what is of God with what is of the world, we don't partake of what is unclean.

If that's the case, the law regarding tattooing still applies, as does the law regarding beard trimming. Are these things to be literally observed? If not, they must have a moral bearing on us. What is it?

No law of the Old Testament, or indeed any part of scripture, is meaningless to us. It all has a bearing.

 

[theLords]

As we all know, the law of the Old Testament applies to us. Some of it applies in a literal way, some of it applies in a moral way, but it still applies all the same. Nothing is excised or thrown away.

We know that it's God's will that we don't immolate our children, or lie with animals or persons of the same gender, or persons to whom we're related.

We know that not mixing textiles in our garments and not eating pork applies to us to no lesser extent, yet it applies in a moral way, not a literal way. We don't mix what is of God with what is of the world, we don't partake of what is unclean.

If that's the case, the law regarding tattooing still applies, as does the law regarding beard trimming. Are these things to be literally observed? If not, they must have a moral bearing on us. What is it?

No law of the Old Testament, or indeed any part of scripture, is meaningless to us. It all has a bearing.

I agree with you concerning the Law, but the apostles still had this to say:

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Also, have you yet proven that the one and only verse in the Bible concerning tattoos is a condemnation of all tattoos? Reading the verse, it clearly says that we are not to put markings in our body to honor false gods.

(PS: What is the moral code behind not trimming the beard?)

 

[farouk]

I agree with you concerning the Law, but the apostles still had this to say:

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Also, have you yet proven that the one and only verse in the Bible concerning tattoos is a condemnation of all tattoos? Reading the verse, it clearly says that we are not to put markings in our body to honor false gods.

(PS: What is the moral code behind not trimming the beard?)

TheLords:

I don't know whether you have or would want a tattoo, faith based or otherwise, or not. But it seems to me that if someone is strongly motivated to have a faith based tattoo, and sees it as a witness, then in terms of Romans 14 and Christian liberty — especially when it may be Gospel motivated — it's hard to criticize.

The heart and intent has a lot to do with it. I'm sure you would agree.

 

[theLords]

TheLords:

I don't know whether you have or would want a tattoo, faith based or otherwise, or not. But it seems to me that if someone is strongly motivated to have a faith based tattoo, and sees it as a witness, then in terms of Romans 14 and Christian liberty — especially when it may be Gospel motivated — it's hard to criticize.

The heart and intent has a lot to do with it. I'm sure you would agree.

Farouk, I absolutely agree that it is all about the intent of the heart. I'm simply looking for Christians to respond to this issue Biblically, but no one has addressed the point I've brought up. Instead, you hear things like "A Christian shouldn't get tattooed because they are associated with punks" or "Tattoo parlors just look evil!" as if those with tattoos are less than human. I wish people could hear what is coming out of their own hearts when they make comments like that.

It's an issue that is left between each Christian and God, but there will never be a shortage of Christians found condemning other Christians concerning any issue. Any Christian who is strong enough to get a tattoo, is also strong enough to bless and pray for those who condemn them, though.

 

[farouk]

Farouk, I absolutely agree that it is all about the intent of the heart. I'm simply looking for Christians to respond to this issue Biblically, but no one has addressed the point I've brought up. Instead, you hear things like "A Christian shouldn't get tattooed because they are associated with punks" or "Tattoo parlors just look evil!" as if those with tattoos are less than human. I wish people could hear what is coming out of their own hearts when they make comments like that.

It's an issue that is left between each Christian and God, but there will never be a shortage of Christians found condemning other Christians concerning tattoos. Any Christian who is strong enough to get a tattoo, is also strong enough to bless and pray for those who condemn them, though.

The Lords:

You have a very interesting insight there, which I guess goes far beyond the issue of whether you yourself would be prepared to go under the needle for witness purposes.

The fact is that some people feel they want to do it for precisely that reason.

I do find Romans 14 a challenging passage, because it can sort out my attitude to my fellow Christians in so many ways.

Some things are indeed a matter of doctrine versus heresy, truth versus error; but Scripture also points out that there are other issues which are not so.

For example, Paul circumcised Timothy: this was not because in itself it was worth anything, or because Paul wanted Timohty to go back under the law. Rather, it made Timothy's testimony before Jews more eloquent because with a background in Scripture and as someone circumcised, it was with the motive to advance the Gospel.

 

[ivorhughjarse]

Who has Biblically stated God's view on the matter? There is nothing in this thread but the reasonings of men.

You want to live under the Law of Moses and reject the Covenant of Jesus Christ? By all means, you can do so, but you will also be judged by it and must submit yourself to the entirety of the Law of Moses. If you mix your diary and meet tonight at dinner, you will be guilty of sinning against the Law of Moses.

God had a view in Lev 19...he either had that view or not! (we would need to read it to see)..... Its not about keeping the Law today. The question is do we have a similar concern that God does about tattoos because he had concern back then...if he has no concern today that is God changing his view!

 

[farouk]

God had a view in Lev 19...he either had that view or not! (we would need to read it to see)..... Its not about keeping the Law today. The question is do we have a similar concern that God does about tattoos because he had concern back then...if he has no concern today that is God changing his view!

ivorhughjarse:

I take your point; but from an interpretation perspective, the same passage talks about not shaving, so does this mean preachers mustn't shave today? Again, the heart should be right, surely.

 

[Slider]

Aren't you imply that tattoos are sin, but even so [those sins] are "covered by grace"? First, you seek out the Law of Moses to support your case, but even that reference is to not marking the body for the sake of false gods. The Bible seems to show that there are two types of markings: (1) one made on the body for Jehovah, and (2) another made on the body for false gods. And, secondly, grace does not cover rebellion.

According to the Bible, yes it is a sin. Also according to the Bible all sins of the flesh (by that I mean non-spiritual sins) are covered by grace. I have a tattoo, and it in no way affects my salvation in a positive or negative manner, since I am covered by grace. I'm on your side!

Also, have you yet proven that the one and only verse in the Bible concerning tattoos is a condemnation of all tattoos? Reading the verse, it clearly says that we are not to put markings in our body to honor false gods.

(PS: What is the moral code behind not trimming the beard?).

I've read Lev 19:28 and it mentions not to do it to honor the dead (and if you do, it's covered by grace), and then it says, "nor any print of marks upon you, I am the Lord." It doesn't say anything about honoring false gods; it just says don't do it. Historically, you are correct according to some degree because often times the heathen nations did that. However, this verse says simply "don't do it".

If you are saying the because God added, "I am the Lord" that it means it's only talking about markings which honor false gods, then you should look at the other times he added that phrase. Alot of times he said that it did have to do with proper worship, but not always. For example, he said that after verses 10 and 36 of that chapter, and neither of them had anything to do with honoring false gods or honoring God.

 

[theLords]

According to the Bible, yes it is a sin. Also according to the Bible all sins of the flesh (by that I mean non-spiritual sins) are covered by grace. I have a tattoo, and it in no way affects my salvation in a positive or negative manner, since I am covered by grace. I'm on your side!



I've read Lev 19:28 and it mentions not to do it to honor the dead (and if you do, it's covered by grace), and then it says, "nor any print of marks upon you, I am the Lord." It doesn't say anything about honoring false gods; it just says don't do it. Historically, you are correct according to some degree because often times the heathen nations did that. However, this verse says simply "don't do it".

If you are saying the because God added, "I am the Lord" that it means it's only talking about markings which honor false gods, then you should look at the other times he added that phrase. Alot of times he said that it did have to do with proper worship, but not always. For example, he said that after verses 10 and 36 of that chapter, and neither of them had anything to do with honoring false gods or honoring God.

If you consider that having markings on the skin to show a servants ownership to a master, as I showed, which is Biblical, then Leviticus cannot be used as an overall blanket statement. This isn't about taking sides, this is about what is determined through Scripture, and how misapplication of Scripture leads to condemnation of several Godly people.

 

[theLords]

Let's seriously look at these verses:

Leviticus 19:28
Ye shall not make 5414 any 3793 cuttings 8296 in your flesh 1320 for the dead 5315, nor print 5414 any marks 7085 upon you: I [am] the LORD 3068.

Strong's H7085 qa'aqa קַעֲקַע
1. Incision, imprint, tattoo, mark
(Stigma, a mark branded on the skin)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7085&t=KJV

Now, Paul, uses the same word "stigma" when referring to the marks of the Lord Jesus on his body. So, why would a Law abiding Jew, violate the Law? Or, is it simply modern gentile misunderstanding?

Galatians 6:17 (NSAB)
From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.

Gal 6:17 From henceforth 3064 let 3930 0 no man 3367 trouble 3930 me 2873 3427: for 1063 I 1473 bear 941 in 1722 my 3450 body 4983 the marks 4742 of the Lord 2962 Jesus 2424.

Strong's G4742 - stigma στίγμα
1) a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander branded or pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what master or general they belonged to, and there were even some devotee's who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G4742&t=KJV

Isaiah 44:5 (NSAB)
"This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S'; And that one will call on the name of Jacob; And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,' And will name Israel's name with honor.

Isa 44:5 One shall say 559 , I [am] the LORD'S 3068; and another shall call 7121 [himself] by the name 8034 of Jacob 3290; and another shall subscribe 3789 his hand 3027 unto the LORD 3068, and surname 3655 [himself] by the name 8034 of Israel 3478.

Strong's H3789 - kathab כָּתַב
1) to write, record, enrol
a) (Qal)
1) to write, inscribe, engrave, write in, write on
2) to write down, describe in writing
3) to register, enrol, record
4) to decree
b) (Niphal)
1) to be written
2) to be written down, be recorded, be enrolled
c) (Piel) to continue writing

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H3789&t=KJV

 

[farouk]

If you consider that having markings on the skin to show a servants ownership to a master, as I showed, which is Biblical, then Leviticus cannot be used as an overall blanket statement. This isn't about taking sides, this is about what is determined through Scripture, and how misapplication of Scripture leads to condemnation of several Godly people.

TheLords:

Yes, it's interesting that you linked Galatians 6.17 to the idea of the faith related tattoo. I hadn't really thought of this before in quite that way, I suppose.

I suppose, too, it's similar to the idea of the Old Testament bondservant who, when offered his liberty and when he or she chose to use that liberty in perpetual service to his or her master, received ear piercing as a sign of it. There was a book by Elisabeth Hoekstra, 'A Heart for God' Bethany House, where the author says that she "chose to take the Exodus 21:2-6 verses literally. I wanted there to be an outward sign of my soul belonging to my Lord. My ears had already been pierced once when I was a teenager, but I had each ear pierced a second time. Some could say I had the second holes done in response to a trend. But I know my heart's interest: I wanted my commitment inside to be seen outside. I wanted the second hole to be a sign of obedience and a mark of ownership. Like the Hebrew servants in the Old Testament, I opted for the choice of staying a servant with my Master. I wanted to serve Him for life."

Now I am sure that many Christians (and non-Christians) don't regard ear piercing in this way; they just do it anyway!

But I guess in some ways it's kind of comparable to the application of Galatians 6.17 to the idea of a faith related tattoo, which you suggested.

Not every Christian will want to do it. Some Christians are scared of needles (!); others wouldn't feel a tattoo was something for them.

But if you or another Christian wanted to make the truth of Galatians 6.17 a kind of witness talking point by getting needled for a faith related design, then it would seem to be within the bounds of Romans 14 and Christian liberty where the motive may be Gospel-related.

(If this makes sense?)

 

[Slider]

If you consider that having markings on the skin to show a servants ownership to a master, as I showed, which is Biblical, then Leviticus cannot be used as an overall blanket statement. This isn't about taking sides, this is about what is determined through Scripture, and how misapplication of Scripture leads to condemnation of several Godly people.

I am not condemning anyone, I'm saying Christians have the liberty and freedom to do so! I have a tattoo, about a third of the people in my Church have tattoos (including the Pastor!), so you can't say I am. I just won't ignore this verse. Its there, but we are not under the law.

If you want to talk about Gal 6:17, fine. Paul was the guy who said we weren't under the law. However, he said "in my body..." (KJV) As for Isa 44:5... The KJV says "subscribes with his hand...", not on it. Even so (because I realize other Bibles say it differently), God never said it was good or bad in that verse. he just said some will (future tense, by the way) do it. In any sense, that verse doesn't modify Lev 19:28.

 

[farouk]

I am not condemning anyone, I'm saying Christians have the liberty and freedom to do so! I have a tattoo, about a third of the people in my Church have tattoos (including the Pastor!) ...

Slider:

Yes, well it doesn't surprise me that he, and so many of you guys, do have them.

It's not unusual any more.

These days it wouldn't any longer be unusual for pastors, pastors' wives or even grandmothers to have them, either, though I guess that with church women the faith related aspect would probably be particularly emphasized in the designs.

(My further two cents'.)

 

[theLords]

I am not condemning anyone, I'm saying Christians have the liberty and freedom to do so! I have a tattoo, about a third of the people in my Church have tattoos (including the Pastor!), so you can't say I am. I just won't ignore this verse. Its there, but we are not under the law.

If you want to talk about Gal 6:17, fine. Paul was the guy who said we weren't under the law. However, he said "in my body..." (KJV) As for Isa 44:5... The KJV says "subscribes with his hand...", not on it. Even so (because I realize other Bibles say it differently), God never said it was good or bad in that verse. he just said some will (future tense, by the way) do it. In any sense, that verse doesn't modify Lev 19:28.

I didn't say you were condemning. I said misapplication of Scripture leads to condemnation.

How is it that in Leviticus the word marking, is "stigma" and that in Galatians the world for marking is "stigma"?

So in the Old Testament we have: "Thou shalt not make any stigma on your body" and in the New Testament we have "Do not trouble me for I have the stigma of Christ on my body."

To interpret the passage the way you are, requires that the verses refrain from being reconciled. How is it that Paul, an Apostle, a founding father of the faith, a man of God, a Law keeping Jew has broken the Law of Moses? The way you, and many others, are interpreting the text simply does not make sense.

The Word of God, and God Himself, does not contradict. Yet, the interpretation that markings (even for God) on the body, is entirely sin, does not do justice to the Word of God. It makes Paul, a Law breaker (and not simply in the "sinner" sense).

The word "in" is:

Strong's G1722 - en ἐν
Part of Speech

preposition

Root Word (Etymology)

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between εἰς (G1519) and ἐκ (G1537))

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) in, by, with etc.

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 2800
AV — in 1902, by 163, with 140, among 117, at 113, on 62, through 39, misc 264

The Greek word, "en" is translated by the KJV as "in" and translated by others as "on". Now, there are two types of understandings concerning Galatians 6:17. One, that Paul is referring to the scars on his body from being tortured with Christ, or (two) that, Paul, is referring to being branded with the name of the Redeemer, (or branded to show who his Master is). Now, if you want to align with reference one, how does the verb "in" in the context you see it as (which, I assume you refer to as "I bear the markings of Christ within...") fit? And, how does the explanation of reference one, fit with the word stigma, which is a word specifically used to describe the markings of ownership (according to Strong's Concordance)?

​

How can you see this and still say that Leviticus is a blanket "no markings on the body" command? The words for marking in the Old and New Testament (Lev&Gal) are exactly the same (with the same exact reference/connotation: marking on a skin for a god). The single and only use of "stigma" is found in the Old Testament, Leviticus, and the single and only use of "stigma" is again found in the New Testament, is Galatians. Is this mere coincidence, that Paul, speaking through the Holy Spirit, would use the same word, who's only reference is found in Leviticus 19:28?

And, as far as Isaiah 44:5, this is how it is worded in Hebrew:

44:5
ze
this-one
יאֹמַר
iamr
he-shall-say
לַיהוָה
l·ieue
to·Yahweh
אָנִי
ani
I
וְזֶה
u·ze
and·this-one
יִקְרָא
iqra
he-shall-call
& בְ ֵ
b·shm
in·name-of
־
-
יַעֲקֹב
ioqb
Jacob
5
וְזֶה
u·ze
and·this-one
ב יִכְ ֹ
ikthb
he-shall-write
יָד
id·u
hand-of·him
לַיהוָה
l·ieue
to·Yahweh
& בְ ֵ #
u·b·shm
and·in·name-of
רָאֵל יִ ְ
ishral
Israel
ה, יְכַ ֶ
ikne
he-shall-mentitle
:
:
פ
p

One shall say, I [am] the LORD'S; and another shall call [himself] by the name
of Jacob; and another shall subscribe [with] his hand unto the LORD, and surname [himself] by the name of Israel.

If you notice, the with is placed in brackets, which means it is not in the text, but placed there by the interpreter. The English is the KJV. Now, I'm willing to take this verse off the table. But, how do you reconcile Leviticus and Galatians, which both use the word "stigma"?

 

[theLords]

TheLords:

Yes, it's interesting that you linked Galatians 6.17 to the idea of the faith related tattoo. I hadn't really thought of this before in quite that way, I suppose.

I suppose, too, it's similar to the idea of the Old Testament bondservant who, when offered his liberty and when he or she chose to use that liberty in perpetual service to his or her master, received ear piercing as a sign of it. There was a book by Elisabeth Hoekstra, 'A Heart for God' Bethany House, where the author says that she "chose to take the Exodus 21:2-6 verses literally. I wanted there to be an outward sign of my soul belonging to my Lord. My ears had already been pierced once when I was a teenager, but I had each ear pierced a second time. Some could say I had the second holes done in response to a trend. But I know my heart's interest: I wanted my commitment inside to be seen outside. I wanted the second hole to be a sign of obedience and a mark of ownership. Like the Hebrew servants in the Old Testament, I opted for the choice of staying a servant with my Master. I wanted to serve Him for life."

Now I am sure that many Christians (and non-Christians) don't regard ear piercing in this way; they just do it anyway!

But I guess in some ways it's kind of comparable to the application of Galatians 6.17 to the idea of a faith related tattoo, which you suggested.

Not every Christian will want to do it. Some Christians are scared of needles (!); others wouldn't feel a tattoo was something for them.

But if you or another Christian wanted to make the truth of Galatians 6.17 a kind of witness talking point by getting needled for a faith related design, then it would seem to be within the bounds of Romans 14 and Christian liberty where the motive may be Gospel-related.

(If this makes sense?)

I agree with you, and it does make sense, thank you for sharing the words of Elisabeth Hoekstra with me. In the end, I'm not trying to argue for or against tattoos. Like you, I agree that it is a matter of individual taste and preference and there is freedom in Christ. I'm simply trying to establish my understanding Biblically.

 

[farouk]

I didn't say you were condemning. I said misapplication of Scripture leads to condemnation.

How is it that in Leviticus the word marking, is "stigma" and that in Galatians the world for marking is "stigma"?

So in the Old Testament we have: "Thou shalt not make any stigma on your body" and in the New Testament we have "Do not trouble me for I have the stigma of Christ on my body."

To interpret the passage the way you are, requires that the verses refrain from being reconciled. How is it that Paul, an Apostle, a founding father of the faith, a man of God, a Law keeping Jew has broken the Law of Moses? The way you, and many others, are interpreting the text simply does not make sense.

The Word of God, and God Himself, does not contradict. Yet, the interpretation that markings (even for God) on the body, is entirely sin, does not do justice to the Word of God. It makes Paul, a Law breaker (and not simply in the "sinner" sense).

How can you see this and still say that Leviticus is a blanket "no markings on the body" command?

And, as far as Isaiah 44:5, this is how it is worded in Hebrew:

44:5
ze
this-one
יאֹמַר
iamr
he-shall-say
לַיהוָה
l·ieue
to·Yahweh
אָנִי
ani
I
וְזֶה
u·ze
and·this-one
יִקְרָא
iqra
he-shall-call
& בְ ֵ
b·shm
in·name-of
־
-
יַעֲקֹב
ioqb
Jacob
5
וְזֶה
u·ze
and·this-one
ב יִכְ ֹ
ikthb
he-shall-write
 יָד
id·u
hand-of·him
לַיהוָה
l·ieue
to·Yahweh
& בְ ֵ #
u·b·shm
and·in·name-of
רָאֵל  יִ ְ
ishral
Israel
ה, יְכַ ֶ
ikne
he-shall-mentitle
:
:
פ
p

One shall say, I [am] the LORD'S; and another shall call [himself] by the name
of Jacob; and another shall subscribe [with] his hand unto the LORD, and surname [himself] by the name of Israel.

If you notice, the with is placed in brackets, which means it is not in the text, but placed there by the interpreter. The English is the KJV. Now, I'm willing to take this verse off the table. But, how do you reconcile Leviticus and Galatians, which both use the word "stigma"?

TheLords:

Sounds like there is in your view enough theological justification or at least residual sanction for some people to have valid Christian tattoo businesses, maybe with parlors that would particularly be Christian-friendly?

I don't want to 'put words in your mouth', but maybe your comments could be logically taken as pointing generally in this direction, anyway.

Blessings.

 

[theLords]

TheLords:

Sounds like there is in your view enough theological justification or at least residual sanction for some people to have valid Christian tattoo businesses, maybe with parlors that would particularly be Christian-friendly?

I don't want to 'put words in your mouth', but maybe your comments could be logically taken as pointing generally in this direction, anyway.

Blessings.

You know, I never really even considered a Christian having a tattoo business. I would, personally, say that just like any business it should be taken to the Lord!

I am just seeing that Scripture shows, two, kinds of brandings. One made for the sake of idols, and one made for the sake of Jehovah.

Blessings, right back, brother!

 

[farouk]

I agree with you, and it does make sense, thank you for sharing the words of Elisabeth Hoekstra with me. In the end, I'm not trying to argue for or against tattoos. Like you, I agree that it is a matter of individual taste and preference and there is freedom in Christ. I'm simply trying to establish my understanding Biblically.

TheLords:

YW, so you liked the words of Elisabeth Hoekstra, then? Personally I wouldn't necessarily see such a close link to the two practices, but I guess it can helpfully be seen in the light of the fact that it is simply and undeniable a nice practice which many women do, to use your words, as 'a matter of individual taste and preference', in getting further studs clicked into their earlobes. I suppose when it's Christian women that do it (especially when it's older women choosing to have it done rather than teenagers) then it can also become a bit of a talking point, which can then lead to further, broader discussion, linking to Scripture themes, sometimes. (Seeing as it's a womanly thing to compliment each other on some aspect of each other's appearance, sometimes.)

The same I suppose with faith based tattoos. It's not unusual for ppl to compliment tattoo-wearers on their art, and something faith based, which may on the surface be 'a matter of individual taste and preference', as you say, can also act as a lead in for conversations.

Hope this makes sense, too. (I just saw your other post, but I thought I should respond to your earlier one first.)

Blessings.

 

[Slider]

To interpret the passage the way you are, requires that the verses refrain from being reconciled. How is it that Paul, an Apostle, a founding father of the faith, a man of God, a Law keeping Jew has broken the Law of Moses? The way you, and many others, are interpreting the text simply does not make sense.

The Word of God, and God Himself, does not contradict. Yet, the interpretation that markings (even for God) on the body, is entirely sin, does not do justice to the Word of God. It makes Paul, a Law breaker (and not simply in the "sinner" sense).

The Greek word, "en" is translated by the KJV as "in" and translated by others as "on". Now, there are two types of understandings concerning Galatians 6:17. One, that Paul is referring to the scars on his body from being tortured with Christ, or (two) that, Paul, is referring to being branded with the name of the Redeemer, (or branded to show who his Master is). Now, if you want to align with reference one, how does the verb "in" in the context you see it as (which, I assume you refer to as "I bear the markings of Christ within...") fit? And, how does the explanation of reference one, fit with the word stigma, which is a word specifically used to describe the markings of ownership (according to Strong's Concordance)?​

If you notice, the with is placed in brackets, which means it is not in the text, but placed there by the interpreter. The English is the KJV. Now, I'm willing to take this verse off the table. But, how do you reconcile Leviticus and Galatians, which both use the word "stigma"?

1. Paul said we were not under the Law. So if he said, "I have the marking on my body" isn't a big deal. Paul preached grace, and he gave up following the Law.
2. Do you really believe Paul had a tattoo? Or perhaps he wasn't being literal. It really doesn't matter either way, because Paul preached we are not under the law.
3. He said "in my body". Yes it makes sense, he was saying he was a servant of Christ, if you want to focus on "scar of service".

I am not going to argue with what the KJV says, or with any other Bible. But I go by the KJV, and thus the two verses are worlds apart.