Gal 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Lev 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Using Galatians 6:17 as proof that Leviticus 19:28 isn’t talking about all tattoos being a sin is, at best, a long stretch; and at worse there is absolutely no connection at all between them. There are several things to consider.
1. If the King James Version is correct in its translation, the issue is already dead. Galatians 6:17 says “I bear in my body…” not “on my skin.
2. If Paul was speaking metaphorically, the issue is also dead. We do know Paul was fond of using metaphors as in Eph 3:1, Eph 4:1 and Phlm 1:1. Paul calls himself a “prisoner of Christ”. We know he was at times a prisoner of Rome, but at no time did Jesus actually have Paul thrown in Jail and Jesus was the warden.
3. For this verse to work in refuting that Lev 19:28 is speaking of all tattoos, Paul must’ve had a literal tattoo of Jesus, Jesus’ name or something else identifying him as a Christian.
a. Paul was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), and had a reputation of being more zealous than most other Pharisees (Acts 26:5, Gal 1:14). It is reasonable to believe that whatever laws the common Pharisees observed, Paul was stricter and more consistent in following them.
b. If it was ok for a Pharisee to have a tattoo as long as it wasn’t to honor the dead, nor some sort of pagan symbol, Paul would’ve went beyond what the law required, so it would be doubtful that he had one if tattoos were allowable in some form (which Lev 19:28 doesn’t say).
c. Looking at it logically, having some sort of a tattoo that marked him as a Christian would’ve been dangerous. Paul was not ashamed to name the name of Christ, but having a tattoo of Christ would’ve allowed no cover whatsoever. He would not have had the opportunity to be all things to all men.
d. It is very doubtful for these reasons Paul had a tattoo.
4. If Paul actually did have a tattoo, when did he get it? From the context of Gal 6:17, it would have been after his conversion. The reason is simple: the verse says, “the marks of Lord Jesus.” Therefore, when he became a Christian, his calling and main focus was GRACE THROUGH FAITH. This is a sticking point for the argument because Paul would not have viewed the Law binding anymore. He said he was freed from the Law. Thus, Leviticus 19:28 no longer applied to him. Now if he had a tattoo before his conversion, then we could look at Gal 6 as evidence that not all tattoos were against the law.
5. What if Paul did actually have this tattoo? Let’s then look at the context of Galatians. This epistle is a corrective letter (and quite a scolding one) to the Galatians for allowing themselves to fall back under the law – specifically talking about circumcision. Paul makes a strong point throughout the letter that we are not under the law, and those that desire to put them back under the law were wanting to “glory in their flesh”.
With that in mind, after telling the Galatian “babes” in Christ that they shouldn’t mind/look at or do the things of the flesh, do you really think He’s going to end the rebuke by saying, “look don’t bother me anymore about this because I am a Christian and an Apostle and here’s my tattoo of Jesus to prove it!”? My point is what would a Jesus tattoo prove to a bunch of young Christians whom Paul just told not to glory in the flesh? It would’ve been hypocritical. That may work for Justin Beiber, but it’s ridiculous that Paul would’ve done that.
Personally, for me I can’t get past the first point. The Bible says what it says and the two verses are worlds apart. However, the other four points make the argument that Galatians 6:17 prove that Leviticus 19:28 isn’t talking about all tattoos, just ones for the dead, an extremely far stretch. It’s dependent on Paul actually having a tattoo and him using it to justify him being a Christian and an apostle.
In short, Galatians 6:17 has nothing to do and is not support tattoos. Grace through faith alone IS, though.... But there stil is no evidence. Lev 19:28 says "no tattoos". That's the bottom line. Again, grace allows it though.
