Poll re. good tattoo artist career for a Christian woman - Part 2

[Jethro Bodine]

The meaning of tattoos has not.

What is the meaning of tattoos that has not changed?

That it signifies an underlying value system of pride, rebellion, and sensuality (in a word-worldliness). Not in long times past as to make it a non issue today, like beards, but in very recent generations.

But of course that's changing because we have young people growing up not knowing that's what it has meant in our modern western societies and have been led into the practice by those who do know what it represents, but approved of it anyway.

 

[handy]

But of course that's changing because we have young people growing up not knowing that's what it has meant in our modern western societies....

Therefore the meaning of tattoos are changing. And have been for a good 25 years now.

The "meaning" of any inanimate object can only be what someone puts upon it. A tattoo has no inherent meaning, just like the style of dress has no inherent meaning. If I were to wear what I'm wearing now, long shorts cut just below the knee and a t-shirt, out and about several generations ago, folks would have been scandalized...but not any longer. Now I'm dressed quite conservatively. Maybe some much older folks are still choosing to be scandalized. OK, their prerogative. But the "meaning" of bare legs on a woman isn't the same as it was several generations ago, no more than the "meaning" of tattoos is. Yes, some can superimpose their own "meaning" that was more commonly agreed upon 30 or so years ago, but isn't that kind of silly behavior?

Isn't superimposing one's own "meaning" onto the actions of another and then disdaining the other the very definition of being judgmental?

 

[farouk]

You're using my previous comments to suggest I think no pastor's wife can dress inappropriately? Oh well.

Then clarify. Are you making the point that the way some pastor's wives dress really is okay, and so tattoos are okay, too; or that the church accepts something that is obviously wrong and, therefore, should (or has to) accept tattoos, also?

Cutting for the dead is against what Leviticus says; but then make sure a man also doesn't trim the corners of his beard; it says so in the same passage. Do preachers shave? (Even then the New Testament believer is not under the power of the law).

It's what those things signified, not the acts in and of themselves. This is what I've been trying to get across to you when I say it's not the content of the tattoo that makes it right or wrong, but just the fact you're doing it.

Of course you'll still want to say the cutting of beards is that, too. But that is no longer true for beards. But tattoos have not become as beards and matters of dress. They will one day now that many like yourself are bringing tattooing into the church. But that hasn't happened yet. As I said, despite many naive people indulging the practice, tattooing is still known to be rooted in rebellion and sensuality and closely connected with a personal value system that exalts and approves of those things. I'm not saying everyone who has a tattoo has that value system. I'm saying that's what tattooing still communicates in our western culture, despite your insistence that it can, or does, communicate the opposite, or at least nothing either way.

Romans 14, and its treatise for Christian liberty, would seem to suggest that Christians under grace might well choose to use such a means to communicate faith.

(Though maybe you and I don't see dispensational issues in the same light.)

Blessings.

I'm not coming at this from a law perspective (though the law is very clear on the matter). So there's no need to visit the dispensational issue about the requirements of the law.

I don't know how you get out of Romans 14 that we can adopt known pagan practices, known to be utterly and undeniably rooted in rebellion and sensuality in our western culture, to somehow communicate the gospel. I get how you can think it's okay for you to do for yourself...covered up and out of sight so as not to cause someone else to violate their own conscience about the matter. That I see in Romans 14. I do not see an endorsement for using known pagan practices and worldly values to further the gospel.

edit: Romans 14 is actually speaking of suppressing known pagan practices in order to further the work of Christ. It is a chapter about forfeiting one's legitimate freedoms for the sake of Christ, not indulging them for the sake of Christ.

Hi [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]:

Actually it's Leviticus 19 that makes the connection with beards: if one is truly under the law rather than under grace, one can't pick and choose.

(I do still wonder, though: do preachers shave? of course they do.)

Re. Romans 14, this is what some verses say:

(v.2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

(v.4) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

(v.6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

(v.22) Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Therefore the meaning of tattoos are changing. And have been for a good 25 years now.

The "meaning" of any inanimate object can only be what someone puts upon it. A tattoo has no inherent meaning, just like the style of dress has no inherent meaning. If I were to wear what I'm wearing now, long shorts cut just below the knee and a t-shirt, out and about several generations ago, folks would have been scandalized...but not any longer. Now I'm dressed quite conservatively. Maybe some much older folks are still choosing to be scandalized. OK, their prerogative. But the "meaning" of bare legs on a woman isn't the same as it was several generations ago, no more than the "meaning" of tattoos is. Yes, some can superimpose their own "meaning" that was more commonly agreed upon 30 or so years ago, but isn't that kind of silly behavior?

Isn't superimposing one's own "meaning" onto the actions of another and then disdaining the other the very definition of being judgmental?

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION]:

Reminds me a bit of the old 'no pants for women' argument, which has little relevance today.

It's also a bit like projecting notions of compulsory floor length dresses, which were the vogue in Victorian times, on women today.

Similarly, in one of your previous posts a while back I think you said that a number of women at your church have felt free to get inked, which, decades back, maybe they wouldn't have, but it's a customary, cultural thing, right? (And my two cents' is also that if the design can be faith based, then there is also witness potential.)

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But of course that's changing because we have young people growing up not knowing that's what it has meant in our modern western societies....

Therefore the meaning of tattoos are changing. And have been for a good 25 years now.

The problem it's still largely a product of rebellion and sensuality despite how much society embraces it as being 'okay'. I don't live under a rock. All you have to have is cable TV to know this.

The "meaning" of any inanimate object can only be what someone puts upon it.

Only? I will post some pictures of women's dress that is popular and accepted today and let's test this statement.

A tattoo has no inherent meaning, just like the style of dress has no inherent meaning.

Not really true for dress as I can easily show you. But the point is, any tattoo still generally means rebellion and sensuality. To think a tattoo is just a fashion statement like what color your shirt is going to be today is not even remotely true. In general it's still intended to communicate things way beyond what we attempt to communicate through our choice of work clothes, for example.

If I were to wear what I'm wearing now, long shorts cut just below the knee and a t-shirt, out and about several generations ago, folks would have been scandalized...but not any longer.

Below the knee? Honestly, I don't believe that's true to any degree that we need to take it seriously.

Even an isolated, misguided phase of such thinking among a certain group of people in no way rationalizes something so historically and categorically born of rebellion and sensuality in our western society. It's like saying it's okay to put various potentially dangerous preservatives in some of our foods, so it's okay to drink strychnine.

Now I'm dressed quite conservatively. Maybe some much older folks are still choosing to be scandalized. OK, their prerogative. But the "meaning" of bare legs on a woman isn't the same as it was several generations ago, no more than the "meaning" of tattoos is.

...and see how we've kidded ourselves into thinking it was okay for women to show more and more of their bodies. I don't know how you could argue with that. It didn't happen over night.

Yes, some can superimpose their own "meaning" that was more commonly agreed upon 30 or so years ago, but isn't that kind of silly behavior?

Superimpose? The practice still largely represents the underworld of sin and rebellion. This is so obvious I wonder why anyone would try to challenge the point.

What's silly is trying to superimpose piety onto something so obviously and unarguably worldly and born of the worldliness of man.

Isn't superimposing one's own "meaning" onto the actions of another and then disdaining the other the very definition of being judgmental?

No. I've been careful to say we can't know that any one person
getting an 'innocent' little tattoo on their body is doing it because they are rebellious and worldly. More and more true as we raise generations of kids who are taught to disconnect the historical meaning of getting tattoos from getting one themselves.

What we can do is condemn the practice. It's impossible to argue that somehow getting a tattoo in our western society had, historically, only been good or bad based on the tattoo and the person getting the tattoo. The practice itself is still fair game for condemnation. People need to take it individually from there and discern their own motives and ambitions and goals in getting that tattoo. 'Blessed is he who does not condemn himself by what he approves.' (Romans 14:22 NIV1975)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then clarify. Are you making the point that the way some pastor's wives dress really is okay, and so tattoos are okay, too; or that the church accepts something that is obviously wrong and, therefore, should (or has to) accept tattoos, also?



It's what those things signified, not the acts in and of themselves. This is what I've been trying to get across to you when I say it's not the content of the tattoo that makes it right or wrong, but just the fact you're doing it.

Of course you'll still want to say the cutting of beards is that, too. But that is no longer true for beards. But tattoos have not become as beards and matters of dress. They will one day now that many like yourself are bringing tattooing into the church. But that hasn't happened yet. As I said, despite many naive people indulging the practice, tattooing is still known to be rooted in rebellion and sensuality and closely connected with a personal value system that exalts and approves of those things. I'm not saying everyone who has a tattoo has that value system. I'm saying that's what tattooing still communicates in our western culture, despite your insistence that it can, or does, communicate the opposite, or at least nothing either way.

Romans 14, and its treatise for Christian liberty, would seem to suggest that Christians under grace might well choose to use such a means to communicate faith.

(Though maybe you and I don't see dispensational issues in the same light.)

Blessings.

I'm not coming at this from a law perspective (though the law is very clear on the matter). So there's no need to visit the dispensational issue about the requirements of the law.

I don't know how you get out of Romans 14 that we can adopt known pagan practices, known to be utterly and undeniably rooted in rebellion and sensuality in our western culture, to somehow communicate the gospel. I get how you can think it's okay for you to do for yourself...covered up and out of sight so as not to cause someone else to violate their own conscience about the matter. That I see in Romans 14. I do not see an endorsement for using known pagan practices and worldly values to further the gospel.

edit: Romans 14 is actually speaking of suppressing known pagan practices in order to further the work of Christ. It is a chapter about forfeiting one's legitimate freedoms for the sake of Christ, not indulging them for the sake of Christ.

Hi [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]:

Actually it's Leviticus 19 that makes the connection with beards: if one is truly under the law rather than under grace, one can't pick and choose.

(I do still wonder, though: do preachers shave? of course they do.)

Re. Romans 14, this is what some verses say:

(v.2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

(v.4) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

(v.6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

(v.22) Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Blessings.

I see you didn't hear a word I said.

 

[Ryan]

But of course that's changing because we have young people growing up not knowing that's what it has meant in our modern western societies....

Therefore the meaning of tattoos are changing. And have been for a good 25 years now.

So has the definition of marriage over the same period as well. That change has been good for our civilization as well...right???

The old ways seem to be the better ways according to God.

Jeremiah 6:16
Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

 

[farouk]

Then clarify. Are you making the point that the way some pastor's wives dress really is okay, and so tattoos are okay, too; or that the church accepts something that is obviously wrong and, therefore, should (or has to) accept tattoos, also?



It's what those things signified, not the acts in and of themselves. This is what I've been trying to get across to you when I say it's not the content of the tattoo that makes it right or wrong, but just the fact you're doing it.

Of course you'll still want to say the cutting of beards is that, too. But that is no longer true for beards. But tattoos have not become as beards and matters of dress. They will one day now that many like yourself are bringing tattooing into the church. But that hasn't happened yet. As I said, despite many naive people indulging the practice, tattooing is still known to be rooted in rebellion and sensuality and closely connected with a personal value system that exalts and approves of those things. I'm not saying everyone who has a tattoo has that value system. I'm saying that's what tattooing still communicates in our western culture, despite your insistence that it can, or does, communicate the opposite, or at least nothing either way.

Romans 14, and its treatise for Christian liberty, would seem to suggest that Christians under grace might well choose to use such a means to communicate faith.

(Though maybe you and I don't see dispensational issues in the same light.)

Blessings.

I'm not coming at this from a law perspective (though the law is very clear on the matter). So there's no need to visit the dispensational issue about the requirements of the law.

I don't know how you get out of Romans 14 that we can adopt known pagan practices, known to be utterly and undeniably rooted in rebellion and sensuality in our western culture, to somehow communicate the gospel. I get how you can think it's okay for you to do for yourself...covered up and out of sight so as not to cause someone else to violate their own conscience about the matter. That I see in Romans 14. I do not see an endorsement for using known pagan practices and worldly values to further the gospel.

edit: Romans 14 is actually speaking of suppressing known pagan practices in order to further the work of Christ. It is a chapter about forfeiting one's legitimate freedoms for the sake of Christ, not indulging them for the sake of Christ.

Hi [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]:

Actually it's Leviticus 19 that makes the connection with beards: if one is truly under the law rather than under grace, one can't pick and choose.

(I do still wonder, though: do preachers shave? of course they do.)

Re. Romans 14, this is what some verses say:

(v.2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

(v.4) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

(v.6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

(v.22) Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Blessings.

I see you didn't hear a word I said.

[MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]:

I thought I was trying to engage with what Romans 14 actually says, by quoting it, in response to your comments.

My point about the Leviticus passage was that it also says about not trimming the corners of beards. But preachers do shave, so it is a kind of backhanded admission that they don't really want to use the passage against themselves, and that in fact the passage relates more to Jews in the land under the law in the Old Testament, rather than to New Testament believers under grace exercising Christian liberty.

It would seem that whether to get a faith based tattoo might come under the framework of Christian liberty.

(My two cents'.)

Blessings.

 

[handy]

But of course that's changing because we have young people growing up not knowing that's what it has meant in our modern western societies....

Therefore the meaning of tattoos are changing. And have been for a good 25 years now.

So has the definition of marriage over the same period as well. That change has been good for our civilization as well...right???

The old ways seem to be the better ways according to God.

Jeremiah 6:16
Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

You do make a good point. Not all change is going to lead us closer to God and some will most definitely lead us away from Him. However, it's clear that we are not living under Old Testament law...none of us are and if we are trying to, we deny the gospel that Christ died to procure for us.

Farouk also makes a good point here:

My point about the Leviticus passage was that it also says about not trimming the corners of beards. But preachers do shave, so it is a kind of backhanded admission that they don't really want to use the passage against themselves, and that in fact the passage relates more to Jews in the land under the law in the Old Testament, rather than to New Testament believers under grace exercising Christian liberty.

Unless a Christian is not trimming his beard, is not mixing different types of clothing, is leaving gleanings of their harvests for the poor, always stands in the presence of someone older and scrupulously follows all the other sundry laws found in Leviticus 19... then this is an exercise in sort of picking and choosing which parts of the Law to follow and impose upon others and which to ignore.

All Chrisitans should follow their conscience. Obviously, it would be most sinful for Jethro to ever get a tattoo because his conscience condemns him in regards to tattoos...

But, it's really important to remember that there are those who have full faith and freedom in their faith to be tatted...and that the tatts have no more to do with paganism and death cultures in their hearts and minds than do Christmas trees.

Yep, I went there. Because the truth is, many many generations of Christians have put up Christmas trees with no though of "paganism" in their hearts and minds... I do myself. And, while I wouldn't get a tattoo because a: I'm not into body art and b: I'm sort of squeamish about needles... I hardly think that anyone who has John 3:16 tatted on their arm is engaging in a death culture/paganistic ritual. Nor being rebellious for that matter. Perhaps a generation or so ago, there was a sort of subculture of sailors, bikers and prisoners that tatted to show how tough and outside of the bounds of society they were... but tattoos are pretty mainstream today. I don't see a comparison between my late uncle's tatt that he got whilst drunk in the Army 58 years ago to the simple little butterfly that one woman, who goes to my church, has on the back of her leg. There isn't a comparison and it's not really our place to superimpose that comparison onto Nina. If Nina felt no conviction from the Spirit about getting that butterfly, it's not my place to condemn her for having it and certainly not my place to tell her that, even though it's the furthest thing from her mind, she really truly is now forever marked as a pagan because of it.

I've been watching a very interesting program on Prohibition by Ken Burns. It's interesting that Prohibition was another one of those issues that well meaning Christians simply felt that it was best to superimpose upon others. Fueled by the righteous belief that they were God's army, armed with their favorite if somewhat cherry picked Bible verses, they became quite steeped in the attitude of "I know better than you what is best for you."

They were, as we see now, quite wrong about that. Christians usually are when deciding to superimpose their own convictions onto others.

 

[Ryan]

You do make a good point. Not all change is going to lead us closer to God and some will most definitely lead us away from Him. However, it's clear that we are not living under Old Testament law...none of us are and if we are trying to, we deny the gospel that Christ died to procure for us.

Jesus died to redeem us from the curse of the law which is death for sin, didn't release us from its teachings and instructions. Looking at Genesis - Deuteronomy as being instructive, versus legislative brings new light to did Jesus really die to free us from what King David says throughout the Psalms is his, "delight, perfect, etc, etc?" I've been down this road here before, and although I have many more scriptural arguments, it is getting off topic, although it is at the heart of why there are so many discussions such as this. "Did God really say....?"

Farouk also makes a good point here: .

My point about the Leviticus passage was that it also says about not trimming the corners of beards. But preachers do shave, so it is a kind of backhanded admission that they don't really want to use the passage against themselves, and that in fact the passage relates more to Jews in the land under the law in the Old Testament, rather than to New Testament believers under grace exercising Christian liberty.

Unless a Christian is not trimming his beard, is not mixing different types of clothing, is leaving gleanings of their harvests for the poor, always stands in the presence of someone older and scrupulously follows all the other sundry laws found in Leviticus 19... then this is an exercise in sort of picking and choosing which parts of the Law to follow and impose upon others and which to ignore.

The word translated round in Leviticus 19:27 is the Hebrew word "naqaph." It means to chop off, strike, to surround and destroy. In Job 19:26 the word used destroy is the same Hebrew word used in Leviticus 19:27. Later in Leviticus 19:27 is not to mar the edges of one's beard. The Hebrew word for mar is "schachat." It means to destroy or corrupt. It was a common custom of the pagan nations to wound, maim, cut themselves during times of mourning. So it's tied into a pagan custom and activity, of which God has told to distant ourselves from. So without the right language or translation of those verses, it does appear it is a sin to shave. But that is not what is being told. It's not a sin to shave or cut your hair.

They were, as we see now, quite wrong about that. Christians usually are when deciding to superimpose their own convictions onto others.

It's not our convictions, it is God's convictions. Just trying to express what God says about such activities so one can make an informed decision. It shouldn't stop us from loving anyone anymore, or any less just because they decide to get one, or already have one. It's not a fellowship issue for me.

 

[jasoncran]

@Ryan . that's it! we can have Christian tarot cards. handy for the record I could do a tat but I choose not too.i don't see the point in doing that as jethro says. society sees tats as a form of rebellion. it kind a like having a version of Christian hippys. @handy , the only reason Christians do have all that during Christmas is that we don't have the worship of tammuz. imagine the fact if we did still have the child offering to her today and that came out.while I see your point on the Leviticus 18 but well like I said with music, Christians seem to slowly creep left with the world and sound more the world then the predecessor ere them. its sad but I see it.its a balance that we must have without being legalistic. what is wrong with then say a Christian who loves the song 666 the number of the beast by iron maiden and has that albums cover on his back or hers with 666? many a chrisitans would go nut with that despite the guy saying hey I aint no devil worshipper I just like the song.i picked that song and group as I used to listen to them and I know a brother in the lord who does still.

read the lyrics and you get the point.

http://www.songlyrics.com/iron-maiden/666-the-number-of-the-beast-lyrics/

 

[jasoncran]

Some parlors are more like salons, that attract their often 60% to 70% female clientele.

Haven't you realized it's because of the sexualizing of tattooing in our society?

What you are trying so hard to portray as innocent is, generally speaking, simply not that. It's just not.

farouk, posted a picture of a red head with tats and she had a ton of flesh shown with murals that weren't bad but well as a man I well lusted.i don't see whyhe .doesn't see it with that.i have been to a tat parlor to look. read the mags and just to see. flesh galore and its almost porn like. sorry [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION] that is what they do.

 

[handy]

Ryan, where you and I can find agreement is that we should not engage in practices that involve cutting or wounding oneself in times of mourning. That is what is the Spirit of the Law... to not engage in paganistic mourning practices that involve the worship of another god.

For myself, a far more pertinent practice that I would refrain from would be the current fad of burying one's body in the ground and then planting a tree over it... to nourish the tree and be "green". To me, this far more embodies the spirit of the Law... because, again to me (other might think differently) this symbolizes the very current "save mother earth" worship that is behind much of the "green" movement.

But, does anyone honestly believe that Nina, the middle aged woman who goes to my church who has a small tattoo of a cute butterfly on her leg, got that tatt because she was practicing a pagan death/mourning ritual?

I think we need to be very careful in stating what God's convictions are. The Holy Spirit states that He will write His commandments upon our hearts. Just because we can point to an old testament Law, that had a purpose for a time and place that has been fulfilled, does not mean that God will place that conviction within the heart of a 21st Century gentile. To me, when we pick some texts and say to other that they can't or shouldn't to this or that... that is so much like when the Prohibitionists decided they were acting on God's will to force the whole of the nation to be "dry"... sincere, but misguided and not what the Lord commands His people to be doing.

We also can be in agreement that this isn't an issue to stop loving someone or break fellowship over (if I'm reading that last sentence right).:yes

 

[jasoncran]

the red head with the tats had all manner of nature like imagery.i can see it now. lol I get the 666 thing with iron maidien thing on my back and waltz into my church to teach the y boys.my pastor wouldn't let that fly!

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION] what passage does it say the law will be written on our hearts?

 

[jasoncran]

for the record I am not for making tattooing illegal that is if tis pagan in nature then would fall under a first amemdnent right. I just don't think a Christian should do it. on the prohibition. yeah that didn't work but we have paid for that ever since. we kid ourselves if we think that most drinkers don't get drunk. aa is never short of members and times of meetings.

 

[handy]

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION] what passage does it say the law will be written on our hearts?

This passage first shows up in Jeremiah 31:

31 “Behold, days are coming,†declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,†declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,†declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,†declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.â€

We see the fulfillment of this in Hebrews 8, basically the entire chapter is devoted to show that Jesus ushered in this new covenant:

1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,†He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.†6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.â€
13 When He said, “A new covenant,†He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

As well as in Chapter 10 of Hebrews:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’â€
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them†(which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.†He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,â€
He then says,

17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.â€
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

I realize that I'm quoting a lot of Scriptures here, but it's important to put the Law into the context of these texts. God told us, via the prophet Jeremiah that a day would come when His laws would be written upon our hearts and the writer to the Hebrews bears witness that that day has come, that prophesy has been fulfilled.

It's really important to keep in mind the difference between "abolish" and "fulfilled". The Law was never abolished... but it was indeed fulfilled, it's purpose was fulfilled. The Old Covenant, in which the Law was intrinsically a part of, has been made obsolete, not by abolishment, but by fulfillment.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." This He did, by His death on the cross and with His death, the Old Covenant with the Law became obsolete as the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 9... which I won't quote here, but it's well worth the read.

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION] thank you for that and those are beautiful verses as they all are. Now I don't know if you have a concordance available, so I will provide a link with the words that they originally meant in the Hebrew and Greek respectively. Hebrew in Jeremiah 31, and Greek in Hebrews 8.

http://studybible.info/KJV_Strongs/Jeremiah%2031:33 - Now the word Law used here is H8451
http://studybible.info/strongs/H8451 -Also rendered as Torah. Gen - Deut. So the Torah will be written on our hearts? But that was done, set aside I thought?

Now in Hebrews 8:10 says the exact same thing. Could the Torah have changed from Jeremiah to when Hebrews was written? Of course not.

http://studybible.info/KJV_Strongs/Hebrews 8:10 -
http://studybible.info/strongs/G3551 - G3551 is nomos in the Greek and it is the Torah. It cannot be anything else. It is the Torah, or law if you will, that will be written on our hearts. So instructions like not to cut our bodies will be written on our hearts. Can you see it yet???

Fulfill the Torah does not mean set aside. It cannot, because heaven and earth has not passed away yet it says. There are still 3 remaining Feasts of the Lord that require fulfillment until all is completed.

 

[handy]

I see where you are coming from, Ryan, I truly do. But, I do disagree nonetheless... The Law has been fulfilled. It served as a tutor, but as Paul instructs us in Galatians 3:

19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

I don't know how many times and in how many ways that the New Testament authors (the Holy Spirit to be sure) clarified that the Law was for a time and place, that it has been fulfilled and those with faith in Christ are not under it. That might make a good study for some other day in some other thread.

Suffice it to say that I, farouk and many, many other Christians disagree with the idea that we must bind ourselves to the letter of Old Testament law. I do agree that the Law does embody a moral compass... but that it is the spirit of the Law, not the letter of the Law that is that compass. This is why, while I don't view someone getting a butterfly tattoo on the leg as a violation of God's principle found in Leviticus 19:28 I do see being buried as fertilizer to improve "mother earth" very much a violation of that same principle.

I think I'll leave with this text which seems to apply to the issue here... the issue of whether or not a Christian is bound by the letter of the Old Testament Law or whether we should look to the Spirit to convict the hearts and minds of our brethren in the Lord. I won't quote it, but here is some food for thought:
2 Corinthians 3:1-18

 

[farouk]

...does anyone honestly believe that Nina, the middle aged woman who goes to my church who has a small tattoo of a cute butterfly on her leg, got that tatt because she was practicing a pagan death/mourning ritual?

I think we need to be very careful in stating what God's convictions are. The Holy Spirit states that He will write His commandments upon our hearts. Just because we can point to an old testament Law, that had a purpose for a time and place that has been fulfilled, does not mean that God will place that conviction within the heart of a 21st Century gentile. To me, when we pick some texts and say to other that they can't or shouldn't to this or that... that is so much like when the Prohibitionists decided they were acting on God's will to force the whole of the nation to be "dry"... sincere, but misguided and not what the Lord commands His people to be doing.

...

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION]:

Yes, the Prohibition analogy is quite apt; some ppl thought that they were so 'right' about it that the likely consequences (bootlegging, the mafia and the eventual Cuba mess, etc.) were not considered before it was imposed by single issue campaigners and their political (and sometimes privately drunk) friends.

Re. the woman you mentioned from your church who has had it done, there are undoubtedly various placements where a woman can get inked in modesty; my two cents' is also, if ppl are going to do it anyway (and many Christians do), then a faith based design can be an innocent and wholesome talking point and witness tool, also.

Blessings.