Tattoos

[farouk]

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! :D

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!

TheLords:

Pray about it, yes; it would be essential for a would be Christian proprietor to pray a lot, before starting it, indeed.

I think that many Christians would probably welcome the opportunity to get their tattoos in a Christian-owned parlor, anyway, and particularly to go under the needle of someone who was very experienced in specifically faith related designs and their large potentials. Have you visited parlors? and if so, maybe you can visualize how in some ways a Christian owned business might in some ways be more attractive to Christian clients?

You mentioned branding; did you know that 'branding' among tattooists actually refers to a particular type of tattoo? it can be a bit more painful than the more usual variety, but they are increasingly liked. (What I would also say is that brandings and faith based tattoos can only be a dimly representational and didactic witness tool, in comparison with the unique sufferings which the Lord underwent at the Cross; it's good to be very clear about this, in all discussion of such faith related body art.)

Blessings.

 

[theLords]

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.

Paul, was still a Jew, highly informed about the Law. When he came under grace he didn't go on a sin-free-for-all. Why would, Paul, do anything to discredit his testimony before the Jews, by breaking the Law? (To the Jews, I became like a Jew)

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.

It does matter, because you are referencing the Law to determine what constitutes sin. Please don't hand wave it away. I don't know if, Paul, had a literal, modern day kind of tattoo. I don't believe modern day tattoos existed in the past. The people of the age, cut themselves, and then put dyes in the open flesh. Does it heal like a modern tattoo? I don't know. I do know, that he had the marking of the Lord Jesus on his body, to signify that he was His servant.

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".

How can "in" make sense in the case of "scar of service"? But, not in the case of a branding (marking)? You are changing the rules, Slider, so that your understanding can explain the Word of God, instead of letting the Word of God, give you His understanding. You allow "in" to show that, Paul, has scars on his body, but you don't allow "in" to show that, Paul, had a branding on his body. Why the double standard?

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.

You can go ahead and be a KJV-onliest, that's fine. I like the KJV, but as someone who speaks more then the English language, I certainly understand that translating is subjective (hence, why we have so many Bible versions). Being, multi-lingual causes me to refer back to the original language to tell me what the verse means, instead of regarding English, as the highest means of understanding God's Word.

It seems that you are simply hand waving what I've said away. That's fine, but, it's not sincere. The word "stigma" is defined as brandings made on the skin within the same context of Leviticus.

Further, it should also be noted that Leviticus says, (Leviticus 19:28) Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD. The verse clearly says "for the dead" then reiterates with the use of the word "stigma".

I've shown clear Biblical structure. I've referenced the original Hebrew/Greek word. I've applied the context of culture. What more can I do? Any proof I bring up is shrugged off as "it doesn't matter anyway" or "well, I only see validity in the KJV." These counter-points don't even attempt to address the points I've brought up.

Oh, well.

 

[farouk]

Paul, was still a Jew, highly informed about the Law. When he came under grace he didn't go on a sin-free-for-all. Why would, Paul, do anything to discredit his testimony before the Jews, by breaking the Law?



It does matter, because you are referencing the Law to determine what constitutes sin. Please don't hand wave it away. I don't know if, Paul, had a literal, modern day kind of tattoo. I don't believe modern day tattoos existed in the past. The people of the age, cut themselves, and then put dyes in the open flesh. Does it heal like a modern tattoo? I don't know. I do know, that he had the marking of the Lord Jesus on his body, to signify that he was His servant.




How can "in" make sense in the case of "scar of service"? But, not in the case of a branding (marking)? You are changing the rules, Slider, so that your understanding can explain the Word of God, instead of letting the Word of God, give you His understanding.



You can go ahead and be a KJV-onliest, that's fine. I like the KJV, but as someone who speaks more then the English language, I certainly understand that translating is subjective (hence, why we have so many Bible versions). I would prefer to refer back to the original language to tell me what the verse means, instead of regarding English, as the highest means of understanding God's Word.

It seems that you are simply hand waving what I've said away. That's fine, but, it's not sincere. The word "stigma" is defined as brandings made on the skin within the same context of Leviticus.

Further, it should also be noted that Leviticus says, (Leviticus 19:28) Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD. The verse clearly says "for the dead" then reiterates with the use of the word "stigma".

I've shown clear Biblical structure. I've referenced the original Hebrew/Greek word. I've applied the context of culture. What more can I do? Any proof I bring up is shrugged off as "it doesn't matter anyway" or "well, I only see validity in the KJV." These counter-points don't even address the points I've brought up.

Oh, well.

TheLords:

Interesting; do you speak French, maybe, as well, and maybe then you have some insights from a French Bible version? or whatever.

Sometimes a Bible version in a language other than English can offer a perspective that is fresh.

All very interesting, anyway.

Blessings.

 

[theLords]

TheLords:

Interesting; do you speak French, maybe, as well, and maybe then you have some insights from a French Bible version? or whatever.

Sometimes a Bible version in a language other than English can offer a perspective that is fresh.

All very interesting, anyway.

Blessings.

Well, I lost my post for some reason, instead of retyping it, I'll just say that Hebrew is a difficult language to translate into English!

Blessings, Farouk.

 

[farouk]

I have tattoos from before I was saved now after I was saved I regret them. I wouldn't think nothing serious against them. As long as they are not naked women and what not. But I would rather not have them cause I feel it would be better example for my son, but God will use my testimony of when I was lost to help others already seen it.

spartakis:

Yes, I can very much understand your point of view. Your view has probably been influenced by the kind of tattoo which you either have or have often seen, and you don't want your son to be influenced in a bad way.

So, yes, I can understand your point of view.

There are of course different sorts of tattoos designs. Influences can vary enormously, too.

I'm not saying that a faith based design is for even a majority of Christians but some ppl would regard something that is a conversation point about faith as a positive influence.

So I would have no idea whether, as 18 year olds so often do, your son will want to go to the parlor for his 18th b-day. In any case, it's entirely your call whether in the meantime you want him to have any positive disposition towards tattoos or not. Quite a few Christian young people at 18 do prefer to get a faith related design done, rather than a non faith variety; it's a fact. But it's your call entirely. You must know also whether you would prefer him at 18 to get into a faith tattoo design rather than piercing (if that's a possibility), or whatever. Blessings.

 

[Slider]

How can "in" make sense in the case of "scar of service"? But, not in the case of a branding (marking)? You are changing the rules, Slider, so that your understanding can explain the Word of God, instead of letting the Word of God, give you His understanding. You allow "in" to show that, Paul, has scars on his body, but you don't allow "in" to show that, Paul, had a branding on his body. Why the double standard?

You can go ahead and be a KJV-onliest, that's fine. I like the KJV, but as someone who speaks more then the English language, I certainly understand that translating is subjective (hence, why we have so many Bible versions). Being, multi-lingual causes me to refer back to the original language to tell me what the verse means, instead of regarding English, as the highest means of understanding God's Word.

It seems that you are simply hand waving what I've said away. That's fine, but, it's not sincere. The word "stigma" is defined as brandings made on the skin within the same context of Leviticus.

It doesn't matter because Paul DID teach grace and he practiced it. IF he meant that to be "tattoos" --literally or metephorically -- it would've fit into his teachings fine. Furthermore, the KJV doesn't say "on my flesh". It says "in my flesh.

Gal 6:17

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

Further, it should also be noted that Leviticus says, (Leviticus 19:28) Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD. The verse clearly says "for the dead" then reiterates with the use of the word "stigma".

I've shown clear Biblical structure. I've referenced the original Hebrew/Greek word. I've applied the context of culture. What more can I do? Any proof I bring up is shrugged off as "it doesn't matter anyway" or "well, I only see validity in the KJV." These counter-points don't even attempt to address the points I've brought up.

Oh, well.

Lords, it doesn't say, "nor print any marks upon you for the dead". The last three words are not there. It says I am simply going by what the Bible says without adding to it. If you want to get technical, they weren't to make any cuttings in the flesh at all; for the dead or otherwise. You can look at Lev 21:5 to see that. Now that verse was talking about the priesthood, but God still said the act was profane and unholy.


This is amazing.... I'm arguing for tattoos being ok, and you are fighting me tooth and nail on it.

 

[Mike]

This is a good time to acknowledge the agreement at hand. Like many of the things we do, getting and having a tattoo is a freedom that comes with the motivation of the believer, IMO. It's a matter of the heart and may be a sin to one person but not to another.

I would never get one, but like so many are agreeing upon, I don't condemn everyone who does.

 

[Slider]

This is a good time to acknowledge the agreement at hand. Like many of the things we do, getting and having a tattoo is a freedom that comes with the motivation of the believer, IMO. It's a matter of the heart and may be a sin to one person but not to another.

I would never get one, but like so many are agreeing upon, I don't condemn everyone who does.

I agree with you there, Mike.

 

[farouk]

.. As marking the body with a tattoo doesn't harm your health, I can't personally see why it would offend the Lord to do so, especially if your ink acts as a testimony or witness for Christ. ..

Damascus:

I think that the health aspect is part of it, but the person being tattooed also should first of all have acquired a strong sense of a clear conscience prayerfully in the light of Scripture, first of all.

Then re. the health aspect, it's true that these days tattoo parlors are often well regulated and inspected, and will have their inspection certification on view or available to see.

Nowadays, the first tattoo is acquired at 18, so often, and I guess the Christian parent, in the lead up to the young person's 18th b-day, has a number of choices. Sometimes for the parent the tattoo idea is such a no-no that s/he can be known to refuse to have anything to do with the 18th b-day tattoo trip.

Other parents, might be positive about the idea especially of a faith related design being acquired by their son or daughter; others might shrink from the idea, but from the health and safety perspective might wish to offer some sensible and gentle advice about precautions.

Some parents of the sons or daughters turning 18 that are intending to go to the parlor might want to go with him or her to check out some parlors in advance; encourage them to get a feel of whether the outfit seems clean and professional as well as whether it has the certification/inspection documents. It's not a bad thing to be cautious and careful. The tattooist can also talk about the inks; these days, the quality of the inks used in tattoos has often improved from years ago.

So, yes, it may be far less likely to harm health today. It's still sensible take precautions and check out the place thoroughly beforehand.

For Christian parents, even those who might be delighted to think that their son or daughter wants a faith related tattoo design, helping the person turning 18 to address the issue of visiting parlors in advance can be a sensible and useful role.

 

[Denique Coelum]

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?)

Is the yoke of not having a tattoo so difficult to bear? I don't know. It doesn't seem like one of those things that you might 'accidentally' do, or stumble into. I'm not trying to be flippant, like, I just don't see that it's a heavy burden for the law to place on us, not getting tattoos.

It seems to me what you're describing there is the import of the verse, but I'm still wary of all tattoos. All the current signs point away from tattooing. It seems to predominantly be a form of decoration, an outward marking. I wouldn't wear a crucifix, why would I get a cross tattoo, or even a scripture?

What I'm trying to say is that you can tattoo your skin and be inconsistent underneath, not getting the message across to people. Or you can have no outward sign, yet the light which is in you will be apparent to anyone you come across. I'd rather let God do the work than some tattoo artist.

I don't know what the moral import of the beard trimming is, it was a genuine question? I don't think it can have a literal bearing, I know I trim my beard every now and again, otherwise I'd end up look even more like even more of a pirate than I do now, and my parents would probably disown me.

 

[theLords]

Is the yoke of not having a tattoo so difficult to bear? I don't know. It doesn't seem like one of those things that you might 'accidentally' do, or stumble into. I'm not trying to be flippant, like, I just don't see that it's a heavy burden for the law to place on us, not getting tattoos.

It seems to me what you're describing there is the import of the verse, but I'm still wary of all tattoos. All the current signs point away from tattooing. It seems to predominantly be a form of decoration, an outward marking. I wouldn't wear a crucifix, why would I get a cross tattoo, or even a scripture?

What I'm trying to say is that you can tattoo your skin and be inconsistent underneath, not getting the message across to people. Or you can have no outward sign, yet the light which is in you will be apparent to anyone you come across. I'd rather let God do the work than some tattoo artist.

I don't know what the moral import of the beard trimming is, it was a genuine question? I don't think it can have a literal bearing, I know I trim my beard every now and again, otherwise I'd end up look even more like even more of a pirate than I do now, and my parents would probably disown me.

This isn't about tattoos and not having one being too much too bear. This is about looking to understand God's Word, the way He intends that we understand it, instead of saying "I think this is wrong because of the signs that point to it being wrong." The "I think this is wrong because" approach is why another 'Christian' on this forum is encouraging members to engage in fornication. There have not been any scholarly rebuttals to the case I brought forward, but simply dismissing it with "I still think it's wrong" or "I'm KJV only." I don't get it!

If you don't want tattoos, that's fine, but when you say things like: "These places don't look like establishments that a Christian should enter" or "The tattoo industry is, as far as I can see, dominated by goth and punk sort of people, the Doc Marten and pink mohawk brigade, and I'd always associate it with that in my view." it shows a much different side of why your against something. If no one had ever decided they would go into a brothel (a place a Christian shouldn't enter) then no victims of sex trafficking (forced or willing) would have met the Lord. Goth and Punks, with pink mohawks are people too.

I'm simply not understanding the attitudes of many in this thread.

 

[farouk]

This isn't about tattoos and not having one being too much too bear. This is about looking to understand God's Word, the way He intends that we understand it, instead of saying "I think this is wrong because of the signs that point to it being wrong." The "I think this is wrong because" approach is why another 'Christian' on this forum is encouraging members to engage in fornication. There have not been any scholarly rebuttals to the case I brought forward, but simply dismissing it with "I still think it's wrong" or "I'm KJV only." I don't get it!

If you don't want tattoos, that's fine, but when you say things like: "These places don't look like establishments that a Christian should enter" or "The tattoo industry is, as far as I can see, dominated by goth and punk sort of people, the Doc Marten and pink mohawk brigade, and I'd always associate it with that in my view." it shows a much different side of why your against something. If no one had ever decided they would go into a brothel (a place a Christian shouldn't enter) then no victims of sex trafficking (forced or willing) would have met the Lord. Goth and Punks, with pink mohawks are people too.

I'm simply not understanding the attitudes of many in this thread.

thelords:

Yes, indeed; I do think that there is a whole range of variables among people who wear some measure of Goth make up or clothes, punks with piercings, or have various degrees of edgy haircuts, and tattoos.

I take your point about people even at the extreme end of such manifestations; also I think that it's not realistic for some people to 'lump together' every such kind of such accessories or styles. For example, an eyebrow barbell might once have been the near exclusive preserve of overt punks, but today a pastor's daughter might get one at 18 as an alternative to third holes in her earlobes, or whatever. There are various degrees of Goth make up; like, when does the black mascara become Gothic or not; when it's a certain thickness? when it's pointed slightly out onto the cheek?

Same with tattoos, I guess. Curses and knives tattooed to give an intimidating appearance to a gang leader are somewhat different from a soccer mom who has kids' initials inked on her wrist or, to complement her cropped bob haircut, gets a little Celtic logo on her nape.

All this is even before addressing the matter of faith based tattoos, for which the person may have a witness conviction.

(Hope this makes some sense.) Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Is the yoke of not having a tattoo so difficult to bear? I don't know. It doesn't seem like one of those things that you might 'accidentally' do, or stumble into...

DC:

'Stumble into': I don't know; maybe not, or maybe yes.

Fact is, at 18 so many young ppl go to the parlor for their first ink. It's like, first in their teens the ear piercings, then for 18, the parlor trip.

Maybe stumble isn't quite the word.

But it's extremely commonplace, and some Christian parents, instead of saying it's a no-no; would say: "Okay so it's now your decision entirely as an adult, but make sure you check the parlor out for cleanliness and yes, a faith related design would be far better than some of the designs your friends might be getting". (Or something like that.)

Blessings.

 

[Jman96]

Haha I was raised knowing my parents are against it. They rubbed off and I now see no need. Not like it's my age for one, I don't even turn 16 until Wednesday

 

[farouk]

Haha I was raised knowing my parents are against it. They rubbed off and I now see no need. Not like it's my age for one, I don't even turn 16 until Wednesday

J:

Congrats for your 16th (a few hours early!)

In some states you can get one when you are 16, but in most states and Canadian provinces it's 18, which is why so many go to the parlor then as a sort of rite of passage, I suppose.

But it's not something to do unless the person is very, very sure about it. While piercing studs etc can be removed, a tattoo is supposed to be permanent.

Blessings.

 

[Slider]

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 Christâ€. 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 fleshâ€.

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.

 

[theLords]

You know, I appreciate that you made a sincere attempt to answer the argument. However, it falls short because you only examine the surface by looking at only the KJV, and not examining the Hebrew or Greek.

This will be my last post in this thread.

God bless.

 

[Slider]

You know, I appreciate that you made a sincere attempt to answer the argument. However, it falls short because you only examine the surface by looking at only the KJV, and not examining the Hebrew or Greek.

This will be my last post in this thread.

God bless.

I may be new to this board, but I've been around alot. Often times people run to the Hebrew and Greek because they can find a wide variety of english words for whatever greek or hebrew word is used. Thus, if they don't like the meaning of a verse, they can go to the Greek and Hebrew to see if there is any way to change the verse. In other words, often times its a convient way to get around what the Bible says.

I don't do that. I like to look at what the Greek and the Hebrew says, but in the end, I'll just go with what one version says instead of looking for another version.

Besides, no matter what version you use, it still is pretty far reached to try to link Gal 6:17 to Leviticus 19:28.

 

[theLords]

I may be new to this board, but I've been around alot. Often times people run to the Hebrew and Greek because they can find a wide variety of english words for whatever greek or hebrew word is used. Thus, if they don't like the meaning of a verse, they can go to the Greek and Hebrew to see if there is any way to change the verse. In other words, often times its a convient way to get around what the Bible says.

I don't do that. I like to look at what the Greek and the Hebrew says, but in the end, I'll just go with what one version says instead of looking for another version.

Besides, no matter what version you use, it still is pretty far reached to try to link Gal 6:17 to Leviticus 19:28.

I don't appreciate the accusation, but since I gather you are a mono linguist, I will disregard it since mono linguists don't understand language from the multi lingual perspective.

If you claim that it is a strectch, you are not being sincere. Stigma only appears once in the Hebrew text, Leviticus 19:28, and Stigma only appears once in the Greek text, Galatiana 6:17. That is certainly not far reaching.

 

[Slider]

I don't appreciate the accusation, but since I gather you are a mono linguist, I will disregard it since mono linguists don't understand language from the multi lingual perspective.

If you claim that it is a strectch, you are not being sincere. Stigma only appears once in the Hebrew text, Leviticus 19:28, and Stigma only appears once in the Greek text, Galatiana 6:17. That is certainly not far reaching.

If you feel accused, so be it. I'm just telling you why I personally don't bother with going through the greek and hebrew that much.

And I am being sincere. I listed 4 or 5 reasons why it is a stretch.