How many "Tats" and why?

[SolaScriptura]

I've thought of getting a tattoo of a heart that says "Mom" in it.
Classic.

 

[Pergamum]

Had an uncle with a heart and the words, "Love to Jam" - as a kid I briefly thought it meant he liked canning fruit.

 

[BGF]

No tats here. Like others before, I do not see the appeal, but then again I do not even like to mark up books. I agree with Jake in that I also am not convinced it is lawful for Christians, but since I am not prepared to defend that competently I do not insist on it. My 23 year old daughter has 2 tattoos that I know of, and personally I think they detract from her natural beauty.

 

[Gforce9]

My 23 year old daughter has 2 tattoos that I know of, and personally I think they detract from her natural beauty.

Brett,
This is how I tend to look at it, too. I heard a comedian tell a story of his sister-in-law going to college on a basketball scholarship. She got a tattoo on her lower stomach of Tweety Bird bouncing a basketball. He said after marriage and three children, it turned into Big Bird with a beach ball.
I would never get one and find myself asking "why" of those who do. I guess many folks wouldn't understand my guitar collection, either, though I could "get rid of" any piece by days end, if I wanted to do so.........

 

[Philip]

I can't find a good argument against them that isn't ultimately binding someone else's conscience with one's own personal convictions.

That said, I probably won't ever get one and see little reason why it would be advisable or desirable for myself. Then again, I also don't see any particular reason why it would be advisable or desirable for me to visit Disney World, drink Tequila, or wear flip-flops.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Well, it stems from vanity. We have the bodies and looks God gave us. To adorn ourselves with decorations, piercings, make-up, engravings is to think very lightly of the work of God's hands; it's also to follow the practice of idolaters and pagans. Isn't that the moral precept behind the prohibitions in Leviticus 19? All the practices mentioned in that group of verses were the superstitious practices of the surrounding peoples. The Israelites were to be separate. This requirement is as relevant today as ever.

We should look after our bodies (though not obsessively, as physical exercise profiteth little). In the case of the Christian, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit: should we be scarring it and engraving it, especially with pagan symbols (which is what most tattoos are, in some form or another)?; or worse, with the Word of God itself? The law is engraved on our hearts, if we are regenerated; why would we go backwards and physically engrave it and on our flesh no less?

 

[JimmyH]

Well, it stems from vanity. We have the bodies and looks God gave us. To adorn ourselves with decorations, piercings, make-up, engravings is to think very lightly of the work of God's hands; it's also to follow the practice of idolaters and pagans. Isn't that the moral precept behind the prohibitions in Leviticus 19? All the practices mentioned in that group of verses were the superstitious practices of the surrounding peoples. The Israelites were to be separate. This requirement is as relevant today as ever.

We should look after our bodies (though not obsessively, as physical exercise profiteth little). In the case of the Christian, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit: should we be scarring it and engraving it, especially with pagan symbols (which is what most tattoos are, in some form or another)?; or worse, with the Word of God itself? The law is engraved on our hearts, if we are regenerated; why would we go backwards and physically engrave it and on our flesh no less?

I agree with all you've posted. For myself I can only say that I was not regenerated until my 36th year, and then it took some time for the process of sanctification to progress. Much of my tattoo work was done previous to that, though I confess I did not have the spiritual clarity to 'see' the vanity/idolatry connection at that time. Now at 66 years if I had it to do over again I would have made other choices. Working in the business for over 20 years I can only draw a parallel with John Newton in his regret of his former vocation, not for his brilliance nor piety. Still, I am what I am through the grace of God. Amazing grace.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Zero.

I do not stand convinced that there is any scriptural proscription against getting tattoos per se, but in far too many cases I find tattoos to be a manifestation of self-idolatry, and frankly I don't need yet another stumbling block to my sinful over-realized ego.

 

[Miss Marple]

It may be a tired argument but following the same logic I should not dye, or style, my hair; or wear jewelry or decorative type clothing. This is where the Amish have landed.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

For three reasons I have no tattoos:

1) I was brought up to loathe them. In working-class Ulster, moreover, tattoos are often associated with thuggery and other unpleasantness.

2) I believe Leviticus 19:28 is a law of common equity and thus obliges all men everywhere. Not everything in that chapter is applicable today, but some of it is.

3) It is contrary to common sense to permanently mark your body with something that you may very quickly grow to dislike. Experience teaches us that many people who get tattoos soon regret getting them. Should we ignore the lessons of human experience?

 

[Miss Marple]

Oh, or wear makeup, of which I am quite fond. This is the fundamentalist position. Or perfume, I'd think.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Oh, or wear makeup, of which I am quite fond. This is the fundamentalist position. Or perfume, I'd think.

Scripture does appear to distinguish between beautifying the human body and defacing it. Would you agree with this distinction?

 

[a mere housewife]

Having none myself, I like to understand the significance to the person who has them -- what made them want their bodies to say something -- to themselves or others -- always. Not all such decisions are made in rashness or haste. It's worth understanding about people.

 

[Gesetveemet]

I have two tattoos that I with sadness had put on in my youth. If only the Lord had shown me back then that I am nothing but sin before a Holy God and come to understand that I have a never dying soul for the great eternity I wouldn't have thought so much about life here below and never would have gotten them.


Have a blessed Lords day,

 

[Edward]

Or perfume, I'd think.

If you can't see a distinction between perfume and tattoos, I'm not even sure where to begin the discussion.

 

[Peairtach]

In my younger days it was only the military, the merchant navy and gypsies that had them.

Sailors would have little swallow tattoos between their thumb and forefinger on both hands to help them steer the ship and have a good voyage.

Some wouls also smoke Player's Navy Cut cigarettes

 

[Peairtach]

Oh, or wear makeup, of which I am quite fond. This is the fundamentalist position. Or perfume, I'd think.

Make-up was always a no-no in the Free Presbyterian CofS, as was smoking for ladies. They're probably still no-nos.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I have close to a quarter sleeve. Unfortunately in my ignorance I got a tattoo that I shouldn't have. It's been almost 9 years but I'm finally looking into getting it covered. It's cheaper to get it covered by another tattoo then to get it removed.

I do not think one can make an argument for no tattoos based on Leviticus 19. If you use this argumentation you misunderstand the purpose of the text. Likewise, you are also picking and choosing what you do and do not want from the text instead of letting it flow as it ought. Also, the body being the temple of the Spirit is in regards to immorality, not tattoos. Eisegesis is never a good option for creating a "biblical" practice.

 

[TylerRay]

I want to guard my speech carefully about my own sinful dispositions, so I'll just start by saying that I'm the kind of guy who would likely be attracted to tattoos if I did not believe that they are unlawful for Christians.

Getting a name or symbol on one's body is a statement that the one named or idea symbolized has at least partial ownership of one's person. It shows a dedication of one's body to the idea or person represented in the tattoo. I believe that is the point in Lev. 19.

As for the notion of "Christian tattoos," which show God's ownership of us: God has given us a visible sign of ownership, and that is Baptism. To use tattoos as a visible sign to aid in sanctification is to raise up a false sacrament.

 

[Pergamum]

Leviticus 19:28 does not forbid body modifications for beauty. Scriptures against vanity or modesty would apply rather than Lev. 19 when counseling young people against getting "tatted up." The phrase in Lev 19 is linked to the reason of "for the dead." Self-laceration and marking the body in this context is associated with pagan worship and is forbidden due to this association with heathenism. Wise counsel against tattoos, therefore, ought to address the other reasons annexed to the act of tattooing rather than trying to make a case that the act itself, per se, is immoral based on Lev. 19.

What Lev. 19 condemns is the pagan practice still found in some tribal societies where ritualized mourning rituals include cuttings of the flesh or even the chopping off of digits of the finger, etc. The Arikara Sioux in the journals of Jim Bridger were said to do this (cut off a knuckle at the death of a relative) and the Papuan highland tribes as well.

We see the priests of Baal do this ritual cutting in I Kings: "So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed." (1 Kings 18:28).

So, don't mark your body in pagan service. Other forms of body modification for the purpose of beauty (nose rings, ear rings) were permitted, even though the flesh and skin were pierced in these acts as well.

With that being said, I still believe that as a culture reverts back to paganism, we do see an increase in tattoos. Yet, I still see no Scriptural proof that all tats are per se (in and of themselves) sinful for the very fact of marking up the skin. I don't believe Lev 19 should ever be enlisted as a proof-text against tats unless someone is ritually cutting themselves in pagan mourning for the dead.

 

[arapahoepark]

Leviticus 19:28 does not forbid body modifications for beauty. Scriptures against vanity or modesty would apply rather than Lev. 19 when counseling young people against getting "tatted up." The phrase in Lev 19 is linked to the reason of "for the dead." Self-laceration and marking the body in this context is associated with pagan worship and is forbidden due to this association with heathenism. Wise counsel against tattoos, therefore, ought to address the other reasons annexed to the act of tattooing rather than trying to make a case that the act itself, per se, is immoral based on Lev. 19.

What Lev. 19 condemns is the pagan practice still found in some tribal societies where ritualized mourning rituals include cuttings of the flesh or even the chopping off of digits of the finger, etc. The Arikara Sioux in the journals of Jim Bridger were said to do this (cut off a knuckle at the death of a relative) and the Papuan highland tribes as well.

We see the priests of Baal do this ritual cutting in I Kings: "So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed." (1 Kings 18:28).

So, don't mark your body in pagan service. Other forms of body modification for the purpose of beauty (nose rings, ear rings) were permitted, even though the flesh and skin were pierced in these acts as well.

With that being said, I still believe that as a culture reverts back to paganism, we do see an increase in tattoos. Yet, I still see no Scriptural proof that all tats are per se (in and of themselves) sinful for the very fact of marking up the skin. I don't believe Lev 19 should ever be enlisted as a proof-text against tats unless someone is ritually cutting themselves in pagan mourning for the dead.

View attachment 4270

I whole heartedly agree. I was hesitant to bring this up but since you did I will say it. When asked about tattoos from friends and Christians I tell them that in many places it is pagan. So if I was on a mission board and a person with a tattoo wanted to to do missionary work among a people who practiced these ritual I would firmly say no. Are the people to give up defacing their bodies for God while the missionary doesn't have to? That's a double standard. Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?

 

[Miss Marple]

Of course I know the difference between perfume and tattoos. But the argument "God did not create you that way" could be logically used against both, and two large Christian groups (Amsih , fundamentalists) have done so, so I think I am making a fair point. No need to be harsh. I don't have tattoos, btw, because I think of them as masculine.

 

[Miss Marple]

Yes re the distinction between beautifying and defacing; but some think little feminine tattoos are beautifying (butterflies, roses). I don't think so but it is rather subjective.

 

[JimmyH]

Of course I know the difference between perfume and tattoos. But the argument "God did not create you that way" could be logically used against both, and two large Christian groups (Amsih , fundamentalists) have done so, so I think I am making a fair point. No need to be harsh. I don't have tattoos, btw, because I think of them as masculine.

I'm in agreement with Miss Marple. Seems to be a 'hot button issue' with some. While make up is not as extreme an example as tattoos it is body modification. In 'The Decorated Body', by Robert Brain, a book that explores body modification throughout history, by all cultures, the author points to make up and perfumes as, in a sense parallel to tattooing. Wearing earrings, plucking eyebrows and shaping them with a pencil, false eyelashes, are further examples of body 'enhancement.'

It is an example of cultures decorating or modifying their body to, as they see it, enhance same. In regard to culture he points out that in Victorian England, when the average women was consistent with the custom of that day, she was properly attired wearing clothing that covered her from her neck to her ankles, and sleeves down to the wrists.

At that same period in history, in the primitive societies, a women was suitably clothed wearing a grass skirt with her breasts bared. Suffice to say that when we meet our Lord we will have glorified bodies and there will be no tattoos, nor make up for that matter.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?

This isn't a fair assessment. The reason WHY one gets a tattoo is important. If one gets them for ritualistic purposes then only God can change the heart. To think a missionary... a man can change their heart is absurd. Likewise, putting on a yoke for these people by also demonizing something that isn't sinful is also absurd and quite Pharisaical.

Scriptural proof IN CONTEXT is important for any discussion regarding whats lawful and whats not lawful.

 

[arapahoepark]

Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?

This isn't a fair assessment. The reason WHY one gets a tattoo is important. If one gets them for ritualistic purposes then only God can change the heart. To think a missionary... a man can change their heart is absurd. Likewise, putting on a yoke for these people by also demonizing something that isn't sinful is also absurd and quite Pharisaical.

Scriptural proof IN CONTEXT is important for any discussion regarding whats lawful and whats not lawful.

You misunderstand me and impute motives to me that are not there.

 

[BGF]

"Intent" has been mentioned or implied multiple times in this thread. Following the argument that this is the controlling factor in whether or not tattoos are permissible, I would be interested to see what some would consider lawful and unlawful intentions.

 

[a mere housewife]

Mr. Frey, I assume it would be the same with wearing makeup or a lot of other things? My motivations for posting here could also be quite sinful.

We all do hasty things. And I have known some people to get a tattoo for reasons that were not at all hasty -- but those reasons were told to me in confidence. I think it's valuable to understand what is meaningful to other people. Even where in some cases a person has not recognised Christ's reign over their body, it's good to treat them with more dignity than they knew how to treat themselves.

The first poster in the thread has tattoos of her children. Regardless of what one thinks of tattoos -- I think its sweet that she loves her children so much she wants an irrevocable reminder of them. The world would be a better place if we had more such mothers.

 

[Captain Picard]

There are plenty of New Testament passages that I think make tattoos unwise, even if I were to accept at face value the already mentioned exegesis that says that Leviticus 19 only forbids their use in pagan/necromantic ritual. Which I don't.

What happened to the Church coming out from among Babylon and being separate? I used to drink much more than I do now, and I used to smoke cigarettes. I think both, while not intrinsically sinful because booze and tobacco are sinful, were wastes of time and money, defacers of my body and reason, and mingled up my appearance with that of the world. I would never counsel someone it was good or adiaphora to drink a lot or smoke cigarettes every day, and by analogy I wouldn't recommend tattoos either.

This doesn't mean, btw, that I'm in the "get them removed or you're in grievous sin" camp. My mom is pretty close to there, I am not.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Are the people to give up defacing their bodies for God while the missionary doesn't have to? That's a double standard. Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?

Trent,

I thought your intent was quite clear here, but for clarification could you expound on this statement?