An article with this title is bound to have already lost many readers, or to be “rage bait” attracting some to read just to demonstrate an extreme example of the absurdity of Christian Fundamentalism. The Christian liberty to tattoo oneself is taken for granted in modern Western culture, and anyone saying otherwise is immediately written off as a Fundamentalist or a legalistic Pharisee who is uncharitably binding the conscience. “What? Next you’re going to tell me that alcohol is inherently sinful and that women cannot wear pants, right?”
However, I hope that readers will give this article a fair consideration. It is written in humility, not seeking to bind consciences with a man-made opinion nor to elicit outrage, but rather to be a faithful presentation of what the Word of God says about this topic. For Christians who have tattoos, I am not saying that you are unholy, malicious, or sub-Christian—however I do believe your worldview has been influenced by a worldly culture and needs to be reformed by the Word of God. I am not presenting this issue as one that should divide Christians from one another, but rather as a point of discussion and a call of fidelity to biblical, Christian anthropology. Likewise, I do not intend to present this critique as a “gospel issue” or as a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy. Regardless of your view on this topic, even if you are not convinced by this article, all Christians are united to one another in Christ and he cleanses us of all our faults in this area and every other. My prayer is that readers will take this article in the spirit intended, as a brotherly correction of a prevalent cultural sin.
According to a 2023 study by the Pew Research Center, “a large majority of U.S. adults say society has become more accepting of people with tattoos in recent decades.” 32% of Americans have a tattoo, and 22% have more than one. “Adults under 50 are especially likely to have a tattoo. Some 41% of those under 30 have at least one, as do 46% of those ages 30 to 49.” “29% of those who are affiliated with a religion” have at least one tattoo, while the study does not specify if these are Christian, it is certainly anecdotally reliable to say that many mainstream Evangelicals (especially of younger ages) are of this number and many more than that are accepting of tattoos. And there seems to be nothing slowing down this trend over the years. “Americans overall—including those with and without tattoos—believe society has become more accepting of people with tattoos over the past 20 years or so.”
This article seeks to challenge the prevalent Evangelical assumption that tattoos are morally indifferent and that there is nothing alarming about the current fashionable trend of tattooing. We will examine three reasons Christians should not tattoo themselves, and then we will respond to justifications for tattooing the body. But first we need to consider what the Bible teaches about the image of God and the sanctity of the human body.
Christian Anthropology & the Purpose of the Human Body.
As human beings, we were specially designed body and soul, after God’s own image (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). Our bodies, together with our souls, are integrally a part of who we are—in this life and in the Resurrection. We are not our own autonomous masters, our bodies belong to our Creator, and we have a duty to steward them well (Eph. 5:28-29). Moreover, as Christians, we are not our own, but are bought with the precious blood of Christ (1 Cor. 6:19-20). God values the human body so much that he himself became an incarnate man like us, and guarantees to raise up believers’ bodies from the grave and restore them unto eternal life (Job 19:26-27; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Daniel 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15:35-50). Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the whole man, soul and body (Eph. 4:23-24), and we are to love and worship him with our whole selves in soul and body (Luke 10:27), to “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). We do not have the prerogative to do anything we want with our bodies, especially not things that contradict the way, and the purposes for which God designed our bodies (Rom. 6:13; 1 Cor. 6:20). Dutch Dogmatician Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) writes:
“We also have duties toward our bodies. We were created as embodied souls, and our bodies are not accidental to our humanity but an essential part of it, created in the image of God and redeemed in Christ. Christ was bodily raised from the dead, and that is also the Christian’s firm hope. Christianity is opposed to both ascetic spiritualism—whether it takes the form of Platonism, Neo-Platonism, or modern rationalism—and materialistic sensuousness, which pursues the liberation of the flesh… Christianity takes a position in between the two: it is neither one-sidedly spiritual nor one-sidedly material. It commands taking care of the body, as the apostle Paul prays in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 that the body too (along with our spirit and soul) may ‘be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’” [1]
The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, writes the quintessential verses that inform our Christian theology of the body: “The body…is for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?… What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:13-15, 19-20). Although this text has been misused by some to legalistically forbid what the Bible does not forbid (e.g. moderate use of alcohol), we must not allow the abuse of a text to suppress the correct interpretation and application of it. [2] Matthew Henry explains the key principle in this text:
“Christ is to be Lord of the body, to have property in it and dominion over it, having assumed a body and been made to partake of our nature, that he might be head of his church, and head over all things (Heb. 2:5, 18). We must take care that we do not use what belongs to Christ as if it were our own, and much less to his dishonour.
. . . .
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? If the soul be united to Christ by faith, the whole man is become a member of his mystical body. The body is in union with Christ as well as the soul. How honourable is this to the Christian! His very flesh is a part of the mystical body of Christ.” [3]
In context, the Apostle Paul appeals to this theological principle regarding the sanctity of the human body in his argument against sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:13a, 16-18). While this principle is leveraged against one particular sin here, that does not preclude the same core principle from being applied to other areas of life. As Matthew Poole notes, “though by other sins men may sin against their own bodies, yet by no sin so eminently as by this sin. Other sins have their seat in the mind and soul; the body—and commonly some particular member of the body—is but the servant of the soul in the execution and committing of them. But lust, though indeed it ariseth from the heart, yet it is committed more in the body than any other sin is.” [4] Sins such as gluttony, drunkenness, suicide, self-mutilation, etc. similarly disgrace and abuse the body and usurp God’s ownership and rule over it (Luke 21:34; Rom. 13:13; Acts 16:28; Mark 5:5), although not in the unique way that sexual sin does. [5]
Having briefly considered the Bible’s teaching on the sanctity of the human body, next we will apply it to the question of tattoos. We will see that to purposefully mar and blemish our bodies is contrary to God’s creational design for the human body. Tattoos permanently disfigure and mutilate the skin and therefore likewise violate the principle of 1 Corinthians 6:13-20. [6]
1. Permanent Disfigurement & Self-Harm.
A tattoo is a form of body modification made by inserting ink into the skin to form a design. Traditionally, this was (and still is) done by cutting or tapping the skin with a sharp tool, creating a design, and then rubbing various materials into the wounds. Modern tattooing is done with an electric tattoo machine, which pokes one or several needles deep into the second layer of skin (the dermis) “rapidly and repeatedly in and out of the skin, usually 80 to 150 times a second” permanently depositing the ink. The length of time needed to complete a tattoo varies. Small tattoos can take about an hour, but “on average tattoos need around 5 hours to be completely done,” although the whole time is not spent under the needle. [7]
Besides the permanent disfigurement of the skin, it is a wonder that the tattooing process itself is not considered self-harm. No matter how tough one may be, successively pricking oneself thousands of times with a needle is sadistic and contrary to nature. [8] Pain is often a necessary side effect of a greater good, such as in medical procedures. But as an end in itself, or towards another unnatural or sinful end (e.g. superstition, vanity), inflicting excessive pain for an extended period of time is sadistic and requires an ascetic self-flagellating attitude to endure the process. Long and short term health risks are also a consideration—infection, absorption of nanoparticulate “preservatives and contaminants like nickel, arsenic, lead” and other metals and plastics present in tattoo ink (this is why tattoos fade over time), organ toxicity, cancer, etc.—although perhaps inconclusive until more research is done. [9]
Commenting on the Levitical prohibitions against self-harm of cutting and tattooing, English Nonconformist Bible commentator Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622) writes:
“From all these and other like heathenish rites, whereby they spared not, but unnaturally mangled their own bodies, God would keep his people, whose ‘bodies’ should be the ‘members of Christ,’ and the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’ (1 Cor. 6:15, 19), who should bear in their body no other than ‘the marks of the Lord Jesus’ (Gal. 6:17).” [10]
Ainsworth is not alone in noticing a natural law component to the prohibition of tattooing and cutting in Leviticus 19:28. Princetonian theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1870) similarly remarked about tattoos, “Any voluntary disfigurement of the person was in itself an outrage upon God’s workmanship, and might well form the subject of a law.” [11] Irish Presbyterian minister and Hebrew professor James G. Murphy (1808-1896) commented, “This is the tattooing of the skin, which was customary among the ancients, and is still practised even in Arabia. But the people of God are not in this way to mutilate or mar their faces or persons.” [12] Herman Bavinck reasons similarly in condemning tattoos:
“In their body too, people are the image of God. That body may not be desecrated by us. Mutilating and tattooing are forbidden in Holy Scripture (Lev. 19:28; 21:5; Deut. 14:1). It is up to God, not us, to destroy the body.” [13]
German theologian Otto Von Gerlach (1801-1839) comments, “It is well known how prevalent to this day is the custom of tattooing among heathen nations in connection with superstition of every kind.” He continues, that this connection with idolatry and superstition is not the only reason tattoos are prohibited: “the meaning and object [of forbidding tattoos] to have been, besides the prevention of superstition, to inspire likewise a reverence for God’s creation. It is remarkable that the South Sea Islanders, among whom the art of tattooing had arrived at great perfection, after their conversion to Christianity, would have nothing more to do with this custom.” [14] Scottish Free Church minister William R. Nicoll (1851-1923) comments, “the Israelite was to be distinguished from the heathen by full consecration, not only of the soul, but also of the body, to the Lord, he was by that fact inhibited from marring or defacing in any way the integrity of his body.” [15]
Jewish commentators agreed that in addition to prohibiting idolatry, God forbids self-harm and mutilation of the body by tattooing. Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (1872-1946) observes, “Even apart from the prohibition of this idolatrous practice, the Torah inculcates reverence for the human body, as the work of God.” [16] Chaim ibn Attar (1696-1743) compares the two prohibited acts in Leviticus 19:28, cutting and tattooing, noting that they both deface the body, yet he argues that cutting is less severe of a sin since it is done in the heat of the moment whereas tattooing is more deliberate and therefore heinous. Compared with cutting, tattooing is “bodily defacement which leaves a deeper and more permanent mark,” and “are considered as injuring not only the body but also the soul. The reason tattooing leaves an injury also on one’s soul is that it is something which requires great care, is not performed hastily like the incision called שרט. It is only natural then that it leaves a far deeper impression on one’s personality than the hastily performed incision.” [17] Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno (1470-1550) described tattoos as “a permanent defacing of one’s body,” and remarked that, “the only ‘improvements’ to our G’d given body we are to make is the sign of the covenant, i.e. the removal of the foreskin of our males.” [18] Despite being non-Christian, these Jewish commentators tacitly admit that part of the prohibition applies just as much to Gentiles because “a permanent defacing of one’s body” would be wrong for any human being to do. In other words, these Jewish theologians do not see this prohibition as a ceremonial law for the Jews exclusively, but a moral one applicable to all men.
Many contemporary sources likewise note that tattoos are prohibited in Leviticus 19:28 in part because of their self-mutilating effect on the human body. The Word Biblical Commentary (1992) notes, “The body is a marvelous creation of God. Its wholeness represents the beauty and perfection of holiness. Thus the body is to be kept whole. It is not to be intentionally harmed or marred in any way… The physical body, which sustains a person‘s life, is to be kept whole as witness to the holiness of its Creator.” The IVP Bible Background Commentary (2000) states, “The Israelite law may prohibit this practice since it involves a self-imposed alteration of God’s creation, unlike circumcision, which is commanded by God.” The NKJV Foundation Study Bible (2015) notes on this text, “The human body was designed by God to be beautiful. Disfiguring the body for the dead, or as a sign of mourning, is dishonoring to God. Some disfiguring was a part of Pagan religions, and was forbidden to God’s people for any reason.” The Reformation Heritage Study Bible (2014) observes two reasons tattoos and cuttings are prohibited, as superstitious “expressions of worship (1 Kings 18:28; Jer. 41:5) or mourning for the dead (Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6–7; 48:37),” and secondly because, “God forbids degrading the human body, for He created man in His image.” Similarly, the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2016) notes these two reasons, “tattoos are likely banned not just because of what they do to the body, but because of what they communicate about a relationship to deity.”
God’s moral law written in nature promotes respect for the image of God in the human body, and also forbids “wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any” (WLC Q. 136) as well as “intemperance” and “immodest apparel” (WLC Q. 139). Temperance is a fruit of the Spirit, but tattoos are intemperate and immodest.
Hence, the first reason Christians should avoid tattoos is because they militate against God’s design of the integrity, natural form, and beauty of the human body. It is not a God honoring use of the body.
2. Superstition and worship
In the ancient world, tattoos were forced on slaves, criminals, and prisoners of war to humiliate and degrade them. [19] In fact, the Greek word for tattoo, stigma is still used today and carries the negative connotation of a “mark of infamy; any reproachful conduct which stains the purity or darkens the luster of reputation.” [20] It was widely understood to dehumanize and disgrace a person. [21] Pagans would also tattoo themselves to signify their devotion to their gods that owned them, or to identify themselves with a religious group. [22] Irenaeus reported that Gnostic sects would likewise mark their disciples inside the right earlobe as a peculiar ritual of distinct religious identity. [23] Yet, to ancient people these two purposes were inextricably joined together as one: religious devotion and group identity. The disgracefulness and humbling act of artificial marking of the skin was a prominent reality in either case: whether the markings were imposed by a human master or a divine one. The point was clear, a person bears the marks of their master in their body as an indelible mark of submission. [24] Ancient Near East scholar John Walton writes, “The use of tattoos is evidenced from early in the Biblical period. Some Egyptian mummies display them. Many simply feature geometric patterns but some have portrayals of gods or are the names of gods. They were at times used to mark someone’s loyalty to a particular god. In Mesopotamia most known tattoos are slave markings, though there are also known examples of priests receiving marks to designate the god they serve.” Amidst this backdrop of Pagan use of tattoos, we find God’s command to his elect people: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 19:28). Walton continues, “It can therefore be concluded that tattoos are likely banned not just because of what they do to the body, but because of what they communicate about a relationship to deity.” [25]
This ancient use of tattoos may seem to stand in contrast to today’s understanding of tattoos. Surely not many people today are tattooing themselves in honor and submission to Pagan deities? We are more enlightened today in our view of tattoos as a form of self-expression, authenticity, and artwork. Yet in today’s context of expressive individualism, rather than indicating bodily submission to another or ownership of another, tattoos often indicate ownership of and submission to the autonomous self. Rather than seeing the human body as having inherent order and meaning, requiring us to conform to that order and meaning, many tacitly view the human body as “raw material out of which meaning and purpose can be created by the individual.” [26] This may be expressed in the common maxim: “My body, my choice.” This philosophy is deeply ingrained in the American cultural imagination, and Christians often uncritically adopt it, unintentionally allowing it to have a place in their worldview—by intuition more so than by self-conscious reflective thought. [27] The cultural instinct or “social imaginary” behind tattoos is one of those areas.
A 2023 study by the Pew Research Center illustrates this. The three most commonly cited reasons for Americans getting a tattoo are: 1) “to honor or remember someone or something;” 2) “to make a statement about what they believe;” and 3) “to improve their personal appearance.” Christians commonly get tattoos of Bible verses and Christian symbols, many of which are even depictions of God or Christ—a direct violation of the second commandment: “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (Exodus 20:4). These “Christian tattoos” are often justified as being subjective reminders to honor and obey God, or to be a public witness to Christianity and a tool for evangelism. [28] But these are ad hoc reasons which merely baptize worldly assumptions that have already been uncritically adopted.
We should first back up and ask ourselves: Why should Christians adopt an unbelieving worldview and a Pagan practice “to make a statement about what they believe” or to “honor or remember” Christ or Christian doctrines and duties? And why should we do so in a way that undermines the integrity, natural form, and beauty of the human body as designed by God? Christians believe that God designed the human body and shines forth his image through it, requiring us to reflect his glory back to him in our bodies as well as our souls: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:1-2).
Christian tattoos are inherently superstitious [29] and come from a Judaizing mentality. We bind God’s Word to our hands by obeying it and making it the guide and rule of our lives. We put the Word before our eyes by always focusing on it and making it the guide of all our intellectual activity (Deut. 6:8). We should inscribe the Word of God on our hearts and in our minds (Deut. 11:18), not by physically injecting ink into our skin. Scripture teaches that the markings of a Christian are his love for the people of God, his good works, and his baptism. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35) “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16) “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27). Christians are not immune to tacitly and intuitively absorbing worldly philosophy by simply being in the world, that is why we must take heed to not be “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) by our adoption of vain and worldly ideas, assumptions, or activities about anything, including how we use our own bodies.
Here we must distinguish between a person’s willful intention behind an action vs. the inherent significance of an action in itself. [30] A person may not willfully intend something that his actions nevertheless tacitly express. One’s actions may involve significance that one does not purposely intend, nor is readily perceived by himself or others. Given the Bible’s robust theology of the body, engraving imagery into the skin has inherent significance whether one recognizes it or not. It means that the object being tattooed is so critical that one is willing to permanently stigmatize one’s body in recognition of that thing. If this cannot be said to tend to idolize that thing—objectively (first commandment) or subjectively (second commandment)—then not many things could be said to do so. [31]
In short, tattooing is a dedication of the body to the symbols etched into it, whether the symbols are concrete and particular or abstract and ideological. In this way it is intrinsically a ritual of worship and devotion. Christian tattoos are no different. They are either direct second commandment violations, such as graven images of God, or indirect violations in that it is something they believe is spiritually significant and helps to heighten devotion to God or to identify themselves as Christian. This is to worship God according to man’s will rather than God’s (will-worship, Colossians 2:23), and is the primary point that Leviticus 19:28 is making in context when it condemns tattoos. Clearly, a form of that idolatrous context still applies in our situation today.
3. Vanity and worldliness
Having seen in our first two points how tattoos militate against a biblical theology of the body by being a form of self-harm, and how they are ritualistic acts which stigmatize the body in violation of the second commandment, it is likely apparent by now how tattoos are vain and worldly. But this is a point worth briefly considering on its own.
In the study cited above, the third most commonly given reason Americans get tattoos is “to improve their personal appearance.” This may seem innocent enough. Although a tattoo that is simply an artistic design may not be apparently superstitious or idolatrous, it is nevertheless vain, worldly, and unnecessarily damaging to the body. To purposefully mar and blemish our bodies is contrary to God’s purpose for our skin. Yet, man’s idea of art, beauty, self-expression, etc. can be just as covetous and idolatrous in the heart as the use of idols of silver and gold. [32] Sadly, many Christians have adopted a Gnostic view of the body and do not revere it as the vessel of Divine image bearers and the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19-20; 2 Cor. 6:16-18). Many have bought into the spirit of the age that treats the body as simply a vehicle of self-expression. In defect, the body is valued little more than a high school binder covered in doodles, or in excess, the body is aggrandized as a canvas for iconography of one’s social status. [33]
John Piper lucidly remarked about the covetous vanity of tattoos:
“In view of Paul’s counsel against adornment [1 Tim. 2:9-10] — being minimally external and maximally internal — and in view of his counsel that the adornment or the hair not signify excessive preoccupation with looks, I would say tattoos do signify a fairly high preoccupation with looks, because to choose to get an adornment that will be with you forever is a high-level commitment to adornment. I think probably too high.” [34]
Christian tattoo researcher remarks on the vanity of expressive individualism in tattooing:
“The embrace of tattoos in the United States reflects a generational shift toward greater individualism and self-expression,” said lead author Kevin D. Dougherty, Ph.D., associate professor of sociology at Baylor University. “Americans born since the 1970s have increasingly embraced tattoos as an acceptable means to communicate identity and belonging, whereas previous generations of Americans largely did not. Today, men and women in the United States are equally likely to have tattoos.” [35]
Cultural Anthropologist Nina Jablonski documents the recent rise and increasing social acceptability of tattoos in the West:
“The increased appeal of tattoos since the 1980s in industrialized countries can be attributed in part to the rise of ‘celebrity tattoos.’ When cultural icons from the entertainment industry, such as Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, started showing off their tattoos at high-profile social events, it suddenly became acceptable, even desirable, to ‘have ink.’” [36]
Tattoos were introduced to mainstream America via the counter-cultural revolutions of the mid-20th century. [37] Their popularity did not come about through deliberate moral study and debate. In this connection, beyond a fashionable expression of self, tattoos also function as a “deathwork”— “an attack on established cultural art forms in a manner designed to undo the deeper moral structure of society… Deathworks are powerful because they are an important factor in changing the ethos of society, of altering that social imaginary with which, and according to which, we live our lives. Deathworks make the old values look ridiculous. They represent not so much arguments against the old order as subversions of it. They aim at changing the aesthetic tastes and sympathies of society so as to undermine the commands on which that society was based.” [38] Tattoos are just one example of how in the popular imagination the ugly and degenerate has become beautiful and innocent (cf. Isaiah 5:20-21). [39]
Christians should question why tattoos have been a hallmark of Paganism for millennia, only to very recently become socially acceptable among Christians. This is not the result of careful biblical thought, but rather compromise with the world. Jablonski recounts the effect of Christianity on a people’s tradition of tattooing:
“Tattooing was an integral part of most human cultures for thousands of years, but it clearly fell out of favor in most of Europe in the early Christian era, probably for reasons related to the biblical injunction against it. In subsequent centuries, the Western world came to associate tattooing either with the somewhat disreputable and marginal elements of society, such as prisoners and prostitutes, or with the primitive and the exotic, given the persistence of tattoos in other cultures around the world.” [40]
Likewise, beyond Medieval Europe, in the missionary movements of the 18-19th centuries when previously unreached indigenous peoples were evangelized, Christians remarked how one of the many ways they repented from their Paganism was to discontinue the practice of tattooing. Otto Von Gerlach notes, “It is remarkable that the South Sea Islanders, among whom the art of tattooing had arrived at great perfection, after their conversion to Christianity, would have nothing more to do with this custom.” [41] When our Christian ancestors entered the Heavenly Zion through Christ, they abandoned their former ritualistic body desecrations. “When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations.” (Deut. 18:9).
Christians today must recover a biblical theology of the human body and apply it to all areas of life. We must take every thought captive, and be on guard against passively absorbing worldly intuitions in this area. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). We must beware of worldly values supplanting godly values. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15). We must recover a love for God’s design of the integrity, purity, and beauty of the human body. And we must do so regardless of the world’s scorn, “Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Peter 4:4). We must be resolved like Paul, to declare that “Christ shall be magnified in my body” (Philippians 1:20) and seek to be purged “of impure accretions like self-mutilation (Lev. 19:28)” [42]
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:1-2)
Objections Answered
Objection 1.
“If we must conclude that tattooing is automatically bad in and of itself [Lev. 19:28], then we must also conclude that shaving off the hair on the side of the head and shaving edges of men’s beards [Lev. 19:27] is also equally bad. But, since cutting hair and shaving beards is not sinful in itself, how could we conclude that tattooing is also automatically sinful? We can’t.” [43]
Answer. The proximity of one statement to another that is ceremonial has no direct bearing on the ceremonial quality of the individual statement. That is bad hermeneutics. Francis Turretin reminds us that in Scripture, “often dissimilars are joined together and morals with ceremonials,” [44] therefore we must assess each statement on its own merits. We must ask what causes the law to be just, whether it is natural or positive, as well as consider its adjuncts and circumstances. The next verse forbids whoring out one’s daughter to prostitution (v. 29), divination and soothsaying are prohibited in verse 26, and seeking after wizards and familiar spirits in verse 31. The ceremonial laws prefiguring Christ were transitory and shadowy (Gal. 4:1-3; Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1), but the Ten Commandments are foundationally ethical in nature and are thus perpetual (Mat 5:17-19; Rom 3:31). As transgressions of the 5th, 7th, 1st, and 3rd commandments (at least), these prohibitions against prostitution, divination, witchcraft, etc. clearly have abiding moral validity today and are not ceremonial, even if other statutes in the surrounding verses are. [45] In the same way, cutting oneself and disfiguring the body with tattoos are violations of the moral law, because they dishonor the divine image in man (violating the 6th commandment), and are Pagan forms of ritualistic body desecration Christianized “to make a statement about what they believe” or to “honor or remember” Christ or Christian doctrines and duties, and syncretized with our modern zeitgeist of expressive individualism (violating the 2nd & 10th commandments).
Objection 2.
Leviticus 19:28 says not to tattoo yourself “for the dead,” therefore if my tattoo is not for the dead, it is lawful. That passage does not apply here unless people are getting tattoos in mourning for the dead, as idolatrous ancestor worship “honoring the dead, or, fear of the curses of the dead” [46] “When I got my tattoos I did not think of my deceased friends and relatives or any attempt to appease pagan gods.” [47]
Answer. 1. Leviticus 19:28 actually states that you should not “cut your flesh for the dead nor print marks on you,” not “cut your flesh or print marks on you for the dead.” The body cuttings are for the dead. The tattooing is not qualified as being for a specific reason. Also the superstitious reason for either act does not mean the act itself is indifferent if it is done for another purpose, since the acts themselves (i.e. cutting and tattooing) violate nature and damage the body.
“The prohibition of קעקע כּתבת, scriptio stigmatis, writing corroded or branded, i.e., of tattooing… had no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelites a proper reverence for God’s creation.” [48] Likewise, the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2016) says, “Unlike the first part of the verse, tattoos are not associated with mourning rites… They were at times used to mark someone’s loyalty to a particular god. In Mesopotamia most known tattoos are slave markings, though there are also known examples of priests receiving marks to designate the god they serve. It can therefore be concluded that tattoos are likely banned not just because of what they do to the body, but because of what they communicate about a relationship to deity.” [49] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (2008) not only excludes the possibility that tattoos were only forbidden insofar as they were “for the dead,” but also does not see the prohibition to be associated with worship at all: “The prohibition of tattoos or marks on one’s body seems to have no clear association with mourning for the dead or worship of other deities. Its position here is a testament to the body as created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-28),” and therefore, “disfiguring or deforming the body by marking it in this way has no part in what God has created.” [50]
2. Even if “for the dead” qualifies the prohibition against tattooing, then the text also forbids cuttings in your flesh for the dead. So is it acceptable for someone to cut his flesh, as long as he is not doing it out of grief for the dead, or to propitiate on behalf of the dead? No, that is absurd. The prophets of Baal were not cutting themselves “for the dead,” but it was still obviously sinful (1 Kings 18:25-28). The Gadarene demoniac was not cutting himself “for the dead,” yet it is still depicted as horrific and immoral (Mark 5:2-5). Cutting oneself, or in the case of tattoos, pricking oneself with a needle thousands of times, is destructive to the body by the action itself. This could be excused in cases of necessity such as surgery to heal the body, but not for the purposes of permanently altering the natural appearance of the skin, for vanity, self-expression, or superstition, etc. as is done for tattoos.
3. If this text only prohibits tattoos for the dead, then even the ancient Israelites could have tattooed themselves, as long as it wasn’t “for the dead.” But this consequence is denied, therefore the premise should be denied also.
4. Many people today, even Christians, do indeed tattoo themselves “for the dead.” According to a 2023 study, “the most commonly cited reason [for Americans getting a tattoo] is to honor or remember someone or something.” It is a concerning trend that Christian women will tattoo themselves after having a miscarriage, or others in memorial of a lost loved one. As tragic as losing a loved one truly is, Christians must be discerning what tattooing themselves in memory of a deceased loved one actually means and communicates. God is not pleased by this.
5. Arguing that Leviticus 19:28 is a ceremonial law and therefore abrogated (cf. Objection #1), while at the same time saying that the command only restricts tattooing “for the dead” is contradictory. Is it no longer sinful to tattoo oneself for the dead or for another superstitious purpose? Of course it is. And using these two arguments together even though they contradict demonstrates that the interlocutor is not interested in the truth, but rather is only interested in defending tattoos at all costs.
Objection 3.
“There is some legitimate question as to whether or not the word translated “tattoo” means what we think of today with a tattoo… The exact meaning of [kah-ak-ah’] is unknown, it could refer either to making tattoos on the body or to painting the body. Painting the body was a pagan practice. Those preparing to attend a ritual painted their bodies.” [51]
Answer. While the semantic range of the Hebrew term may include painting as well as tattooing, 1) the prohibition’s contextual inclusion with cutting, 2) the widely acknowledged historical background of Pagan rituals of cutting and tattooing (see above), and 3) the confirmation of theologians and translations across the ages, are firm enough to understand it as speaking of tattooing. Old Testament scholar John Currid writes,
“Finally, one is not to bear a ‘tattoo’. That term in Hebrew is clear, as it literally reads ‘a written incision’. Porter reports that in Pagan societies of the ancient Near East worshippers bore marks on their bodies as a sign of being devotees of a particular deity.” [52]
The vast majority of scholars, translations, and lexicons understand this word as referencing tattoos, even those scholars who point out that the possible semantic range of the word out of any grammatical context may be broader than just tattoos. We have seen many sources throughout this essay which do not raise this as an uncertainty. Using this semantic ambiguity to deny that this passage forbids tattoos is an exegetical fallacy. [53]
Others attempt to capitalize on this by drawing a parallel between Leviticus 19:28 and Deuteronomy 14:1 “you shall not cut yourselves nor shave [kor-khaw’] the front of your head for the dead” (NKJV)—alleging it as proof that Leviticus 19:28 does not refer to tattooing, but rather to shaving one’s forehead. [54] But the more obvious parallel, where the same word is used, is with Leviticus 21:5, “They shall not make any bald place [kor-khaw’] on their heads, nor shall they shave the edges of their beards nor make any cuttings in their flesh” (NKJV). [55] Hence, there is no linguistic or contextual plausibility that “shaving the forehead” is another way of interpreting the Hebrew word for “tattoo.”
Objection 4.
“Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.” (Isaiah 49:16) “This is most likely a reference to a kind of tattoo, a mark made with indelible ink… Some scholars even suggest that Jews began tattooing their hands to remind themselves of the temple and the Lord. (see Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary; and note Is. 44:5). No, God does not condemn tattoos outright. Such marks, when connected to pagan theology and worship, were forbidden. But, God appears to have found them to be a fitting picture of how he remembers us.” [56]
Answer. “Engraving upon the palms of my hands” in Isaiah 49:16 is most likely a reference to the flexure lines on the palms, called palmar creases, and not to tattoos. [57] There is no exegetical basis for relating this to tattoos. Even if there were a lexical connection, it would be exegetically fallacious to use this to justify tattooing since 1) it is used analogously, and 2) tattooing was indisputably forbidden (Lev. 19:28). God engraving Israel on the palms of his hands means that he directs his providential actions toward the good of his people and he will never forget them. This is true generally for all time, but particularly in the context of Isaiah 49 with regard to God bringing Israel out of exile. God’s remembrance of his people is as indelible as the creases in one’s palms. Moreover, Christ has engraven his people on the palms of his hands by sacrificing himself for us, “they pierced my hands and my feet” (Psalm 22:16). Henry comments, “the wounds in Christ’s hands when he was crucified—he will look on the marks of them, and remember those for whom he suffered and died.” If certain Jews tattooed their hands out of zeal for the Temple or the Lord (other than the fact that this is at best a dubious historical connection with Isa. 49:16), then they were in gross violation of Leviticus 19:28—this would be inherently superstitious and destructive of the body. It would not be a lawful example for us to follow.
Objection 5.
Jesus has a tattoo on his thigh. Therefore, tattoos are acceptable. “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16) [58]
Answer. This argument is difficult to take seriously. The writing is not a tattoo on the skin, but rather is written on the part of Christ’s clothing covering his thigh, perhaps in association with where a sword was commonly attached. [59] Moreover, this text is apocalyptic literature and not to be interpreted in a woodenly literal fashion.
Objection 6.
“My philosophy is that seeing as my body is a temple, it means I need to decorate it. Have you seen temples, churches, cathedrals and the like? They often have such elaborate architecture, windows, and art. They are most often places of sacred worship, and as such, were designed very carefully. It means that things are specifically chosen to be a part of that space, and they are part of the story of the people and the place. Tattoos are part of the story of my life, and I’m glad to have the ones I have.” [60] This argument is also occasionally circulated on social media in meme form, to sarcastically deride the application of 1 Corinthians 6:19 to the topic of tattoos, see here.
Answer. Such a comparison begins to stretch the purpose of the analogy in 1 Corinthians 6:19. But God inspired the working and design of the Temple (Heb. 8:5; 1 Chron. 28:12 & 19), just like he did when he created the human body (Ps. 139:13-16; Job 10:11). It would not have been appropriate for the Israelites to alter or graffiti the Temple that God had designed (Deut. 12:32; Ex. 39:32-43) any more than it would be for us to do the same to our bodies (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19-20). “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” (Rom. 14:7-8).
Objection 7.
Ear piercing is painful and jewelry can easily be vainly worn (1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3). If tattooing is wrong then any kind of piercing must also be wrong.
Answer. This is a comparison of apples and oranges. 1. While jewelry such as earrings can easily become vain and immodest (1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Peter 3:3; Hos. 2:13), it is not inherently so. But tattooing is inherently vain and immodest.
2. The Bible references earrings many times with no hint of it violating the moral or ceremonial law (except in cases of immodest excess), yet, as we’ve seen, every reference to cutting or tattooing is negative. There must be a reason for that. God metaphorically puts a ring in Israel’s nose and earrings in her ears to signify betrothal: “And I put a jewel on thy forehead [נֶזֶם עַל־אַפֵּךְ “ring in thy nose”], and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.” (Ezekiel 16:12). Genesis 24, Isaac’s servant gives Rebekah a golden nose ring as a token of marriage. Exodus 35, earrings are some of the jewelry melted down to make the golden calf. “As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.” (Prov. 25:12). Earrings, rings, and nose jewels are listed as luxuries women commonly wore (Isa. 3:20-21) with no hint of God’s disapproval. [61]
3. The scale and amount of pain and disfigurement in ear piercing compared with tattooing is not comparable. Tattoos are far more painful, disfiguring, and permanent.
4. Earrings are ornaments that are distinct from the body. But tattoos deface the body itself.
5. Earrings and tattoos have substantially different meanings. Earrings are decorations suitable to women signifying their devotion to their husbands, and their husband’s affection for them. Tattoos, on the other hand, are a mutilation of the body that represents religious devotion to the objects depicted in the skin.
One may also object here that make-up would be prohibited by the same logic we use against tattoos. But this is a misunderstanding. Makeup covers up blemishes and enhances natural features, it is not disfiguring nor permanent and it doesn’t damage the skin. It is the opposite of tattoos in every respect.
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Ethics, vol. 2, pp. 277-8, 296.
[2] The Latin maxim: Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia, meaning that “a conclusion about the use of a thing from its abuse is not valid. Just because something is misused, it does not mean that it cannot be properly used.” (US Legal).
[3] Matthew Henry, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:13 & 15.
[4] Matthew Poole, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:18.
[5] Henry Alford (1810-1871) elaborates: “Drunkenness and gluttony, e.g. are sins done in and by the body, and are sins by abuse of the body, but they are still introduced from without, sinful not in their act, but in their effect, which effect it is each man’s duty to foresee and avoid. But fornication is the alienating of that body which is the Lord’s, and making it a harlot’s body. It is sin against a man’s own body, in its very nature, against the verity and nature of his body; not an effect on the body from participation of things without, but a contradiction of the truth of the body, wrought within itself. When man and wife are one in the Lord, united by His ordinance, no such alienation of the body takes place, and consequently no sin.” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:18).
The New English Translation (NET) takes an interesting approach in trying to harmonize this text with others. “‘Every sin a person commits is outside of the body.’ It is debated whether this is a Corinthian slogan. If it is not, then Paul is essentially arguing that there are two types of sin, nonsexual sins which take place outside the body and sexual sins which are against a person’s very own body. If it is a Corinthian slogan, then it is a slogan used by the Corinthians to justify their immoral behavior. With it they are claiming that anything done in the body or through the body had no moral relevance. A decision here is very difficult, but the latter is to be preferred for two main reasons. (1) This is the most natural understanding of the statement as it is written. To construe it as a statement by Paul requires a substantial clarification in the sense (e.g., “All other sins…” [NIV]). (2) Theologically the former is more difficult: Why would Paul single out sexual sins as more intrinsically related to the body than other sins, such as gluttony or drunkenness? For these reasons, it is more likely that the phrase in quotation marks is indeed a Corinthian slogan which Paul turns against them in the course of his argument, although the decision must be regarded as tentative.” (NET, footnote C, on 1 Corinthians 6:18).
[6] Hence the objection against applying this text to tattoos is without merit, or is at best a response to an incomplete enthymeme of the first argument in this article. “Yes, we must glorify God with our bodies, but [1 Corinthians 6:19-20] does not address whether or not tattooing dishonors God or the body. In fact the context moves us in another direction… Paul is confronting sexual sin in the church, and argues that sexual immorality defiles the body/temple. Using this passage to argue against tattoos (or smoking, or eating red meat) does injustice to the text and leads us away from the powerful truths revealed therein… Of course, how we treat the body matters… So how do we glorify God in the body we possess? That question must be carefully answered using the Scripture which is our authority in all faith and practice.” (Joe Thorn, Tattoos and Christians, 11 Dec. 2018).
[7] Process of Tattooing, Wikipedia; How Long Does A Tattoo Take, Ink-Match, June 15, 2021.
[8] Joe Thorn’s reasons 1 and 9 (out of ten) for not getting tattoos are because they are painful. “It stinkin’ hurts. It bears repeating.” (Tattoos and Christians, 11 Dec. 2018).
[9] Kathryn Doyle, Tattooing may be ancient, but safety questions remain (August 6, 2015). “In 2011, in a study in The British Journal of Dermatology, investigators reported the discovery that nanoparticles are found in tattoo inks. Nanoparticles are ultramicroscopic, making them able to penetrate through skin layers into underlying blood vessels and then travel with the bloodstream. Evidence suggests that some of these nanoparticles might induce toxic effects in the brain and cause nerve damage. Some of these nanoparticles might also be carcinogenic. And according to the results of a study from the University of Bradford, nanoparticles from tattoo ink were found around blood vessels elsewhere in the body and could possibly enter organs and other tissues. Black ink is the color most often linked with high concentrations of such nanoparticles.” Laser removal exacerbates the absorption of nanoparticles in the bloodstream and lymph nodes. “Laser treatment does not remove the tattoo ink out of the body; rather, the relatively large pigments of the ink are broken down into much smaller particles, which are transported through the body and stored in the lymph nodes or other tissues. The ink does not ever really leave the body, though possibly a portion is excreted via the liver.” (Rahimi et. al, Tattoos: What Do People Really Know About the Medical Risks of Body Ink?, Journal of Clinical & Aesthetic Dermatology, 2018;11(3):30–35.
[10] Henry Ainsworth, Annotations upon the Five Books of Moses, the Book of the Psalms, & Song of Songs, or, Canticles, vols. 1, 2, pp. 607-608.
[11] Albert Barnes, Commentary on Leviticus 19:28.
[12] James G. Murphy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, pp. 242-243.
[13] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Ethics vol. 2, p. 433.
[14] Otto Von Gerlach, Commentary on the Pentateuch, pp. 426-427.
[15] William R. Nicoll, Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Lev. 19:28.
[16] Joseph H. Hertz, The Pentateuch & Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation & Commentary, p. 503.
[17] Chaim ibn Attar, Commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus 19:28.
[18] Jacob Sforno, Mikraot Gedolot: Multi-Commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus 19:28.
[19] W. Mark Gustafson, “Inscripta in Fronte: Penal Tattooing in Late Antiquity.” Classical Antiquity 16, no. 1 (1997): 79–105.
[20] Webster’s Dictionary (1828).
[21] Owen Rees, An Ancient Stigma: Greek Tattoo Culture, part 1; Ancient World Magazine (24 June 2021).
[22] Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (2005), vol. 4, Leviticus-Numbers, p. 236, Lloyd R. Bailey.
[23] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6 (ANF 1.351). Ironically, what modern Evangelical culture may deem as Gnostic—disapproval of tattoos (and graven images)—Irenaeus listed observance of such as a distinctive practice of Gnostics.
[24] “What tattoos were apparently often used for in ancient Mesopotamia was marking enslaved people (and, in Egypt, as decorations for women of all social classes). Egyptian captives were branded with the name of a god, marking them as belongings of the priests or pharaoh. But devotees might also be branded with the name of the god they worshiped.” (Livia Gershon, Why Does the Bible Forbid Tattoos? And have we been misinterpreting Leviticus?, January 2, 2021. Summary of John Huehnergard and Harold Liebowitz, The Biblical Prohibition Against Tattooing, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 63, Fasc. 1 (2013), pp. 59-77).
[25] NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2016), edited by John H. Walton and Craig S. Keener, pp. 213-214.
[26] That is to say that modern expressive individualism views the human body poietically rather than mimetically. And we allege that the modern trend of tattooing exemplifies this. (Carl Trueman, The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self, p. 39).
[27] That is to say, “the way we think about many things is not grounded in a self-conscious belief in a particular theory of the world to which we have committed ourselves. We live our lives in a more intuitive fashion than that.” (Carl Trueman, The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self, p. 38). “We all live in a world in which it is increasingly easy to imagine that reality is something we can manipulate according to our own wills and desires, and not something that we necessarily need to conform ourselves to or passively accept. And this broader context makes intuitive, for example, those philosophical claims of Friedrich Nietzsche, in which human beings are called to transcend themselves, to make their lives into works of art, to take the place of God as self-creators and the inventors, not the discoverers, of meaning. Few people have read Nietzsche, but many intuitively think in Nietzschean ways about their relationship to the natural world precisely because the highly technological world in which we now live—a world in which virtual reality is a reality—makes it so easy to do so. Self-creation is a routine part of our modern social imaginary.” (Carl Trueman, The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self, pp. 41-2)
[28] Terry Goodrich, Faith-centered Tattoos Are Analyzed in Study of University Students (February 12, 2020).
[29] By superstition we do not mean irrational regard to “luck,” fate, or the paranormal, but rather: “Superstition is that whereby undue worship is yielded to God. For in superstition God is always the object, and the end in some measure, but the worship itself is unlawful.” (William Ames, Marrow of Sacred Divinity, ch. 13).
[30] This is a technical scholastic distinction between finis operis (the end of the action) and finis operantis (the end of the one acting/working). See our explanation here: Reformed Scholasticism: Distinguishing Ends. Note that actions themselves can have inherent significance regardless of how they are perceived by ourselves or by others around us. In other words, this is not merely a consideration about what the society thinks, but rather a consideration about what actions mean in light of God’s designed order and purpose. This of course assumes a traditional Christian Metaphysical and Ethical Realism in contrast to various forms of Nominalism and Utilitarianism that now dominate modern thought (and sadly has seeped into the thinking of many Christians). This is crucial because many Christian discussions of tattoos, while rightly discouraging them, ultimately boil down to “it depends on your cultural context and what your neighbors will think;” e.g. Carmen Imes, Are Tattoos OK for Christians? (20 Jan. 2023), Talbot School of Theology Faculty Blog. This may be a valid consideration for the use of indifferent things and preventing a stumbling block, but that is a separate issue.
[31] It is easily seen that a Roman Catholic is being semantic and obtuse when he says that praying to Mary is not an act of worship, when it obviously is. By the same token, tattooing is an act of worship in its inherent goal or natural result regardless of whether it is so in the willed intention of the person who engages in it.
[32] “Tattoo designs—once imprinted on the skin—can be indelible reminders of a significant life event. They explicitly lack the transience of the souvenir t-shirt or a temporary hair color. In an increasingly globalized world of look-alike clothing, cosmetics, and hair styles, tattoos are permanent reflections of personality, carefully calculated representations of core beliefs and sentiments that can make a uniquely powerful statement of individuality.” (Nina Jablonski, Skin: A Natural History (2006), p. 151).
[33] “Many of the people who get tattoos in affluent countries today exercise great care in choosing the design and composition of their tattoo and the artist who will create it, sometimes going to great expense and traveling long distances to engage a famous tattoo artist in another city or to attend one of the many newly popular body art fairs.” (Nina Jablonski, Skin: A Natural History (2006), p. 152).
[34] John Piper, Six Reasons to Skip Tattoos, Ask Pastor John, Ep. 241, Dec. 20, 2013.
[35] Terry Goodrich, Faith-centered Tattoos Are Analyzed in Study of University Students (February 12, 2020).
[36] Nina Jablonski, Skin: A Natural History (2006), p. 152.
[37] Roggenkamp, et. al, Tattoos as a window to the psyche, World J Psychiatry. 2017 Sep 22; 7(3): 148-158.
[38] Carl Trueman, The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self, pp. 96-7; the concept was originally articulated by Philip Rieff in his book My Life among the Deathworks.
[39] “Tattoos do not make you prettier or more handsome. Now, here I know this is opinion — and just hear my opinion. Take it or leave it. Tattoos are, in general, ugly. They are discolorations of pretty skin, and they get uglier as time goes by…Men find women’s skin attractive to see and to touch. Tattoos do not make that skin more desirable or attractive… At the gym that I go to, I pity the women with tattoos. From twenty feet away, they look like they are burned and disfigured. It is very, very sad… Women, you have beautiful skin. Men like it. Don’t mess it up.” (John Piper, Six Reasons to Skip Tattoos, Ask Pastor John, Ep. 241, Dec. 20, 2013).
[40] Nina Jablonski, Skin: A Natural History (2006), p. 150. “Just as occurred in other cultures with tattoo traditions, when these pagan tribes were ‘converted’ to the Christian religion, their spiritual and cultural rites (which included tattooing, piercing and scarification) were outlawed…” (Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book: A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications (1997), p. 9)
[41] Otto Von Gerlach, Commentary on the Pentateuch, pp. 426-427.
[42] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 600.
[43] Matt Slick, Is it ok for Christians to get a tattoo?. Similarly, “I believe tattoos are ‘lawful’ for the Christian. It isn’t tattoos that are forbidden in Scripture, but pagan tattoos (Lev. 19:26 [sic]). It’s also important to note that this one prohibition is a part of Israel’s ‘civil law’ which governed them as a theocracy. We are no longer bound by such laws that forbid certain foods, clothes, and prescribe specific grooming habits.” (Joe Thorn, Tattoos part 4, 27 March 2013). The last two sentences appear to have been removed in the updated version of this article (Tattoos and Christians, 11 Dec. 2018).
[44] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology XI.xxvi.21, vol. 2, p. 165.
[45] Likewise, the prohibitions against idolatry and fornication in Acts 15:20 were not ceremonial and temporary just because they were lumped together with prohibitions against things strangled and from blood.
[46] James R. White, cited in Eric Schneider, Bad Hermeneutics in a Tattoo, 18 April 2019.
[47] Erik Raymond, Q&A Friday: Is it a sin for a Christian to get a tattoo?, The Gospel Coalition, 5 Jan. 2007.
[48] Keil & Delitszch, Commentary on Leviticus 19:28.
[49] NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2016), edited by John H. Walton and Craig S. Keener, pp. 213-214.
[50] Expositor’s Bible Commentary (2008), vol. 1, Leviticus, Richard S. Hess, on Leviticus 19:28.
[51] Erik Raymond, Q&A Friday: Is it a sin for a Christian to get a tattoo?, The Gospel Coalition, 5 Jan. 2007.
[52] John Currid, Commentary on Leviticus 19:28.
[53] cf. DA Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 37-43.
[54] Eric Schneider, Bad Hermeneutics in a Tattoo (18 April 2019), citing a social media post by James R. White.
[55] cf. Keil and Delitzsch commentary on Lev. 19:28, Lev. 21:5, and Deut. 14:1.
[56] Joe Thorn, Tattoos and Christians, 11 Dec. 2018.
[57] E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 568.
[58] To his credit, Joe Thorn debunks this: “I have heard a few pastors point to the depiction of Jesus’ second coming in Revelation 19, and the “name written” on his “thigh” as a tattoo. At best it is unclear if this is a tattoo, but it seems much more likely that this name, “King of kings and Lord of lords” is written on his garment, not his actual leg. John records that the name was written on his robe and on his thigh, and it seems most likely that the lower part of the robe, covering the thigh area, carried the name. I haven’t yet come across any scholars who argue this was a tattoo.” (Tattoos and Christians, 11 Dec. 2018). See also Did Jesus have a tattoo (Revelation 19:16)?, GotQuestions.
[59] Vincent’s Word Studies on Revelation 19:16.
[60] Mary Clare St. Francis, M.A., My Body is a Temple: So I decorate it with tattoos, 14 Dec. 2022.
[61] For a biblical defense of modest jewelry and make-up, see Modesty in Apparel: Bringing a Believer’s Attire into Subjection to the Word of God (2011) by Brian Schwertley.