Tattoos, theology, and why getting a buzz might be a sin - Part 1

So Lois opened up a can of worms on buzz...kind of...by bringing up the issue of tattoos and other trendy slogans. While her point wasn't exclusively related to tattoos, I decided to swerve more in that direction since it seemed more interesting.  Part 2 will deal indirectly with some of her question in my 3 point response. I felt, though, that the tattoo thing was a bit more interesting and surprisingly, quite a problem in our present culture. With apologies for the divergence, here's the first part of my response:

------

Is getting a tattoo a sin?  Will you get shut out at the pearly gates because you inked your arm with something?  The answer, of course, is quite easy. 

“²⁸Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:28. (KJV)

Print any marks?  What is that?

“²⁸ You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.” (NKJV)

The ever-trustworthy update of the King James Version says that is talking about tattoos. The New American Standard, English Standard Version and New International Version all translate it, ‘tattoo’.

“But wait”, say the Christian tattoo apologists, “That’s the law.  We’re like totally free from that now, dude.”  Of course, that’s only California.  If they were down South, for instance, they would remove the ‘like totally’ and ‘dude’, and replace it with the Southern equivalent term.

What we have here is a perfect example of the bifurcation between two cultural positions in evangelical…ish Christianity in America today.  On the one hand you’ve got the emergent crowd who either favor pop music Christianity or rap ‘music’ – let’s face it, rap can’t really be called music since all it’s got is rhythm/beat/lyrics: it’s kind of missing the ‘music’ part.  And frankly, it’s kind of disturbing, even though some Christians I respect like it.  Fact: Most people are wrong at least half the time. 

One side calls the other ‘worldly’ and ‘carnal’ while the other crew shouts back, “Legalism!” to every criticism lobbed at them.

And even if you’re willing to get down in the mud and wrestle this issue to the ground, you’re still stuck with the problem that this might be an issue strictly for Israel as opposed to a universal command.  For instance, one verse earlier,

“²⁷ You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.” Leviticus 19:27. (NKJV)

So is getting a buzz out of bounds?  See, here’s where it gets tricky because a lot of the issues in this chapter are clearly eternal and universal laws reflecting God’s character.  So which side does Lev. 19:28 fall on? The bad side or the buzz side? (I’m assuming here that we’re on the same page about short haircuts being okay).

To shed some light on this issue, we’re going to call in the professionals.  John MacArthur is, in my mind, one of the top expositors of the Bible out there.  He didn’t write a commentary on the Old Testament, however he did write a study Bible.  His studies on verses 27-28 of Leviticus 19 led him to write about it,

“These pagan practices were most likely associated with Egyptian idolatry and were therefore to be avoided.  The practice of making deep gashes on the face and arm or legs, in times of grief, was universal among pagans. It was seen as a mark of respect for the dead, as well as a sort of propitiatory offering to the gods who presided over death.  The Jews learned this custom in Egypt and, though weaned from it, relapsed into the old superstition (cf. Is. 22:12; Jer. 16:6; 47:5). Tattoos also were connected to names of idols, and were permanent signs of apostasy.”

“¹² And in that day the Lord GOD of hosts
      Called for weeping and for mourning,
      For baldness and for girding with sackcloth.” Isaiah 22:12. (NKJV)

“⁶ Both the great and the small shall die in this land. They shall not be buried; neither shall men lament for them, cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them.” Jeremiah 16:6. (NKJV)

^“5 Baldness has come upon Gaza,
      Ashkelon is cut off
      With the remnant of their valley.
      How long will you cut yourself?” Jeremiah 47:5. (NKJV)

This makes sense.  As with many commands in the Pentateuch, God desires to set His people apart, both in behavior and in appearance from the world.  These commands concerning how the people should look would draw a distinction between them and the surrounding nations.  The reason wasn’t simply arbitrary: these particular actions that the Israelites were copying had religious significance.  A person’s appearance at that time could tell you something about his theology. 

So how does this information affect our interpretation of this verse and its relevance for us today? Depends on your view. In the first place, the emergent crowd will point out that now that we’re no longer under law but under grace, these external additions are irrelevant.  It is time, they believe, to be all things to all men and redeem these extras for Christ. But on the other hand, the traditionalists will argue that appearances do tell a story.  Is looking like the world really what we want them to see? This argument touches on a whole lot of other issues, as well. This is where we get into suits and ties vs. shorts and tennies territory. It is another one of those areas, like music, where some parts need to be inferred from the text.

Simply stated, Leviticus 19:28, while straightforward in itself, has a decent case going against it in regards to its importance in the 21^st century. In addition to that, a person with John 3:16 tattooed on their arm is going to be sending out more of a message than I am with my 80 dollar Reyn Spooner Hawaiian shirt and 5 buck Walmart shoes.

A picture is worth a thousand words they say, and a guy with, “Jesus loves you” inked on his wrist is telling more people about Jesus than I could even begin to.

And what about the gangbangers and folks living on the street who see anyone dressed in a suit as hostile? A guy coming along who looks like them already has an ‘in’, as it were. So why not do it?  Why not use any means we can to expand our witness? If I can testify that I’m a Christian with a cross tattoo, that practically starts the conversation for me.

-------

Due to the length of the full post (1910 words, to be precise - about 1000 of which are on here now), the answer to that will come on Thursday evening/Friday morning (the two are kind of interchangeable in my schedule).  You'll probably see it Friday morning, though. Until then, feel free to comment and share your  thoughts on the matter. SDG