What about foods that are declared unclean in the OT, like pork and shellfish?”

Does the New Testament prohibit bestiality? Does it say anything about smoking?

Then I guess it’s ok. Shaking my head…sad.

Thanks,
Dave”

You are even sarcastic…sad.

1 Corinthians 7:4-6 (English Standard Version)

4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

I had a long post written out where I detailed the logical fallacies in your treatise above, but after rereading it, I realized that it was true, but pretty mean-spirited.

Instead I’ll just say, with as much love for a fellow believer as I can muster, that your whole argument above hinges on external things, i.e. how we look when compared to other believers and non-believers.

There was a group in Jesus’ day who was also constantly comparing themselves to others by outward appearances of holiness. They were called Pharisees, and Jesus didn’t seem to like them very much.

Your well-worded argument is summarized by you here: “This is not to say that tattooing, within itself, is sinful, but it’s to say that it blurs the line between those called of God and those who are not.”

Here’s where we disagree. I do not believe that Christ calls us to be different from the world for the sake of appearing different. In fact, I believe that can lead to legalism. Instead, our difference comes out of a heart changed by Christ’s sacrificial love. Unless refraining from tattoos comes out of a heart that is grateful for Christ’s finished work on the cross, then it is an arbitrary sign of our difference from the world.

So I would ask, in what way does refraining from getting a tattoo testify to God’s love for us? If you agree that it is not following a command (you said that tattoos are not in themselves sin), then for what purpose other than to physically appear different does it serve?

Put another way: Anyone can be countercultural. No heart change is needed to appear different from the world. And there are millions of ways that Christians can physically appear different from the world. If the problem is a blurring of the lines, why choose tattoos? Why not pants? Hats? Glasses? Cars? But Christ came to transform us so that we are–in our being–different. That kind of change you cannot achieve merely by your outward appearance, although it will always become manifest in our actions and appearance.

I have just run across this blog and wanted to respond because it is full of facts but the facts don’t support the theological conclusions. I just feel it imperative to respond because many young Christians are following this line of thinking, and collectively speaking, it is leading our communities of faith away from the Truth.

A few introductory things. First, I am Christian. Second, I am a 20 somethings Christian. Third, I concur with most of the exegetical points this poster makes, however, the conclusions do not exactly flow from the facts. Herein lies the problem. Most of the poster’s conversation rests on OT (Levitical civil and priestly laws) and Pauline interpretations. However, when dealing with Christianity, within any context, you must begin with Jesus’ take on the situation or situations which flow from a larger question. I fail to appreciate a Christian’s justification for a personal choice that doesn’t begin with a Christ-centered hermeneutic.

The issue here is not the role of the OT within the NT. In fact, I think Jesus put that to rest in Matthew 5:17 where He says, “think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Any reputable translation you choose will give you the idea that Jesus did not come to do away with the OT, but He came to demonstrate the meaning of God’s relationship with the children of Israel. In a discussion of marriage in Matthew 19, Jesus explains that Mosaic law was not illegitimate in its formation, it was illegitimate in its administration. Jesus’ attitude towards the law is not that the law is useless, but it is that the law failed to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish because those who had charge over the law had hardened their hearts. Just a few verses earlier in Matthew 5 Jesus talks about salt and light. Out of this ethic, how can we justify actions or images which are so akin to the world? The poster brings up images on buildings…..keep in mind that even these images were problematic for Jesus because He began to see how the people created idols out of the their expression. Herein lies the problem with tattooing.This is not to say that tattooing, within itself, is sinful, but it’s to say that it blurs the line between those called of God and those who are not. Yes, there is a line. What it says is that this form of expression is worship, and should be acceptable within the community of faith. This is problematic on a few fronts. First, just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should do it. Just because it may not be a sin to drink doesn’t mean that it should be ok to bring a fifth into the sanctuary during Sunday morning worship. Just because I’m male and love women doesn’t mean it’s ok for me to walk around with my arm around other women, regardless to my marital status. These actions may seem harmless and may not even amount to sinful activities, but the wisdom of the law remains the same – it does not advance the Gospel. It merges popular culture and religious expression. When the two meet they form idolatry. How? Popular-culture is idolatry. Using a tattoo to reach someone would never have entered your mind unless you thought it was an effective tool to communicate. Tattoos in American culture have not become effective tools of expression and communication because of their use in the Church; quite the contrary they have been used as permanent markers – permanent in the sense that they are marked upon you forever. Perhaps if you’re that enthralled with tattooing you should get the laws written upon your forehead so that you and your children and their children will not forget them. That is what that verse means right?

Second, the message gets lost in the art. What message does a tattoo convey that your lifestyle as a Christian can’t? Does it say that you can be “cool” and still be a Christian? Does it say that there’s nothing wrong with a little body art? What’s the harm? If we have to communicate how Christianity can fit into our lives then we aren’t really out to sell Jesus, but we’re out to sell religion. More importantly, I would argue that in the 20 something and younger generation today what is popular or attractive one minute isn’t popular the next. The desire to reach young people is one thing but the length at which we go to do it is another. 1 Corinthians 9 illustrates Paul’s desire to reach people by becoming whatever it took to reach them. However, we know from Paul’s letters that Paul couldn’t become all things to all people, and that his words demonstrated his own zeal to spread the word. Paul knew that he couldn’t do whatever he wanted to do because God is not the author of confusion. Even if nothing were wrong with the practice of tattooing, the fact that it is still a major worldly expression in which Christians compromise their identity, not strengthen it.

Once you come to Jesus, life changes. Here, is where the Pauline letters are useful. Once you understand that you have a “new nature” you are a “new creature” then you no longer function the way the world does. Does that mean you cease to exist in the world? No. You gotta work….you gotta eat….you gotta get around. Even though you live in the world, your the way you live changes – not because you are better than or holier than, but because you are separate. If getting a tattoo makes you separate then there are a lot of people walking around who are isolated. That’s the real reason tattooing should be an issue among Christians is because it goes to the heart of Christian identity. Tattooing in our society does not set you a part, it brings you in. 2 Corinthians 6 is crucial here…….Paul says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.” Paul is rebuking Christians that have so closely associated themselves with idolatry that they have adopted their ways as their own. These people had begun to mix their lives with those who weren’t Christians. Is this impossible to live today? No.

The real question is how do we identify ourselves in the world. If there is one thing that the world doesn’t need is someone who looks like them telling them that they need to change. How can you speak to the world when you do the same things? Is your Jesus the one who eats with sinners and joins them in their sin? Or is your Jesus the one who eats with sinners and after which tells them to “go and sin no more?” Is your Jesus the one who shows up at the wedding banquet and gets hammered after turning water into wine? How can the Gospel become transformational if it so closely resembles the world? If you say that Jesus related to the world, then you’re sadly mistaken. “Nothing good came from Nazareth.” This means that people didn’t take Jesus’ seriously. It was the minority, not the majority who followed Him. Besides that, we never see other boys during this time period standing in a Temple proclaiming that “the spirit of the Lord is upon me….He has anointed me..” No, Jesus was counter-cultural. He didn’t have to brand himself for others to know his uniqueness. Jesus became “other-than” not by the way he looked, but by the power He had within.

So, your body IS the temple of the Holy Spirit. You reach people through relationships and not by mere words or tattoos. Even though the poster talks about the relationship opening with his tattoo artist, what’s to say that you couldn’t have achieved the same relationship without getting a tattoo? I have several friends who drink, but I’ve gotten them to attend church; not by joining them in alcoholic consumption, but by the way I love with them right where they are.

You don’t have to become sin to reach sinners. Christ already did that.

On another point of your post:

It doesn’t follow for you to argue that failure for Christians to follow all of the OT law delegitimizes the purpose of law or the law itself. Of course Christians do not follow every letter of the law, but Christ did not come so that we would not have to follow the law, but He came so that in our inability to follow the law we might still be able to access the throne of grace. This does not nullify the law. Otherwise, should we just eliminate those sections from our Bibles? What purpose do they serve?Just because people pick and choose which laws they will follow doesn’t mean that the basis law is invalid. That’s a very poor premise to base your argument.

Assuming arguendo that the laws were antiquated, Jesus’ declaration in Matthew settles the role of the OT in contemporary life. But if your Gospel preaching isn’t Christo-centric and based upon Pauline interpretations then I’m afraid it’s rather incomplete.

I say all of this to say that tattoos are not representative of the Kingdom, in our society at least. Logically speaking, you can’t say that because the cultural context shifts, the morals shift as well. Even if that’s true it implies that our Christian ethic shifts, and that’s antithetical to Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forevermore.” The world’s ethics change because they are grounded in moral relativism. Christ’s ethics never change because they are rooted in Truth. Treating the Christ-centric ethic any other way makes it out to be less than what it is: Truth.

For starters, do you own any cotton/poly blend shirts or pants? There’s an OT law against wearing a garment made of two different types of material.

Ever been to church during menstruation? OT law says you’re ceremonially unclean during that time, and things/people who were ceremonially unclean were not allowed in worship.

What about foods that are declared unclean in the OT, like pork and shellfish? In the NT Peter receives a vision from God instructing him that those things are okay to eat. Which passage do you abide by, the prohibition or the permission?

If we followed every prohibition in scripture, then we would be bound by the Law. If we are bound by the :aw, then we will be judged by the Law, and scripture also declares emphatically that no human is capable of keeping the whole Law.

Therefore, as Christians, we live not by the Law, but by the grace of God expressed through Jesus Christ. If we choose the Law over grace, then we aren’t washed by His blood, and we have no part of His salvation.

I choose grace, and I hope you will, too.

Would u rather get a tat than being with God?

If you already have it before u became a-born-again christian, Holy spirit will lead you on HOW to deal with it.

But please do not tell people that it is ok to pierce their body except ears.

My daughter asked me yesterday, “Mom is my tatoo pretty?” and I said yes sweetheart as long as it’s not real.

I used the opportunity to lecture her that we do not mark our body. Now I have to confess that I probably did not remember to memtion God while I was telling her, but I made it clear that TATOO is not for us.

My daughter always says but mom everybody in school are doing it; and I’ll reply “sweetheart you are not everybody”
You are from God, they are from God too but you are special. Therfore, you must not wear very short clothes simply because others are wearing it.

Now you, are u wearing offensive clothing cos others are? Don’t you know that it may lead others who have little selfcontrol to sin agaist God even long after you passed them?

Now having a tat might have the same negative influences against others.

The person up on this post is happy that he can go now and finnally get tat just for reading ur post and it might even be the same guy whos thinking about getting the star wars simble. Now I’m not sure it’s the same guy but it sure sounds funny.

But really is this what u really want to encourage people to do as a real child of God? To put meaningless mark on their body?

17Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.. 24So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God (1 Cor. 7.17-20, 24)

Cheers, Jesse

Properly understanding the covenants and their importance seems to be one of the most eluding pieces of theology for the contemporary believer. The Mosaic covenant was directed specifically toward the nation of Israel and was concerned in its chiefest aspect with Israel’s inheritance of and blessing in the land of Canaan—the Promised Land. The laws that attended this covenant, while revealing God’s desire for this nation to be set apart from all others as an example, do not give us any necessary basis for understanding morality.

The real question then presents itself: What responsibility does the believer owe to the Mosaic Covenant?

The fact is: none. The standards iterated from God through Moses upon Sinai were directed at the nation of Israel simply as the terms of a contract for possession of a certain portion of land. Deuteronomy 28 makes clear the stipulations of this covenant; essentially, God would bless Israel for obedience by granting great prosperity in the land but curse Israel for its disobedience with all manner of catastrophe culminating in the loss of Canaan. Despite God’s longsuffering, Israel fails to uphold her portion of the covenant and reaps the curses God promised climaxing in the Babylonian capture of the sixth century B.C. It was here that the contractual aspect of the Mosaic Law ended that the true meaning of law could be seen clearly.

The law now serves to lead mankind to understand his corruption. Just as Israel, a nation born of the fruit of God’s own grace, could not stand under the righteous requirements of the Mosaic Law, neither can any man stand under the condemnation of God’s universal requirements&8312;absolute obedience of mind and action. Paul speaks of the law as leading us step by step to grace, for it points out our dire need of such (cf. Galatians 3:23ff). And having taken hold of grace by faith, the believer no longer heeds the condemning beckon of the law (cf. Romans). So then, is there any reason to look to the Levitical laws for ethical guidance unto righteousness? No—for their only service now is to guide men to Christ.

Where then do we find our Christian ethic? Quite simply, in Christ’s words: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31). And we find extrapolation of these ultimate commands in all the writings of the New Testament authors.

The Apostles addressed the issue of which OT laws the Gentile converts had to obey in Acts 15:28-29. Their answer – “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”

So, it sounds to me like under the New Covenant, there’s nothing wrong with tattoos at all. Full disclosure: I have 3. My personal decision was to only get tattoos of things that are permanent, i.e. my faith and my marriage/family.