23 “When you come into the land and plant any kind of tree for food, then you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten. 24 And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat of its fruit, to increase its yield for you: I am the Lord your God.26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. 27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord (Lev 19:23-28).
Based on Lev 19:28, some Christians are opposed to tattoos and body-piercing.
However, as you can see from the larger context, Lev 19 contains a number of commands and prohibitions which Christians ignore. This goes to the perennial issue of how much OT law carries over into the new covenant.
One facile solution is to say that all this is mooted by the new covenant. But that's too simple and radical. Take the prohibition against divination in v26b.
Because Leviticus is a part of the Mosaic covenant, and has a particular emphasis on cultic holiness, there's no presumption that Levitical commands and prohibitions extend into the new covenant. But that doesn't mean we're free to dismiss any and all Levitical injunctions without due consideration.
It isn't necessary inconsistent to obey some Levitical injunctions and disregard others. For it depends on whether there are different principles connecting various injunctions, and whether some of those principles were temporary while other principles are permanent. Consistency would be measured, not by consistently obeying or ignoring all the injunctions, but consistency with the principle that some share in common.
Why are some of these activities forbidden in the first place? In the case of body-piercing, it's not a general prohibition. Rather, it specifies the motivation: body-piercing as a mourning ceremony for the dead (cf. Deut 14:16). That's also the principle which underlies the prohibition about cutting hair and beards (cf. Deut 14:1).
Strictly speaking, the prohibition against body-piercing contradicts the prohibition against Exod 21:6 & Deut 15:17. So the prohibition is not absolute, even according to the Mosaic covenant.
At the same time, because God made the body (Gen 1:26-28), OT ethics would be opposed to mutilation. That would violate the integrity of the body. We should avoid disfiguring the body through dramatic body-modification. It is, in part, a question of degree.
The fact that some of these forbidden activities are associated with pagan rites suggests that that's why tattooing (or body-painting) is forbidden in v28. Indeed, one commentator says:
Porter reports that in pagan societies in the ANE worshippers bore marks on their bodies as a sign of being devotees of a particular deity. J. Currid, Leviticus, 260-61.
If so, the prohibition is not general or absolute, but in reference to tattooing your body as a sign that you belong to the cult of a pagan deity. He (or she) is your patron god (or goddess). It is not tattooing, per se, but the intent, that's forbidden.
In addition, some of these activities are forbidden, not merely because they are adventitiously associated with pagan practice. Rather, due to syncretism among ancient Israelites, these activities indicate conscious participation in heathen rites. They are deliberately imitating their pagan neighbors. The action is meant to be an act of religious devotion to a heathen deity. Apart from that illicit motivation, it might be innocent.
Finally, there can be the danger of emulating unbelievers just to fit in. To be with it. To be accepted.
But with these caveats in mind, I don't think Lev 19:18 represents a timeless prohibition against tattoos. Indeed, tattoos can sometimes be countercultural, rather than a mark of cultural assimilation. Christian tattoos can be both a witness and a statement of separation from the prevailing social mores.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteBehold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me.
Copts have tattooed small crosses on theire wrists for centuries.
ReplyDeleteAccording to scripture, baptism is a sufficient sign for our identification with God. Anything else Christians wish to add to their skin is an affront to God's express will.
ReplyDeleteWhy were tattoos associated with paganism in the first place? This isn't really asked by today's Christians. Rather, it seems that most are looking for an excuse to have them today, not thinking through the reasons why they were associated with paganism in the first place.
"According to scripture, baptism is a sufficient sign for our identification with God. Anything else Christians wish to add to their skin is an affront to God's express will."
Deletei) That's confused. You're confounding a command with a prohibition. A command to be baptized is not a prohibition from, say, wearing a wedding ring.
ii) Baptism is invisible. By contrast, a tattoo with a Christian message is a public witness.
"Why were tattoos associated with paganism in the first place?"
Maybe you should start by attempting to answer your own question.
i) As I discuss in my post, "association" is ambiguous. Meat sacrificed to idols is "associated" with idolatry, but Paul doesn't consider eating meat scarified to idols inherently idolatrous.
The names for days of the week are associated with pagan gods. Does that mean you're an idolater if you use those conventional designations for days of the week?
You need to acquire some real discernment instead of consenting yourself with superficialities.
ii) I'd add that the Hebrew word is obscure. It may not even mean "tattoo."
"You're confounding a command with a prohibition."
DeleteI don't think so. Baptism is an express command. Tattoos are expressly prohibited (at least at one time they were). They both (according to the common justification) symbolize the same thing (i.e. identification with Christ (said deity) and a "witness"). They have already been confounded, by both sides of the issue. All I was doing was suggesting that since one is explicitly condemned at least once, then saying it's all good in the New Cov is an affront to what God has explicitly outlined as the "sign" by which we are to be identified with Him. If we wish to claim that since it's not explicitly condemned, then it must be ok, I would like to ask you if you think bestiality is acceptable? I believe the same arguments could be made in defense of bestiality. And I believe the same types of inferences are required to make bestiality a sin in the New Cov.
"Baptism is invisible. By contrast, a tattoo with a Christian message is a public witness."
Are you suggesting that baptism has no evangelistic importance beyond the initial ceremony? Surely it does, so the tattoo is unnecessary. We can practically justify all kinds of things that require much more discernment.
"Maybe you should start by attempting to answer your own question."
My point was simply that it was of pagan origin and intent. It's very pluralistic to try and redeem the practice by adding a little Jesus to the practice itself.
"Meat sacrificed to idols is "associated" with idolatry"
But meat BY ITSELF is given explicit Biblical approval. Can the same be said of permanently and unnaturally altering one's body?
"The names for days of the week are associated with pagan gods."
I think that's irrelevant, since using certain designations for practicality's sake is entirely different than unnaturally altering the temple of God.
"You need to acquire some real discernment"
That seems out of place. You don't know me. You didn't even ask for clarification.
Do I think tattoos are damnable sins? No, but I do think we can infer from scripture that they are fundamentally pagan in nature. Do I think some tattoos are cool? Yeah, I just have discerned that they are unwise to put on the temple of God.
Btw, Steve, I really enjoy your blogging. Thanks for your hard work.
Delete"Tattoos are expressly prohibited (at least at one time they were)."
DeleteLeviticus is loaded with express prohibitions which you for one flout.
"All I was doing was suggesting that since one is explicitly condemned at least once."
Leviticus doesn't condemn Christian tattoos. Condemning a witness to false gods is hardly equivalent to condemning a witness to the one true God.
"I would like to ask you if you think bestiality is acceptable? I believe the same arguments could be made in defense of bestiality."
If you can't tell the difference between a natural law argument and skin-deep symbolism, I doubt I can help you.
"Are you suggesting that baptism has no evangelistic importance beyond the initial ceremony? Surely it does"
I'm suggesting you can't tell a baptized person from an unbaptized person by sight. It leaves no permanent, public evidence. It's not a Christian witness apart from those who saw the ceremony.
"My point was simply that it was of pagan origin and intent."
You could say the very same thing about circumcision, ritual ablutions, and sacred meals. So that's an argument against Biblical sacraments.
"But meat BY ITSELF is given explicit Biblical approval. Can the same be said of permanently and unnaturally altering one's body?"
It's unnatural to cut your hair, or trim your toenails and fingernails. It's unnatural to wash your hair and body with soap.
What about someone who has corrective surgery for a birthdefect?
BTW, does that mean you approve of temporary Christian tattoos?
"I think that's irrelevant, since using certain designations for practicality's sake is entirely different than unnaturally altering the temple of God."
That NT doesn't say Christian tattoos defile the temple of God. It says sexual sin defiles the temple of God.