The Bible and Tattoos
Arguments Against Tattoos
Physical Pain
Argument:
- “The Lord would not want His children to cause harm to themselves for the sake of art and symbolism”
Rebuttal:
- “We see in the Old Testament the Lord instructing the Israelites to pierce the ear of a servant if he wished to continue to reside with them. If causing physical pain on an individual for the sake of ownership is not considered a sin, I think a simple tattoo doesn’t even come close to being immoral.”
Arguer’s Rebuttal:
- “The difference between the harm caused by a tattoo and a pierced ear is that (1) the ear will heal (not permanent) and (2) it was God ordained (unlike a tattoo which is man made and may be consider a poor choice."
Ethical Relativism
Argument:
- “If there is such thing as an immoral tattoo, for example, having 666 across your back; who decides which tattoos are immoral if the Bible is silent on them? If humans decide, then we have moved from Biblical moral “absolutism” to human ethical relativism."
Rebuttal:
- “Arguing that there are bad tattoos cannot be used to discredit the act of tattooing itself. If there are immoral tattoos as you suggest, than from your very own statement we ask you by what authority you declare a certain tattoo to be morally acceptable if the Bible is silent on things such as this? How could you in the same sentence claim there are immoral tattoos but turn around and say the Bible is silent on tattoos?"
Arguer’s Rebuttal:
- "Who will hold someone accountable for getting a tattoo that is offensive and even if someone is held accountable, how would they be able to repent from getting it? A permanent mark that may be removed by leaving a nasty scar? And tattoo removal is far more expensive than actually getting a tattoo so they may be unable to afford it.”
Historical and Cultural
Argument :
- “As Christians, we are to be set apart from the world. Throughout the entire Old Testament, the Lord had instructed the Israelites to not act as the other pagan cultures did. They were instructed not to follow their traditions and practices. All through history, tattooing had been a practice both originating from and practiced by pagans. Christ, in the same token, has instructed us to be in, but not of, the world. Tattooing is still done primarily by pagans (non-Christians) so how does having a tattoo set you apart from the rest?"
Rebuttal:
- “There have been many instances where Christians have taken a bad thing and used it for good. An example of this would be Christmas which originated as a pagan holiday but has now been transformed into the celebration of our Lord and Saviors birth.”
Arguer’s Rebuttal:
- “It may be true that Christians have taken something pagan and made it virtuous. Tattoos are a far more different thing than Christmas or any other pagan practices. For example, Christmas originated as a celebration called Saturnalia. The very definition of this celebration was pagan. And so, Christians took this and changed not only the name but the meaning as well. Tattoo’s cannot be changed liked this. You can call it a different name but it is still someone taking a needle and permanently marking your body."
Jesus and Tattoos
Argument:
- “As a young Jewish man, Jesus would never had gotten a tattoo because the Torah expressly forbids it. If we are to be Christ-like, than we should not get tattoos.”
Rebuttal:
- “Christ would have also refrained from eating pork and meat offered to idols, but we see that the New Testament condones things such as these.”
Arguer’s Rebuttal:
- “This in fact is true, but, those things which were condoned were blatantly condoned by God. We also know through Scripture that the Torah was not abolished. It would make more sense to think that Jesus would not get a tattoo because of it being pagan and wanting to be separated from the surrounding cultures, especially the Romans.”
Body is the Temple
Argument:
- “The Bible defines our body as not being our own … a temple for the Lord. How is putting symbols and verses on your body not being reckless? Reckless in the way that you don’t have 100% certainty that a tattoo is morally ok.”
Rebuttal:
- “Putting a Bible verse on anything, let alone your body, cannot be considered reckless. We may not have 100% certitude concerning tattoos, but neither do you.”
Arguer’s Rebuttal
- “The Bible is God’s Word, so lets show it some respect by not rolling the dice in hopes of it (the tattoo) being moral. Also, our Lord instructs us to be as sly as serpents when presenting the gospel. Tell me, how sly are you being by tattooing, “I’m a Christian” on your arm? I could understand if you try to be sly as a serpent with nonbelievers by getting a tattoo because the act of tattooing has been, and still is, mostly practiced by nonbelievers. And yet, when told to be sly as serpents, this does not mean we are to be sly to the point of sinning. For example, a lot of lonely, depressed men go to strip clubs. What better place to share the gospel? And yet, we know that it is unwise and sinful for a believer to go to a strip club even if they are trying to be sly as serpents. And so, we know not if tattoos are immoral so it would be foolish/reckless to get one for even the sake of slyness."
Arguments FOR Tattoos
From here we move to arguments in favor of getting a tattoo, followed by a rebuttal which is also followed by another rebuttal in response to the opposer.
Glorified Canvas
Argument:
- “Everyone sees your body and what a better way to share the Gospel than putting the Word of God on it! A good tool to be used for witnessing.”
Rebuttal:
- “There are hundreds of better ways that aren't as reckless as getting a tattoo. Sure, there may be a few people interested in what you have tatted up your arms, but think of the parents with children who are trying to teach their kids to be responsible. What about the Jews who are sensitive to the history of Nazi Germany (tattooed the Jews). The elderly laugh at, are offended, and even demoralized by the sight of tattoos. You might as well become as the street preacher who hopes that at least 1 or 2 people are receptive to their rants about hell.”
Arguers Rebuttal:
- "Spreading the Gospel is spreading the Gospel. Why criticize how someone receives the Good News? If someone is receptive to/more comfortable with tattoos, why demonize that which opened the door?"
Silence
Argument:
- “No where in the New Testament does it condemn tattoos so why should we think it to be immoral?”
Rebuttal:
- “We cannot think that because the Bible is silent on a specific subject, that it automatically mean that said subject is therefore moral. There are a few subjects that the Bible is silent on, for example, masturbation, suicide, life support, cremation, breast implants, video games, etc. Silence does not mean that something is condoned by God.”
Arguer’s Rebuttal
- “The same authority you use to argue that silence does not equal condoning by God, can be used to argue that it does. It may true that the Lord is silent on numerous things, some more serious then others, but we (believers) have been given the Holy Spirit who will convict and lead us as we make choices in life.”
Glorified Canvas Part 2
Argument:
- “A lot of tattoos are a work of art. Kind of like the Sistine Chapel. Art can be used to glorify God and spread His Word.”
Rebuttal:
- “Tattoos have a negative connotation. When you go to a job interview, you are told to hide your tattoos. Certain companies require their employees to where long sleeve shirts to cover their tattoos. How often do you see a tattooed babysitter, judge, pastor, etc.? As a matter of fact, parents lean more towards steering their children away from tattoos for a reason. Mostly because tattoos are related to gangs, they are permanent, and something that you may regret in the future."
Arguer’s Rebuttal:
- “There are many things that have a negative connotation but are not negative at all. For example, drinking alcohol. Jesus himself drank wine and even He knew that it was seen in a negative light by some who called Him a “winebibber.” To argue that simply because something has a negative connotation means its immoral is illogical.”
Jesus has a Tattoo
Argument:
- “Revelations 19:16 says, ‘On His robe and on His thigh He has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of Lords.’ If tattoo’s are a sin, how is it that Christ has one when He is in fact perfect and sinless?”
Rebuttal:
- “I find it interesting that you would use this passage in your defense. There are two things that people often miss, or are simply ignorant of, concerning this passage. First, theologians and Scholars are not quite sure as to whether or not His name is actually inscribed on His thigh, or on His garment that would be on His thigh, or on His sword that would also be on His thigh. Hence, to make such bold claims as to have 100% understanding of this passage is quite naïve and hubris. Secondly, if His name is actually inscribed on His thigh, one must ask from where He had gotten this marking? A local tattoo parlor? Nay, it was from God Himself thus making it not equal to, both in construct and meaning, to any tattoo that has ever or will ever exist. By definition, tattoos are man made and not God made. You might as well apply the mark of Cain into the category of a tattoo, but than you must use your same line of reasoning to deduce that tattoos are evil.”
Arguer’s Rebuttal:
- "You cannot make the claim that Cain’s mark is evil—thus making all markings evil—because it is not necessarily the mark of Cain that is evil; it could have just as plausibly been the content of the mark which was evil/depicted Cain’s wickedness. Thus, it comes down to an issue of content. The content of the tattoo is what was evil, not the tattoo itself. The tattoo/mark is simply a mode of communication, used to convey a message; the message which is conveyed is what should determine whether the tattoo/mark is immoral or wicked."
Conclusion:
Now, some of you may be asking as to what my personal position is regarding tattoos. I tried to present both sides in a balanced manner, but there is no doubt that the arguments against tattoos hold more weight than the arguments for tattoos. Some may venture to say that I, the author, have a personal biased against tattoos and that is why the arguments lean as they do. My response is simply that regardless where I stand, the fact remains that there are more and some better arguments against tattoos. Now, let us not confuse more and better arguments with the establishment of truth. Humans are incapable of stating that one side is 100% correct. There are no deductive slam-dunk arguments for either side and we are missing the opinion of our Lord. Hence, in the end, my stance is that neither side can claim they have superior knowledge regarding this topic. Neither side is able to claim moral superiority nor that their view is sanctioned by Scripture.
And now I must say to those who are anti-tattoos, you cannot claim that you stand with God on this belief. And the same goes for those who are pro-tattoos; you cannot claim that God approves, or condones, any person getting one