What about tattoos & piercings?

im not sure

This video by Father Mike (Catholic) discusses the matter very well (even if you aren't Catholic)

Can I Get A Tattoo? - Ascension Press Media

Daniel Marsh said:

And, that proof text has nothing to do with tattoos as people do them today.

Click to expand...

I understand the letter of the law. I also understand the principle undergirding that letter.

The Hebrews did not scar themselves to mourn the dead. The surrounding cultures did so. There would have been no need for that law were there no cultural influences to be avoided. The entire passage begins with the admonition, "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." Holiness/separation is what all that follows is about and I addressed that concern in a prior post.

You've quoted scripture but neglected or ignored the relevant content of my post.

Ezekiel 9 is a different context. Ignoring the differing context creates a false equivalence. You've not correctly identified either context and made no correct comparison between those to passages. There's nothing exegetical about copy-and-paste. This is like the person who pits Paul against James in regards to justification by faith versus works. The two men are not in conflict with one another. Understanding their separate contexts and purposes provides a proper synthesis of what is seemingly disparate. God is not contradicting himself when He directs His people to be holy by not practicing pagan practices of scarification in one setting and then directing them to mark themselves in another.

We can begin with the fact a "mark" is not a tattoo, cut, gash, or scar. The Hebrew "wəśereṭ" literally means "incision." In case you're unaware, tattoos are incisions. Incisions are made in the skin and dyes are placed in the wound so as to alter the color of the skin when the wound heals. A variant of the word ("śārāṭeṯ") is used two chapters later when priests are prohibited from cutting their flesh (Lev. 21:5).



Dare I add 2 Peter 2:9 to the mix?

1 Peter 2:9-10
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."​

I certainly would not argue because we are priests we should all start wearing the garb of the Levitical priesthood. One of the points of Peter's commentary is that there is now no distinction between the priest and the common believer; we are all priests. We are all priests called to declare the excellency of God.

There are more than a dozen verses in the OT about marks placed on people. There are several in the book of Revelation alone. Ezekiel 9:4 is not the only one. In Ezekiel 9:4 the word is "Tav." This is simply the Hebrew letter "T" and idiomatically it means "truth." Literally the word means "mark," or "sign." Idiomatically it means "sign of truth." Completely different meaning literally, connotatively, and contextually. Big Fail.


Appreciate your contribution. Stand by what I posted.

faroukfarouk said:

@Heavenhome Hi; did you see this thread? I think you've commented that quite a lot of the older generation in your area are getting tattooed for the first time, correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, I have just read through this thread, whilst I don't have tattoos, I do have my ears pierced I had multiples decades ago ( I am old) but I only have one in each ear now.
I was,I admit anti tattoos on women and still have no desire to have one, I am not adamantly against them because I'm not responsible for what other people choose to do.
There is a difference though between one or two well thought out tattoos and I wonder how many people have them simply because other people do.
There are also the faith based tattoos, ordinary tattoos and then some that are nothing more than demonic ( I have seen some terrible ones).
Some have made the point that the Leviticus passage was in regarding for the dead and that is correct and the ensuing texts have other instructions, like do not shave etc so we really must take things in the context that God had it written.

I have thought a lot about all this as I wear makeup so I adorn myself (improve myself I think) and am not totally natural, so who am I to tell anyone what to do?
When all is said and done, God looks at the heart, knows our thoughts and intentions and that is what's important.
I must admit, I got quite addicted to watching "Inkmasters" at one stage and have to say some were like works of art.
My younger sister who has loads of tattoos thought it hilarious that I discussed with her "ink saturation" etc.
After seeing that show I think there are a lot of tattoos that are plain crappy.
I have to be honest and say I personally don't like them on women especially but its not my choice to make.

And I do not think there is any condemnation from God on any of His children with tattoos ( male or female)

(Sorry for the looonng post)

Heavenhome said:

I have thought a lot about all this as I wear makeup so I adorn myself (improve myself I think) and am not totally natural, so who am I to tell anyone what to do?

Click to expand...

Your admission brings up a different perspective. One I’d hadn’t considered at all.

Have you encountered challenges about this?

~Bella

Yes, I have thought a lot and think in all things you have to be balanced.
If you are happy not to wear makeup that's fine but that doesn't make you superior to someone who does wear it.
I have to say I have always worn makeup and as I have very short hair I feel it helps me to look more feminine.
I suppose there are degrees in all things, I don't see anything wrong in enhancing what you have, but I would stop there.
Therefore this would prohibit cosmetic surgery and such things because you are actually changing how you are made.
After all we wash our makeup off, it is not permanent.
I have although, heard women say they would never let their partner see them without makeup and I think that is taking it way too far.
Makeup is an enhancement of ourselves, like our dressing nothing more.
It doesn't make anyone superior or God honouring if they have beautiful clothes ( lovely as they are) compared with someone who only has basics, I think it is respectful to God though to be presentable always and everyone is able to do that.
That also is a balance of what is appropriate too as a Christian woman.

I don't know if this explains my thoughts anymore, I have prayed about this and am quite at peace about my decisions regarding myself.
We must in all things honour God.

some take what was said in the OT out of context. And then there are things God said ONLY to Israel.

Anyway.. we are not here to please man. I would never get a tattoo ..just because I don't want one. Your going see all sides here. None of us speak for your Father GOD! So.. do what you want. Ask HIM you pray about it.. you seek Him. In the end.. its up to you period.

Blade said:

And then there are things God said ONLY to Israel.

Click to expand...

God didn't reveal his laws, statutes & commandments to any other nation

Psalm 147:19-20

He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. HalleluYah.

Click to expand...

That is why need to read & study what God told his people, because he taught his people how to live a holy life.

Also, the New Covenant is with Israel. It's not with Gentiles.

Jeremiah 31:31-33

Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah

Click to expand...

Using "Israel only" type excuses don't hold up, because in doing so, we exclude ourselves from God's people.

Heavenhome said:

I don't know if this explains my thoughts anymore, I have prayed about this and am quite at peace about my decisions regarding myself.
We must in all things honour God.

Click to expand...

Yes it makes sense. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

~Bella

Josheb said:

I understand the letter of the law. I also understand the principle undergirding that letter.

The Hebrews did not scar themselves to mourn the dead. The surrounding cultures did so. There would have been no need for that law were there no cultural influences to be avoided. The entire passage begins with the admonition, "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." Holiness/separation is what all that follows is about and I addressed that concern in a prior post.

You've quoted scripture but neglected or ignored the relevant content of my post.

Ezekiel 9 is a different context. Ignoring the differing context creates a false equivalence. You've not correctly identified either context and made no correct comparison between those to passages. There's nothing exegetical about copy-and-paste. This is like the person who pits Paul against James in regards to justification by faith versus works. The two men are not in conflict with one another. Understanding their separate contexts and purposes provides a proper synthesis of what is seemingly disparate. God is not contradicting himself when He directs His people to be holy by not practicing pagan practices of scarification in one setting and then directing them to mark themselves in another.

We can begin with the fact a "mark" is not a tattoo, cut, gash, or scar. The Hebrew "wəśereṭ" literally means "incision." In case you're unaware, tattoos are incisions. Incisions are made in the skin and dyes are placed in the wound so as to alter the color of the skin when the wound heals. A variant of the word ("śārāṭeṯ") is used two chapters later when priests are prohibited from cutting their flesh (Lev. 21:5).

Leviticus 21:5
"They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh."​

Dare I add 2 Peter 2:9 to the mix?

1 Peter 2:9-10
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."​

I certainly would not argue because we are priests we should all start wearing the garb of the Levitical priesthood. One of the points of Peter's commentary is that there is now no distinction between the priest and the common believer; we are all priests. We are all priests called to declare the excellency of God.

There are more than a dozen verses in the OT about marks placed on people. There are several in the book of Revelation alone. Ezekiel 9:4 is not the only one. In Ezekiel 9:4 the word is "Tav." This is simply the Hebrew letter "T" and idiomatically it means "truth." Literally the word means "mark," or "sign." Idiomatically it means "sign of truth." Completely different meaning literally, connotatively, and contextually. Big Fail.


Appreciate your contribution. Stand by what I posted.

Click to expand...

Going to interject here; so if we're going to apply the famous 'tattoo' verse to today, are we going to follow all of the other laws in the OT? I'm sure you know there are over 600 of them, so I certainly hope that won't be a problem--

For real though, I don't believe anyone should have to explain the difference between a mark of allegiance and, say, something like a butterfly tattoo. There is a clear distinction; one of those things are used to distinguish people of a certain religious loyalty, the other falls under 'creative expression' in a similar way to wearing makeup or dying your hair. I also like the comment about the garbs of the levitical priesthood, because in all actuality it would distinguish us from the nonbelievers much more than wearing modern-day clothing would if you think about it...I mean really though, I think Orthodox monks have most of us beat on the 'appearing holy' aspect.

Furthermore, there are definitely plenty of pagan practices and things of pagan origins all around us. Many have lost their cultural meaning because, you know, culture changes over time. It's also worth noting that God was addressing Israel at the time, not gentiles or anyone else. Also, consider that the primary thing making believers indistinguishable from unbelievers is more likely their actions/motives; not their appearance. I think we can both agree that in almost every instance of corruption occurring in God's people, it had nothing to do with how they looked and everything to do with them turning away from God and doing evil acts.


Lastly, I think it's actually a little dumb people think that tattoos or piercings make one less 'humble'. I mean sure, if you're doing it for attention, then maybe that's one thing; but is it really unfathomable that someone just genuinely likes these things and wants to get them because they simply like the way it looks? I don't think of it as dishonoring God. Perhaps you should treat your body like you would a rental home; making changes is permissible so long as you get the 'OK' from the owner. The answer will depend on who is 'renting the home' so to speak. And in regards to Paul's famous line about 'Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial'; I hate to tell you all, but if you're going to apply that in the way you're trying to, you're going to have to take it seriously yourself lest you be considered a hypocrite. Be prepared to throw out your tv, fictional-books, crossword puzzles and don't even THINK of buying yourself anything that doesn't have a purely practical purpose. Actually, just to be safe, don't buy yourself anything at all.


Main point: People, if y'all are hung up on tattoos, I think we have bigger problems here than that.

Dkh587 said:

God didn't reveal his laws, statutes & commandments to any other nation

Psalm 147:19-20


That is why need to read & study what God told his people, because he taught his people how to live a holy life.

Also, the New Covenant is with Israel. It's not with Gentiles.

Jeremiah 31:31-33



Using "Israel only" type excuses don't hold up, because in doing so, we exclude ourselves from God's people.

Click to expand...

Incorrect; the New Covenant is an extension from Israelites TO Gentiles. The entirety of the old testament was specifically for and about the Israelites.

Also, need I remind you how many Jews got rebuked by Jesus for their ridiculous laws and regulations or...? They did a lot of things God did not approve of but simply let happen. Polygamy, divorce, etc..

Imo, the OT is just one long painfully ironic tragedy about Israel trying it's best to be holy/following God's word, and failing miserably a good amount of the time because humans are unfortunately faulty at birth(I.E. sinful nature).

Strong in Him said:

I have had my ears pierced, but do not have a tattoo.
In the OT, slaves had their ears pierced to show they belonged to their masters, Exodus 21:6.

Click to expand...

Exodus 21 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Law Concerning Servants
21 “Now these are the [a]judgments which you shall set before them: 2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. 3 If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

7 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

Since no one today is using an awl, to put a hole in her ear. I do not think this text applies to today's situation.

https://www.asme.org/getmedia/38a5e...y_hero.jpg.aspx?width=460&height=361&ext=.jpg

Ancient Awl Rewrites History

LaBèlla said:

I don’t believe tattoos or piercings (beyond the ears) are positive representations of my femininity or person. While they’re viewed as expressions by some and ministry by others. I arrived at a different conclusion.

I question the necessity of articulating myself through permanent markings and wonder why my deportment and conversation aren’t enough. If I’m lacking, the solution isn’t adornment. It’s self-improvement.

Strengthening my communication skills, confidence, and manners is a wiser approach. I see little reason to maim myself with words and symbols that could be crafted by a jeweler’s hand. Embedding them in my flesh isn’t necessary.

Most importantly, I’m a holy looking glass. When people encounter me. I want to give a positive reflection of Him. The same holds true for my partner and family.

In light of my calling, I feel a greater responsibility about my appearance and the example I’m setting for others. Elegance and godliness are my aims.

~Bella

Click to expand...

Hello,
I appeciate your perspective and your choices of how to express yourself and you’re love for Jesus regarding your physical appearance.

some believers feel that expressing themselves and things that are important to them via body art is another venue they have to demonstrate what is important to them and their love for the Lord.

I don’t believe that tattoos for Christians demonstrate a lacking in ability to communicate or adornment. A permanent self expression and demonstration of God’s creativity is more how we feel about it.

I do agree that as Christians we need to be protective of how we appear to the outside world. That’s why I’ve chosen to keep my tattoos (the one I have and the others I plan to get) not visible when wearing regular clothing.

However, your appearance communicates drastically different messages depending on which culture you live in. Many of my friends from Hispanic cultures have visible tattoos that are fully appropriate in their culture and actually communicate a great deal about Jesus in an appropriate way. In addition, the fact that they have culturally appropriate body art helps them fit in with unbelievers who share their culture, which gives them a unique connection to teach people for Jesus.

I also believe that body art can be both elegant and Godly, just like the absence can.

The Bible doesn’t really address tattoos. The scripture in Leviticus is not in reference to tattoos that we are discussing, it’s talking about pagan body markings and cutting, which are a completely different topic.

lastly, I would never advocate getting tattoos that include any content that is negative, sinful or glorifying of sinful practices for a Christian, or even positive or creative body art that could communicate that message if not properly explained.

I currently have a bamboo cross tattoo on my back because I have a heart for reaching the people of Southeast Asia for Christ. I also like the fact that I have to “pick up my cross” every day because it’s tattooed on me until I die

my next tattoos will be the names of my sons, each will be done with things they love (bugs for my 8 year old and airplanes and the Autism ribbon for my 3 year old). These will go on my back with the cross, and I will definitely be getting the words “choose joy” across my back shoulders above the cross because the Joy of the Lord is my strength and it’s a very important concept in my life and walk with the Lord.

I hope my perspective has been interesting!
Jay

faroukfarouk said:

I read about a Hollywood produced who wanted to film a beach scene supposedly from the 1950s. He had difficulty doing it because he couldn't find enough young women without tattoos (in the '50s it was of course far less widespread for women to become tattooed).

Click to expand...

Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and the Tattoo by Margot Mifflin

theoneandonlypencil said:

Incorrect; the New Covenant is an extension from Israelites TO Gentiles. The entirety of the old testament was specifically for and about the Israelites.

Also, need I remind you how many Jews got rebuked by Jesus for their ridiculous laws and regulations or...? They did a lot of things God did not approve of but simply let happen. Polygamy, divorce, etc..

Imo, the OT is just one long painfully ironic tragedy about Israel trying it's best to be holy/following God's word, and failing miserably a good amount of the time because humans are unfortunately faulty at birth(I.E. sinful nature).

Click to expand...

The new covenant is God writing his law on the hearts of his people, Israel - Jeremiah 31:31-33

Where is this covenant you’re talking about?

theoneandonlypencil said:

Incorrect; the New Covenant is an extension from Israelites TO Gentiles. The entirety of the old testament was specifically for and about the Israelites.

Also, need I remind you how many Jews got rebuked by Jesus for their ridiculous laws and regulations or...? They did a lot of things God did not approve of but simply let happen. Polygamy, divorce, etc..

Imo, the OT is just one long painfully ironic tragedy about Israel trying it's best to be holy/following God's word, and failing miserably a good amount of the time because humans are unfortunately faulty at birth(I.E. sinful nature).

Click to expand...

Pencil is correct. The Leviticus verse is about pagan body markings for other gods and falls into the same category as stoning your children for being disrespectful and making women leave the city when they are on their period.

Peter John said:

I'm probably stepping on a prickly subject, but how do folks feel about these, as well as other popular things like selfies & body image, through surgery, or building muscle to 'look good'?

If you go along with any, how do you then do what Yeshua says in Lk9v23 ?

“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."

Click to expand...

My tattoo IS a cross, so the question is how are YOU do what Yeshua says?!

my body art glorifies and brings attention to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sin. My future tattoos will be additional scripture and my children’s names. I want to demonstrate my love for my sons and my savior in a permanent and creative way and I have chosen to do so publicly with body art.

however I do not condone tattoos that include content that is not glorifying to the lord. I also choose to keep my body art coverable, but that’s my choice and I don’t believe that Christians who put it other places are in disobedience of any kind so long as the content is Godly—and neither should other Christians.

Josheb said:

I understand the letter of the law. I also understand the principle undergirding that letter.

The Hebrews did not scar themselves to mourn the dead. The surrounding cultures did so. There would have been no need for that law were there no cultural influences to be avoided. The entire passage begins with the admonition, "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." Holiness/separation is what all that follows is about and I addressed that concern in a prior post.

You've quoted scripture but neglected or ignored the relevant content of my post.

Ezekiel 9 is a different context. Ignoring the differing context creates a false equivalence. You've not correctly identified either context and made no correct comparison between those to passages. There's nothing exegetical about copy-and-paste. This is like the person who pits Paul against James in regards to justification by faith versus works. The two men are not in conflict with one another. Understanding their separate contexts and purposes provides a proper synthesis of what is seemingly disparate. God is not contradicting himself when He directs His people to be holy by not practicing pagan practices of scarification in one setting and then directing them to mark themselves in another.

We can begin with the fact a "mark" is not a tattoo, cut, gash, or scar. The Hebrew "wəśereṭ" literally means "incision." In case you're unaware, tattoos are incisions. Incisions are made in the skin and dyes are placed in the wound so as to alter the color of the skin when the wound heals. A variant of the word ("śārāṭeṯ") is used two chapters later when priests are prohibited from cutting their flesh (Lev. 21:5).

Leviticus 21:5
"They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh."​

Dare I add 2 Peter 2:9 to the mix?

1 Peter 2:9-10
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."​

I certainly would not argue because we are priests we should all start wearing the garb of the Levitical priesthood. One of the points of Peter's commentary is that there is now no distinction between the priest and the common believer; we are all priests. We are all priests called to declare the excellency of God.

There are more than a dozen verses in the OT about marks placed on people. There are several in the book of Revelation alone. Ezekiel 9:4 is not the only one. In Ezekiel 9:4 the word is "Tav." This is simply the Hebrew letter "T" and idiomatically it means "truth." Literally the word means "mark," or "sign." Idiomatically it means "sign of truth." Completely different meaning literally, connotatively, and contextually. Big Fail.


Appreciate your contribution. Stand by what I posted.

Click to expand...

I appreciate how thorough your support for your position is. In my opinion many levitical scripture and standards don’t apply to Christians under the new covenant. Otherwise we would need to kill our children with stones when they talk back, or send our women out of the city when they are on their period.

I understand this issue can be complicated, but thankfully the idea of whether or not Christians under the new covenant have to follow the laws of the old covenant is clearly addressed in the New Testament.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:23-29,31 - Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 10:23-29, 1 Corinthians 10:31 - New International Version

The issue of eating non kosher foods, or food sacrificed to idols is a direct parallel to the anti tattoo rhetoric in this thread. Christians have freedom to get tattoos if they want, so long as they glorify God.

However, I think an argument can be made from this passage that tattoos should be discreet so mine is coverable with my clothes.

it’s a cross and it expresses Christ’s sacrifice. It’s permanent and I’m glad.

Josheb said:

I understand the letter of the law. I also understand the principle undergirding that letter.

The Hebrews did not scar themselves to mourn the dead. The surrounding cultures did so. There would have been no need for that law were there no cultural influences to be avoided. The entire passage begins with the admonition, "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." Holiness/separation is what all that follows is about and I addressed that concern in a prior post.

You've quoted scripture but neglected or ignored the relevant content of my post.

Ezekiel 9 is a different context. Ignoring the differing context creates a false equivalence. You've not correctly identified either context and made no correct comparison between those to passages. There's nothing exegetical about copy-and-paste. This is like the person who pits Paul against James in regards to justification by faith versus works. The two men are not in conflict with one another. Understanding their separate contexts and purposes provides a proper synthesis of what is seemingly disparate. God is not contradicting himself when He directs His people to be holy by not practicing pagan practices of scarification in one setting and then directing them to mark themselves in another.

We can begin with the fact a "mark" is not a tattoo, cut, gash, or scar. The Hebrew "wəśereṭ" literally means "incision." In case you're unaware, tattoos are incisions. Incisions are made in the skin and dyes are placed in the wound so as to alter the color of the skin when the wound heals. A variant of the word ("śārāṭeṯ") is used two chapters later when priests are prohibited from cutting their flesh (Lev. 21:5).

Leviticus 21:5
"They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh."​

Dare I add 2 Peter 2:9 to the mix?

1 Peter 2:9-10
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."​

I certainly would not argue because we are priests we should all start wearing the garb of the Levitical priesthood. One of the points of Peter's commentary is that there is now no distinction between the priest and the common believer; we are all priests. We are all priests called to declare the excellency of God.

There are more than a dozen verses in the OT about marks placed on people. There are several in the book of Revelation alone. Ezekiel 9:4 is not the only one. In Ezekiel 9:4 the word is "Tav." This is simply the Hebrew letter "T" and idiomatically it means "truth." Literally the word means "mark," or "sign." Idiomatically it means "sign of truth." Completely different meaning literally, connotatively, and contextually. Big Fail.


Appreciate your contribution. Stand by what I posted.

Click to expand...

"
What positive examples of tattooing appear in the Bible?

In Genesis 4:15 we read: “And the Lord put a mark/sign (’ôt) on Cain so that anyone who finds him will not kill him.” This permanent mark, a tattoo or brand mark, would have served to protect Cain from avengers and other dangerous persons.

In Isaiah 44:5, the prophet Isaiah is stressing God’s covenantal allegiance to Jacob/Israel and, in turn, the people’s loyalty to Yahweh in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction and the ongoing Babylonian exile. The prophet explains that one way for the faithful to exhibit their allegiance to God is to write on their hand “lyhwh,” meaning “belonging to Yahweh.”

Later, in Isaiah 49:14–16, the prophet tells the Judean people that God has not abandoned them any more than a mother really forsakes her babe. As proof, he says, God has “engraved” on his palms a symbol of a rebuilt Jerusalem—by which he means both the people and the city—thus testifying to the eternal covenant between Israel and God. This engraving would have served as an important sign of God’s constancy and hope of restoration to a population in exile.

In Ezekiel 9:4, the prophet Ezekiel is anticipating the destruction of Jerusalem. He pictures six divinely appointed executioners responsible for slaughtering the guilty Judeans in the city. One of the six is told to mark the forehead of each righteous person with a tav, meaning an X; all those so marked are to be spared from execution. Here, body marking/tattooing distinguishes individuals from the greater group in order to grant them divine protection, ultimately serving the same purposes as did the mark of Cain and the blood sign on the door lintels of the Israelites in Egypt during the execution of the last plague. Moreover, since in ancient Israel the lettertav could confer ownership, affiliation with a deity, and/or by extension being a religious functionary, these persons marked as “belonging to Yahweh” may have been distinguished as being in a special relationship with God.

It is possible that these biblical references to tattooing merely serve as literary devices, but even so, they would have been meaningful only to an audience that was familiar with the actual practices.

The only negative biblical view of tattooing appears in Lev 19.28: “Incisions/gashes for the dead you will not make in your flesh nor incised marks (tattoos) on yourselves.”

How are we to understand this one prohibition against tattooing, which seems to contradict the positive biblical references you cited?"
Jews & Tattoos: The Biblical Body as Canvas

Thank you for your kind statement,
daniel

hope faith love said:

im not sure

Click to expand...

read the full chapter of Lev 19

Why should we focus on one of these injunctions to the exclusion of the others?

Daniel Marsh said:

"
How are we to understand this one prohibition against tattooing, which seems to contradict the positive biblical references you cited?"
Jews & Tattoos: The Biblical Body as Canvas

Thank you for your kind statement,
daniel

Click to expand...

Hello!
I suggest we take it in the context of 1 Cor. And the fact that Christians are free from the Levitical laws and covenant in the new covenant with Christ.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:23-31


I believe this parallel with eating food sacrificed to idols is extremely relevant.
In fact, I can imagine if Christian forums existed, the above verse would be Paul’s post in response to Christians having the same perspective on idol sacrifice food as those in this thread do on tattoos.

it’s literally the same sentiment in context...I don’t see how people could read that verse and still not see it but I’m sure they will.

I do think an argument can be made from the verse that tattoos should be discreet, so my tattoo of a cross is coverable.

Obviously Christ exalting, appropriate content is the only thing I would agree with.