The Application of Old Testament Law to New Covenant Believers

What Old Testament laws are applicable to us today?
Is all tattooing forbidden? Should we put a fence around our roof? What about the ceremonial laws? Civil laws? Can we eat 'unclean' meat because of Peter's vision in Acts, or was that a reference to God's inclusion of the Gentiles?
Discuss!

Wow, difficult question. I haven't solidly set my feet on any answer so far, but I'd love to see what others think!

COS, we don't have fences around our roof's because they're not flat, so people don't normally walk on them, as they did in the OT.
The tattoo part isn't talking about tattoos for the dead. The cutting of the flesh is concerning the dead. So I still think tattoos are not right for Christians. If you got some before you were a Christian, then I would say they serve as a reminder to you, don't get them removed.

SBG, an accidental scar is just that: accidental. A tattoo is a purposeful scar. Big difference.
(From the 'drinking' post)

I would say that we are no longer under the law but under grace. Which means that we are not bound by the law or our schoolmaster any more. The law is a tool which shows us our need for Christ by raising up God's standard of perfection. However, Although all things are lawful for me all things are not expedient. I want to honor my Lord and Saviour by doing what He wants me to do. Also, If I believe that God put these rules in place because He loves me and the children of Israel then I will keep them.

While I agree with your final analysis, @Octo, I don't agree with your means of getting there.

I think it all has to come down to 1 Cor. 10:31– Everything we do, say, or think, even the most menial of tasks, must be done purposefully for the glory of God.

If someone covered in tattoos becomes a Christian, I think we would all agree that his/her tattoos are not sinful, but a remnant of the "old man." However, if a Christian wants to get tattoos, or piercings in body areas that are extraordinary (i.e., nose, eyebrow, lip, multiple in ear, etc.), the questions must be asked,

"To what end?" "How will God be glorified by my doing this?" "What is the main reason for my decision?"

If it's not for God's glory, I believe THAT is sin. BUT, if a tattoo conveys a gospel message in an effective manner, particularly because it sparks witnessing encounters or a spiritual conversation, who am I to forbid that?

«I still really cannot come up with any spiritual reason for piercings, though. While a single piercing in each ear seems to be modest FOR GIRLS, I just can't conceive a God-honoring reason to go beyond that. The purpose always seems to come back to either drawing attention to self or fitting in with the world, but not glorifying God.»

The practice of ANY body-piercings and/or tattooing was originated by pagans! So why pierce ANY part of the body, even if its just the ear lobe and only girls do it?
(That said, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, I just don't see any biblical reason to do it.)

There isn't a biblical reason. But it's something that culture does that isn't really spoken much about in the Bible, and the Bible isn't against it, so it's something we can make our own decisions about.

Take clothing, for example. Should we all dress like the early Christians did, in tunics and sandals all the time, just because we don't want to be like the world and its ever-changing styles? I don't think anyone believes that.

And I know you and I both believe that it's perfectly acceptable for women to wear modest pants, even though just 75 years ago that was not perfectly acceptable. Culture changed, and the Bible isn't against women wearing pants, so we are okay with it.

Same goes for earrings. If they are merely applied in order to beautify or adorn a woman, it's not wrong. It only becomes wrong when they're applied in order to attract unnecessary attention or to bring undue glory to the woman.

The practice of ANY body-piercings and/or tattooing was originated by pagans!

Umm… most things today were originated by pagans. The automobiles we drive, the styles of music we listen to, the houses we live in, the roads we drive on—all of these were likely created by pagans. That doesn't make them inherently evil. We originated as pagans, and God redeemed us, so why can we not redeem other things?

God made a law against tatooing and piercing in the OT to make Israel separate from the pagan nations, to set them apart, to sanctify them. Nowhere is that rule repeated in the NT, so we can assume that it was done away with, along with the rest of the OT civil and ceremonial laws that are not repeated.

But we can still draw the principle from it that Christians are to be separate from the world. If a Christian gets a tatoo or a piercing (earring or otherwise) for the sole purpose of looking like the world or attracting attention, then, yes it's wrong. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with them.

Just to be ironic, here's a link to a YouTube video where Christian rapper Lecrae discusses the issue about tattoos. (He does not rap in the video. ;D)

"Umm… most things today were originated by pagans. The automobiles we drive, the styles of music we listen to, the houses we live in, the roads we drive on—all of these were likely created by pagans. That doesn't make them inherently evil. We originated as pagans, and God redeemed us, so why can we not redeem other things?"
Automobiles, houses roads, all those are morally irrelevant. What we do with our bodies is not. Besides, with the presence of Christianity comes civilization (pagan tribes in Africa aren't civilized because of no Christianity), so I could argue that all those things, while made or invented by 'pagans', are a result of the presence of Christianity in the culture. And another reason, Adam made the first house, and probably the first road, too. Cain (and later Abel) made the first Screamo as they came out of the womb, etc. (As to the music part, I'll have to agree that it can be redeemed.)

"God made a law against tatooing and piercing in the OT to make Israel separate from the pagan nations, to set them apart, to sanctify them. Nowhere is that rule repeated in the NT, so we can assume that it was done away with, along with the rest of the OT civil and ceremonial laws that are not repeated."
Done away with? What about all the verses that say we are to be sanctified? The principle of sanctification and being set apart did not stop with the Jews. So just because all the rules about sexual immorality in Numbers or Leviticus (can't remember which) aren't repeated, we don't have to obey them?

"But we can still draw the principle from it that Christians are to be separate from the world."
Okay, you redeem yourself here.

"If a Christian gets a tatoo or a piercing (earring or otherwise) for the sole purpose of looking like the world or attracting attention, then, yes it's wrong. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with them."
Why get an earring? To make yourself more beautiful? But why make yourself more beautiful unless for the express purpose of other people seeing it? The very idea behind any piercings and tattoos is to draw attention to yourself by doing something to your body that is not normal. You can't get a tattoo without not drawing attention to yourself, unless it's where no one can see it. And if it's where no one can see it, what's the point? The "sole purpose" of tattoos and piercings is to draw attention to the wearer or bearer. I don't care if the person possessing them wears them for a right purpose, because the very nature of piercings and tattoos is to draw attention. Whether worn with good intent or bad, they are intended to and do draw attention.

Ah, to an extent, Mr. Octo!

I rarely ever notice if a woman is wearing one set of earrings, so long as they're not huge hoops or strobe lights. It's become the norm that rarely ever draws attention to a woman. But I instantly notice if a woman has multiple piercings in the ears (which is also UGLY!!–my opinion) or piercings elsewhere. And I definitely notice if a dude is sporting one or two earrings. I really believe that all of these other forms of piercings began taking place because of how common it is to wear a single set of earrings.

@COS & Octo, we know for sure that many OT people wore earrings and nose rings, including Isaac's wife, Rebekah, and the children of Israel, and it had nothing to do with pagan practices. The prevailing Biblical principle is giving glory to God and not yourself. Each professing believer needs to ask him/herself why he/she would ever be considering such an accessory or a tattoo, as well as seek counsel from trusted authorities in the church.

«"Automobiles, houses roads, all those are morally irrelevant. What we do with our bodies is not. Besides, with the presence of Christianity comes civilization (pagan tribes in Africa aren't civilized because of no Christianity), so I could argue that all those things, while made or invented by 'pagans', are a result of the presence of Christianity in the culture. And another reason, Adam made the first house, and probably the first road, too. Cain (and later Abel) made the first Screamo as they came out of the womb, etc. (As to the music part, I'll have to agree that it can be redeemed.)"»

I have to agree with you on everything there. :)

«"Done away with? What about all the verses that say we are to be sanctified? The principle of sanctification and being set apart did not stop with the Jews. So just because all the rules about sexual immorality in Numbers or Leviticus (can't remember which) aren't repeated, we don't have to obey them?"»

Notice, I did say that if the OT laws are repeated in the NT, then they have relevance to us today. Peter repeats the Lord's command to "be holy as I am holy" in 1 Peter 1:15-16. Thus it is a command for Christians to obey. But even if that particular command wasn't repeated, common sense tells you that that's a principle we can and should follow. Same with the sexual laws. We know that because the NT tells us that marriage and reproduction are only to be between a man and a woman (who are married, in the case of reproduction), we can assume all the other sexual laws are included when we are commanded not to practice "sexual immorality."

However, the punishments for all of those sexual activities are not enforced the same as they were in the OT. Obviously we don't stone sodomites or adulterers today, even though they're just as serious of crimes now as they were then.

«»"But we can still draw the principle from it that Christians are to be separate from the world."«
"Okay, you redeem yourself here.»

Thank you. ;)

«Why get an earring? To make yourself more beautiful? But why make yourself more beautiful unless for the express purpose of other people seeing it? The very idea behind any piercings and tattoos is to draw attention to yourself by doing something to your body that is not normal. You can't get a tattoo without not drawing attention to yourself, unless it's where no one can see it. And if it's where no one can see it, what's the point? The "sole purpose" of tattoos and piercings is to draw attention to the wearer or bearer. I don't care if the person possessing them wears them for a right purpose, because the very nature of piercings and tattoos is to draw attention. Whether worn with good intent or bad, they are intended to and do draw attention.»

As my dad pointed out, a single set of earrings on girls has become so much the norm now that most of the time we don't even notice. It's just an extra accesory like a necklace, bracelet, or a prettier dress. Are you implying that women should never endeavor to make themselves look modestly attractive?

And yes, the "sole purpose" of tattoos is to draw attention to oneself, but in the case of a Bible verse tattoo, that can be a good thing–even an ice-breaker for a witnessing encounter.

By the way, if all tattoos are wrong, where do we stop? Are temporary children's tattoos immoral? Is face painting wrong? What about makeup? I understand that none of those are permanent, but why does permanence necessarily make it wrong?

In addition, why wear a tie or a suit or a tuxedo? This draws attention to oneself, as much as a woman's hair covering or boy's baseball cap or Octo's younger brothers' hot pink soccer shirts!!

What say ye to those, Octogon?!

On that line or reasoning, WM, why wear anything at all?

He has a point there, Dad. ;)

"As my dad pointed out, a single set of earrings on girls has become so much the norm now that most of the time we don't even notice. It's just an extra accesory like a necklace, bracelet, or a prettier dress. Are you implying that women should never endeavor to make themselves look modestly attractive?"
I know.

"And yes, the "sole purpose" of tattoos is to draw attention to oneself, but in the case of a Bible verse tattoo, that can be a good thing–even an ice-breaker for a witnessing encounter."
I'll take you to the tattoo artist shop, COS. Whenever you want to go, it's up to you.

"By the way, if all tattoos are wrong, where do we stop? Are temporary children's tattoos immoral? Is face painting wrong? What about makeup? I understand that none of those are permanent, but why does permanence necessarily make it wrong?"
It tattoos are NOT wrong, where do we stop? Children's tattoos encourage real tattoos. Face painting, same thing (not at all as much). Makeup, I don't really know, 'cause I don't wear it.
Permanence makes it wrong because we are not our own. Jesus didn't have tattoos and He wouldn't get one just to start a conversation.

I didn't say that getting a tattoo in order to help start a witnessing encounter was a great reason to get one, let alone a reason I would get one. :P

I think a tattoo would hinder rather than help.

If you have a tattoo that says, "Repent or Perish" or "Trust in Jesus" or a Bible verse, you're going to get people asking you what it's all about.

Tattoos can be redeemable. I personally would never want to get one, but sometimes it is solely based on a person's choice. Yes, it is made to draw attention, but if you make it to draw attention to the right thing, it can be a good thing!

He made NO POINT and NO SENSE with THAT logic!!

We wear clothes because God ordained it in Eden. To go without clothes would be drawing enormous attention to ourselves; so why would Octogon ask such a question, except to be provocative?!

The principle in play here is simply to NOT draw undue attention to yourself, particularly at the expense of God. Wearing a tattoo that starts a conversation about the "hope that is in you" does not take away from God's glory, and THAT'S WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE!!

Wearing one set of simple earrings is so non-distracting that you're now entering into the realm of legalism when you ban all usage of earrings.

A baby with earrings? Draws undue attention to the parent. A child with a temporary tattoo? Could argue either way on that one, especially since there's no permanent scarring, but it does draw undue attention.

Are we entering the realm of Christian liberties here? Are these really personal preferences when the scenarios get gray? Hmmmm?

"Permanence makes it wrong."

So, if I need a hip replacement or choose to get a prosthetic arm (instead of just stick with the stub), am I not breaking YOUR rule here?!?

I do not believe that the "You are not your own" passage is a good one to use in defense of your "No Tattoos Ever" platform. Having a God-honoring tattoo is not doing damage to our bodies, the temple of God, just like getting a surgically-implanted tooth or a bionic hand or a glass eye are either.

In Octogon's world, we'd have a bunch of stubby, hopping, eye-patchy, toothless-smiling folk in wheelchairs or completely bedridden, because they shouldn't permanently alter their physical appearance AT ALL, NIGHT OR DAY, FOREVER OR EVER!

Wow.
I'm glad I don't live in "my" world.
BTW, what were you replying to? Was it something I said?

Surgery is redemptive. Even if it is "permanent change", it is redemptive. It is an attempt to keep the decaying physical body going strong as long as possible.

On the other hand, a tattoo is injecting a bunch of ink into your skin. That is in no way redemptive, no matter what the tattoo says. And if it is destructive to our bodies, it is not God-honoring.
A "God-honoring" tattoo is an inherent self-contradiction.

The end (increased witnessing opportunities) does not justify the means (tattoos).

"We wear clothes because God ordained it in Eden. To go without clothes would be drawing enormous attention to ourselves; so why would Octogon ask such a question, except to be provocative?!"
I was showing (hopefully) that your logic of saying that ties and etc. shouldn't be worn is simply ridiculous. Clothing has practically nothing to do with our permanent physical appearance.

"The principle in play here is simply to NOT draw undue attention to yourself, particularly at the expense of God. Wearing a tattoo that starts a conversation about the "hope that is in you" does not take away from God's glory, and THAT'S WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE!!"
See my previous comment.

"Wearing one set of simple earrings is so non-distracting that you're now entering into the realm of legalism when you ban all usage of earrings."
I think I said to COS that one set of ear-rings is okay. I didn't say I would ban earrings. I am not in that position nor do I think that would be right. I would not ban tattoos either. That said, they are not God's will.

"Are we entering the realm of Christian liberties here? Are these really personal preferences when the scenarios get gray? Hmmmm?"
The scenario is not, in my opinion, all that gray.

Who says that injecting ink into the skin is destructive to our bodies, and therefore God-honoring? I can't say I've ever heard of anyone dying because they got a tattoo… I don't think you can call something God-honoring or not when there's no clear statement in Scripture on the issue.

«The end (increased witnessing opportunities) does not justify the means (tattoos).»

I wasn't trying to use that end to justify the means. I was merely saying that that was a possible consequence of getting a tattoo that displays an overtly Christian message.

«That said, they are not God's will.»

Whoa, whoa, whoa, who are you to be telling us what God's will is? When Scripture only speaks to the issue one time specifically, and it's in a passage that also forbids eating medium rare steak and shaving, I don't think you can say something so black-and-white. It is definitely a gray area.

@Octoploid:

Many Jews have taken Deuteronomy 6:8 very literally, and I believe it's okay to do the same; it says:

6:8– You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.

If I want to "bind" God's Word on my hand with a tattoo, not even for witnessing opportunities (although I wouldn't shun them if God brought them about), but to remind myself about His Word and to declare It to others, I find that redemptive; and, therefore, it's permissible, even by your own "redemptive" standards.

(By the way, all insurance companies find most applications of dental braces and tooth replacement to be elective in nature, and not necessities; and according to your logic, therefore, these are NOT redemptive either!! Would these still be allowed in "your world"? Or are these helpful, but not necessary, "ends" justifying the so very selfish, elective "means"?!?)

"(By the way, all insurance companies find most applications of dental braces and tooth replacement to be elective in nature, and not necessities; and according to your logic, therefore, these are NOT redemptive either!! Would these still be allowed in "your world"? Or are these helpful, but not necessary, "ends" justifying the so very selfish, elective "means"?!?)"

The purpose of braces or a tooth replacement is totally different from that of a tattoo. BTW, I'm talking about OUR world, not one where I rule it with my "personal preferences".
Give me a Scripture that says injecting a foreign substance into our skin for no redemptive or medical purpose is okay, and I will agree with you.

COS, I haven't heard of people dying from them either, but that doesn't change the fact that it is unnatural and serves no other purpose than being cool or whatever - attracting attention to yourself. If it's not helpful, why do it. Besides, I can't see anything good that would result from getting a bunch of ink put in my skin. I'm not researched it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was medical research proving tattoos to be harmful.

Again, the Bible never commends tattoos, just as it doesn't commend eating junk food all the time (another thing that I think is a foolish use of the temple of God). It is not God's will to mutilate our bodies for any reason whatsoever. I'm not telling you this, it's the Scriptural principle of preserving as holy what Christ has set apart as holy.
Why change (purposefully, mind you) what God has made? It's because we think we would look better if we did what we want to ourselves. It's really a sign of discontentment with the way God made us - as if we can better ourselves by following a pagan practice that has no purpose except to mutilate the body.

I don't think getting a tattoo defiles a person or makes them any less holy than if they didn't have one. I don't think the tattoo ink has any effect on a person's health, and that's precisely the reason we don't ever hear about them being harmful.

Again, if I for some reason decided to get a tattoo that displayed a gospel message or a Bible verse for the sole reason of proclaiming truth and being a witness of the hope that is in me, why would you call that wrong, just because you think it's harmful? I wouldn't be doing it to draw attention to myself any more than when I wear my "God doesn't believe in atheists" T-shirt.

Would you honestly say that I would be in sin if I got a tattoo for that reason and that reason alone? I get the point about permanence, but why would it be a bad thing to have a permanent gospel message attatched to my body? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of "defiling my temple"?

I find it hard to believe that God would condone us as Christians ( Old or New covenant) worshiping or honoring Him the way that the pagans worship their gods.
Even if it does not harm a person, it is still mutilation, unnatural, and pagan.

About the T-shirt. That's part of my point. We have clothing that can do the same thing as a "God-honoring" tattoo, without being contradictory in essence or nature.
I still maintain that a "God-honoring" tattoo is an inherent contradiction.

You would not be in sin if you did it for that reason only. But the very nature of the tattoo defeats your honest and good intent. Again, right end, but wrong means.
To illustrate that, would it be right for me to kill people who enslave other people (if slavery [in the typical sense] was still existent)? No. Is the end or goal of freeing slaves right? Yes, but killing the slave-owner as the means to that end is not right.
Is evangelism right? Yes, but getting a tattoo to encourage that is the wrong means.

You still haven't addressed my devastating use of the Deuteronomy verse on you.

If I want to bind God's Word on my hand via a tattoo, that verse alone supports it!

And your silence on the matter is DEAFENING!!!!!!

What "devastating use"?
Okay, I wasn't purposefully being silent.
Look, the binding may have been applied literally to Israelites, but to us, it is a figurative binding. Meaning…we don't literally bind the Word of God on our hands and foreheads, but we know the Word (on our forehead; that's what Memverse is all about) and we do the law (on our hand). It's simple when you think about it. We are to never lose sight of the Word of God in any of our thoughts (forehead) or actions (hand). It was the same purpose for Israelites, they just did it outwardly. I think it should be obvious we don't do that. Besides, if you really wanted to do it the way Israel did, it wouldn't be by way of tattoo, because they were forbidden to use them.
And nowadays, get a ring with scripture on it, get a bracelet with scripture on it, get a sweat-band with scripture on it….
But don't get a tattoo, because it is unnatural, the very purpose and nature of the tattoo defeats any attempt of the wearer to be God-glorifying, and it is PAGAN.
In the same way that an immodest bathing suit with Biblical, God-honoring sayings or scripture on it is inherently self-contradictory, (even if the wearer is only wearing the suit for evangelistic purposes and to start witnessing conversations), so also a tattoo with Biblical, God-honoring sayings or scripture composing it is inherently self-contradictory.

I repeat, give me a scripture that says that getting a foreign substance injected into your skin for no medical or redemptive purpose, and I will believe you.

You're the one with the deafening silence, Mr. Wretched.

Besides, if you are getting a tattoo for the express and sole purpose of attracting attention to the Gospel and giving glory to God, why do it with a tattoo (even if it was okay)? There are myriads of others ways you can do that: T-shirts, hats, pants, shoes, socks (I know, that's a little far-fetched). etc.
I'm sure if you really wanted to glorify God and start witnessing conversations, your first thought would not be "Tattoo!" It would be something more like "T-shirt!" You are not so dumb as to be unable to think of no other way than a tattoo to start a witnessing conversation. I know you, Mr. Wretched, and you're smarter than all that!

You are slowly, but surely, inching me closer and closer to actually getting a tattoo on my hand just to defeat your argument; but then, ironically, I wouldn't be doing it for the glory of God, but for the squashing of the Octo, which would then prove your point, which would be counterproductive to my point, but if I don't get one, you still prove your point, which makes me want to conquer your point even more; but the more I want to conquer your point, the less it allows me to get the tattoo that would do so, because it would thwart my original purpose, because no matter how much I would try to do it for the glory of God, I can't escape from the ever-growing desire to do it to silence you, which I really doubt would do, and then I'd be left with a tattoo for the wrong reasons, no matter how hard I would try to make it for the glory of God.

I don't think I can get a tattoo now, all because of you.

"Give me a scripture that says that getting a foreign substance injected into your skin for no medical or redemptive purpose, and I will believe you."

Give me a scripture that says that getting a foreign substance injected into your skin for no medical purpose (though I do believe it can be redemptive) is wrong, and I will agree with you. This could all depend on your interpretation of Scripture–can you do the things that the Bible doesn't say anything about, or can you not do the things that the Bible doesn't say you can?

You don't inject ink into the temple of God for no redemptive or medical reason, just like you don't inhale smoke incessantly into your lungs, or partake of junk food 24/7.

BTW, I still want to see a Scripture.

I gave you Scriptures, @Octopile!! 1 Cor. 10:31 & Deut. 6:9

Why are you so adamantly against what is so clearly spelled out in Scripture?!? You should bow your head in shame! It's ALL right there!!

This is Octavius' Mom jumping in here, borrowing his "space" to interject a few thoughts on this subject…

I think that with all things in the area of "fashion" (including piercing or tattoos), we see that man left to himself, is ever running after something he/she considers "new" or novel, even though Ecc. 1:9 tells us, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." People who follow "new fashions" strive to be different, to stand out, or to "be like everyone else" and to follow trends, but both ways they are hoping to be on the "cutting edge". We have to ask ourselves, "to be on the cutting edge of WHAT?" The cutting edge is simply the edge of "our culture's practices", which is another way to say, this "world's practices." But Rom 12:2 tells us, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." As Christians, we are to be living in another kingdom, a kingdom who's King and laws are altogether different than the god of this world who leads his followers by the nose (maybe their nose rings), leading them to follow the practices of the "whims of the culture". Again, Ecc. 1:14 speaks clearly here, "I have seen everything under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." Body piercing and tattoos are nothing new as Octavius pointed out, but these have been "newly revived" in our day.

The problem with lost man in relation to fashion is that he is never satisfied with "status quo". If a set of pieced ears is "mainline", then he wants to "add more holes in more places to his/her body" ~ always looking to be bold, always desiring to "push the envelope". If wearing a shirt with a message or picture on it is "mainline", then he/she wants to do something more provocative, more bold, and so he writes/draws on himself/herself with permanent ink, using needles (or rather pays someone BIG BUCKS to do it at the risk of getting hepatitis!)

Tattooing is really a way to "deface" the body. Men somehow want to think that they own their bodies and so they think they have the right to write/draw, tattoo on them. But tattooing is rather childish really. Don't you all recall the child (perhaps you) who wrote on himself with permanent marker, knowing it was "pushing the envelope"? It defies the conscience, and even the child knows its not really right. And if we see the body as God speaks of it in I Cor. 6:19, "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit with you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body," then we can understand that though this verse is speaking of sexual immorality, the principle of God's ownership of our bodies is relevant to tattooing and piercing (and modesty…). We don't have the right to deface or "disgrace" another's property, any more than we have the right to spray paint "Jesus Saves" on someone else's property. God made us. He owns us.

I don't think we can "redeem" tattooing by writing "Repent" or even having the whole text of the Bible inked on our bodies for a "conversation starter". It's an oxymoron. We should not "invite" (by a religious tattoo) others to look intently at our bodies to "read a Christian message", as our message is not about our flesh, but about the God of the universe who made us and redeemed us by a sacrifice too costly to cheapen by a tattoo on perishing flesh.

God's method of evangelism is to speak the truth of the Gospel in words. We can freely give the written Gospel to others (in tracts or a Bible) so that they can read it over and over again. God calls us to live holy lives that point others to Christ (not ourselves or our religious tattoos.) I also think of Mathew 23:5, "They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long.." The Jews' practice of hanging scripture verses from their heads was an outward attempt at showing "they belonged to God" (disputed of course), but the Jews actually made themselves appear silly with their religious "accessories" fashions. Do Christians make themselves appear silly with their "religious tattoos"?

We ARE encourage however to store up God's Word in our HEARTS. "I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you." Psa 119:11 (Memverse is a great tool to help in this!) But I can find no support in Scripture to write/tattoo God's Word (or religious statements, crosses, fish…) on our bodies.

Enough said. :-)

I responded to the Deut. text. Give me a reason my response is wrong.
The Pharisees were wrong to externalize the command of that Scripture, and if we do the same, we fall in with them in their sin of externalizing religion.
The 1 Cor. text….so I should do what God tells me not to do for His glory? The text says to do EVERYTHING for the glory of God, so that includes doing what He has told me not to do? Right! Exactly!

I still want Scripture.

I guess y'all have made me shift a little in my beliefs about this topic, but here is my final statement (probably): I believe that getting a tattoo is not wise, and I would never do it willingly, but it is not wrong for believers whose consciences are not stricken by it to get one.

Hear ye; the death knell of Wretched Man, SBG, and all their tattooed host is sounding; hear ye!

Think about a tattoo this way. In order for the ink to get in or under your skin, you must pierce it. This is [basically] cutting the skin.
What did the 450 prophets of Baal do to worship Baal in the "fire-from-heaven" contest that Elijah staged on Mount Carmel? They cut themselves up.
A tattoo pierces your skin. It cuts you up. That's why it's painful.
God does not want us cutting up/piercing His temple, just as He did not want the pagans to destroy His literal temple.
God does not want us to worship Him by causing ourselves physical pain. It just doesn't fit with Scripture. Yeah, you're supposed to cut off hands and gouge out eyes, but that is not speaking of literal hands and eyes.
Besides, one of the biggest things you had supporting tattoos is that it does not hurt the body. But on that premise, I should cut myself with my knife in the pattern of a cross or another Christian and possibly God-honoring symbol or words, because it won't hurt for all that long, and I'm not paying anybody else to do it, and I'm not injecting a foreign substance into my body! That's way better than having to pay someone else cut you up and getting ink injected into you!
See how crazy it is?
And my Mom mentioned that tattoos can actually make you sick (I can't remember the disease that she mentioned).
Is that proof enough?
Someone's conscience can be perfectly fine with cutting themselves up, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Hear ye: the death knell of Wretched Man, SBG, and all their tattooed host has sounded; hear ye!

@Octo I, II, or III: You have played Hermeneutical Twister to make the Scriptures I provided to you say what you want to say. (Did the Roman soldiers "tattoo" Jesus on the cross, using nails and a spear, according to your logic?)

Please show me where God directly forbids tattoos. Your renderings of 1 Corinthians 3 & 6 are stretching the bounds.

I think you're turning a God-glorifying preference into an Octo-overarching law!

Sniff. Sniff. Is that LEGALISM I smell?!?

Okay. Say whatever you want. Calling what God does not want us to do what God does not want us to do is not legalism, no matter what way you put it.

So, in your OPINION, God is glorified when we cut His temple, inject foreign, potentially harmful (and definitely not helpful) substances into it, and flaunt it so that others can see and somehow be brought to a better knowledge of Him.
That is SO commended in Scripture that I can't see how I was confused.

I agree with you Octavius. I mean, can you imagine Jesus tatooing Himself ? It is my opinion that if we can't picture Jesus doing it we shouldn't do it.

"@Octo I, II, or III: You have played Hermeneutical Twister to make the Scriptures I provided to you say what you want to say. (Did the Roman soldiers "tattoo" Jesus on the cross, using nails and a spear, according to your logic?)"
No. Cutting myself with a knife would not be tattooing. My point is that THAT is better than getting a tattoo, because you are not paying someone else to do it, and you don't get ink in/under your skin.
But you wouldn't (hopefully) condone someone cutting themselves with a knife (even for "God-honoring" purposes). And yet you say that paying someone else to cut you, and to pay them to put ink in your skin at risk to your health, is okay.

"Please show me where God directly forbids tattoos. Your renderings of 1 Corinthians 3 & 6 are stretching the bounds. I think you're turning a God-glorifying preference into an Octo-overarching law!"
God directly forbids tattoos in the OT for ISRAEL only. In the NT, God never directly forbids tattoos, just as He does not directly forbid eating a bunch of junk food or chain-smoking. He puts an "overarching" law by saying that we are not our own, that we are His temple. We are vessels of honor, and should not willingly put ourselves to dishonorable use.
Galatians 5:13 says "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
Getting a tattoo serves the body of Christ a lot. You'll walk into church one day and everybody will be like "Why did Mr. Wretched Man get a tattoo?" That's is really serving everybody.

"Sniff. Sniff. Is that LEGALISM I smell?!?"
No. You smell someone confronting your preference.

Good point, SoulWinner.
Look here Mr. Wretched. Imagine walking into Mr. Spurgeon's study. He turns around in his chair and welcomes you in. There on his forehead is a tattoo screaming "Deut. 6:8"
He puts his elbows on his desk and you notice that on his biceps are other tattoos yelling out the five sola's. On his wrists and ankles are Matthew 18:8. He notices that you're looking at him a little wierd, so he says "It's just my way to honor God."

That doesn't work. You could do it with any of the reformers and puritans. It just doesn't jive.

P.S. I forgot to say THANK YOU, SBG, on reforming your views. My sweat, tears, and blood have not been in vain.

I agree. Plus, it's not that we can do whatever the Bible DOESN'T say not to do - we should do what it DOES say to do.

No, because the ability to have a tattoo didn't exist back then (Not that I can imagine it though).

@ Rosie: Then why did God say not to tattoo in Leviticus? If you're right, that'd be like if He said, "Thou shalt not watch the Disney Channel." If they couldn't possibly do it, so what was the point of the command?

Cain had a mark on his forehead which could be called a tattoo, and whenever anyone saw this tattoo they knew not to mess with him. Leviticus 19:28 says not to tattoo your body. Plus if you are genuine Christian you shouldn't need a tattoo to witness. Just saying.

Actually, GMOV, I think there might have been. Remember, the OT forbids tattoos. Whether that's the same thing we think of now, I don't know, but probably.
You are right though, that they wouldn't have been available for Jesus because He was a Jew and they were forbidden for Jews. He would have had to go to the South Sea cannibals or to the African jungle, or to the American Indians or to New Zealand or… he could have just skipped a few centuries and come to Wretched Man.
Gotcha, WM!

Cain was different because he didn't ask God to put the mark on him. We don't really know if it was a tattoo, it could have been a scar. It is true that it was a curse (which I think we can draw a principle from) but God did it, so it was okay.
About witnessing. Thank you. Wretched Man needs to here more of that. They are superfluous as an aid to spreading the Gospel, besides being condemned.

My point was that tattoos are usually associated with a curse.