Tattoos Forbidden in the Bible

Tattoos Are Forbidden in the Bible

In our examination of practices formerly seen as violations of scripture let us commence with one which is so bizarre, so pagan, so unnatural, that any reference to it from near or remote Christian antiquity is but to reference it as a practice of the pagan world, and as an oddity so unknown to then modernity, that it could only be explained as a peculiarity of a bygone pagan age or remote pagan region. I refer to the practice of defacing the image of God as universally displayed in mankind by printing images on the skin with ink, or as it’s more commonly known in our pagan world, “Tattoos”. So foreign was such an unnatural practice to former ages of the Christianized West that if you search commentaries on Leviticus 19:28 you will find nothing but references to pagan belief and practice. Such an abomination didn’t exist as a practice in their times such that it had to be dealt with other than to reflect upon it’s paganism.

Leviticus 19:28 reads, “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” The word “tattoo” was not in modern vocabulary in 1611 when the KJV was translated, but most modern translations render this verse using the word “tattoo”, as its accepted in the community of those who perform translation work that this is what the word meant. So… here we have a verse commanding men not to make tattoos on their bodies. We could well quit the discussion right here were Christian men what they pretend to be… ready to bow to every scripture mandate as supreme. Except that men aren’t what they pretend to be. They are ready to bow to every biblical mandate, so be that their peers assent to it. In other words…. they are ready to follow religious custom so long as applause attends it.
And why is the world we live in so different than theirs? Because of modern cowards in the pulpit who are ready only to defend what empowers them, and in our day, validating decadence is what keeps you platformed. They appear to dread the appellation “legalist” more than that of “pagan”. That self-serving cowardice is the predominant factor of what has created the world we live in where one in seven people in North America are said to have some form of a tattoo, when formerly any reference to such creed was a reference to paganism.[1]

James White

First let’s consider a video by modern apologist James White. In a youtube video on this topic he advances the following position in regard to tattoos[2]. In this video Mr. White says that he was challenged to look into the meaning of Leviticus 19:28, and doing so came to the following conclusions. Quoting directly from this video Mr. White claims that when he looked into this he “discovered certain things”:
“The first thing discovered was, the Hebrew term “Aqa” that is used there is a hapax legomena… a disputed hapax legomena[3]. Well, what does that mean? Well, a hapax legomena is a term that’s used only once in the bible. And if it’s disputed… not 100% certain what it actually means. Right there, that in and of itself, is enough to put that issue into the Romans 14 category. A basic element of exegesis is you never make a dogmatic case out of a text that has a disputed hapax legomena. You just… you don’t do it. It’s just inappropriate exegesis and interpretation.”
There are several things necessary to be said about Mr. White’s claims in regard to this verse.  

First, the extreme liabilities inherent in such an argument seem entirely lost on Mr. White. No bible commentary that I could find made any scruple to reflect upon this verse without the uncertainty required by Mr. White.  Are all these great bible commentators of history woefully inadequate, ill-informed, and blameworthy on this account? Because none of them make any mention of this ostensible “basic” knowledge of Bible interpretation, and seem to have known nothing about how this verse must be relegated into the adiaphora category due to the very “basic element of exegesis” that demands that you “never make a dogmatic case out of a text that has a disputed hapax legomena”. They simply assigned the practice to the fooleries of paganism, and moved on. They were apparently no better informed than to foolishly accept Leviticus 19:28 as authoritative scripture, being woefully oblivious to the grand uncertainty proposed by Mr. White. Neither John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, nor Matthew Poole had the exegetical ethics to embrace Mr. White’s balderdash, and nix this verse from their bibles. They didn’t know that you can take a command of scripture and say “hapax legomena” over it (or perhaps abrah kadabrah, will do) and then you are free, similarly as saying “Corban” can absolve you of other commands. (Mk. 7) You see, you can nullify a command into adiaphora so be that someone, somewhere, for some reason disputes it. And you don’t even need to say who, where or why, so powerful is this truth!
And the exegetical ignoramuses who wrote the Greek Lexicons seem to be alike uncaring of this power also, as they just gave the word a definition instead of saying “we cannot tell” like Mr. White (Mk. 11:33) or cutting it from the bible with their pen knife like Jehoiakim. (Jer.26:33) Likewise “The Seventy” who translated the Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek just rendered it as a Greek word meaning “tattoo”. It’s amazing how careless the whole world of exegetes are of the basics of biblical interpretation.  Except Mr. White.

Mr. White affirms that he arrived at this position deliberately, having “looked into it”, yet gives no reference whatever as to exactly who is doing the “disputing” (other than himself), nor of the ground of disputing it, other than a singular usage, nor even what exactly he means by a disputed hapax legomena. It seems apparent that we are to just feel overwhelmed by the fact that he quoted a Greek phrase and relinquish the point, in awe of his ostensible erudition. You’re kind of obliged to do that if someone speaks Greek, you know. Latin is kind of that way too. I’m told.

Secondly, Mr. White will have us bow to his mere unsubstantiated claim unto the dismissing the entire verse. Except that there’s this….  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” But did he think to ask if that word was divinely inspired or not? “Rules of interpretation” overthrow that? Some scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness? White seems perfectly oblivious to how perfectly arrogant and audacious such a claim is in itself, and those who watch the video will see it in his self-absorbed demeanor as much as in his words. Perhaps the time will come that he might soberly consider that dictating to the Holy Spirit as to what He verbally inspires in the infallible scriptures is not really his proper domain. (Deut.12:32)

Lastly on this point, it has to be asked, exactly how many instances of such singular usages of a Greek or Hebrew word are there anyway? There’s one in ITim.2:9, telling women to wear modest apparel. There’s another in Eph. 5:4 telling us not to use obscene language. A careful search would doubtless discover a multitude of biblical obligations one could make his ostensible escape from. Are there dozens of these? Or hundreds? Just how many bible verses are we supposed to throw away, anyway?  

Jeff Durbin 

Next, let us briefly consider the apology for defacing the body rendered by Jeff Durbin, a tatted hipster church elder from Arizona. In a video “short” on youtube he is reproved by a woman who negatively reflects on his tattoos, to which he makes the case that since he didn’t make the tattoos “for the dead”, and that this is the only thing forbidden in Leviticus 19:28, then he has not violated that passage.[4] But lets consider again the actual text of Leviticus 19:28: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”
But what would Mr. Durbin think of the feminist who makes the same scripturally degenerate argument that she’s free to preach in church because she’s not usurping authority over a man while doing so, which is the only thing forbidden by ITim.2:12? Because ITim.2:12 reads like this: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that little word… “nor”. Either is forbidden. Usurping authority is forbidden. Teaching is forbidden. That’s extremely basic grammar for the one not grasping for a “get out of commandment free” card. And the point about ITim.2:12 presents to us the exact case as that of Lev. 19:28, which, again, reads like this: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” It does not say what Mr. Durbin is pretending it says, and he’s counting on the woman’s ignorance not to detect his sleight of hand. It does not say, “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh nor print any marks upon you for the dead: I am the LORD.”
This glaringly erroneous exegesis is commonly heard in the hipster contingent among Calvinists, and the above reproof is the only thing necessary to be said in reply. However, the objection might be anticipated that the referenced commentaries alike assigned the meaning of tattoos to that of pagan beliefs and rites, as if this concluded that either this passage itself, or those who thus commented upon it validated such a permanent defacement of the body.

Several things might be said to this. First, the objection is making the assumption that such authors, in averring both cutting and tattooing to be connected to the phrase “for the dead”, were merely saying that such practices were forbidden only when performed in a pagan manner, or whether the practice was pagan and forbidden of itself. And that is far from a certainty, and while the passages in those I contemplated (Gill, Calvin, Henry, Scott, Poole) were arcane, yet at the least it cannot be concluded from their words that they esteemed such practices to be indifferent, and lawful when disassociated from the paganism referenced, (if indeed they were correct in the belief that “for the dead” even referenced a pagan practice.) While some of the commentary on this verse was admittedly arcane at times, yet it was not unclear with Calvin. Indeed Calvin makes the case that simply on account of it’s being an imitation of pagans it was forbidden, even were the thing itself indifferent, which we would then assume he concluded it was not.

Secondly, such commentators never had a hipster faction practicing such abominations in their midst, and engaging in its advocacy to the church, and had they such a parcel of abandoned worldlings we would have seen their application to them, and not just to pagans, which reflections we don’t presently have. But any that are familiar with their intolerance of worldly carnal professors, would find that amusing. However, even those well-read in such historical figures are like to imagine they are following in their train. It’s a disease of long standing among this spiritual breed. These commentators were simply applying scripture to their own times, and their own times had no such demented faction.
But it could be hoped that the example of Paul the Apostle would convict the sincere among them, if there are any: “But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor.4:2) 
And to show just how profane and detestable these abandoned hipsters are, this particular group even hosted an event trying to raise cash for a church plant by one of these reprobates donating his services, and people lining up to get tattooed at their church, the payment going to the cause of the gospel, thus evoking thoughts of Deut.23:18, where the price of sin is imagined to forward the work of the Lord, it being called an abomination to God.

John MacArthur 

Next, consider John MacArthur on this point as well. In the following youtube video[5], Dr. MacArthur makes a highly repetitive reply regarding the lawfulness of tattoos during a question and answer session. The only case he makes is that he doesn’t think tattoos can be proven to be forbidden because the verse that forbids them is in the Old Testament, because not forbidden in the New Testament. This is literally the only reason he gives for his belief, and he pretty much seems to dissuade people from the practice for other reasons after making the case of its lawfulness. It may seem a bit foolhardy to enter into such a convoluted and intense topic as the place of the law in the NT in a publication such as this, being such an enormous topic, but I’ll plead brevity as a justification.  

Does the New Testament Abolish the Old Testament Law as a Rule of Duty? 

1) The generally accepted and confessional division of “Civil”, “Moral”, and “Ceremonial” law is being counted a given.

2. There is a well-established example in the New Testament of its authors citing the Old Testament as proof of their New Testament doctrine.  But making such a case is to ipso facto acknowledge the source appealed to as an abiding authority, at least in regard to that for which it is appealed. The apostles did not appeal to OT scripture in the same sense in which they appealed to pagan poets.  The source one cites as proof of his doctrine, is without contradiction, of at least equal authority. How many dozens of places the New Testament so cites the Old Testament is too well known by any reader of the bible to admit of any necessity of proof, other than merely mentioning it. The New Testament authors cannot appeal to the Old Testament books in proof of their doctrine if it is of no abiding force or authority.  

3) There are several places in the New Testament where the law is cited in such a way as to render it beyond controversy that it was considered authoritative with specific reference to it being a present rule of duty by the apostles. Witness the following:
a) Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? (ICor.9:8)
b) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (ICor. 14:34)
c) 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written”. (ICor. 9:8-10)
d) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Rom.13:8)
e) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (IJn.3:4)

Does my reader sincerely weigh such words and conclude that the apostles accounted the law of God to had been removed as a rule of duty to the New Testament church, by reason of the apostles?  

4. It is evident how transgression of a moral law can damn us to hell one minute and then not damn us to hell the next by the substitution of Christ. But it is not at all evident, indeed is perfectly irrational, to aver that we can be saved from the retributions of the law upon transgression by the substitution of Christ, and the next minute not even be required to observe it’s precepts, excepting in regard to the dissolution of purely ceremonial commands that prefigured that sacrifice, and are now superceded by it. How does the New Testament damn men to hell for transgression of the LAW, (Gal.3:10-13) if that law is not in force in the New Testament? If men are damned for transgression of it then it could not more plainly be in force! But if not in force, what does grace save them from exactly? Will such as set forth such exegetical savagery, tell us that that the law is enforced by its sanctions, but not in force by command and precept? Sanctions upon what? Disobedience? Disobedience of what?  Abolished laws? You’re not at all commanded to do this, but you’ll be damned if you don’t?

5. If the law of God does not so endure, and if no ethical mandate remains but what is contained in the New Testament, then there are an entire host of prohibitions we all accept as emphatically commanded that become lawful. Because where does the NT reaffirm mosaic prohibitions of transvestitism, of marriage to kin, or vile relations with beasts, or many other like practices which we all account to be not only forbidden but an abomination?  It is perfectly evident that we cannot do away with prohibitions of defacing the imago dei, without “proving too much” and doing away as well with prohibitions of transvestitism, and marrying your sister with exactly the same arguments.  

These three forgoing examples are not exceptional. They characterize the age.  We’ve all heard such exegetically unanchored explanations over and over. But let the reader be reminded of the forgoing point that applies to all of the above. In accordance with the entire foregoing premise of this book … no explicit prohibition of such a practice is even needed. To again borrow from the Westminster, both that which is expressly set down in scripture, as well as that which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture” are alike authoritative. And tattooing the body is emphatically defiling the temple. If not…. I guess cutting your fingers off is as lawful, as no explicit prohibition can be found for that either. Every example of sin is never assumed to be necessarily stipulated as explicitly proscribed by name in the bible before it is prohibited, despite the shallow and juvenile protestations of our modernist theological hipsters.

If otherwise, then perhaps the platformed hipster consensus will, with the same buffoonery, sanction putting a disk in the lip until it’s hanging out half a foot, or put rings around out neck until it’s twice as long, like other pagan tribes are known to do who feel the liberty to mutilate themselves and deface the image of God in their creation. Because…. Where does the bible say not to double the length of your neck anyway? And we wouldn’t want to be idolaters, inventing duties for the church, unsanctioned by divine authority. Does anyone see the frightful degree of desperate guilt, self-will, and spiritual blindness that goes blithely into such a thicket of foolishness without hesitation?  

But if the newfangled hipster contingent are correct, and tattoos are not forbidden by this verse that forbids them, and all these fastidious precisionists have a bee in their bonnet over a purely indifferent matter, then the query must follow: When you’ve defaced God’s image in your creation by your outrageous presumption and folly, and no one wants to hire you into a position where you’ll be publicly seen, (theological worldling podcasters excepted) is it because all the employers out there are wheezing boomers, raving fundamentalists, tyrannical legalists, and autocratic Pharisees? Or is because you’re morally hideous, and that your marred dehumanized form is now disgusting and your revolting appearance will bring an unavoidably disagreeable impression upon any normal place of commerce, because no one but you and your abused fellow church members believe your derelict coward of a preacher? Reality will stare you down and doesn’t care about making Big Eva mad.  No one will take you for a decent person when so you’ve so idiotically and deliberately effaced yourself, and despite whatever other virtues you may legitimately possess that contradict your delirious choices, employers know it, the public knows it, and it’s just you and your abused little flock who bought into the idiocy of your epicene apologist of a pastor. And of course, all the lefties that control them who agree with you.

When nearly finished writing this section on tattoos I came across a video by Doug Wilson entitled: “Tattoos? | Doug Wilson”. Doug Wilson, being one to universally ridicule any sort of dissent from modernity’s love affair with worldliness, I had to give it a watch, knowing that he would obviously need an entry among the others above. But as he spoke I began to wonder if I was listening to AI or a “body double”. It tempted me to question my universal contempt for him. His statement was so perfect, that rather than incorporate it into the body of refutations, I will end with it as a summary.
When asked, “What is your position on tattoos?” Mr. Wilson made the following reply:
“My position on Tattoos is that I believe there is a deep pagan need to mark yourself tribally. And you see that come out in scripture in different ways. In Leviticus 19:27, I think it is,[6] where the law of God prohibited the people of God from cutting the flesh or marking themselves, tattooing themselves, (because God is holy), the priests of Baal dancing around the alter cut themselves with knives… self mutilation ….  I don’t think you need to be a genius to see that there is a contempt for the image of God in man that lies underneath a lot of the current rage about body modification, body mutilation, and tattooing. I do think Christians who are opposed to tattoos as I am do need to distinguish between a butterfly and “I love Jesus” tattooed on the ankle of a Christian, and a tarantula tattooed on the cheek bone. So, make those distinctions, but I don’t think it’s a healthy thing at all, and I think it testifies eloquently to the resurgent paganism of our culture.”[7]
In what appears to be a subsequent article to the above commentary, we find Mr. Wilson doing what might possibly be perceived as “damage control” for his failure to embrace every worldly thing the church loves. He reasserts his good case against tattoos, but makes sure to distance himself from the “legalist”, being perhaps aware that he now may look like one himself. Consider this citation from his article “Rethink the Ink”.   

“In short, the presence of the gospel in a society for hundreds of years will have a necessary impact on dress, hair, adornment, etc. The wooden legalist thinks that one particular display of such an outworking is the only possible one, and there is certainly rigidity in his folly. But it is just as foolish to say that there are no possible outworkings, and notice the plural. 

Nowhere in the New Testament does it prohibit the deacons from presenting the offering at the front of the church by dancing around the communion table, cutting themselves with knives. But it would not be legalism to wonder to yourself, and perhaps aloud, “who else in the Bible does things like that?”[8]

It appears there may be good things stirring that Mr. Wilson even makes the commentary he does, when typically his alacrity with Jesuitical apologetics for nearly any worldly practice plaguing the church is his forte. But we see this character rebound later where he appears to yet feel himself obliged to his former commitments to distinguish himself in this capacity, such that he must in some measure distance himself from the “folly” and “rigidity” of those “wooden legalists” who see the prohibition of tattoos as obligatory. There must be plural “outworkings” to any paganism plaguing the church, and yes, we notice the plural. Except that it matters if the bible forbids stuff, which prohibition he himself seems to acknowledge. Then why “outworkings”? But he acknowledges the paganism, annd then argues for options, lest we wax wooden, and fail of modernity’s standard of “holiness”. People might call us legalists, and we’ll sooner let the bible be called legalistic, before we’ll be, thus providing for the one thing needful. Call us any thing you wish… but not that most dreaded appellation.

Of course there are infinite ways of adorning the body (“dress, hair, adornment”), that are entirely lawful, so no one is giving but one, or even 12 possible options. Because merely affirming that one thing is forbidden is not proposing that only one thing is lawful, per his false dichotomy. To use his own parallel, there are many ways of conducting a church service all of which are lawful. But cutting yourself and dancing around the altar during an offering isn’t one of them. If Wilson says such paganism is always unlawful, then he’s the wooden legalist he condemns. If he proposes that its sometimes lawful, then he has exposed himself as the pagan he ultimately is.

But if we must have plurality of options we must muse what they’d be. Perhaps the “plural” “outworkings” of judicious reform would then include clean-up crews to follow the bleeding dancing deacons around, or perhaps mandate smaller knives, to be good stewards of janitorial expenditures, or perhaps require that the dancing be kept within the limits of modesty, lest we, alas, expose ourselves as those narrow-minded folly-ridden rigid wooden legalists, who imagine that there’s but one solution for paganism in the church, and that all such paganism is lawless and demonic. Else someone might call you a legalist.

It does, however, appear that we can escape the dreaded appellation of “legalist” if one will but “wonder to himself, and perhaps even aloud”, if “deacons presenting the offering at the front of the church by dancing around the communion table and cutting themselves” isn’t possibly associated with the wrong sort of people in the bible. But we still might be wooden legalists, however, did we wonder to ourselves, and especially if we did so “aloud”, ifthe derelict pastors that have come to characterize such a lost and decadent age don’t thereby manifest a repudiation of their calling to unite the church by teaching the truth, (Eph.4:11-16), rather than juggling its consequent warring factions by a studied ambiguity, while heaping the very judgmentalism against any accounting that they are accustomed to condemn in those defending biblical holiness. 

Despite his characterization of “rigid wooden legalists” I guarantee you we (I’m sure I’m included) care nothing for how offerings are conducted, save that they don’t include pagan outrages such as Wilson mentions. We typically wax wooden where stalwart rigidity is commanded and hence necessary to honor God, being biblically warranted, and such vilification of virtue demonstrates that Mr. Wilson is not quite to the end of himself. There will always be those juxtaposed between Phinehas and Zimri, advocating for a panty-waist solution that will only risk offending Phinehas, but never Zimri, which will tell the discerning observer exactly where that politic individual really stands. (Num.25)

Not forgetting the title of this book, let us restate the case. If you look in past Reformed commentary on Leviticus 19:28 or on “Tattoos”, you will only find references to paganism. Because it didn’t exist in their society. It was discovered in pagan lands by mariners. Unlike many other sins against which former ages would have blown a gasket over contemporary complicity, it is a phenomena entirely outside the scope of their personal experience. There were no tatted Christians, or even worldlings. Their commentaries on Lev.19:28 bear this out. Their commentary is reserved for foreigners and pagans.It’s pointless to multiply their comments. And yet when you look in modern “Reformed” commentary you find scarcely anything but validations, justifications, and embracing of this paganism, with slanders of the biblically faithful and dismissals of the scriptural prohibition. Yes, What your Reformed contemporaries call “Legalism”, your Reformed ancestors called “Sanctification”.

Lastly, lest any believer who fears God be discouraged by the foregoing for having transgressed in this particular, but who has it not in their power to change it, all peace. It really is entirely immaterial to anything spiritual, once the heart is made right. Most of us don’t have our sins printed on our faces, but did we, we would hope that other believers could rejoice with us at our redemption and salvation from their once inward reign, as they see them only there on the outside, having been cleansed within by the power of God in our lives.

But, if when all is said and done, tattoos are entirely acceptable to God and proscribed only by moonstruck fundamental cases, then here is what it means. What you will see next is entirely lawful, and you can’t raise a word against it without joining the legalist contingent, because the kind has been justified, without reference to the degree. Because what the self-promoting hipster imagines he has proved, to himself at least, is that this is lawful and no where forbidden. Then where is this forbidden?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Perhaps even the most hoodwinked religionist hipster may begin to sense what he’s actually defended. Or perhaps he may be so utterly filled with hell as to fully defend the fullness of what his warped and demonic dogma has warranted. But should he begin to retrace, and attempt to validate his more moderate examples of rebellion, and to condemn these more extreme, yet to what will he appeal to forbid such things as he just thought to have proved to be nowhere forbidden? Because, you see, had he actually made his demented demonic case that such things are not prohibited, then what degree of them can be prohibited? If lawful, then they’re all lawful, and the lawfulness of the above examples his arguments attain as much as the degree’s he intended to legitimize.[9] If it’s lawful, accept the consequence that its all lawful. And if unlawful, accept the consequence that it’s all unlawful. But if otherwise, what verse will moderate and govern the question, since he’s just asserted that there is no scripture that forbids it. Thus have these platformed prostitutes prophesied whatever abomination their masters have put into their mouths and opened the door of the church to Satan. But just maybe one or two might realize they’ve played Satan’s door keeper for the spiritual rapist of humanity to enter the church. To these: Find your mirror and LOOK, will you?

---

[1] https://authoritytattoo.com/tattoo-etymology/

[2] https://youtu.be/e-UK1axgz_E

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapax_legomenon 

[4] https://youtube.com/shorts/RKs5dR0A1E8

[5] https://youtu.be/ogQ3oqp-9n4

[6] Lev.19:28

[7] https://youtu.be/EPdkAmRG2Q4  

[8] https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/rethink-the-ink.html

[9] Some may wish to argue that much of the repulsiveness of the above imagery is owing to the “body modification” and not just the tattooing. But then use your antibiblical methodology on that also. Body modification is not forbidden either. Right? There isn’t even a Lev.19:28 for it.