The light dismissal of
Leviticus 19:28 doesn't really feel right to me. I agree that some of those commandments don't really make much sense today (such as not mixing clothing materials), but tattoo marks are a permanent disfigurement of the body. Not to mention they got their origin in demonic and pagan rituals. Can we really throw the commandment out the window simply because the preceding verses mention gardening and beard trimming?
Another thing that should give you pause before you dismiss
Leviticus 19:28 is the fact that there are plenty of instances in both the Old and New Testament that show God is indeed interested in our appearance.
Just a few examples:
God clothed Adam and Eve.
Deuteronomy 22:5 - no cross-dressing, which God 'detests'
1 Timothy 2:9 - women should dress modestly
"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"
Matthew 23:26: "First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean." - a little more subtle, this one. We know the Pharisees practiced many works to keep the outside clean, but in this statement God does not throw the 'outside works' out the window, rather He condemns the Pharisees for neglecting the heart.
It seems to me that
Leviticus 19 cannot be lightly dismissed, when it is evident God does not focus solely on the inward. The outward is important as well and is a reflection of the heart. To put it another way, if it is a spiritual fact that inward change will reflect outward cleanliness, isn't it reasonable to assume God is indeed interested in the outward appearance of our bodies, "the temples of the Holy Spirit"?
With that in mind, I would have to say that I'm going to stick with un-punctured skin. There just isn't enough scriptural evidence to support an uninterested God when it comes to permanently marring the "temple of the Holy Spirit".
On a final note, a slightly different logical approach:
If one can safely dismiss
Leviticus 19:28 on the basis of verses 27 and 19 being apparently irrelevant, can we also dismiss the verses that condemn whoring out your daughter or consulting mediums? Also, check out some of the other verses in
Deuteronomy 22. Right after the cross-dressing verse we find commandments to sew tassels on the hem and not to wear clothing with wool and linen sewn together. Does that mean we get to dump the cross-dressing verse?
I certainly agree that there may be a legitimate argument for allowing tattoos, but a commandment or precept stands on its own. Just because the verse in question happens to be in the same chapter as another verse that may no longer apply to us does not mean the entire chapter (or parts thereof) is nullified. Scripture cannot be taken so lightly. It should be carefully compared to other verses or principles before we decide how it should apply to us. In this case I believe the principle of a holy temple (our bodies) should inform us as to the continued relevance of
Leviticus 19:28.
Having said all that, I will condemn no one who gets a tattoo. I'm on my journey, you are on yours, and here's to hoping we see each other on the other side. :-)
)
Linear Mode
