Tattoo or not tattoo

I have had quite a few debates recently about the fairly recent phenomena amongst young 'fashionistas' to gaffitti'ing their bodies with permanent disfigurements. I do not apologise for disliking both the (apparent) intentions as well as the results of such a practice (although I will confess to finding one on a colleagues instep rather sexy) but I realise that it is a 'live and let live' world, that we are not to judge a book by its cover, and that we are to love all equally as important to the Lord, all positions which I adhere to. However where I do take exception is when some would seek to offer biblical justification for their practice and even go so far as to claim that Jesus himself  wore a tattoo and although I fully expect that some will disagree with my argument I would like to offer a letter that I wrote to the elders of my church as my official position on the subject and thereafter absolve myself of the need to debate this issue furthermore.

A QUERY?
As one who consistently falls short of my potential in Jesus I have by and large adopted a back seat re; my contribution within the church, and for this I apologise. Being sure of my position in Christ, i.e. forgiveness and acceptance I accept intellectually but too often struggle with it in reality, and again I apologise (to the Lord). Having said this, my intentions now are to speak out whenever I feel burdened to do so, thus I run the risk of becoming not only a pain-in-the-butt, but worse still, a ‘Pharisee’. If this occurs I once again apologise and wholeheartedly commit myself to being corrected and if necessary disciplined.
The more I research the more I fear that the current redefinition of ‘tolerance’ has muddied our theological waters, particularly given the aforementioned notion of absolute acceptance, which while it is how we are to view God’s Grace regarding us, what too frequently occurs is that in order to ‘be accepting’ we run the risk of ‘fudging’ scriptural verity. For example I think few would argue with the principle that God cannot contradict himself. If such a thing appears to be the case, I believe the correct assumption should automatically be that our interpretation of scripture is at fault.

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.

My perceived contradiction at the moment is the notion that Jesus in Revelation 19 was ‘tattooed’. Unfortunately I have heard such a claim uttered a number of times from the pulpit and have been told of it being propagated by some of the leaders at youth.

Whilst I realise that this is not a major issue in life, and though I am personally un-attracted to tattoos nevertheless, some of my best friends have them, to quote a cliché. For those who continue to succumb to this current fashion ( the latest version being branding [Reuters last week]) or have for other reasons indulged in personal ‘graffiti’[1] I hold no animus in my heart. For example how can we view with anything other than compassion those who were tattooed in the concentration camps or others who were/are branded as slaves or have been cut/marked/tagged by tribal or gang affiliation. Our position must be one of acceptance without proviso, no question about it. However, and herein lies the rub, this is a vastly different perspective from not only accepting it but clandestinely or consciously promoting it, even in jest or through ignorance.

WHY?
Leviticus 19:28 quite clearly indicates God forbidding His people from acquiring tattoos. The problem is that there were quite a few other taboos as well, many of which are disregarded by today’s society, which raises the question of what to do about tattoos. Research indicates that God expected an elevated lifestyle from his chosen people. He wanted them to ‘rise above’ the standards of the pagan world surrounding them because he knew how those influences could weaken[2] and distract His people from worship and obedience to Him. Paul however shows that Jesus died to save us from the ‘cleansing laws’, that no matter what we did or didn’t do we are forgiven and accepted (thank God)! Therefore it logically follows that to acquire a tattoo is not a sin or to be ‘unclean’ in any way, and the only real question that remains is to debates ones motives, preferably in concert with the standards outlined in James 3. Is it to attract attention? Will the tattoo be a source of contention for my loved ones? Will getting a tattoo cause me to disobey my parents? Will my tattoo cause someone who is weak in the faith to stumble? Etc, etc, it all becomes a matter of personal conscience.

However, to assert that Jesus himself was tattooed is to take liberty with the truth (heresy). Would it not be advisable to examine the actual interpretation of the words used before ascribing meaning within popular culture, particularly when making claims about the actions of God Himself? Would Jesus break His own law?

The Greek word for ‘written’ in Revelations 19:12b and verse 16 is: grapho[3] and is about script, it could have been written on his skin with a texta or blood for all we know, however what we do know is that it most certainly does not translate as a tattoo: kethobeth[4] , besides, regarding the garment on which ‘King Of Kings...’ (vs 16) was also written, was that ‘tattooed’ as well? To muddy these waters is to perpetuate the impression that the problem with the Evangelical mind is that it should not be unduly examined.

In conclusion however, and with reference to brandings in the apocryphal writings... what I do see in Revelations 13 is that all people will receive a mark: charagma[5] on their right hands or foreheads, a branding (concentration camps prophetic?) to identify them as ‘property of the beast’.

Question: Will we at that time preach against body branding, or will we leave it up to the individual conscience?

Musing: Could this current obsession with branding merely be blurring the lines for such a time as that?

This is an issue which is beginning to cause me and some others a problem, and I humbly appeal that the concerns be addressed.

Yours faithfully

[1] Actually I think graffiti is a blot on any ‘landscape’.


[2] And of course some of the dietary requirements were a protection to His people.


[3] To write, with reference to the form of the letters, to write with reference to the contents of the writing, to fill with writing. (Strong’s concordance)


[4] Impression, inscription, mark; in the flesh. (Strong’s concordance)


[5] A stamp, an imprinted mark, thing carved. ( Strong’s)