In 2018 Joyce Meyer came out in support of Christians getting tattoos.
You can read her statement and watch the video here. This is my response and my opinions in general on tattoos. I err on the side of Christians not getting tattoos. I believe that it's one thing for a Christian to get a tattoo before they were saved, they didn't know any better, but it's quite another for a Christian to get them after being saved.
To preface, I have nothing against Joyce Meyer. I have listened to her
myself before, I just believe she is in error on this particular point. That doesn’t
mean she is in error on all points or any less a Christian. She’s human and fallible just like the rest of us. No one is going to be right one-hundred
percent of the time about everything. As Paul said, “we see
through a glass darkly”, but I digress.
Joyce equates the Christian taboo against tattoos to legalism. Legalism
being a strict literal adherence to the Mosiac laws. I personally don’t see it
that way. However, while Christians have never adhered to the Laws of Mosses,
they were useful for teaching right and wrong. More to the point, what was
morally wrong in the Old Testament, is still morally wrong in the New
Testament. And I’m specifically referring to the moral laws, which are still relevant today, and not to the civil and ceremonial laws which were specific to
the Israelites under the Old Covenant.
So what does the Bible really have to say about tattoos? Admittedly not a lot,
although I think some things can be inferred. Let us look at the scriptures
that are given in favor or against tattoos and what they really mean.
Leviticus 19:28 ‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.
Those who are for tattoos will say the prohibition against tattoos was specifically
in regards to worshiping the dead. However, it is presumed here that the tattooing
is in connection with the preceding clause. The argument I have against this is
if the Israelites believed that the prohibition against tattooing was only in
regards for the dead, then why wasn’t it a common practice among them? On the contrary,
they would have seen them as a disfigurement upon God’s handiwork.
Isaiah 44:5 (AMPC) One will say, I am the Lord's; and another one will write [even brand or tattoo] upon his hand, I am the Lords...?
This is one of the verses used to support tattoos, but if it supports
tattoos then wouldn’t it also support branding? I notice that Joyce uses the
AMPC version here which infers a brand or tattoo. However, most other Bible versions
I’ve seen simply say “subscribe” or “write”. The Hebrew word used here is “kathab”.
Looking at its use in the Old Testament it is defined as:
I. to write, record, enrol
A. (Qal)
I. to write,
inscribe, engrave, write in, write on
II. to write down,
describe in writing
III. to register,
enrol, record
IV. to decree
B. (Niphal)
i. to be written
ii. to be written
down, be recorded, be enrolled
(Piel) to continue
writing
The usage then would suggest literal writing as opposed to actual tattooing
or branding. Barnes' Notes on the Bible supports this view:
…The mark, or writing, was not on the hand, but with it - literally, 'and this shall write his hand to Yahweh; 'and the figure is evidently taken from the mode of making a contract or bargain, where the name is subscribed to the instrument. It was a solemn compact or covenant, by which they enrolled themselves among the worshippers of God, and pledged themselves to his service. The manner of a contract among the Hebrews is described in Jeremiah 32:10, Jeremiah 32:12, Jeremiah 32:44. A public, solemn, and recorded covenant, to which the names of princes, Levites, and priests, were subscribed, and which was sealed, by which they bound themselves to the service of God, is mentioned in Nehemiah 9:38. Here it denotes the solemn manner in which they would profess to be worshippers of the true God; and it is expressive of the true nature of a profession of religion. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/44-5.htm
Isaiah 49:16 See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me.
This is another verse that is in use of supporting tattoos, however just because the word “inscribed” is used does not make it an endorsement of
tattoos. The assumption here is that “inscribed”, or in some versions “engraving”,
in this verse is equivalent to marking the skin with ink. If we look at the Hebrew
word used here, “chaqaq”, compared with the Hebrew word "qa`aqa`" in
Leviticus 19:28, they are two separate words and don't mean the same thing.
There’s another assumption here that the verse is literal, and not
employing the use of poetic language to make a point. The point here is that the pagan's would get
tattoos as a sign of devotion to their gods. This would be God's way of
saying then that He was devoted to Israel, even if they had turned away from Him. Thus employing the use of poetic language.
Revelation 19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Joyce Meyer did not use this verse, but I have seen it used before in defense
of tattoos. Here again an assumption is made that it is a tattoo marked directly on
Jesus’ bare thigh. Commentaries, however, say this was not likely on his skin as a tattoo,
but written upon his garment:
"Inscriptions on the outer garments were sometimes used by distinguished personages. -Ellicot's commentary for English readers“And on his garment and (i.e., even) upon his thigh”; on that part of the robe covering his thigh, he has a title of honour written." -Expositor's Greek Testament"on his vesture and on his thigh] i.e, probably, beginning on the lower part of the cloak, and continued where the thigh projected from it as He rode—whether this continuation was on the bare flesh, or (as seems likelier) on the skirt of the tunic." -Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Conclusion:
As mentioned previously, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about
tattoos. None of the scriptures above give an endorsement of tattoos, nor do they explicitly condemn them either (depending how one interprets
Leviticus 19:28). I would, however, offer two primary reasons against tattoos:
The first is that tattoos come out of the pagan world. Pagans are notorious
for disfiguring their bodies through tattoos, cutting, branding, piercing, etc.
Marking the skin was not a common practice among the Israelites or Christians. Oh I’m sure you could find examples of some who did it, just as you can
find examples of apostate Jews and Christians who practiced a deviation of their faith, but it wasn’t a common cultural practice.
The second is that it disfigures the body, which was made in the image
of God. 1 Corinthians 6:19 says, "Or do you not know that your body is the
temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are
not your own?" If the body is a temple, then tattoos would be like putting
graffiti on the side of a church or synagogue.
Tattoos are symbols of the world and carnality. If we accept tattoos
when what will we accept next? Will body modifications and brandings also be acceptable
because they are not expressly condemned in the Bible? Something is wrong when
Christians start acting and looking just like the world. An inward conversion should be expressed by an outward change in our appearance and actions.
Romans 12:1 “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is your true and proper worship.”
