Leviticus 19--Tattoos

Musings on Tattoos and Head Coverings

I was chatting with some friends last night about tattoos. One friend definitely felt the Bible prohibited tattoos, and I was less sure. This morning, I dug up the passage in Leviticus. Just documenting my email ramblings:

Here's the passage, followed by my musings on the topic:

"But in the fifth year you may eat of its fruit, to increase its yield for you: I am the LORD your God. You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD. Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land become full of depravity. You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:25-31

From just a brief search of Christian commentary on the issue, I think you could make an argument either way. The "for" allowing tattoo folks emphasize the larger context of this verse and argue this was a ceremonial law (like using mixed fibers or eating meat with blood in it) and that the prohibition is no longer relevant.

They emphasize that during this period of history, there was a need for the Israelites to differentiate and separate themselves from the customs of pagan nations. They argue that tattooing is no longer strongly tied to being a pagan (nor is rounding the corners of beards), so it is permissible.

The "against" position notes the other part of the verse is against "cutting," and they feel that that tattooing is another form of bodily mutilation. They emphasize that most of the prohibitions in this chapter are moral, NOT ceremonial, in nature.

It mainly boils down to the "ceremonial" vs. "moral" issue. Last year, I was reading 1 Corinthians 11 and found myself struggling with that passage about women covering their heads in church. My knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss that kind of literalism as no longer culturally relevant, but I stewed over that passage for weeks. Truthfully, I was getting scared because I was seriously thinking I might have to purchase a head covering and struggled with how bizarre I would feel! Anyway, the Lord finally resolved that one for me (as you can see, I am blissfully cover free ; )).

Having said that, I also think of how the prophets were instructed to do some pretty bizarre publicly humiliating things that differentiated themselves. And, I think we are a rather willful culture that generally shuns humility and bucks against personal restriction.

It is a tricky thing---the issue of what is "morally" modest does seem to change over time (women covering their heads, women wearing pants, skirt length, men with long hair, etc.)

What do I make of it all? Honestly, the waters are muddy for me. I dislike the legalism that has always infiltrated the church (from Pharisaical Jews of Christ's era, to the mystical high legalism of Catholicism, or the countrified "Southern Baptist" legalism of hair length and not mowing the lawn on Sunday). All seem to miss the bigger heart issues for the trappings of faith, and I think Christ's emphasis on the heart is very clear.

I am particular about modest dress for women, especially in church. I think immodest dress can be distracting, but then again, would a Victorian church member argue that showing an ankle in church is distracting? Would a woman of two generations ago insist upon women wearing hats and a skirt but not pants? It's hard to reconcile it all, but good food for thought in discussions with our children and other Christians.