To perface, I'm not referring to Christians who have gotten tattoos before becoming Christians, but Christians getting them after they've been saved. I'm going to err on the side of Christians not getting tattoos, and I'll explain why. As always, I will defer to the Bible, which admittedly doesn't have much to say about tattoos, though I believe some things can be inferred. But let's look at the scriptures that have been given both for and against tattoos, starting with the one most cited:
Those who are for tattoos will say the prohibition against tattoos was specifically in regards to worshiping the dead. However, this presumes that the preceding clause about the dead is connected with tattooing, which may not be the case. The argument against this is that if the Hebrews believed that the prohibition against tattooing was only in regards to the dead, then why wasn’t it a common practice among them? On the contrary, it would have seen as a defilement of God’s handiwork.
This is one of the verses used to support tattoos, but if it supports tattoos, then wouldn’t it also support branding? The AMPC version here infers a brand or tattoo. However, most versions simply say “subscribe” or "write." The Hebrew word used here is "kathab." Looking at the usage in the Old Testament, it's defined as:
The usage then would suggest literal writing as opposed to tattooing or branding. Barnes' Notes on the Bible supports this view:
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. But 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 with different meanings.
There’s also the assumption that this verse is literal and not figurative. It could very well be the use of poetic language to make a point. Pagan's would often get tattoos as a sign of devotion to their gods. Here, God could be employing poetic language as a way of saying that He was devoted to Israel, even if they had turned away from Him.
Revelation 19:16 is a scripture used in support of tattoos. There is the assumption that there is a litteral tattoo marked directly on Jesus’ bare thigh. However, commentaries suggest that it is not likely on his skin but written upon his garment:
To reiterate what's been covered, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about tattoos one way or the other. 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 Christians getting tattoos.
The first is that marking the skin was not a common practice among the Israelites or Christians. Tattoos come from the pagan world. Pagans are notorious for disfiguring their bodies through tattoos, cutting, branding, piercing, etc. Tattoos are rooted in their spiritual and religious practices. At other times, tattoos were used to mark slaves or mark criminals as outcasts or a sign of disgrace. It's not a coincidence that tattoos are prevalent among criminals and prisoners to this day, who are often devoid of anything Godly.
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 akin to putting graffiti on the side of a church or synagogue.
Tattoos are ultimately symbols of the world and carnality. If tattoos are acceptable, then it becomes easier to accept things like body modifications and brandings. Where is the line drawn? If Christians look and act just like the world, something is wrong. We are in the world, but we are not of it. I will leave you with this verse that sums up my position:
Those who are for tattoos will say the prohibition against tattoos was specifically in regards to worshiping the dead. However, this presumes that the preceding clause about the dead is connected with tattooing, which may not be the case. The argument against this is that if the Hebrews believed that the prohibition against tattooing was only in regards to the dead, then why wasn’t it a common practice among them? On the contrary, it would have seen as a defilement of God’s handiwork.
This is one of the verses used to support tattoos, but if it supports tattoos, then wouldn’t it also support branding? The AMPC version here infers a brand or tattoo. However, most versions simply say “subscribe” or "write." The Hebrew word used here is "kathab." Looking at the usage in the Old Testament, it's defined as:
The usage then would suggest literal writing as opposed to tattooing or branding. Barnes' Notes on the Bible supports this view:
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. But 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 with different meanings.
There’s also the assumption that this verse is literal and not figurative. It could very well be the use of poetic language to make a point. Pagan's would often get tattoos as a sign of devotion to their gods. Here, God could be employing poetic language as a way of saying that He was devoted to Israel, even if they had turned away from Him.
Revelation 19:16 is a scripture used in support of tattoos. There is the assumption that there is a litteral tattoo marked directly on Jesus’ bare thigh. However, commentaries suggest that it is not likely on his skin but written upon his garment:
To reiterate what's been covered, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about tattoos one way or the other. 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 Christians getting tattoos.
The first is that marking the skin was not a common practice among the Israelites or Christians. Tattoos come from the pagan world. Pagans are notorious for disfiguring their bodies through tattoos, cutting, branding, piercing, etc. Tattoos are rooted in their spiritual and religious practices. At other times, tattoos were used to mark slaves or mark criminals as outcasts or a sign of disgrace. It's not a coincidence that tattoos are prevalent among criminals and prisoners to this day, who are often devoid of anything Godly.
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 akin to putting graffiti on the side of a church or synagogue.
Tattoos are ultimately symbols of the world and carnality. If tattoos are acceptable, then it becomes easier to accept things like body modifications and brandings. Where is the line drawn? If Christians look and act just like the world, something is wrong. We are in the world, but we are not of it. I will leave you with this verse that sums up my position:
