Tag Archives: tattoos

June 13, 2025

Does the Bible Forbid Christians From Getting Tattoos?

By Clarke Morledge

Does the Bible forbid a Christian from getting a tattoo? The answer is a qualified “No,” but it does require some unpacking to explain the qualification.

Tattoos have become increasingly popular, among non-Christians and Christians alike today. But they are controversial. Some say that the Bible is OKAY with tattoos, while others disagree with that. Let us take a look at this controversial topic….

The closest Hebrew word to our English “tattoo” is found only one place in the Bible:

“You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28 ESV).

The Hebrew word transliterated into English as “qa-aqa,” is translated here in the ESV translation as “tattoo,” or in other translations as “tattoo mark” (CSB, NASB, NIV, NRSVue). The NET translation reads this as “incise a tattoo.”1

The Book of Leviticus is often ignored by many Christians, as it has a lot of information about purity rituals and regulations, which tend to bog readers down. But there are insights that we can gain from this book that we can apply to our lives today as Christians.

 

A Fairly Short Look at a Controversial Topic:  Do Tattoos and Christians Mix Well Together?

As with any verse in Scripture, it is crucial to understand the context. Leviticus 19:28 is first and foremost found within the Law of Moses, in a set of prescriptions given to the Israelites as to what they should not do as followers of Yahweh. In the two prior verses, the Israelites are told not to interpret omens or tell fortunes (v. 26) and not to round off the hair on the temples or mar the edges of one’s beard (v.27). Before the mention of “tattoo” in verse 28, the Israelites are told not to make any cuts on the body for the dead.

In view of these various restrictions, some sensible (and some frankly a bit weird … according to modern standards), the context would indicate that these forbidden practices were associated with idolatry. The Israelite people were to worship Yahweh and stay completely away from practices associated with worshipping other gods. Tattoos, apparently, in the world of the ancient Israelite, were somehow linked with idol worship.

The idea of “cutting” the body was associated with the worship of foreign gods in 1 Kings 18:28. It was also forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:1-2, urging faithfulness to the God of Israel instead of worship other gods:

You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

The context for the prescription against tattoos is with respect to avoiding idolatry. Some scholars even suggest that since marking one as a slave is associated with piercing the ear, then this verse also anticipates a movement away from the practice of slavery (Exodus 21:6; Deut. 15:17).2

Since this is the only reference to tattoos in the Bible, there is then no obvious reference to it in the New Testament. One could appeal to Genesis 1:26-28, that humans have been made in God’s image, and therefore tattoos, or any other disfiguration of the body is an insult to the creator. However, this type of appeal has a lot of guesswork to it and few scholars would defend it.

Some might even also cite 1 Corinthians 6:19 to say that our bodies as New Testament believers are a temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as this line of reasoning goes, Christians should not get tattoos. However, the Old Testament temple, which corresponds to this referent in the New Testament, had plenty of images and markings on it, such as cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:29). Therefore, it is difficult to forbid a New Testament “temple” for having a marking on it (the human body), if the Old Testament temple had plenty of markings. Again, this kind of argument against tattoos is difficult to sustain.

Given that Christians today are under the New Covenant, and not the Old Covenant, which is often associated with certain cultic practices and prohibitions associated with ancient Israel, as found in this passage of Leviticus 19, then Christians today are not forbidden to get tattoos.3

Someone put an “agape” tattoo on their arm… Tattoos have been becoming increasingly popular to get, even among Christians. But is it really “OKAY” for a Christian to get a tattoo?

 

Tattoos Today Are Not Prohibited in Principle, But There Are Still Things to Consider Before You Agree to Get One

Some Christians will get “Christian” symbols tattooed on themselves, as a kind of witness for the Christian faith and/or a conversation starter. But physical symbols can easily get misinterpreted.  How does someone know that such symbols really are “Christian” and not something else?

In early 2025, then Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth learned the hard way that tattoos can be interpreted in variety of ways, after being relentlessly grilled during his Senate confirmation hearing. Hegesth has a “Jerusalem Cross” tattooed on his chest, which some critics say is associated with certain white supermacist or otherwise violent extremist groups.  Is it really worth having to go through all of the trouble as to why you wear a controversial tattoo permanently on your body?

The possible association with idolatry is something which every believer should keep in mind. Even though most modern people do not get tattoos in order to declare their allegiance to other gods, some people still associate getting at least certain kinds of tattoos with idolatry.

An extreme example of when getting tattoos crosses the line into idolatry is with gangs. In El Salvador, gangs like MS13 use tattoos (lots of them) as a means of identifying someone as a gang member, where strict allegiance to the game is expected, and gang members often engage in outright Satanic activities. If such is the case, then out of allegiance to Jesus, Christians should not get those types of tattoos. Is it really worth the risk to get a tattoo, if it might lead to some serious confusion which can severely impact your life?

While Christians do have the freedom in Christ to get a tattoo or not get a tattoo, it is important to consider that wearing a tattoo might cause another believer in Jesus to struggle, particularly depending on what kind of tattoo it is. Consider the example of gangs and tattoos again. If a Christian has given up their identity with a gang, in pursuit of following Jesus, then other Christians might want to reconsider getting a tattoo, or if they already have one, they might reconsider public display of their tattoo(s), out of a sense of encouraging a former gang member to wholeheartedly pursue their walk with Jesus. If a Christian does get a tattoo, one might consider placing the tattoo on a part of the body that can be covered with clothing easily, out of respect for others.

Getting a tattoo is not simply about doing something you like. It is also about having wisdom and showing love in your relationships with other people.

Now, time for some full disclosure: Personally, I am no fan of tattoos. I do not find them attractive on a person. I know that getting a tattoo of some sort has become very popular, particularly among younger people. Nevertheless, I really do not understand the appeal for why someone would want to get a tattoo in the first place. But it would be wrong for me to insist that another Christian should not get a tattoo, when the Scriptural support for such a prohibition is rather weak. Simply wanting the Bible to say something does not make it true!

There are probably a lot of other reasons for not getting tattoos that are more practical in nature, that have little to do with Scripture. For example, one should think twice about getting a tattoo, if there is a possibility that several years down the road you might eventually regret having obtained that tattoo. I had a friend once who tattooed the name of his girlfriend on his leg…. then they broke up….. Not a smooth move!!

That is reason enough for me to stay away from tattoos altogether!  Also, there is always some risk with getting a tattoo, from a health perspective, even under the safest conditions.

The bottom line is that getting a tattoo is a matter of the conscience. So, while ultimately, there is no clear moral prohibition against a Christian getting a tattoo, it might not always be the wisest thing to do. Think about what you are getting yourself into before you rush off to get some mark imprinted on yourself.

Notes:

1. This Hebrew word transliterated into English as qa-aqa is notoriously difficult to translate, as it only appears this one time in the Hebrew Bible, and scholars are unsure about its meaning. It is however closely associated with another Hebrew word, transliterated to English as “ke-to-vet,” which means to “imprint” or to “mark.” Bible scholar Chad Bird at 1517.org explains in the following video.↩

2. Richard Hess, Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), p. 754; The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition, notes for Lev. 19:28). John Walton argues that tattoo marks were used to mark someone’s loyalty to a particular god, as we see in various Egyptian mummies. In Mesopotamia, most known tattoos were either slave markings or marks made by priests designating which god they serve. See Walton and Keener, NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, footnote 28 on Leviticus 19. The question about tattoos highlights a lot of issues that can be traced back to how Christians interpret the Book of Leviticus, a topic discussed in the Veracity blog series on Leviticus.  ↩

3.  For a more thorough look at the question of tattoos within the context of the Old Covenant, and how this, and other controversial Levitical regulations relate to Christians today, the following teaching video by Christian apologist Mike Winger from a few years ago might provide some help. Mike Winger is more of a pastor/apologist than an academic Bible scholar, but in this video I think he does a pretty good job laying out the issues, more broadly. As he states in the first few minutes of the video, the division among Christians over tattoos is very concerning, and we should work hard to try to find peace between different Christians who disagree over the topic of tattoos. ↩

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in Topics

April 18, 2025

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Three

By Clarke Morledge

Which parts of the Law of Moses found in the Book of Leviticus are still binding on the Christian today? Christians from diverse traditions debate this most controversial topic. Jonathan Edwards, perhaps America’s greatest theological mind, had this to say:

“There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as stating of the precise agreement and differences between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ.”1

Leviticus is essentially a law book, detailing the specifics of the Old Covenant, which defined the standards for the ancient Israelite community. But what exactly are the elements from that Old Covenant that have been brought forward into New Covenant? And even if particulars of certain Old Covenant regulations from Leviticus are not binding on New Covenant believers, might there still be lessons in Christian obedience to be learned from them today?

Protestant evangelicals are divided on such issues: Is tithing carried forward under the New Covenant?  Does the Bible allow Christians to get tattoos? What about Saturday Sabbath observance? Hebrew Roots Movement enthusiasts bring forward as much from the Old Covenant as they can, even without a standing temple in Jerusalem. Progressive Christians do just the opposite, and jettison as much of the Old Covenant as they can, when certain moral prescriptions are deemed out-of-date. The diversity of such practical applications in interpreting Leviticus can be bewildering.

I came across the teaching of the late Dr. Michael Heiser several years ago, through his Naked Bible Podcast. An expert in Semitic languages and the Old Testament, he did an audio series on the Book of Leviticus, which were transcribed to form the book Notes on Leviticus: From the Naked Bible Podcast. As the author of The Unseen Realm, one of the most groundbreaking books I have read in recent memory, having influence across multiple denominations and Christian traditions, Heiser walks the student of Leviticus through the text in ways that opened up the book for me, with a lens that helps to better understand so many other parts of the Bible. As I have noted at several points, I am not always convinced by Dr. Heiser’s thinking, but he is way far more right than wrong in what he says, and he challenges me to think more deeply on crucial issues concerning the Bible. The tens of thousands of thoughtful Christians who follow Heiser’s YouTube channel surely agree with me.

Heiser’s premise is that Christian readers have often read Leviticus through presuppositions they bring in from their understanding of the New Testament, often confusing things in the process. Alternatively, Heiser proposes that we should learn to read Leviticus from the perspective of an ancient Israelite. What did Leviticus mean to a follower of Yahweh centuries before Jesus came on the scene?

One of the major themes in Leviticus is the concept of atonement. I am publishing this post on Good Friday, which in the Christian calendar commemorates what Jesus accomplished on the cross for us. Many theologians link Good Friday to the concept of atonement, the focus of this final post in this series. But the exact meaning of atonement has stimulated a significant debate among scholars: What does it mean to say that Jesus died for our sins?

On the late Michael Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast, this Old Testament scholar brings out important highlights, accessible to everyday Christians, who want to have a better grasp on Leviticus, one of the least studied, least understood, and least read books in the Old Testament.

Continue reading

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Topics

April 4, 2025

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Two

By Clarke Morledge

A popular online video makes the rounds every now and then with a clip from The West Wing, a political drama television series broadcast from 1999 to 2006. It features a scene where the President of the United States, played by the actor Martin Sheen, has an interaction with either a Jewish or Christian call-in show host, with a PhD, where they have some back and forth regarding the interpretation of the Book of Leviticus, and a few other passages describing particulars of Old Testament Law.

The scene dramatizes a heightened conflict, concerning the instruction in Leviticus 18:22 prohibiting same-sex relations. The President challenges the doctor by quoting select verses, such as Exodus 35:2, which prescribes the death penalty for those who violate the Sabbath. Then there is Leviticus 11:7-8, which forbids an Israelite from touching the dead skin of a pig. Would someone playing football be required to wear gloves to avoid becoming unclean? What about Leviticus 19:19, which forbids planting two different kinds of crops within the same field, and wearing different kinds of fabric in their clothing?

The message of The West Wing video connects with many in our culture today, appealing to both non-believers and progressive Christians alike, who find the regulations described in the Book of Leviticus to be baffling, to say the least, if not overly harsh and rigid. At least on an emotional level, it is difficult to parse out why a prohibition against same-sex relations would be mixed in with odd requirements about not wearing two types of clothing (Leviticus 19:19). If historically-orthodox Christians seem so adamant about defending a definition of marriage restricted to one man and one woman for one lifetime, why is it that they seem so casual about wearing clothing made up of both cotton and polyester, when Leviticus addresses both subjects with disapproval?

Such a posture comes across to many critics today as needlessly judgmental, hypocritical, and not very loving. As a result, many progressive Christians (though not all) would rather lump the Levitical prohibition against same-sex acts in with instructions about not planting two different kinds of crops within the same field: Dismiss both of them!

The non-believer would go further and dismiss the whole Bible as a muddle of contradictions, an outdated moral system stuck in the Late Bronze age. Either way, the conclusion drawn by such critics and skeptics is the same: the regulations in Leviticus as a whole are a bunch of nonsense and no longer apply in today’s world. Get your morality from somewhere else other than Leviticus.

On the late Michael Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast, this Old Testament scholar brings out important highlights, accessible to everyday Christians, who want to have a better grasp on Leviticus, one of the least studied, least understood, and least read books in the Old Testament.

 

Leviticus: An Outdated Relic from the Late Bronze Age?

Frankly, there are many conservative Christians, who while not being persuaded by such an impactful rhetorical argument, simply would not know how to respond to this kind of message. Disagreements between such progressive Christians and non-believers on the one side, and conservative and even moderate Christians on the other, are indeed very difficult to resolve. Is there any way to make sense of Leviticus? What would it have meant to an ancient Israelite many hundreds of years ago? Is there any kind of sensible application to make today for Christians? Or to put it bluntly: Are historically orthodox Christians really hopeless bigots?

I took the time to listen to Dr. Michael Heiser‘s Naked Bible Podcast series, covering the Book of Leviticus. I was surprised to learn that there are indeed ways in which scholars have been able to parse through such difficult texts, and make sense of them. Heiser’s teaching, where the transcripts of these podcasts have been put into book form, Notes on Leviticus: from the Naked Bible Podcast, while not a full-blown verse-by-verse analysis of every sentence in Leviticus, it nevertheless is an in-depth treatment of the Levitical system, exploring the logic of what is what in Leviticus, and what continues to be applicable today (and how) in a New Testament context, and what does not. While not every question I had in mind was answered, I gained a much better perspective as to how the Bible can be read within its historical, cultural context.

 

The Difference Between Ritual Impurity and Moral Impurity, in the Old Testament Jewish Mindset

In the previous post in this series, I reflected on Heiser’s teaching regarding “sacred space,” and the distinction between ritual impurity and moral impurity, despite the fact that both concepts of impurity often share the same language of “clean versus unclean.” Ritual impurities are simply things that happen in the normal course of life, and therefore, are not sinful, whereas moral impurities do qualify as sin, in the New Testament sense. The tabernacle/temple idea in Old Testament Judaism is about defining an area of “sacred space,” where God dwells. For someone to enter this “sacred space,” one needs to be fit to enter it, cleansed from both ritual and moral impurity.

One may easily see that the prohibition against same-sex relations is an example of a moral purity regulation as it is associated with the language of “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). But it is difficult to understand how this relates to commands about mixtures in Leviticus 19:19, just one chapter later:

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

A similar passage is found in Deuteronomy 22:9-11. The New Testament is silent about the Leviticus regulations on mixtures. Some scholars argue that since the prohibition against same-sex relations is repeated in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27), and that the commands against mixtures are not repeated in the New Testament, that the prohibition against same-sex relations is applicable for Christians today but that the commands against mixtures are not. While there is strength to this argument, it does not help us much in understanding why these commands are different from one another. If the commands against mixtures are not related to moral impurity, what about them makes them related to ritual impurity? What is the logic behind both of these regulations: the one concerning homosexual practice and the commands against mixtures?

With respect to homosexuality, it can be easily established that male same-sex relations can imply a role and power imbalance, where one sexual partner dominates and penetrates the other. Outside of ancient Israel, same-sex relations were allowed, with caveats. Heiser notes that same-sex relations were still looked down, but in general, they were not severely punished, in comparison with what is described in the Old Testament. Outside of Israel, homosexual rape was condemned in certain cultures. However, pederasty, where Greek adult men would have sexual relations with younger men, was used as a method of training in the art of war. In this context, homosexual activity was not condemned. Israel was the exception in that all same-sex relations were condemned (Heiser, p. 231ff).

In citing the Jewish Old Testament scholar, Jacob Milgrom, Heiser concludes that homosexual practice goes against the creation order, in that it removes the possibility for procreation. While procreation is not the sole purpose of sex, as texts like the Song of Solomon celebrate human sexuality without reference to procreation, homosexual practice takes the procreative act out of sexual expression. Since the God of Israel is a God of life, to deny procreation from an Old Testament standpoint runs against God’s purposes for human sexuality.

The omission of any reference to lesbianism in the Old Testament is curious. Nevertheless, Paul’s inclusion of a prohibition against lesbian sexual expression in Romans 1:26-27 shows a parallel to male-male sexual relations. As Heiser summarizes:

“These passages are not written so that space is devoted to being mean. They’re written to reinforce a worldview that elevated the production of and care for human life” (Heiser, p. 237).1

The commands which restrict mixtures in Leviticus,about wearing different types of clothing, planting different types of seed in a field, etc., are even more perplexing. Centuries later, in the time of David, the Bible mentions mules, which are bred with a mixture of horse and donkey (1 Kings 1:45-47). But the Bible never has anything negative to say about mules. So, how does a student of Scripture make sense of all of this? Thankfully, recent scholarship, particularly from the eminent Jewish scholar, Jacob Milgrom, which Michael Heiser relates to the reader/listener, can help to sort things out.

Continue reading

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Topics