Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe the above verse teachings tattoos are wrong for the child of God?

    • Yes its 100% wrong
      22
    • No there is nothing wrong with tattos
      2
    • I'm not sure
      1
    • Maybe its OK for some, wrong for others
      1


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

John81 I did honor my dad by not getting pierced ears until I had been married about 3 years and my husband said it was fine. :-) I am sure he was not greatly offended...after all, there are a few personal standards that we hold higher than he does, so its just one of those things.

  • Members
Posted (edited)

As long as she was alive, none of the girls or women in her family (including grandchildren) pierced their ears, because we did not want to grieve her. After she passed away, however, we eventually did pierce our ears (not all at once, or with the attitude of "woohoo! we finally get to pierce our ears!"). I think it's fine to choose to honor someone's memory by abiding by their words after they pass away, but at the same time, I do not think it is necessarily dishonorable if you don't.


Ms Annie:

Well, I guess it's a rather benign thing to do, really.

In the context of personal preference about something they feel is a bit classy and tasteful.

(But what do I know?)


John81 I did honor my dad by not getting pierced ears until I had been married about 3 years and my husband said it was fine. :-) I am sure he was not greatly offended...after all, there are a few personal standards that we hold higher than he does, so its just one of those things.


Ms Kitagrl: Some preachers' wives might even have 2 in each ear, so I doubt whether hardly anyone would give you much grief over singles, done with dh's blessing. Edited by farouk
  • Members
Posted


I sympathize with this perspective, John. However, I have told my children that when they are grown and on their own, they must make their own decisions for themselves and their families regarding applications of biblical principles. I am also teaching them deference, as my parents taught me. My grandmother believed that it was wrong for women to pierce their ears (not because of this verse, but because it was associated with prostitution and worldliness in her opinion). As long as she was alive, none of the girls or women in her family (including grandchildren) pierced their ears, because we did not want to grieve her. After she passed away, however, we eventually did pierce our ears (not all at once, or with the attitude of "woohoo! we finally get to pierce our ears!"). I think it's fine to choose to honor someone's memory by abiding by their words after they pass away, but at the same time, I do not think it is necessarily dishonorable if you don't.

As you say, you are teaching your children differently. There is the difference. As example, with my own situation, if my Mom had simply said, these are things I wouldn't want to see you do but it will be your choice when you are older (or something to that effect), then there would be an open door to act differently at some point if I decided too. However, in my situation, my Mom gave specific indications and for me, I believe I should keep them even though she has passed.

As I said, I was speaking in a general sense. How things are put forth in different families will vary greatly.
  • Members
Posted

John81 I did honor my dad by not getting pierced ears until I had been married about 3 years and my husband said it was fine. :-) I am sure he was not greatly offended...after all, there are a few personal standards that we hold higher than he does, so its just one of those things.

As I said, I wasn't speaking specifically to your situation.

For myself, even if my wife said it was okay to go against what my Mom stated years ago, I would not.
  • Members
Posted (edited)

I do not think these verses apply to today. I don't think it is always wise to get a tattoo, but I don't think you can say that it is wrong either based upon Scripture.

1) This is uner the Old Testament law. How many other laws in Leviticus to you stritly follow today?
Don't let cattle breed with other types of cattle. (Leviticus 19:19) Do you make sure that the beef you buy is purebred???

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Do you know where the crops grow that produce your food? Do you grow vegitables together in your garden?

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) Do you wear clothes that are bleded fabric? Have you repented for doing so

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) Do you strictly follow the hair guidelines here?

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) Do we need to start telling husbands and wives when they can and cannot have sex?

Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may® approach to offer the bread of his God. 18For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man(S) blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face(T) or a limb too long, 19or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a(U) defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or(V) crushed testicles. 21No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to(W) offer the LORD’s food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. (Leviticus 21:17-18) Do we let people with "blemishes" join in Communion? Should we?

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) Hmmmm....this verse sounds kind of like radical Islam. Should we stone those who oppose God?


All I am pointintg out is that Leviticus law was for a specific time and specific Jewish culture. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, and we are living under the New Covenant. If you say that the verse prohibits tattoos today, then you must say that all of the other Leviticus laws apply today as well. If you say that, then I can respect your position, but if not, I do not know how you can pick and choose which ones apply and which ones do not apply.

If it is wrong to get tattoos based on this verse, it is also wrong to cross breed cattle, have sex with a woman while on her period (I have never heard that preached in a church), and we must stone those who blaspheme God.

2) Nowhere does the New Testament address tattoos.

Because of this, I think this comes within individual liberty. It is not necessarily right or wrong. What is important is that each person try to follow God withtheir hearts, souls and minds, and love their neighbor as themselves.

Of course, some here will say I am just ignorming God and what he says. That is not the case. I am pointing out that if that verse applies to tattoos today, then the remainder of the Levitical law must be strictly followed, and I am wondering if anyone here beleives that is the case.

Edited by kindofblue1977
  • Members
Posted (edited)

... I am pointing out that if that verse applies to tattoos today, then the remainder of the Levitical law must be strictly followed, and I am wondering if anyone here beleives that is the case.


kindofblue1977:

The same passage talks about not trimming the corner of beards. How many preachers shave?

And then there is Peter's vision in Acts about was previously considered unclean, being no longer so.

(If you see what I mean?)

I'm not saying, go get a tattoo.

But from an exegetical point of view there should be consistency. Edited by farouk
  • Administrators
Posted

The consistency comes in when we realize that much of the Levitical law was a law of separation from the pagans and their practices, or just the lesson of separation, period. Separation is absolutely carried over in the NT. No, things aren't listed 1,2,3 as in the law, but God makes it plain we are to be separate from the world's philosophy and the practices which emanate therefrom.

As I've stated in other posts, this verse really can't be used to say it's absolutely meaning tats (simply for the reason, as noted, that it is under the Mosaic law). But the principle encased therein, coupled with NT scripture about separation, can certainly be applied to the matter.

I do believe it falls into the area of liberty...but so close to the edge as to be almost license, because of scriptural warnings about separation.

  • Members
Posted

The consistency comes in when we realize that much of the Levitical law was a law of separation from the pagans and their practices, or just the lesson of separation, period. Separation is absolutely carried over in the NT. No, things aren't listed 1,2,3 as in the law, but God makes it plain we are to be separate from the world's philosophy and the practices which emanate therefrom.

As I've stated in other posts, this verse really can't be used to say it's absolutely meaning tats (simply for the reason, as noted, that it is under the Mosaic law). But the principle encased therein, coupled with NT scripture about separation, can certainly be applied to the matter.


Happy Christian:

Yes, I certainly agree with you — very strongly, in fact — about the carrying over of the separation principle into the NT. 100%.

What I don't think I would say to someone, is something like: "Great you are saved but you shouldn't have gotten saved when you did because I disagree with one of the links in the chain." Because God does use crooked sticks to draw straight lines, sometimes.

Blessings.
  • Administrators
Posted



Happy Christian:

Yes, I certainly agree with you — very strongly, in fact — about the carrying over of the separation principle into the NT. 100%.

What I don't think I would say to someone, is something like: "Great you are saved but you shouldn't have gotten saved when you did because I disagree with one of the links in the chain." Because God does use crooked sticks to draw straight lines, sometimes.

Blessings.

I honestly don't think anyone is saying that a person shouldn't have gotten saved when they did! Personally, I'm thrilled whenever anyone gets saved. Whether they are covered in tats or not! :thumb:
  • Members
Posted


I honestly don't think anyone is saying that a person shouldn't have gotten saved when they did! Personally, I'm thrilled whenever anyone gets saved. Whether they are covered in tats or not! :thumb:


Happy Christian:

Hi again.

Good post! Amen; exactly. :)
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members
Posted

So far.


Yes its 100% wrong (18 votes [85.71%])

No there is nothing wrong with tattos (2 votes [9.52%])

I'm not sure (0 votes [0.00%])Maybe its OK for some, wrong for others (1 votes [4.76%])

I'm not suprised that 85.71 % says its wrong, for the Bible is very clear.

  • Members
Posted

...

Because of this, I think this comes within individual liberty. It is not necessarily right or wrong. What is important is that each person try to follow God withtheir hearts, souls and minds, and love their neighbor as themselves.

Of course, some here will say I am just ignorming God and what he says. That is not the case. I am pointing out that if that verse applies to tattoos today, then the remainder of the Levitical law must be strictly followed, and I am wondering if anyone here beleives that is the case.


kindofblue1977:

Maybe there needs to be distinction between, for the New Testament believer in a different situation from Old Testament saints,

i) what is strictly a matter of right and wrong, period.

ii) what may from an ideal point of view be often highly unsuitable.

They may amount to much the same thing from a practical point of view. But, then, many born again people are from a Gentile background anyway.

I think from an exegetical point of view Peter's vision in Acts is significant in a general sense, not that I'm promoting tattoos.
  • Moderators
Posted

I think from an exegetical point of view Peter's vision in Acts is significant in a general sense, not that I'm promoting tattoos.


Are you sure? Because it rather seems like you are...
  • Members
Posted (edited)



Are you sure? Because it rather seems like you are...


salyan:

No, Peter's vision isn't dealing directly with tattoos at all.

My point was a broader exegetical one.

The New Testament believer is not under the Old Testament law. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. If we are under grace, yet want to use things which related to Old Testament Jews in the land under the law, then we better also impose sanctions on preachers who shave (the same Leviticus passage about 'cutting for the dead' - which is sometimes taken rather broadly to be about tattoos, supposedly - also refers to not trimming the corners of beards); we better also go execute baptists who go to Red Lobster after the Sunday service, etc.

My concern is, that, in eagerness to go against something which may be unsuitable, we undermine the broader interpretational framework which baptists and other Christians use in order to distinguish the great doctrines of grace, the Gospel, New Testament relations with the Old, the church and Israel, etc.

So now it's clearer? Edited by farouk

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...