Tattoos and Christians

Let me start by saying I'm NOT for tattoos. However, there are bigger issues here.

People who oppose tattoos frequently quote Lev. 19:28: “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” If we have to obey Leviticus 19:28, which prohibits tattoos, then we have to obey Leviticus 19:27, which prohibits haircuts. Furthermore, we are obligated to abstain from pork (Deut. 14:8), to abstain from all work between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday (Lev. 23:3), and if anyone does work on the Sabbath, we are required by law to stone him to death (Lev. 15:32-36). We are required to be circumcised (Ge. 17:10-14; Lev. 12:3), and any male who is not is to be cut off from God's people.

I could go on and on. If a Christian wants to use Mosaic Law to make a case against tattoos, then he is obligated to obey the entire law, along with everyone who agrees with him.

Christians constantly stumble over this. What is the place of Mosaic Law in the life of a believer? What about the 10 Commandments? Is the Old Testament still valid? Why do we eat pork and work on Saturdays but oppose murder, homosexuality, adultery, and coveting? Isn't that being selectively obedient?

Read Galatians! (And throw Romans 1-11 in for good measure!)

The Law points to God because it defines sin and reveals the character of God, but it also points us to Christ because it points out our complete inability to conform to the character of God and thus the need for a savior.

Josh McDowell put it best: Every law (precept) is based on an overarching principle, and every principle is based on the person (character) of God Himself. God wants us to conform to His character, and so the logic of the Law.

But as the Bible points out repeatedly, no one is capable of obeying the Law. So what to do?

Christ obeyed the Law perfectly. Christ fulfilled the Law (Mt. 5:17). Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4) and through the New Covenant, made the Old Covenant OBSOLETE (Heb. 8:13).

When a person becomes born again, they are placed in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). All that is Christ's becomes reckoned to the believer: His death, His burial, His resurrection, His righteousness, His sonship, AND his standing in regards to the Law! If I am in Christ, I am regarded as having obeyed the Law - I am JUSTIFIED! Declared RIGHTEOUS!

So why do we obey some laws and ignore others? It's really simpler than it sounds.

Principles never change. They are eternal and based on the character of God. How they are expressed CAN change – significantly. Precepts (laws) are expressions of principles. The principle behind "no tattoos" was separation from the Pagans, since the pagan nations around Israel ritually tattooed themselves. Same principle behind not cutting the hair at the sides of the head (which is why Orthodox Jews have LONG sideburns!). That principle still stands today. God's people are not to imitate the world (!!). If the Pagans were all cutting their sideburns as an expression of their devotion to Baal (or Krom or color TV or whatever) then God's people should not do it. We are to be separate in this sense.

We are still obligated to every principle expressed in the Bible, but not to Mosaic Law. We don't murder because people are created in God's image. That still stands. Homosexuality is wrong because it violates God’s essential design for human sexuality (Ge. 1:27) AND it mars God's picture through marriage of His relationship to the Church. We are still obligated to rest, and to set aside time sacred to God, but it does not have to be restricted to a single day or a specific form of activity. Hebrews tells us that our Salvation is a fulfillment of Sabbath rest! (So when I'm asked which day I celebrate the Sabbath, I respond 'Every day! I'm saved!')

Am I for tattoos? Absolutely not!

They arguably do mar and dishonor the body, though that is up for debate.
They are often a sign of impulsiveness and immaturity.
They are expensive, permanent, and a poor stewardship all the way around (think of how far that money would go in Africa or India).
It would be hard to convince me that a Christian would get one and not be in imitation of the pagans.
I also think they are most often an expression of REBELLION.
If my kid ever gets one I'll kill him!

But you cannot convince me that they are sinful in and of themselves (any more than trimming your sideburns is!) and you CANNOT appeal to Mosaic Law to make your case! (Unless you appeal to it on the basis of the principle it expresses: Separation)

If we're going to argue this stuff, let's argue on sound biblical thought rather than yanking verses out of the air (proof-texting). I could justify almost anything by doing that! There are plenty of good reasons not to get a tattoo without becoming legalists.

Remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free! (Galatians 5:1)

Grace

How is grace different when it comes from God as opposed to coming from us? Is grace only a one way street, are we able to actually give grace back to God? How does grace implicate authority?

Redemption

We're going to talk a little about the concept of 'redemption' on Sunday.

When I was a kid, soda used to come in returnable 10- and 12-ounce bottles, and you could redeem them - that is, take them back to the store for .10 each. The store redeemed them by buying them back.

The theological term is just a little different. It denotes an act that secures the release of a person by paying a ransom.

So here's my question: To whom was the ransom paid that secured our release and so our redemption?

A Word on Application

I had some additional thoughts regarding the idea of practicing and applying what we are learning...

It seemed to me that there was a little bit of struggle with practical application yesterday. People were putting up some good stuff, but there was a decent amount of more theoretical stuff as well. What I mean by that is, saying things like "we need to share the gospel with pagans" rather than "I need to do such and such..."

It can get tricky.

Taking Paul's point about the wrath of God being justified against the moralist as an example, to apply the actual point of the passage is a bit difficult. Essentially, a "pure" application of that passage would involve the way I communicate to moralists. After all, that is what Paul was doing at that point in his diatribe.

What if I don't run into any moralists for a month? What if I do, but am not in a position to communicate with them at that level?

The application I suggested yesterday for that point was actually more indirect and derivative. It was attempting to see where I am a moralist. That is not the point of the passage, and too often I have seen Scripture used (or misuesd) to teach in that very way. A person might teach against Christians acting like moralists by using Romans 2, when that is not what the passage is trying to communicate. There are other passages for that, and a teacher who wants to communicate that point ought to use them.

Nonetheless, when the application is more intangible, I do believe it is legitimate to apply a derivative point, such as the one I suggested. Paul was talking about the problems that moralists have - a HUGE blind spot to their need for the gospel - but moralism can creep into the life of the believer if one is not careful, and Paul's point is an occasion to ask myself questions.

Does that make any sense?

Steve

The importance of Jews to us as Gentiles?

A question came to me this Sunday in the Young Adults' Roman's class:
what are the benefits of hearing the problems & instructions Paul has to say to Jews, if we are not Jews ourselves?

Of course, it helps us to see the whole story of the Jews from the beginning to present. It also can be applicable to us because we have been grafted into Abrahams family tree. Sometimes its even important to understand them, because we may struggle with the same things... but do more reasons remain that God would address the Jews & expect us Gentiles to learn from it??