To read original post click HERE

Dear Woody,

Thank you for taking the time to read the article, Tattoo You? , by Rev. Steve Schlissel. You did read the article, right? Be that as it may, I have, as you requested, taken time to consider the points you put forward in defense of Christians receiving tattoos.

First let me say that I bet I’m a year or two older than you. My humble experience has taught me that when I suggest that another brother in Christ is wrong because he doesn’t know what the Bible says, it is usually I who ends up with egg on my face. Show me a false conclusion, a superficial premise, or a logical fallacy but don’t sophomorically suggest that I don’t know the material being debated.

You raise the question: "Who are you to say that the law banning pagan tattoos is not one of the laws that was voided?"

I, sir, am as you are – a fellow heir of the reigning King of the universe and, as one of His Royal Priests, am thus commissioned to know and bring to bear the Law of God in every sphere of influence He has given me stewardship.

Unfortunately, the issue of applying Biblical Law to today’s society is not a cut and dry, black and white process.

Before we can begin to distinguish between those statutes that have been superceded vs. those still in force, we must identify two prevailing methods of biblical interpretation in force today.

Dispensationalism takes the position that the statutes of the OT are all abrogated unless reaffirmed or restated in the NT.

Covenantalism takes the position that the statues of the OT remain in force unless specifically repealed in the NT.

For example, both positions agree that the sacrificial statutes are no longer in force since they have been specifically repealed and have not be re-introduced by the NT.

Woody, you write, "One of the Old Testament laws was that you could not touch the corpse of dead person. Clearly this law is not in effect anymore." Your statement suggests that you are reasoning from the dispensationalist point of view. From that view, since the statute that prohibits touching a dead corpse was not repeated in the NT it must not be in effect.

This line of reasoning tells us that since the statutes prohibiting bestiality are not restated in the NT then it is OK for Christians to practice bestiality. I think you would agree that such a line of thinking is absurd. But if you do agree that Christians are prohibited from practicing bestiality then I must ask you on what basis does a Christian reprove another who practices bestiality? Jesus had nothing to say about bestiality!!

Another issue to be considered is the very nature of the statutes of Biblical Law. The common and modern view is that each statute (you said there are 613 of them) stand on their own and are disconnected from the others unless specifically stated. The historic view is that each statute stands in the context of the original 10 Commandments and gains their authority from that context. Thus the Law of God consists of the 10 Commandments and the subsequent statutes are more correctly thought of as case law whose purpose is to define the practical application of the original 10.

For example, the ceremonial laws were given to Israel for the purpose of specifically defining how God’s people are to obey the 1st Commandment.

Accordingly, the statute prohibiting the Israelites from receiving the marks of pagan tribes must be understood and applied in the context of the 10 Commandments.

Ideas do have consequences. The modern practice of sacrificing holiness on the alter of evangelism, because "if we don’t get them saved then nobody else is going to do it," has ripped the Church of its last vestiges of salt and light. The idea that the salt must become like pepper in order for the pepper to become salt is absurd and denies the very words of our Lord.

Because the Church has forsaken the calling of holiness she has failed to teach her constituents the eternal significance of her signs of covenant: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Because Christians don't cherish Baptism as the eternal covenantal mark of bondage to Jesus Christ they therefore see no significance in receiving the marks of other covenants on their bodies.

If I was a "Left Behind" follower, I would suggest that the wide spread acceptance of tattooing by this generation’s Christian is simply paving the way for the next generation to receive the mark of the beast without giving it a second thought.

Woody, thanks for taking time to read what I have said, and "hopefully you will see what God's Word truly says about tattoos."

For the Crown rights of King Jesus,

Pat Hurd




Patrick L. Hurd
Weatherford, Texas

EST. 01/01/01

 Home     Family    Education     Courtship    Culture   Theology     Reviews     Quotes
Humor    Guest Book   Favorite Sites    Talking Back    Family Photos    Latest Changes