What about tattoos? Are they a sin?

Q: I just now listened to Pastor Randy's sermon from May 23, and he mentioned tattoos as being something that are widely recognized now as not being a sin. I have a tattoo from before I was a believer, and don't hold it against anybody …, but have been struggling with the desire to get another. Pastor Randy said our first question should be whether or not it is a sin according to God, and in Leviticus it says that we should not get tattoos. I have heard rationalizations that he meant that only as it relates to getting a tattoo to honor the dead, but is that just a rationalization? [Does that mean that] any tattoo, no matter what the reason, is a sin? Or was it specifically relating to doing it to honor the dead? I realize that beyond this question I am having an issue with my own conscience and doubts, so I shouldn't be getting a tattoo right now anyways, but I am and have always wondered if it's truly a sin, or just a matter of what some recognize as a freedom or not. Thank you!

A: This is a great question! It shows that you are wrestling with some of the larger issues involved and recognize both the freedom we have in making choices and the ramifications of those choices. You ask about tattoos, but really the question is how we can know if a personal decision we make is right or merely a rationalization. The fact that you are asking questions like this gives me confidence in your discernment.

Let’s first take a look at tattoos from the perspective of what the Bible says, and what our Christian tradition/culture contributes and then address four key areas that apply to your question.

Bible: Tattoos were originally proscribed in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:28 the only place they are mentioned in the Bible. [No, this does not only apply to tattoos honoring the dead.] Tattoos were one of the pagan religious practices that Israel was forbidden to participate in. They were supposed to be holy, different from the other nations, and they were supposed to worship the One True God differently than the pagans worshipped their idols.

This command was part of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel. So does this command apply to us today? Yes and no. In their classic book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, authors Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart make the statement, “All of the Old Testament law is still the Word of God for us even though it is not still the command of God to us…Only that which is explicitly renewed from the Old Testament law can be considered part of the New Testament ‘law of Christ’…”

So for the Christian there are no explicit Biblical commands that forbid tattoos. However, there are a number of implicit Biblical principles that we should consider.

Christian tradition & culture: Tattoos have always been taboo in the church as a defilement of the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Historically tattoos have maintained their close ties with the various forms of idolatry as people mark their bodies with images of their gods. It is true that “Christian tattoos” have become more popular in recent years and for people who already have tattoos before becoming a Christian it is often a personal declaration that now they serve a new master…Jesus Christ and not the dragon/ demon/ snake/ music/ sex/ alcohol that they used to. Interestingly, Keil & Delitzsch in their 19th century commentary on Leviticus 19 minimize the anti-idolatry connection and point out that it was a command designed to preserve a proper reverence for creation [as the work of God].

Here are a few other issues that I would suggest that you to consider as you try to sort out whether to get another tattoo in the future:

• Beauty…where does it come from and in whose eyes do we desire to be beautiful? While I would agree that some tattoos look cool, many don’t. The Bible talks to us about where our beauty is to come from in 1 Peter 3:3-5 “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” This passage is not a prohibition against external attractiveness, but a value statement on the source of adornment. Jewelry, hairstyles, etc. are not what make us beautiful to God. He values the inner beauty of a changed heart and a fully surrendered will that work their way to the outside of us and have a positive effect on those around us.
• Message…what message do tattoos send? This area is the most inconclusive in our discussion, as it seems that it would depend on the type and location of any tattoos we might have. Even though tattoos are popular right now, that doesn’t mean they communicate the right message…or why are some lower-back tattoos commonly called “tramp stamps”? Do tattoos honor God’s awesome creation, recognizing that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), or do they express disregard for His work or dissatisfaction with ourselves? Can a tattoo be an evangelistic conversation starter? Can they serve as reminders for us to stay true to Jesus like some kind of permanent WWJD bracelet? Yes, but is it the best approach for us? Will it still be the best approach in 40 years? Is it the one God wants to use?
• Ownership…if we are going to be a billboard or a human graffiti wall we would do well to ask who owns the billboard or wall before we start. Do we really belong to ourselves? The Bible says that if we are in Christ, we have been bought with a price, we are no longer our own. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) So why would we put a tattoo on a body that doesn’t really belong to us anymore? So for a Christian to get a tattoo is kind of like painting graffiti on your boss’ front door. Unless He has clearly commissioned you to do it ahead of time, it is not something I would recommend. The problem is we often don’t stop to ask anymore. What I like about your question is you seem to be asking!
• Self-will… while this is related to ownership I think deserves special mention. When we look at the people in the Bible who invited God’s wrath, by their actions and attitudes, it seems that most of the time it involves self-will. Even if they were not intentionally rebellious, they lived with no consciousness of God in their lives. They didn’t ask God for direction, or permission, they just did what they wanted with no thought to the consequences. I may be making a logical leap here, but this behavior is prevalent in our culture today. Even if we believe that God exists, we often live practically as though He didn’t exist. The cultural acceptance of tattooing seems right in line with that thinking. “It’s my body and I can do what I want!” But is it? Can we? Should we?

In Romans 14 Paul wrestles with these very questions (the controversy of that day was whether to eat and drink what had been offered to idols). He considers how the decision will affect others and concludes, “But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23).

I hope these principles will be helpful in more ways than deciding about a tattoo.

What About Glenn Beck? Is the church supporting his "Restoring Honor Movement?

Q: We have been following Glenn Beck's Faith, Hope & Charity, Restoring Honor Movement. He spoke of the "Black Robe Brigade" where leaders of faith from all religions are coming together to restore honor with the understanding that honor requires faith. Faith in something larger and more powerful than ourselves with an emphasis on salvation being "individual" and not "collective". We were curious if our church is supporting this movement?

A: This is a hard question to answer. On a personal level I must say that I enjoy watching Glenn Beck’s program. Far from being the “hate-monger” his critics make him out to be, he is a passionate believer in small government, conservative fiscal policies, and authorial intent when considering the constitution. I am encouraged by his “civics” approach to communicating his message. A history lesson is always a good thing…right? What I have heard him say about the "Faith, Hope & Charity" theme is solid and quite ingenious. Where I begin to have a problem is with the syncretistic (a blending of different elements from different religions) nature of his theology. It seems that he quotes the Bible frequently and with good effect, yet as a Mormon he has a whole different take on the message of the Bible and the nature of “faith”. As an “edu-tainer” in the area of history, civic responsibility, and political theory, and insightful political commentary I think he is a very positive influence. However, I do not see him as a spiritual leader, or Christian evangelist who brings true revival.

On the level of whether “our church is supporting this movement” I would have to say no, and yes. If by the “church” you are asking if we as pastors and leaders of this congregation (Beaverton Foursquare) are joining ourselves with Beck in his ecumenical, syncretistic, quasi-religious political revival, then the answer is no. It is not our calling from God. The gospel that we preach is simply “Christ and him crucified”, not some kind of political reformation. However, if by “church” you mean the people that gather here regularly to worship God and be instructed in the Bible, and then go into the marketplace, the schools, the community to be salt and light…then I am sure that some of them are supporting Beck’s movement. There may be many that listen to or watch his programs, there may be some that attend his rallies, but I hope that they are discerning enough to separate his conservative historical/political teachings from his progressive religious statements.

Here is a link to a recent article on this subject: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17113

What about Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-8?

Q: There are a few places in Scripture where the footnotes indicate that not all the ancient manuscripts agree on the wording, or even that it's found in Scripture. Prominent in my head are the end of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Because these are not consistently found in those manuscripts, is there any reason to think they are less legitimate?

A: Another good question Ken. There are very few disputed sections of scripture. Here you mention certainly the two largest and most well known. In such cases it is good to investigate why translators have questions about the text. When compared to the entire body of scripture the number of scribal errors and textual variants is extremely small. It is also good to note that none of these passages affects any major doctrine of the Christian faith. With the two passages you mention, there is very little doubt that they were not originally park of the writing of Mark or John, however that does not necessarily call into question their validity. A good conservative Bible commentary or two [such as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary series (EBC), The New International Commentary of the New Testament (NIC-NT)] should provide helpful insight. Let’s look at them separately via some commentary quotes:

John 8:1-11.
“Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the original text of this Gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the Gospel that precede the sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. To say that it does not belong in the Gospel is not identical with rejecting it as unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus. It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text.” (Merrill C. Tenney, in EBC)

“But if we cannot feel that this story is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been composed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though it may not be an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient.” (Leon Morris in NIC-NT)

Mark 16:9-20
   “As regards the Longer Ending itself, it may be roughly described as showing knowledge of the subject-matter of John 20, the story of Mary Magdalene, along with that of Luke 24, the Emmaus Road, and Matthew 28, the great commission.

   It is, in fact, a short harmony of resurrection appearances, a skeleton which can easily be filled in from the other Gospel narratives….

   Therefore it seems reasonable to see this as an early attempt, known at least as early as Irenaeus, to ‘round off’ a Gospel whose original ending has become in some way maimed or lost; that several such attempts were made is obvious from the different versions circulating…

   What, then, is the theological value of the Longer Ending? It may be compared with the story of the woman taken in adultery, in John viii, as an example of an early tradition which may very well be genuine and is undoubtedly primitive, but does not belong to the actual Gospel text as it stand. In the case of the Marcan ending we can go further; the contents are in any case evangelical, even if perhaps derived from other Evangels, and there is always the strong likelihood that this is an ‘official ending’, subjoined to a sort of ‘second addition’ of Mark. We know so very little about the actual circumstances of the primary composition and first written forms of the Gospel that it is unwise to be dogmatic. We shall therefore comment briefly upon it…However, it would be unwise to build any theological position upon these verses alone; and this no responsible Christian group has done. (R. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, pp. 258-9.)

“The break in the continuity of the narrative seems to indicate that vv. 9-20 were not originally a part of Mark's Gospel but are rather a summary of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus composed independently…

The Gospel of Mark has four different endings, but only two of them have any significant claim to being authentic: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel with v. 8 and (2) the so-called Longer Ending (vv. 9-20)…

External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark. One further question arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his Gospel at 16:8? If he did not, then either (1) the Gospel was never completed, or (2) the last page was lost before it was multiplied by copyists.

Although there are staunch supporters of the view that it was Mark's intention to end his Gospel with 16:8, this view does not adequately explain (1) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of both the Shorter and Longer endings; (2) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid (even allowing for Mark's emphasis on the awesomeness and mystery of Christ's person); and (3) why there is no recorded fulfillment of Jesus' promised post-resurrection appearance in Galilee to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).

Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking.” (Walter W. Wessell in EBC)

So Ken, I hope that helps!

How is the Holy Spirit different in the New Testament?

Q: In John 7, John says that the Holy Spirit will come to those who believe, but "the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified" (v.39) How does this differ from the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament? And does this indicate that the Spirit took a sabbatical prior to Jesus' arrival?

A: Ken, good question about the difference of the Holy Spirit’s interaction with people in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Of course the Holy Spirit doesn’t change but there is a big difference in how he operates in our lives. In the OT, we see the Holy Spirit “coming upon” people to power them to feats of strength and valor, or to allow them to speak prophetically. However, these occurrences on the whole seem situational and temporary. The OT prophets repeatedly speak of a time in the future when the Holy Spirit would be poured out on “all flesh” (e.g., Joel 2:28-29). A much more universal (among believers) and permanent relationship. Jesus’ teaching in John makes it clear that the Holy Spirit will indwell as well as empower believers to be and to do what Jesus has asked them to do.

Space prohibits my listing all that he does in and through Christians today, so I would suggest that you get a good theology book (Duffield & VanCleave, Grudem, Erickson, etc.) and do some focused reading on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He is so important to the life of all Christians, and yet so often we just don’t understand who he is or what he does. I, or any of our pastors, would also be glad to speak to you personally on this subject.

Why do we stretch out our hand towards a baby that is being dedicated?

Q: When Pastor Randy does a baby dedication (and sometimes in other prayer situations), he asks the congregation members to reach out their hands toward the family. Can you explain why he makes that request, and what it signifies?

A: Great question! In the Bible, the traditional way of passing on a blessing from father to son was through the laying on of hands. The father would place his hand on the son that he was blessing and then would speak a blessing over them. There was even a priority given to the blessing of the right hand over the left hand (Genesis 48:14). The laying on of hands idea also seems to have been adapted to large group settings where the hands would simply be raised towards the one being blessed. Here are a few examples from the Bible:

• When Aaron the High Priest of Israel blessed the people he did it by lifting up his hands towards them and speaking the blessing (Lev. 9:22).
• In Nehemiah 8:6, when Ezra read the law and blessed the LORD (Yahweh) before the people they answered, “’Amen, amen’, lifting up their hands.”
• When parents brought their children to Jesus seeking a blessing, He took them in his arms and blessed them laying his hands on them (Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16).
• Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, He lifted up his hands and blessed his followers (Luke 24:50).
• The custom of laying hands on those to be blessed or commissioned was continued in the early church in when seven men, full of the Holy Spirit were chosen then commissioned as “deacons” (Acts 6:6) to care for the needs of the church.
• The people of Samaria received the Holy Spirit after hands were laid on them (Acts 8:17).
• Paul and Barnabas were commissioned and sent out by the elders at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
• Paul laid hands on some disciples at Ephesus and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:6)
• Timothy received a gift prophetically when the elders had laid their hands on him in prayer (1 Timothy 4:14).

So in church when we raise and stretch out our hands towards the baby being dedicated, or the missionaries being sent out, we are simply following the ancient biblical example for directed prayer and blessing. So together, with hands stretched out, we are participating in the prayer being offered (it is kind of like a visual “Amen!”). I hope that helps!

 

Different Old Testament Catholic Books?

Q: I was talking with some Catholic relatives and they said the origional bible included the Catholic books and it wasn't until the reformation that they were eliminated. Do you know why Martin Luther eliminated them? I understand they contain some talk about purgatory and praying to the saints.

A: Your relatives did not provide a complete picture. The books you are mentioned are called Deuterocanonical books and have never been part of the Hebrew Bible, which is our Old Testament. Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Bible as we know it (which is in our non-Catholic Bibles – NIV, ESV, KJV, etc.). The Deuterocanonical books have been included for years in many of the Christian lists of Old Testament books, so in that your relatives are correct. There were debates in the early Church about whether they should be read in the churches and be classified as canonical texts. The word Deuterocanonical comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon' and indicates doubt about the inclusion of these books in the canon (canon means standard). They have always been considered as secondary, even by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians (both of whom still include them in their Old Testament). These books are also sometimes referred to as “Apocrypha.” There was a Greek version of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint), which contained some of these books at the time of Jesus. Since the early church was primarily Greek speaking, it is probable that they got their Old Testament from that source rather than the Hebrew Bible, which explains why early Catholic Bibles included them, as well.

The exclusion was not something Martin Luther did. The newer Bibles which were being printed in the common languages were being translated from the original languages of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, with a separate section including those other books (called Apocrypha). In fact it was the opposite – it was at the Council of Trent (1545) that the Catholics confirmed the Deuterocanonical books in their Bible, as a reaction against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition. The Catholics do use these books to validate both purgatory and prayer to the saints (especially 2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Here is a list of those books:

• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24[14])
• Wisdom
• Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
• Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint[15])
• Additions to Daniel:
•  Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
•  Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
•  Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

By the way, some of these books are interesting to read. The two Maccabees books fill in some history between the last book of the Old Testament and the Gospels. However, if you are a Bible reader you will note that as you read them there is not the same sense of the Spirit at work in them.

Was Paul being contradictory w/re to tongues in 1 Corinthians 14?

Q: Ken said...
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says that tongues are a sign "not for believers but for unbelievers" (v. 22), but that an unbeliever who comes to church and hears tongues will say the people in that church are out of their minds (v. 23).

Paul also says that prophecy "is for believers, not for unbelievers" (v. 22), but if an unbeliever comes to church and hears prophecy, he will "be convinced...that he is a sinner" and will "fall down and worship God" (v. 25).

Can you help me understand these conflicting statements?

A: Remember that this is a corrective message from Paul. Paul is saying that their expression of tongues when they gather is disorderly and becomes distracting to the new believer.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says that tongues are a sign "not for believers but for unbelievers" (v. 22), but that an unbeliever who comes to church and hears tongues will say the people in that church are out of their minds (v. 23).

This (and the previous verse which references Isaiah 28:11) is a reminder that those who hear things they do not understand are under judgment – and though the Corinthians themselves are operating within what is a genuine gift which might edify them personally, when they do so collectively, they are not edifying one another and they are certainly not edifying the non-believer. Used in such a way, it is like the tongue of the Babylonians – foreign to those who were taken into captivity.

Paul also says that prophecy "is for believers, not for unbelievers" (v. 22), but if an unbeliever comes to church and hears prophecy, he will "be convinced...that he is a sinner" and will "fall down and worship God" (v. 25).

The church is built up by the gift of prophecy (forth-speaking), which includes, by the way, the proclamation of the word in confrontation. So, while prophecy is given to the church for the building up of the saints in the Word, it can also bring conviction to the non-believer who hears and is convicted.