Ever since our first mother, Eve, facilely discovered multiple reasons to do what God had expressly commanded her through Adam not to do, we’ve proven to be, in our fallen estate, a darkness-loving lot that excels in creatively justifying any sin-embracing choice we desire to make. This ability wreaks havoc in ethics. No sooner do we learn the right thing than we begin paralogizing in the pursuit of what we think of as “freedom.”
But freedom from God’s Law as a rule of faith and life is no freedom at all. Some think the opposite of Law is Grace. Rather, the opposite of Law is chaos, meaninglessness and death. Thinking which leads to a justification for disobedience is, by definition, wrong thinking.
With the modern church having largely capitulated to some or another form of antinomianism, it should not surprise us that it seems ever to be engaged in lowering the flag before each new assault on the ethics of the Antithesis. Whether we are asked to adjust God’s standards for marriage and divorce, or Lord’s Day worship, or the tithe, or homosexuality, or love of the brethren, we find an ever-vigilant phalanx of theologians whose favorite color is grey and whose favorite work is dismantling the Antithesis, directing us, like the serpent did Eve, to ignore what God says and to seek life in death.
In every dispensation God has made it clear that His people are a people of life, a people distinct from “the world,” a people with a different idea of wisdom,” a people with a different way of living. God’s word to Israel and the church is (of course) one: “Do not think as they think; do not do as they do” (Deut. 18:9; Eph. 4:17–20).
Keeping God’s Law in Christ is a community affair. To comply with the demands of the Antithesis, it is necessary not only to have those commands, but to have a people committed to abiding by them. Though we are made up of individuals, the covenant community is an entity in its own right, an organism which confesses covenant truth and lives the covenant life. We are to be a people set apart both by what we believe and how we behave.
Included in the set-apartness required of us in both the Old and New administrations of the covenant is the sanctification of our bodies unto God. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:1–2a).
Only a Gnostic, a Platonist or a nut would interpret the command to present our bodies to God as having nothing to do with our bodies. The human body is most definitely a concern of God’s and He has given us various laws designed to maintain its integrity and dignity, to keep it suitable for one in service to the living and true God. If anything, the New Testament heightens our concern with the body, for there it is oft-designated a temple of God. And we must not desecrate God’s temple. The wicked say, “Our lips [and our bodies] are our own” (Psalm 12:4). The Christian answers with the great confession: “I am not my own, but belong body and soul to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.”
But confessions without content remain mere words: pretty, maybe, but empty. When we confess that our bodies belong to God, do we actually believe that He may regulate what we do with them? At one time this was definitely what the Christian community believed. Lately, however, it seems to be standing with its hands in its pockets as it watches a new wave of defiance of this confession.
A phenomenon among us that is gaining notoriety and adherents, and sadly making inroads into Christian circles, is the deliberate and systematic desecration of the human body. It is making progress among us for three reasons: the Christian community has (1) neglected the Law of God, (2) largely lost its sense of being a community of grace and law; and (3) bought into the notion that fashion is, for all intents and purposes, a matter in which God is disinterested.
The diverse methods of self-desecration have been lumped together under the fitting initials BM, though here it stands for body modification. BM includes piercing, tattooing, scarring, branding, cutting and mutilation. BM is becoming more than a trend: it is an identifiable subculture, impacting millions through a huge presence on the Internet. There are even international conventions. BM shops are proliferating at an astonishing rate (the one across the street from Messiah Covenant Community Congregation’s offices does a very brisk business).
Body piercing, like marijuana to heroin, is often but the first step into a world of multiple self-inflicted indignities. And like marijuana, proponents think it is the easiest to justify. After all, who hasn’t seen the male athletes and movie stars with their earrings? And haven’t you seen the picture of Shakespeare wearing one in his left ear?
And thus the reasoning begins with an assumption that what is right for women must also be right for men, and what is right in popular culture must be right for the Christian. But our standard is the Word of God. And that Word gives us warrant to regard piercing as possibly appropriate for some, but not necessarily for others. (The other forms of BM are fit for none but pagans, as we’ll see.)
Put plainly, piercing is normally an act appropriate only for women and, in some cases, male slaves. Delicacy is difficult here—and I want to avoid a charge of misogyny—but the fact is that woman, by her from-the-creation role in the marriage act, is a “piercee.” Within marriage, of course, no stigma at all attaches to this, but outside of marriage, Scripture often refers to it as a “humbling” (Deut. 21:14; 22:24; 22:29). In this regard, too, childbirth is woman’s triumphant vindication. Consider this when exegeting 1 Timothy 2:15.
Obviously, piercing for a woman need not involve sodomy or “lowering.” She was made a woman, for man, a fact to which her body itself testifies.
Man, however, was not made a woman nor was he made to abide piercing. It is still a universal that he is not expected to. The recent attack on a Brooklyn prisoner provides a tragic case in point. The Associated Press reported: “One of the police officers charged with torturing a man by sodomizing him with a stick bragged about the attack, saying he had to ‘break a man’ who took a swing at him. Officer Justin Volpe also told fellow officers ‘I had to bring a man down tonight.’”
Piercing may or may not bring a woman down, depending on many factors. But piercing always brings a man down. That piercing bespeaks a relational subordination is implicitly recognized even in our American culture, yet often below the surface. To the astute it appears dramatically when considering the vocabulary of popular “curses” (as in humiliating phrases, not maledictions). The most common two-word curse in English, the one we want our children never to use, is simply a wish for someone to be humiliated through being pierced. To be pierced, for a man, is necessarily to be lowered.
For in the view of Scripture, piercing is a token of being under the dominion of another. (Even the unique piercing of Christ was a testimony of His total submission to the Father: Isaiah 53:5, 10; Phil. 2:8; see also Psalm 40:6–8.) Since woman was created to be under the loving headship of her husband, piercing can be seen as consistent with that calling. Hebrew men, however, were called to be directly under the authority of God (see 1 Cor. 11:3).
Consequently, limitations of Hebrew servitude were codified in the Law. But if a Hebrew servant, at the time of his manumission, desired to be permanently under the dominion of his master, this was to be indicated in a rite in which his ear was bored with an awl (Ex. 21:6; Dt. 15:17). The fact that a pierced ear served as a sign of permanent subordination suggests that it was not practiced by males in general, else it would hardly serve as a distinguishing mark.
Some have called attention to the fact that Israelite males took off their golden earrings and contributed them to Aaron for the making of the golden calf. This seems to be the case (Ex. 32:14). But out of what estate had they just escaped? That’s right: slavery. So this proves nothing other than that slaves had earrings. Similarly, those who cite the Ishmaelite practice of wearing gold earrings (Judges 8:24) must not miss the point: the Ishmaelites had this custom, not the Israelites. Newly delivered Hebrew slaves and Ishmaelites don’t constitute a powerful precedent for free males to engage in piercing themselves!
It is interesting that as men in our culture began to pierce their ears, women began piercing multiple holes in their ears. But it didn’t stop there. Piercing parlors now routinely pierce ears, lips, eyebrows, tongues, noses, nipples, and male and female genitals. For those who cringe, not only at the ghastliness of the piercings, but at the thought of the pain involved, you need to understand that the pain is central to the experience. This is freely admitted, even boasted of, in this new “subculture.”
One woman describes the piercing of her clitoris as “a rite of sexual reclamation.” The piercer explained, after a pre-piercing examination, that hers was going to be a particularly painful experience. She insisted that he proceed, and described the procedure: “My body tensed. I heard Jim say, ‘Ready?’ [It was as if] one hundred thousand volts of electricity jolted me out of my body. My scream never passed my throat … I couldn’t see. After Jim inserted the ring in my clitoris and handed me a hand mirror, I stood up and paced the small room. I never had an experience of such intensity. My body tingled. I felt powerful, charged, triumphant … I was alive! For the first time in my life I felt whole, complete and perfect.” She then tells that years later, she returned to school “to broaden [her] understanding of pain, ecstasy and body modification.”
Anyone who believes that this current obsession with body modification is simply a fashion statement is not merely naive, but ignorant of the literature of BM devotees. For them, the more radical piercings are self-consciously religious experiences. Its association with paganism is known, understood and cherished. The piercings, etc., are regarded as rituals. “Rituals take place in urban settings: libraries, public parks, warehouses, abandoned city sites. Rituals take many forms: piercing, tattooing, branding and scarification in private and public ceremonies, S/M [sado-masochistic] psychodramas in private dungeons, technoshamanic trance dances at underground Rave parties, psychedelic shamanism, in living rooms- any activity capable of producing the direct experience of spiritual truth and healing in the participant.” Consider the mindset of someone who regards mutilation as healing! (To be continued . . . )
Served as pastor of Messiah's Covenant Community Church in Brooklyn, N.Y. since 1979. Born and raised a Jew, Steve's revelatory insights into the unity of the Old and New Testaments have made him a popular speaker and essayist. Steve and his wife Jeanne have six children, and eight grandchildren. They have also raised six foster children.
almond- thank you for the brilliant and well thought of response. (I am not being sarcastic)
The argumentation of LDC, though well intended, is typical of the anti-modification stance of both the lead article and the comments section, in that they miss the entire point of the passage, owing to improper interpretation. The context of the passage has nothing to do with tats and rings, but with sexual immorality only. If LDC had just read verse 18 this would have been patently obvious. The immoral person is not said to do anything to the physical body of God or the Holy Ghost (as if He had one), but to his own body (v. 18b). He offends God because He owns his body by virtue of grace and the New Birth. And the offense is moral and sexual, not body decoration. And the self-immolation of the Gadarene demoniac has no logical or exegetical connection to modern restrained BM – again, grasping at straws argumentation.
Those who would vilify all male earrings and tattoos are proof-texting all over the place and manufacturing spurious arguments (as in the woman being a "pierced" person and thus eligible to sport a pierced ear) – because there is, in fact, no clear and cogent prohibition of decorative tattoos and earrings in the Scriptures. The fact is, that these things merely offend the strict, acculturated norms of the Anti-BM legalists; who have improperly resorted to extreme examples to lambaste the majority who use body decorating in a moderate and tasteful manner. Would they not be better off exposing the sinful actions of the TV hucksters and clean-cut, yet immoral pastors. Yes, paganized extremes can be justly exposed and condemned; but can we not avoid the ultra-nomian tendency to bolster the ego through a heavy-handed, one-up condemnation of something that has no true biblical prohibition. Right wing religious types protest vehemently when they are lumped with Nazis and violent militia groups; and rightly so. But they seem to have no trouble lumping all Christians who have tats or earrings in with pagan extremism. At least Fox News TRIES to be fair and balanced!
"Do not the markings and scarring of the body reflect a dark side of man and should a true child of God reflect such?"
blanket statements like that have no place in discussion. Certainly some tattoos portray evil images, but many don't. it's all about the intent. if I get a tattoo or piercing to rebel, then I am certainly in the wrong. My tattoos have often lead to discussions about my faith that would probly not have happened otherwise. Explain how this is wrong.
I'm curious how pastor Steve can lump sex changes operations in with piercings. I'm also glad I don't go to a church he pastors. I prefer churches that don't judge people but outward appearances, but, that's just me, I guess. Based on this article, I, as a tattooed and pierced person, would not feel comfortable in this church. if the pastor teaches that I'm "mutilating my body and i'm only a step away form Paganism", imagine the kinds of looks I would get.
I am not afraid to admit that I'm wrong, I just don't think I am. None of the verses/conclusions expressed here show me any kind of proof that tattoos and piercings are wrong unless they are taken grossly out of context. Do some research and understand why tattoos were forbidden in the Torah…
Do you suppose Pastor Steve was drinking a cup of coffee when he wrote this article? Perhaps he had bacon for breakfast. Those things aren't good for the temple either. Bacon is a gateway to gluttony.
Sounds Like alot of people dont like the possibility/fact that they have done something wrong…
1 Corinthians 6:19 -20 …know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. This would indicate to me that we should treat our bodies as we would treat Christ and the Holy Ghost. So would we do to the physical body of Christ or the physical body of the Holy Ghost what many are doing to their bodies today? I would have to say no. Also, Legion – Mark 5 – cut himself with stones in his very troubled state but after Christ delivered him of the demons he no longer cut himself. It would seem that a message regarding the way we treat our body is hidden here as well. We are to " Abstain from all appearance of evil. 1Thessalonians 5:22". Do not the markings and scarring of the body reflect a dark side of man and should a true child of God reflect such? Wherefore, my beloved, …work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Philippians 2:12
this article started out strong and turned into crap. body modification, in and of itself, is not sinful and it's ridiculous- and legalistic- – to say so, You don't know the heart behind the tattoos or the people getting piercings. Where do we draw the line? Is piercing your ears sinful, or only piercing your labrum, clitoris or septum? Are tattoos inherently sinful, or can they possibly bring glory to God (as I believe mine do), Mutilating your body irreparably is certainly wrong, but tattoos, if done correctly, do not damage the body. the same can be said of piercings.
maybe next you should write an article about fast food, or television, or anything other unhealthy things we Americans do and not pick on a group of people that you don't understand. A group you are judging without getting to know.
By the way, Marijuana as a gateway drug is a myth, http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html, http://reason.com/archives/2003/01/24/high-road
"Body piercing, like marijuana to heroin, is often but the first step into a world of multiple self-inflicted indignities. And like marijuana, proponents think it is the easiest to justify. After all, who hasn’t seen the male athletes and movie stars with their earrings? And haven’t you seen the picture of Shakespeare wearing one in his left ear?"
I think u've been smoking alot more then wacky tobacky to make this kind of ludicrous statement.
Read this for some perspective: http://tattoo.about.com/library/bltest65.htm,
this article is legalistic garbage. If you don't like tattoos and other forms of body modification, don't get them. Don't use the Bible to justify your untenable position.
God looks at the heart, not at the ink covering your arms, legs, chest and neck.
Justin, your attack is egregious and not biblically supported. Pastor Steve is fighting antinomianism, something you wrongly define as "legalism". Hyper grace and rejection of the physical is aestheticism; a gnostic heresy that was dealt with long ago during the early church. God does look at the heart, but he also requires us to obey His commands. That's how Jesus told us we are to love Him and our neighbor. John 14:21. It is sad to see such ignorance on your part. It's as if you see something from Leviticus and jump on an anabaptist parade of calling anyone who desires to obey God's Law a legalist. God does not change His mind, and neither does His character change. Only when the Law of God fits the individual's desires does it somewhat become necessary to that individual. It is not an untenable position. I suggest you do a bit more reading on the topic, the history of the church on the topic, and His essays on them (in whole). His point about the marijuana being a gateway is not of necessity to what he was trying to say. Basic writing and exegesis of an essay shows that he was simply saying how one thing leads to another. Your stuck on points that have nothing to do with the argument and are making an argument that is based of your own individuality. Please, stop.
Many comments miss the boat of this entire essay. It's sad to see that they are not reading it as it is, rather taking egalitarian doctrines of tolerance and sexism as their presuppositional foundation and attacking another Christian for making a blunt argument. Instead they prefer to hear, Jesus is love love love lovey dovey flowers and posies.
While tatooing and multiple piercings are tacky and distasteful to most civilized folks, the "return to Paganism" title is even more offensive. While there are some wack-o pagans who do some patently odd things, most Pagans are very normal people who have an actual relationship with their Diety, and don't need to quote or love the "book" instead of the God-form. It also sounds like you think women are lower than men and therefore built to be "pierced" which is your term for rape.
You need to get a grip, my friend.
Since God's word is more powerful than man's word, and these days we all have the ability to quickly cut and paste the very words of God, not just the reference verses, into our commentary we should do so whenever we can. God should speak louder than our commentary. It is no accident in Leviticus 19 the command not to cut our bodies, put on tattoos, and make your daughter a prostitute are lumped together. Degrading and defacing practices have no place in our worship of the Lord. LEV 19:28 " `Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. LEV 19:29 " `Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness. LEV 19:30 " `Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD. My mother is an artist and if I added my own expression to her art work she would rightly be insulted. We were created in God's image..God's art work.
I have one hole in each ear and that is the ONLY piercings I have. What I hate is seeing females like that Snooky character from Jersey Shore being a role model when she is far from it. She dresses like a Babylonian whore. Women of America condemn the Islamic burka. The Islamic burka promotes modesty. It should be see apart from the oppressive laws that Islam has on women. What is oppressive about modesty?
There are two sides to this. First, yes, I think the burka is liberating – sure would be easy to not worry about what to wear! I just would not want to be forced to wear it. That is the freeing thing about Christ, we CAN do all things, but we don't because we are set free, knowing that all things are do not build us up spiritually. The body is simply a scientific organ, the fact that it is thought to be shameful is a result of sin. Tattooing, piercing, burning, skin shaving and the like are all activities that permanantly mutilate the body that was given to us to glorify us, not God. I do not judge people that have them, but I would, lovingly, bring to their attention that they really need to seek God before doing something like this. I think it would be neat to have a dolphin tattoo, but because I love God, I will not mark my body with something that could distract me, or another, from Him.
Circumcision is commanded by God, so I think he would agree that it is ok, and ok not to be circumcised because Paul says 'circumcision is nothing.'
The real issue here is moderation, not absolutism. I am an ordained minister in the conservative Reformed tradition, and have an earring and two tattoos, wiht a couple more on the way. I consider them manly-decorative. My earring is tiny and the tats are tasteful. I am also a committed Christian and gym-enthusiast/bodybuilder type. However, I also reject extremism in anything: drinking, dress, eating, etc. – as in the picture above. There is little debate but that ancient men, and more recent ones as well, have sported earrings as decorative accessories, along with bracelets and necklaces. The fact that pagans, gays and transvestites also wear jeweled watches should not imply that straight men should toss their bejeweled Rolexes. Your position, though well-intended, is biblically and logically tenuous at best, as one blogger pointed out – with much argument from silence and dubious correlation.
The hard-right, law-driving Christian position seems to bask in the glow of peculiar American clean-cutness as a badge of legitimate Christian holiness, sort of like Billy Joe Hargess' all-American kids or Mormon missionaries. Anything that transgresses this standard of acculturated normalcy is berated across the board with a one-size-fits-all condescension.
Although the stated position has SOME salient points, it lacks any real subtlety or convincing proof. Guys, some folks like a little bling and bravado, and refuse to be put in strait-laced legalistic boxes just to conform to the prevailing bias. Some of the most clean-cut Christian men of late have done some of the most horrendous and hurtful things. I know for sure that God is much more concerned about our words and moral behavior than how many rings or tats we sport. Again, its all about moderation and taste, and not about strictly constured moralism.
How do you reconcile God's word in Leviticus 19:28? " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. (NIV). If this is God's law for the Israelites, why would you think that it wouldn't apply to us? You might want to rethink getting more tats in the future.
David:
As Christians we belong to Christ who fulfilled the law. The law was intended to lead us to Christ, not to make us slaves to it. Otherwise, you should consider ALL the things we are told not do in the passage you reference as well as many others.
LEVITICUS 19:19 " 'Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
LEVITICUS 19:26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or sorcery.
27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD .
Granted, being in Christ does not give us license to sin, but legalism is not pleasing to God, that is what the pharisees of old, and modern day ones, practice. We should practice Christ-likeness and live out the two greatest commands, to Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and to love one another as Christ loved (and still does love) us. Without that, whether one is tattooed OR NOT is irrelevant.
Fantastic article from Pastor Schlissel. Thank you.
My favorite saying to my children when they were growing up was, "Cool is synonymous to fool." Most of this stuff is done simply as an attempt to be accepted by a group of peers. If you choose to hang out with fools, it's your business; however, don't be offended when those outside of your chosen peer group considers you a fool at first glance.
Also, the argument that the reason why the Israelite men had earrings on at Sinai is because of their slavery in Egypt is just factually false. On a relief found in tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes, there are pictures of Semites and Nubian slaves. While there are a few slaves that do have earrings, there are *many* examples on this relief of slaves without earrings. Also, using the author’s previous argument against him, wearing earrings was hardly serve as a distinguishing mark of slavery in Egypt since both men and women wore earrings in ancient Egypt.
Using this kind of hermeneutic, you can prove anything is wrong. Just find a general concept, find some loose association with one thing, and completely ignore context. I am concerned that there is a societal problem with piercings like you find in the picture above, but I think we should deal with this problem by rightly handling the scriptures, and not by reading the societal problem into the text.
God Bless,
Adam
Adam. Than you for the insightful and even handed address to this post.
Worse than that, there are problems in logic and just simple errors. First of all, it is irrational to say that, because piercing was the mark of a permenant slave that therefore it must not have been common among males.That is a little bit like saying “In our society, the fact that a wedding ring is a symbol of a woman’s marriage to her husband suggests that the wearing of rings is not practiced by women in general, else it would hardly serve as a distinguishing mark.” Actually, we know very little about this law, and how it was carried out, what ear it was done on, where on the ear it was done, and what, if anything was unique about this procedure.
[continued]