I was in a discussion not so long ago about tattoos, and I was asked about the historical view on this practice. It wasn’t something I had looked into before from a Church Fathers point of view, so it was an interesting topic of study. In my searching, I found this article from a Catholic site which seems to give a pretty interesting overview of some of the views about tattoos in the earlier centuries. The following is a quote about a Church Council in the context of native Britons, who still practiced tattooing at that time for pagan ritual, something which Tertullian also gives a fleeting reference to around 213 AD in his On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 10.
In the 787 Council of Northumberland — a meeting of lay and ecclesial leaders and citizens in England — Christian commentators distinguished between religious and profane tattoos. In the council documents, they wrote:
“When an individual undergoes the ordeal of tattooing for the sake of God, he is greatly praised. But one who submits himself to be tattooed for superstitious reasons in the manner of the heathens will derive no benefit there from.”
But, contrasted with Basil the Great of the fourth century, who supposedly (I say “supposedly” because I can’t find an original source for this quote, nor the quote above, though many other books and websites cite both; see end note) said: “No man shall let his hair grow long or tattoo himself as do the heathen” — it highlights that the views of this practice have been wide and varied over the centuries; as over in Egypt, the Coptic Church has been marking themselves with tattoos since the sixth or seventh century, even up to present times.
All of this debate stems from one seemingly clear verse in Leviticus:
Leviticus 19:28 (WEB)
You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you. I am Yahweh.
In the manner of how Hebrew works, the clause “for the dead” is applying to both phrases. The cuttings and the marks are not to be “for the dead”. Those Hebrew phrases which seem to repeat a similar thought are generally connected and are saying the same thing in two different ways to emphasise the point (just look at the Psalms for many examples of this).
Not to mention that the word “tattoo” didn’t exist until the 17th century, prior to that it was translated as “marks on the skin” or something similar, which has much different connotations than the word “tattoo” has in our contemporary society. An ancient, obscure word is translated as “tattoo” in one place, and we impose our modern thinking of what that word implies onto Scripture making it anything but clear and moving us a little farther away from the original intent. This verse is more than likely admonishing against copying the surrounding pagan practices of the time than being a blanket rule against any form of “tattoo”.
Arguably there are passages that say that Jesus’ body was “marked” in some way, as in the book of Revelation which some see as a reference to a tattoo of sorts:
Revelation 19:16 (WEB)
He has on his garment and on his thigh a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
Or in the Old Testament, Isaiah speaks of God in a similar manner as having “engraved” the names of his people on the palm of his hand — a word with a much stronger and more violent visual than simply tattooing ink into the skin. Possibly even a nod towards what Jesus would eventually do for us when he would literally have his hands “engraved” (or “hacked” as this root word can also mean) for us on the cross!
Isaiah 49:16a (WEB)
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.
Similarly, a couple of chapters previously to this one in Isa. 44:5, it speaks of the people writing the name of the LORD of their hands in celebration, and a similar, but less violent, word for “engraving” is used here too.
Going back to the passage in Leviticus, the word translated as “tattoo” is a weird one in Hebrew from what I’ve read and isn’t easily put into English, so using “tattoo” is as close a meaning that we have, but not necessarily the same as what we mean.
If you look at the Strong’s Hebrew definition, it’s quite small semantic range for the word translated tattoo, with a link to another generic word for “writing” (h3789):
h3793. כְּתֹבֶת ḵeṯôḇeṯ; from 3789; a letter or other mark branded on the skin: — x any (mark).
AV (1) — any 1;
impression, inscription, markin the flesh, perhaps a tattoo
So you can see it’s not a clear cut word of “tattoo” (or markings) in our modern sense as the definition above can relate to any type of skin marking (ie. via branding or knives) — not to mention that the specific word translated here is only used this one time in all of the Bible. That gives us even less context.
From looking at the definition in my Strong’s ESV, it gives a few cross references for this verse which are all to do with pagan mourning rituals which involve cutting yourself in some way, as Leviticus speaks of: Leviticus 21:1–5; Deut. 14:1; 1 Kings. 18:28; Jer. 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37. If you have a look through some of those references, you’ll see that there was definitely a common practice amongst the pagan nations which had some type of mourning ritual that involved cutting themselves (or as part of worship, as we see with the Baal priests who went up against Elijah in 1 Kings 18). The language used in these other passages of Scripture throughout the Old Testament is similar to that of Leviticus 19 and so we begin to see a theme here which the Law book was most likely also speaking against, rather than just being against body decoration in general.
Having said all that, and much of this restriction is from an Old Testament Law perspective, where does that leave Christians today? Since the prohibitions from the Law were in relation to pagan worship and mourning rituals, tattoos for God’s glory and worship should cause no one to feel like they have sinned as the intent and focus is not what Leviticus etc. was forbidding.
But to caution, and similar to how Paul taught about eating food sacrificed to idols, we should be careful to not cause others to stumble (1 Cor 8:11–13), and to just think long and hard before committing to getting tattooed yourself. If getting a tattoo goes against your conscience, then no one should try and violate that; but equally, since it’s not a clear or direct command in Scripture for or against, others shouldn’t make you feel like it’s a sin either (Romans 14:12–15). This should be one of those things left to Christian liberty: “For you, brothers, were called for freedom. Only don’t use your freedom for gain to the flesh, but through love be servants to one another.” (Galatians 5:1,13; cf. 1 Cor 10:23).
Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!
Order my new book today from Amazon or lukejwilson.com/amazon
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd December 2023 | Early Church
A common modern perception of the inspiration of Scripture often portrays it as a rigid, divine dictation of words from God to be written down verbatim. This perspective leads to concerns among some religious communities, such as Muslims, who view any alteration or addition to the text as a potential threat to the entire faith. The Islamic understanding of inspiration emphasises direct and unalterable divine dictation, contributing to their scepticism of multiple Bible translations, which they falsely label as “corruption”. In contrast, the Biblical inspiration of the Scriptures has never been viewed as a literal divine dictation, as if the apostles were under a holy spell ensuring word-for-word accuracy. Dr Michael Heiser emphasises that the writers were influenced by God through the circumstances of providence, with God guiding them to write what was deemed necessary for posterity. This perspective shifts the focus of inspiration from the writers to the ultimate, providential guidance of God. The canonisation of the New Testament was not a straightforward process. The authority of the authors played a crucial role, and texts were included based on their ability to teach the fullness of salvation and faith. Noteworthy texts, like the Didache, were highly regarded, read, and taught to new converts but did not meet the specific criteria for canonisation. The canon was a dynamic concept, and some New Testament books faced scepticism before gaining widespread acceptance. These texts were known as “antilegomena” (from Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα) literally meaning “spoken against”. In the Early Church, the antilegomena enjoyed widespread readership, encompassing works such as the Epistle of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. Within the Early Church, there existed differing opinions on whether these particular texts merited canonical status, though. Eusebius, who wrote Church History (~325), used the Greek term “antilegomena” to refer to the group of disputed writings. He uses this word in two places when speaking about these texts: It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed [αντιλέγεσθαι] by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. (3.3.5) Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων]. (3.25.3–5) Delving into specific biblical references, such as 1 Corinthians 5:9 and Colossians 4:16, these verses shed light on the existence of letters by apostles that did not make it into the New Testament. Paul’s mention of an earlier letter in 1 Corinthians and the reference to a letter from Laodicea in Colossians raise questions about missing apostolic letters. However, these omissions should not be a cause for concern. Bart Ehrman, a notable agnostic New Testament scholar and textual critic, says in his book Misquot...
Luke J. Wilson | 01st December 2023 | Christmas
It’s that time of year when Christmas lights and decorations go up, things start to look a little more sparkly, and kids are getting ready to open their Advent Calendars. But what exactly is “Advent”? You may be from a Church tradition which recognises this each year so are more familiar, but if not, you may be curious to know more about this ancient Christian tradition. Advent, derived from the Latin “adventus,” signifying “coming” or “arrival,” stands as a sacred season deeply entrenched in the hearts of many Christians globally. This period of expectant waiting and preparation marks the initiation of the liturgical year in Western Christianity, embodying a profound anticipation of both the Nativity of Christ at Christmas and the eagerly awaited Second Coming. Historical Origins The origins of Advent, though veiled in the mists of time, can be traced back to around 480, with the Council of Tours in 567 introducing a distinctive element to this season. Monks were instructed to observe a fast every day in December until Christmas, adding an element of penitence and preparation to the weeks leading up to the joyous celebration. The roots of Advent delve deep into the historical fabric of Christian tradition, and as J. Neil Alexander, a bishop in the Episcopal church notes, providing a definitive explanation of its origin remains a challenging endeavour. “[it is] impossible to claim with confidence a credible explanation of the origin of Advent” Associated with Advent’s penitential aspect was a period of fasting known as St Martin’s Lent or the Nativity Fast. This fast, initiated by Bishop Perpetuus in the fifth century, required believers to abstain from certain indulgences three times a week from St. Martin’s Day on 11 November until Christmas. This practice initially found traction in the diocese of Tours, France, gradually extending its influence over the sixth century. The essence of Advent extends beyond mere historical observance; it encompasses a multifaceted anticipation of the “coming of Christ” in three distinct ways: from the physical nativity in Bethlehem to the reception of Christ in the believer’s heart, and to the eschatological hope of the Second Coming. Advent encapsulates the diverse aspects of Christian hope. The Liturgical Calendar The liturgical calendar, particularly in the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Moravian, Presbyterian, and Methodist traditions, designates Advent as commencing on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, concluding on Christmas Eve. This period of roughly four weeks becomes a sacred journey marked by readings and teachings that emphasise not only the anticipation of Christ’s first coming but also the profound reflection on the Second Coming and the Last Judgement. Advent is recognised as a late inclusion in the liturgical calendar during the late fourth and early fifth centuries. The Council of Saragossa in 380 AD, particularly in its fourth canon, laid the foundation for the observance of Advent, emphasising the importance of daily attendance in church during the twenty-one days leading up to December 17th. Traditional Advent Wreath The symbolism of Advent is poignantly captured in the Advent wreath, a practice dating back to 16th-century German Lutherans but taking its modern form in the 19th century. Johann Hinrich Wichern, a Protestant pastor, conceived the idea of a wreath adorned with candles representing the Sundays of Advent. The lighting of these candles, especially the pink one on Gaudete Sunday, adds a visual dimension to the spiritual journey of waiting and rejoicing (Gaudete means rejoice in Latin). Focused on Christ The theological roots of Advent find expression in the Latin term “adventus”, embodying both the Incarnation and the glorious Parousia of the Son of God. The tension between these two meanings was resolved as Advent came to signify a moment of preparation for the coming of Chri...
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd November 2023 | General Interest
The Bible can be a complex thing, with many interwoven connections not always immediately apparent, linking topics and themes together across the ages. One such intriguing relationship lies between Exodus 30:14 and Matthew 17:24–27, offering valuable perspectives on the age dynamics among Jesus’ disciples with a hidden clue in the brief encounter about paying temple tax. Exodus 30:14 — The Age of Accountability Exodus 30:14 establishes a significant criterion for temple tax payment: “Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the offering to the Lord.” This biblical guideline sets what might be considered a standard for adulthood in ancient Israel, signifying the age of accountability and responsibility within the community. Matthew 17:24–27 — A Taxing Encounter Turning to the Gospel of Matthew, a peculiar incident involving Jesus and the temple tax unfolds. Verse 24 introduces the narrative with the phrase “When they came to Capernaum.” The subsequent context implies the presence of Jesus and his disciples, yet attention narrows to Jesus and Peter when the temple tax collectors inquire about payment and question Peter about whether Jesus pays the tax. This seemingly ordinary event takes an intriguing turn. Jesus, perceiving the situation, engages Peter in a dialogue. “What do you think, Simon?” he asks, underscoring the financial responsibilities tied to temple worship. Jesus then asks where do kings take their tolls, from their own children or from others? Peter answers the obvious question, “from others”. Jesus responds with, “Then the children are free”, which has implications for his own Sonship which is something that passed me by when reading this story in past times. God is the King, the temple is his, and therefore the tax is being imposed by God on the people (via his Law). But Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore should be free from paying the temple tax, since “the children are free” from this obligation. But to not cause an offence and as a way to prove himself Lord of all creation, Jesus instructs Peter to go to the sea, cast a hook, and retrieve the first fish caught. In its mouth, Peter discovers a coin that covers the temple tax for himself and Jesus only. Unravelling the Connections The discerning reader may now understand the link between Exodus 30:14 and Matthew 17:24–27. If the temple tax applied to those “twenty years old and over,” the specific focus on Jesus and Peter being singled out suggests a thought-provoking possibility — the age of the disciples. The use of the phrase “when they came” in Matthew 17:24 implies the collective presence of Jesus and his disciples. However, the subsequent emphasis on Jesus and Peter for tax payment hints at a more intriguing narrative. Could it be that, among the disciples, only Peter had crossed the threshold of twenty years? The rest could be anywhere between 13–19! Another clue is that it appears only Peter was married, since his mother-in-law is mentioned in Luke 4:38–39, implying that he was possibly older than the others too. Peter, and others, are often depicted as quite old.Saint Peter, by Peter Paul Rubens, 1610 Implications for Discipleship This age dynamic may offer insights into the behavioural nuances observed among the disciples throughout the Gospels. Instances of immaturity, such as the disciples’ arguments about greatness (Mark 9:32–34), the way John and Peter race each other to the tomb (John 20:3–10), and Peter’s impulsiveness (John 18:10–11), could find resonance in their potential youthfulness. The designation of Peter as a leader, entrusted with the care of Jesus’ sheep (John 21:15–17), takes on added significance in this context. If Peter, by virtue of age and experience, stood out among the disciples, it provides a rationale for his prominent role in the early Christian community. Understanding the age dynamics among the di...
Luke J. Wilson | 21st November 2023 | Christmas
It’s nearly Christmas time again, and like clockwork, the internet memes come out all over social media about Saint Nicholas giving the heretic Arius a slap across the face at the Council of Nicaea! As it’s almost the end of November and coming up soon is the feast day of St. Nicholas on December 6th, the original inspiration behind Santa Claus, I thought I’d address this long-standing myth about Nicholas of Myra (present-day Demre, Turkey), the fourth century bishop. St. Nicholas is often humorously portrayed in social media memes which playfully recount the infamous incident during the Council of Nicaea when the good bishop, provoked by Arius’s blasphemies, supposedly delivered him a slap across the face! Memes abound about St Nicholas and Arius While some of these memes offer undeniable amusement, they starkly contrast with the conventional image of Santa Claus — known for his jovial and indulgent nature — as well as the expected decorum of a bishop and leader in the Church. Moreover, the sentiment challenges the teachings of Jesus on how to deal with our enemies. Jesus advocated for practices such as loving and praying for your enemies, turning the other cheek (Mt 5:38–45), overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:21), being gentle and not violent (1 Tim 3:3), avoiding quick-temperedness (Titus 1:7), and recognising that a soft answer turns away wrath (Prov 15:1). In this time marked by safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microaggressions, the straightforward honesty and tough demeanour attributed to St. Nicholas in these memes may resonate with those who appreciate a departure from the perceived niceties of modern discourse. The image of St. Nicholas allegedly striking Arius can be seen as a politically incorrect rebuke to what some Christians might see as the Church or society being too “soft” nowadays. Historical Basis However, historical inaccuracies abound in this narrative. The story lacks credibility, as historical records of the bishops present at the Council of Nicaea do not include St. Nicholas. Hagiographical works written centuries after his death connect him to the Council, with the account of the violent incident appearing over a millennium later, in a 14th-century work by an anonymous writer. Moreover, medieval versions of the story describe Nicholas slapping, not punching, an Arian heretic (not specifically Arius). This action is portrayed as a medicinal slap or rebuke, aimed at bringing the individual back to his senses rather than expressing contempt or a desire to harm. In Greek iconography, this moment is celebrated. Icon of St. Nicholas and Arius In the original tale, however, Nicholas’s actions were not lauded at the Council; instead, he faced consequences. Reportedly, he was deprived of his mitre and pallium for striking the Arian heretic. A later version of the story, which identifies the heretic as Arius, amplifies Nicholas’s punishment by having him thrown into jail. In this narrative, Nicholas is vindicated by a divine intervention involving Jesus and Mary, who appear to him in prison and release him, and giving him back his bishop vestments. WWJD? It is crucial to approach this anecdote with caution, recognising that celebrating St. Nicholas’s supposed act of aggression may inadvertently justify short-tempered tendencies. Similar to those who fixate on Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple as “permission” to act brutishly towards those they disagree with, to the exclusion of Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness. WWJD? Reflecting on the Arius memes, it’s essential to strike a balance. While humour has its place, some jokes may lead those weaker in the faith, and unbelieving onlookers, to assume that some acts of violence are OK and ‘approved’ by Jesus and the Church, and understanding the legendary aspect to this particular story about Saint Nick and Arius could help to alleviate that. Further Reading Who was the real Santa C...
My new book is out now: Available on Amazon in paperback, hardcover or Kindle!
“I cannot imagine there is a better way to get familiar with 350 of the most important years of church history in seven hours spread over 40 days.” — Paul Pavao, author of Decoding Nicea