Leviticus 19:28 is the Believer (or so-called Believer?) tattooist and tattoo-bearer's worst nightmare. The Lord plainly, clearly, strongly, and without a doubt - condemns the tattoo. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28 Could that be any more clear?
"Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . ." Simple. . . Straightforward. . .Settled. . . God Said It. . . I Believe It. . . That Settles It. . . Right. . .? Not hardly. . .
The clear statement from the word of God does not settle anything for this generation of disobedient, carnal, worldy, tolerant, non-judgmental, Christians. Rather than obey God, they run miles and miles and miles to "justify" their open disobedience to the Word of God.
How do they get around Leviticus 19:28?
Clearly, there it is. "Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . ."
A lot of Believers when confronted with Leviticus 19:28, scream, "Hey dude, that's not for today. Man, that's the Old Testament. I'm under the New Testament"....
Normally I would leave this topic alone, because there are certain presuppositions necessary to understand the morality of a tattoo. However, Jon over at Stuff Christians Like posted about tattoos. Not wanting to make a big deal about it, I commented with a reference to Leviticus 19:28.
The responses I got from that comment were quite scathing, so I decided I would lay out my argument here to prevent a heated discussion on Stuff Christians Like.
That being said, let me address the disagreements to my referencing Leviticus 19:28.
1."The verse you are referencing is specifically discussing pagan practice in which you tattoo or mark your body on account of the dead." and "Have you ever looked into the origion of tattoos? I mean no disrespect, but the forbidden tattoos are not the same thing as modern tattoos. The forbidden tattoos were made by cutting oneself and rubbing ash into the wound. Some believe that this law was more about self mutilation and excessive grieving than about self decoration."
The verse says "Nathan k-thobeth seret basar nephesh nathan qa'aqa' YHWH" in the transliterated Hebrew. Meaning "Ye shall not make" [Nathan] "any" [k-thobeth] "cuttings" [seret] "in your flesh" [basar] "for the dead," [nephesh] "nor print" [nathan] "any marks" [qa'aqa'] "upon you; I [am] the Lord" [YHWH]
This verse refers to two specific things: 1) Cutting oneself for the dead and 2) printing marks on one's body. Note the comma; every translation conveys this sense of separation in thoughts. It isn't "Don't make any cuttings or print any marks for the dead."....
Most New Testament translations (including most Greek manuscripts) have Revelation 19:11-16 indicating Yeshua will have a "tattoo" on his thigh, as what follows:
And I saw the heaven opened, and there was a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Trustworthy and True, and in righteousness He judges and fights. And His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, having a Name that had been written, which no one had perceived except Himself and having been dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His Name is called: The Word of  hwhy. And the armies in the heaven, dressed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations. And He shall shepherd them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of El Shaddai. And on His robe and on His thigh (or "banner") He has a name written: SOVEREIGN OF SOVEREIGNS AND MASTER OF MASTERS.
The idea that Yeshua would have a tattoo on his thigh or anywhere on His body is in direct conflict with Leviticus 19:28, which states:....
There was a time when markings on the skin were only made by the primitive and heathen tribes, or by sailors who had traveled to their countries and brought these customs back with them. Body piercings were traditionally done only by primitive tribes who didn't know the God of Israel. However, it is indeed a sign of the times that over the last few decades, body piercings and tattoos, which are reminiscent of the unregenerate pagan nations, have become very popular in Christian countries. So much so that today it is not uncommon to find that people professing to be Christian are either in support of, or defending the claim that there is nothing Biblically wrong with these practices. You can even search the internet and find so called 'Christian tattoo parlors' and 'Christian body Piercing studios.' Indeed, the time is upon us where it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the world and the Church.
1st John 2:15
What is the Origin of the Term "Church" The Greek term (ekklesia) ekklesia which is commonly translated as "church", basically means 'called out' and was commonly used to indicate an "assembly" of citizens of a Greek city and is so used in (Acts 19:32 NAS). The citizens who were quite conscious of their privileged status over against slaves and non citizens were called to the assembly by a herald and dealt . . . with matters of common concern. When the early Messianic Community understood themselves as constituting an "assembly" or "congregation", they no doubt perceived of themselves as called out by God in Messiah Yeshua for a special purpose and that their status was a privileged one in Messiah Yeshua (Eph. 2:19 NAS).
It should be noted that, (ekklesia) ekklesia was used more than one hundred times in the Greek translation of the Tanach in common use in the time of Yeshua. The Hebrew term from which (ekklesia) ekklesia is derived is (qahal) lhq which simply meant 'assembly' and could be used in a variety of ways, referring for example to an assembling of prophets (1 Sam. 19:20 NAS), soldiers (Num. 22:4 NAS), or the people of God (Deut. 9:10 NAS). The use of the term in the Tanach in referring to the people of God is important for our understanding of the use of the term 'assembly or congregation' (ekklesia) ekklesia in the New Covenant Scriptures.....
Dr. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, appx. 162 states, "crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian Sun-god...It should be stated that Constantine was a Sun-god worshipper...The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon and upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle."
Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pp. 197-205, frankly calls the cross "this Pagan symbol...the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah...the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) and Egyptians--the true original form of the letter T--the initial of the name of Tammus...the Babylonian cross was the recognized emblem of Tammuz."...
A young Catholic believer recently asked me, "What are Protestants still protesting about anyway?" The question caught me off-guard, and at the time I had to answer, "I don't really know... nothing, I guess." Well my on-the-spot answer really bothered me, and it started gnawing away at me. What were Martin Luther, the Huguenots, the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and the multitudes of others protesting anyway when they broke away from the Church of Rome? What did they suffer untold persecutions and martyrdoms for? I had to find the answer... and when I found it, I knew I had no choice but to share it.
So beginning with this issue, we are publishing a series of articles dealing with the Roman Catholic Church. Never has a more frightening task been set before me than editing this series of articles.
The Ecumenical Movement
There has never been such widespread acceptance of Catholicism among Protestants and evangelicals as there is today. I don't mean that there are large numbers of main line evangelicals becoming Catholics. But today, for the first time in church history, an increasing majority of Protestants are regarding the Roman Catholic Church as simply another valid Christian denomination. Meanwhile, gleeful shouts of "unity" are being heralded worldwide in ecumenical gatherings, festivals and conventions. (This is especially true among Charismatics.)
I believe there has never been such a crucial need to ask these possibly disturbing questions: "Are the heresies of Romanism that brought about the Reformation still alive in the modern Roman Church, or are these doctrinal discrepancies now settled?" Or worse yet, "Should the scriptural issues that brought about the spilling of oceans of martyrs' blood now be considered unimportant?"