When did tattoos become ok?

[SolaScriptura]

OK, I know that modern Christians tended to have no problem with tattoos. But when exactly did that change? As far as I’m aware, the pretty much uniform testimony of God‘s people in both the old and new covenants up until just a few decades ago was simple: God’s people don’t tattoo themselves.

God didn’t say, “pagans mark themselves with tatoos to show loyalty to their deities, so I want you to show your loyalty to me by marking yourself with tatoos depicting loyalty to me.” No, he said “do not put tatoo marks on yourself.”

For millennia that was understood, and only in recent times has that been deemed “unclear.”

When did this understanding change?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

he said “do not put tatoo marks on yourself.”

Actually he said, "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put ketovet qa'aqa on yourselves."

"Ketovet qa'aqa" has been traditionally translated as "tattoo marks", but that might not quite be a good equivalence.

Leviticus 19:28 is pretty clearly about specific pagan ancestor worship practices, and isn't quite a good equivalent to the modern practice of general artwork tattooed on the body for personal aesthetic reasons.

For the record, I am not a big fan of tattoos in general. When I was growing up, only bikers, convicts, and combat veterans tended to have tattoos.

I prefer not to see people's bodies marred with tattoos, but "Sean doesn't like it" isn't a good hermeneutical principle.

 

[MW]

I prefer not to see people's bodies marred with tattoos, but "Sean doesn't like it" isn't a good hermeneutical principle.

I understand what you are saying in an individualistic culture, but once upon a time an older person's views on these things would have mattered since they were the ones who set the tone. Already by the 80s "footloose" became the ingrained narrative where the older generation (including the minister) was supposed to buckle and accommodate the teen's rebellious propensities to break free. And now parents have all but given up on thinking they have any say in the lives of their older children and merely hope to exercise an indirect influence upon them. We are all reaping what we sowed.

 

[paranymph]

OK, I know that modern Christians tended to have no problem with tattoos. But when exactly did that change? As far as I’m aware, the pretty much uniform testimony of God‘s people in both the old and new covenants up until just a few decades ago was simple: God’s people don’t tattoo themselves.

God didn’t say, “pagans mark themselves with tatoos to show loyalty to their deities, so I want you to show your loyalty to me by marking yourself with tatoos depicting loyalty to me.” No, he said “do not put tatoo marks on yourself.”

For millennia that was understood, and only in recent times has that been deemed “unclear.”

When did this understanding change?

I would guess it started with the prominence of tattoos in the culture in general. Maybe this was the 80s or 90s? Then, when some of these tatted people would be converted, churches not wanting to appear "fundamentalist" weren't going to say anything about it. In other words, basically all churches have people with tattoos, and it probably started with those who had them being converted. And once the church stops talking about it, the practice just becomes normalized. Then converted Christians start to get tattoos, and nobody's going to do anything about it. I would guess this happened around the 2000s?

(I am not arguing for right or wrong, just throwing out a hypothesis.)

 

[SolaScriptura]

Actually he said, "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put ketovet qa'aqa on yourselves."

"Ketovet qa'aqa" has been traditionally translated as "tattoo marks", but that might not quite be a good equivalence.

Leviticus 19:28 is pretty clearly about specific pagan ancestor worship practices, and isn't quite a good equivalent to the modern practice of general artwork tattooed on the body for personal aesthetic reasons.

For the record, I am not a big fan of tattoos in general. When I was growing up, only bikers, convicts, and combat veterans tended to have tattoos.

I prefer not to see people's bodies marred with tattoos, but "Sean doesn't like it" isn't a good hermeneutical principle.

Your post is Exhibit A of what I’m talking about. You ignored what I said… For 4000 years everyone understood that Leviticus meant: God’s people don’t tattoo themselves.

And now we have the argumentation in your exhibit.

And my question is when did things change?

 

[Joshua]

It’s difficult to say when, exactly, but the why is not so much about lack of explicit command, but more of a departure from ownership, which has implications (convictingly) far more broad than tattoos. Who owns the body? Would we be reticent to speak to that which seems more obviously wrong (body modification, tattoos, etc.), because of it laying bare proper criticism of perhaps the less obvious (the effects of gluttony, hyper focus on longevity, etc.)?

1. Who owns our bodies? 1 http://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Sermons/022413S-P.mp3
2. Who owns our bodies? 2 http://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Sermons/031012S-P.mp3

 

[Andrew35]

Tattoos, as far as I can see anthropologically, aren't neutral or decorative, but rather generally communicate a sense of belonging to something bigger than oneself.

Consider tribal, slave tattoos, etc.

Somehow, this understanding weakened, and I began to see Christians getting "wedding ring tattoos," for example--which feels presumptuous, since one might remarry, etc.

Then Christian tattoos--also a problem to me, seeming both redundant and also presumptuous, since God made our body, it's His, and it already bears His image.

Frankly, I think most moderns just stopped thinking deeply about things and what they mean.

 

[John Nyberg]

but rather generally communicate a sense of belonging to something bigger than oneself.

Very true. The only tattoo I ever seriously considered was the eagle, globe, and anchor. Group identity is a powerful motivator.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Historical Timeline of Acceptance according to AI:

• 1st – 4th Century: Early Christians sometimes adopted tattoos of crosses or lambs to show solidarity with Jesus.
• 787 AD: The Council of Northumberland in England declared that tattoos done for the "sake of God" were not only allowed but also laudable.
• Middle Ages: Crusaders and pilgrims commonly received tattoos in the Holy Land as proof of their journey and devotion.
• 1300s – Present: The Razzouk family in Jerusalem has continuously tattooed Christian pilgrims for over 700 years.
• 1960s: The Second Vatican Council marked a shift toward modernizing Church views, leading to more "context-dependent" acceptance. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

It looks like it has been a gray area throughout the history of the Church, but I would imagine they have mostly been discouraged throughout history. I think they are more accepted in our modern times because they are more of a form of art rather than a religious practice. In fact I would say certain churches probably prefer pastors to have that young and edgy look, as it makes pastors look more relatable to the world. I became a Christian in about 2007, and at that time they were already acceptable in the Church.

I do think it falls in to a similar category as something like modesty, that should be talked about but often isn't. It's a sensitive topic but there are general guidelines that should be thought about. I've noticed tattoos are generally gotten by younger people that want to draw attention to themselves, so motives like that should be thought through.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Ancient heathens marked their bodies for the dead.

Modern heathens get tattoos that say "Rest in peace... gone but not forgotten..."

I see it all the time. It's especially popular among Roman Catholics / Latinos.

But we shouldn't let people off the hook if their tattoo is not dedicated to heathen deities or the dead, but instead to the false god of self, or personal self-expression, or vain beauty. Like breast implants and nose jobs, it is something rarely done with anything but the worst of motives.

I did see a story this week, though, about how for many centuries Egyptian Christians have tattooed a cross on their child's wrist in case they were kidnapped by Muslims. That does appear categorically different to me.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Your post is Exhibit A of what I’m talking about. You ignored what I said… For 4000 years everyone understood that Leviticus meant: God’s people don’t tattoo themselves.

And now we have the argumentation in your exhibit.

And my question is when did things change?

Sean seems to be getting at the why and how should we view it or interact with it biblically. I also took the original post that way. If your question is simply "when" then you seem to answer your own question in the original post.

 

[Charles Johnson]

My family growing up was from more of a fundamentalist / evangelical background, and I heard all the time as a kid, "don't color on yourself. God made your body the way it is."

Now sometimes I'll tell my wife "Christians don't get tattoos," but she's fairly confused that she sees so many American evangelicals with tattoos. A couple decades ago it was still a very fringy / hipster thing.

Oh well. I'll indoctrinate my kids the same way I was indoctrinated. If evangelicals want to look like they joined a biker gang, good for them, I guess, but it's not for me or my family.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Ancient heathens marked their bodies for the dead.

Modern heathens get tattoos that say "Rest in peace... gone but not forgotten..."

I see it all the time. It's especially popular among Roman Catholics / Latinos.

But we shouldn't let people off the hook if their tattoo is not dedicated to heathen deity or the dead, but instead to the false god of self, or personal self-expression, or vain beauty. Like breast implants and nose jobs, it is something rarely done with anything but the worst of motives.

I did see a story this week, though, about how for many centuries Egyptian Christians have tattooed a cross on their child's wrist in case they were kidnapped by Muslims. That does appear categorically different to me.

I just looked into that, and wow you're totally right. Very insightful. This is what AI says.

Yes, various ancient cultures practiced tattooing in connection with the dead, often for mourning, protection, or spiritual communion. These rituals ranged from honoring deceased relatives and easing their passage to the afterlife, to protective magic against evil spirits. Such practices were common enough that they were often associated with pagan rituals, notes the Bible. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Mourning and Ritual: Ancient pagan cultures, sometimes including early Israelites according to Biblical accounts, would cut or tattoo their bodies as a formal part of mourning rituals.
• Protection against the Dead: In some arctic cultures, tattoos were believed to protect the living from malicious spirits of the dead.
• Worship and Communion: Some practices involved tattooing as a way to worship the deceased or connect with the spirit world.
• Capturing the Soul: Indigenous groups in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in North America sometimes used tattoos to represent the souls of killed enemies to honor or appease ancestors.
• Biblical Prohibition: Leviticus 19:28 explicitly prohibits cutting or tattooing the skin for the dead, implying this was a known custom among neighboring nations at the time. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[jhcampbell]

What about getting a Bible verse tattooed on yourself?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Even as Church leaders made (unwarrantedly made, in my mind) exception in some cases for those on Crusade or Pilgrimage... the fact remains that generally speaking tattoos were verboten.

Post automatically merged: May 5, 2026

What about getting a Bible verse tattooed on yourself?

I think you should swing for the fences and get Lev 19:28 tattooed on yourself.

 

[Beoga]

I understand what you are saying in an individualistic culture, but once upon a time an older person's views on these things would have mattered since they were the ones who set the tone. Already by the 80s "footloose" became the ingrained narrative where the older generation (including the minister) was supposed to buckle and accommodate the teen's rebellious propensities to break free. And now parents have all but given up on thinking they have any say in the lives of their older children and merely hope to exercise an indirect influence upon them. We are all reaping what we sowed.

Ok, I just have to ask, when this older generation dies off, who are more adverse to tattoo, and the next generation steps in as the older generation, and they themselves have tattoos, and find them to be more acceptable, do their opinions matter and does that make tattoos more acceptable?

 

[Northern Crofter]

My family growing up was from more of a fundamentalist / evangelical background, and I heard all the time as a kid, "don't color on yourself. God made your body the way it is."

So should Christians also not cut their hair or pierce their earlobes?

Are such prohibitive laws as these (as well as Leviticus 19.28) part of the moral law or the ceremonial law?

...it is something rarely done with anything but the worst of motives.

So in the cases where the motives are legitimate it is okay? In other words, it's not moral but subjected to wisdom?

Here are my thoughts from a while back, including my guess as to why the younger generations today might see it as acceptable (they don't seem to view them as permanent): https://puritanboard.com/threads/tattoos-piercings-and-history.113347/post-1359336

 

[J.L. Allen]

It's a touchy topic that isn't just skin-deep...

I have a number of tattoos, many of which are quite visible, including on my hands. I know that really irks some people, and others think it's just fine. However, it doesn't answer one question I've always had. For people who are out-and-out against them, what would you have people do who have them?

Post automatically merged: May 5, 2026

For the record, it wasn't even a conversation on my side of the tracks. I didn't grow up as a Christian, but I've gotten most of my tattoos as a Christian. It just wasn't really much of a topic in the churches I was attending (not P&R by any means).

I think I've been forced (for the better) to think through the question in more recent years.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It's a touchy topic that isn't just skin-deep...

I have a number of tattoos, many of which are quite visible, including on my hands. I know that really irks some people, and others think it's just fine. However, it doesn't answer one question I've always had. For people who are out-and-out against them, what would you have people do who have them?

My own opinion is that they are what they are, and while I would suggest removing a particularly vile or obscene tattoo, I think they just factor into our pre-conversion story, or if we are converted and then get a tattoo and then decide that you shouldn't have done that, then it becomes an object lesson: "I did this, but shouldn't have."

But I don't advocate the added step of seeking removal unless they're obscene or vile or perhaps if you (unwisely) got so tatted up that it limits job prospects. (Besides... I suggest that spending your time and resources to try to erase your past is not nearly as profitable as using them to be a blessing moving forward.)

Post automatically merged: May 5, 2026

Anyway, not to derail my own thread... but I was thinking about this recent phenomenon of "Christians" wanting to "re-build" "Christian culture" and I'm sitting here thinking: how blind and lacking in self-awareness... how can they possibly hope to "re-build" "Christian culture" when they don't share the sensibilities of former Christians who built that culture in the first place? The sensibilities of modern Christians in most cases bear the remarkable fingerprints of very modern basic assumptions and philosophies. At best they're Victor Frankenstein trying to piece together body parts to make an ideal specimen...

 

[J.L. Allen]

My own opinion is that they are what they are, and while I would suggest removing a particularly vile or obscene tattoo, I think they just factor into our pre-conversion story, or if we are converted and then get a tattoo and then decide that you shouldn't have done that, then it becomes an object lesson: "I did this, but shouldn't have."

But I don't advocate the added step of seeking removal unless they're obscene or vile or perhaps if you (unwisely) got so tatted up that it limits job prospects. (Besides... I suggest that spending your time and resources to try to erase your past is not nearly as profitable as using them to be a blessing moving forward.)

I appreciate your take, and I agree with you.

It can be frustrating to have people respond to the question by answering, "Well, you just should not have gotten them..." Great! Not helpful.

 

[Charles Johnson]

So should Christians also not cut their hair or pierce their earlobes?

I'm struggling to see the relevance of these passages.

Are such prohibitive laws as these (as well as Leviticus 19.28) part of the moral law or the ceremonial law?

We should not discount the possibility that certain laws surrounding personal grooming are rooted in the light of nature. "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" (1 Cor. 11:14)

Much more laws about cutting the flesh itself.

So in the cases where the motives are legitimate it is okay?

Perhaps.

In other words, it's not moral but subjected to wisdom?

Something being acceptable under certain circumstances does not mean that it is not a matter of morals where unacceptable. It is moral to donate blood to help others but immoral to slice open your wrists and drain your blood upon the ground. The principal reason is that in one instance one is motivated by benevolence, and in the other he is motivated by despair and self-hatred.

I have a number of tattoos, many of which are quite visible, including on my hands. I know that really irks some people, and others think it's just fine.

Obviously we've met, and I would not described myself as "irked." To be honest I didn't even recall you had tattoos. I try not to focus too much on people's physical appearance.

For people who are out-and-out against them, what would you have people do who have them?

Not much you can do. Maybe tell your kids "hey, if I could make the choice today, I would choose not to get a tattoo." I don't think you have a moral duty to get them removed, something that wasn't even an option a few years ago.

 

[SolaScriptura]

BTW - Beginning with Lev 19:26-37 the Lord provides a blitz of prohibitions, while there is coherency, they jump between subjects rapidly. So that, for instance, v.26 jumps from eating flesh with blood in it to not interpreting omens or telling fortunes. To v.27 saying not to round off the hair on your temples. or the edge of your beard. then v 28 and then immediately v 29 prohibits making your daughter a prostitute.

In short: while there is the possibility that "for the dead" defines the limits of the type of body markings that are prohibited, or that it applies to both the body markings and the tattoos, there is absolutely NO exegetical or contextual necessity that "for the dead" is *presicely* what is in view regarding the prohibition of tattoos: do not tattoo yourself is the command.

 

[Charles Johnson]

For those who think tattoos are not a violation of the 2nd commandment (i.e. not idolatrous, as Leviticus might seem to imply), I would ask, what about the 6th commandment? Is it healthy to pierce your flesh and inject ink?

Tattoo ink exposure is associated with lymphoma and skin cancers – a Danish study of twins
Signe Bedsted Clemmensen 1,2,✉, Jonas Mengel-From 1,2,3, Jaakko Kaprio 4, Henrik Frederiksen 5,6, Jacob von Bornemann Hjelmborg 1,2

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

When preaching through Leviticus, I preached this sermon on the topic, "Tattoos are Taboo for the Pure in Heart (Laws About Making Marks on Bodies)":

sermonaudio.com/sermons/1171623422110

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Frankly, I think most moderns just stopped thinking deeply about things and what they mean.

This is where I think the main issue lies in conversations like this. People really do not think deeply about things anymore.

Post automatically merged: May 5, 2026

It seems there were tattoos given to Christians in some parts of history, but only within a narrow context like tattooing a cross a baby in case they were kidnapped or killed by Muslims. Other than certain contexts, tattoos were largely forbidden most of the time until a couple decades ago in the church

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

This is where I think the main issue lies in conversations like this. People really do not think deeply about things anymore.

Post automatically merged: May 5, 2026

It seems there were tattoos given to Christians in some parts of history, but only within a narrow context like tattooing a cross a baby in case they were kidnapped or killed by Muslims. Other than certain contexts, tattoos were largely forbidden most of the time until a couple decades ago in the church

I agree. I almost included my two cents with personal observation and a general lack of discernment (definitely related to a lack of thinking deeply or studying to show one's self approved let alone always giving a Scriptural witness). Recently I've been amazed by a few online responses not by youth that indicated a lack of clicking and reading details before making a judgment that was completely off, let alone scrolling down and paying attention to a few sentences. Indeed, people on the whole do not think deeply about things anymore.

 

[Faithhopelove24]

I didn't tattoo myself, someone else did it for me

 

[Charles Johnson]

I didn't tattoo myself, someone else did it for me

Very sorry to hear of your time in the camps. Glad you made it out ok.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You definitely need more than a Mosaic restriction, if you mean to bind consciences across the board. Certainly there may be pragmatic, wisdom, health, historical, simple exercises of God-given authority, or other bases that may be used in the current age to prohibit or discourage tattoos. But your exegetical argument requires some heavy lifting that Leviticus will not supply; nay, it may scarcely be mentioned apart from historical reference.

Let me once again invoke Samuel Rutherford to the effect: that if one holds that tattoos are immoral for a professing Christian to acquire new on the basis that it was in the law and forbade by Moses, "I argue a peri, from the like, he is debtor to keep the whole law upon penalty of death."

 

[MW]

Ok, I just have to ask, when this older generation dies off, who are more adverse to tattoo, and the next generation steps in as the older generation, and they themselves have tattoos, and find them to be more acceptable, do their opinions matter and does that make tattoos more acceptable?

Yes, that is how God's judgments work -- they are inter-generational. To the third and fourth generation. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. But He is a God of mercy and grants repentance. There is a word we rarely hear anymore -- repentance. Self-affirmation and self-identity have all but buried it.