Tattoos and Couches - What Old Testament Laws are Binding?

[karpos]

I think that if one of our members went out and got a tattoo, we'd probably excommunicate him. If a convert came into the church with tattoos, we'd probably tell him to wear a long sleeved shirt. Why? Because tattoos are pretty obviously from the world and typify the sinful doings of people. I don't need to go to the OT for that. The NT tells us to avoid all appearance of evil, and I'd place tattoos right there. If you got them and didn't know better, fine. If you did know better and now wish you wouldn't have gotten them, fine. But I have little time for the kind of Biblical games that are showing up on MennoNet the last while. Life is serious, because we are living out our apprenticeship for eternity.

very well said

[MaxPC]

I don't feel bound by any of the OT laws. But many of their principles are carried forward into the New Testament. But we need to realize that there were various classes of laws. Since Israel was a nation, they had to have civil laws. How were they handle a lawbreaker, a rapist, or a murderer. Etc.

That class of laws we don't really need to pay a lot of attention to.

Then there were the health and safety laws. The laws of uncleaness were part of that, though some had some spiritual significance as well.

Then there were ceremonial laws, like the laws of sacrifice and the festivals.

All three of those categories are pretty well redundant.

The other category is what is often called the moral law. I went through the whole books of the law one time and categorized all the laws in them. Took a good part of a week. But it was very insightful. I feel that the moral part of the law is where God revealed his feelings about sin. This part of the OT is worthwhile studying, just to get some insight into God's thinking about things. But again, I don't go there and make them part of my daily life, because I believe that the NT lists what we need.

The Sermon on the Mount shows Jesus going back to the moral law and strengthening it. God expects better things of us than he expected of the OT believers, because we have the Spirit and the grace that comes with the Spirit.

I think that if one of our members went out and got a tattoo, we'd probably excommunicate him. If a convert came into the church with tattoos, we'd probably tell him to wear a long sleeved shirt. Why? Because tattoos are pretty obviously from the world and typify the sinful doings of people. I don't need to go to the OT for that. The NT tells us to avoid all appearance of evil, and I'd place tattoos right there. If you got them and didn't know better, fine. If you did know better and now wish you wouldn't have gotten them, fine. But I have little time for the kind of Biblical games that are showing up on MennoNet the last while. Life is serious, because we are living out our apprenticeship for eternity.

Amen and well said. I'd be interested if you wrote a book on your research in categorizing the laws. That would be very informative.

[lesterb]

If you wish to play that game, since loving your neighbor is in leviticus, you can make the argument that if women are allowed to sit on the couch all the time, you do not have to love your neighbor.

I think your argument qualifies as a syllogistic fallacy.

If feeding a poor person is loving your neighbor and loving your neighbor is old testament and therefore not binding then I do not have to help feed the poor. This is the type of illogical argument you are making.

You don't seem to understand what Boot is saying. What he is saying here is exactly why I don't use the OT for NT era doctrine. If you can go to the OT for one thing, I can for another. That means I can justify just war and polygamy and a lot of other things. The NT does a good job of showing us what God expects. And loving our neighbor is one of them. Having a woman sitting on a couch while she has her period isn't.

End of case. It's as simple as that.

[karpos]

You don't seem to understand what Boot is saying. What he is saying here is exactly why I don't use the OT for NT era doctrine. If you can go to the OT for one thing, I can for another.

I understand it perfectly. If Jesus quotes part of the OT as something we should live by, then I reject the notion that it is invalid.

[Reflecting]

I don’t know if tattoos/ cuttings/ markings are mentioned in the NT per se, but
- OT says “I am the Lord.” This was the context or reason given. God is still our Creator and Lord today.
-NT does teach we are not to have excessive outward adorning. To etch something into to body God created for you zooms way beyond adorning it.

MHO

marks on the head and hand are mentioned in revelation 13.

True. Specific marks. Don’t think I would say all tattoos are the mark of the beast even if I give you that they seem to mark one as of the world and not being of Godliness.

[Robert]

To be blunt, I don't think you understand logical fallacies very well.

when i started computer programming (a LONG time ago), i tried using boolean logic to do complicated things and it didnt work very well. I understand logical fallacies quite well.

Maybe you thought posting it 4 times would make it make more sense?

Your tone is very hard here. You are not discussing, but trying to prove a person wrong. I see no need to do that. Speak what you have grown to understand and leave the finger pointing out of it. It will not foster good discussion, but only used to belittle others.

[Robert]

I understand it perfectly. If Jesus quotes part of the OT as something we should live by, then I reject the notion that it is invalid.

Jesus also did not have his disciples wash as they were commanded in the OT.

It is fine that you want to live by all the OT laws. Feel free, but I choose to live by the commands of Jesus to love others as I would want to be loved. To treat others the way I would want to be treated. For others to know we are His followers by our love, not our debate skills.

[Hats Off]

While I would certainly advise my granddaughters against wearing trousers or slacks today, I wonder if the OT command about women wearing men's clothing applies to this situation. I am not suggesting I am in favour of women wearing what we consider men's clothing but I wonder how we would answer someone who came to us with the idea that it is more modest for women to wear loose fitting pants than a dress.

[silentreader]

Matthew 22:34-40 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Great Commandment
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

[Biblical Anabaptist]

I think our problem is that we too often use the Bible as a law book rather than a guidebook. True, there are some commands in the Bible. I think the practice of using the Bible as a lawbook may have come as a result of the influence of fundamentalism.

I think the difference is like the difference between a road sign or roadmap and a GPS. In pre GPS days, if I wanted to go to Chicago for example, I would look at a map to determine the general direction and main roads I would take. I then follow the signs pointing to Chicago or cities I knew I would pass through on my way there. When I followed the direction the sign told me to go, I perhaps would have no idea where that road went but I traveled in faith that the sign would take me to where I wanted to go.

In contrast with a GPS we have no idea where we are going or what road to take, we simply take the turn by turn directions of the GPS. My GPS has sometimes directed me to go through a field where there may have been a road 50 years ago.

I fear if we try to use the Bible as a GPS rather than a roadmap, we may find ourselves in places we do not want to be.