Is it a sin to get a tattoo?

Here "sin" means wrong conduct before God. It is not a statement about whether anyone is saved.

1 John 3:4 might seem to settle the question, because it ties sin to the law. But in its chapter it stands beside the command to believe in Christ and to love one another (1 John 3:23). 1 John 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin, so sin is not just a matter of what is done to the body. 1 John does not say that every statute given through Moses binds its readers unchanged.

The Greek word behind "transgression of the law" in 1 John 3:4 is also translated "iniquity" and "unrighteousness":

These uses show that sin is opposition to God's will and righteousness. The word alone does not show how far each command of Moses reaches under the new covenant. Romans 6 holds both truths in one breath:

So believers are not under the law, and sin is still forbidden. Both are true together. The rest of this answer keeps them both.

This is the strongest text against getting a tattoo, and it has to be faced directly. The LORD speaks to all Israel through Moses, and the chapter is framed by holiness:

The word "tattoo" doesn't appear, but that settles nothing. A search of the King James text for "tattoo" finds nothing. That does not remove this command. "Print any marks upon you" is a real ban on bodily marks.

What the words mean. The Hebrew word for "marks" occurs only in this verse, so Scripture gives no second use to define it more closely. The word for "make" and "print" is a common verb that is used elsewhere for giving and for laying things down:

So the meaning comes from the object, "marks upon you", and from the ban itself. A design deliberately put into the body falls naturally under that wording for the people it was given to. The reading makes no claim about exactly which ancient technique was meant.

Does "for the dead" cover both halves of the verse? People read the verse two ways:

• One reading says "for the dead" governs both halves, so only marks made for the dead were banned.
• The other reading says "for the dead" goes with the cuttings, and the printing half stands as broad as it is written.

The second reading has the stronger direct support, because the printing half carries no "for the dead" of its own.

Other passages do show that cutting was tied to death and mourning:

These show why the narrower reading is possible. None of them says that every printed mark was only about mourning. Jeremiah 48 describes judgment and lament. It is not a command, and it is not an account of all marking.

So this answer does not get its result by assuming the narrower reading. It takes the broader reading, which is the stronger objection, and carries it all the way through. As shown below, the result is the same under either reading.

Nearby commands are not a reason to dismiss it. The same chapter has commands about mixed cloth and about beards:

But it also has commands that clearly still matter:

Where a verse sits in the chapter does not decide whether it still binds. Nothing in the text read proves that every ancient mark was a pagan rite, so this answer does not lean on that idea either.

The law is holy

The command in Leviticus was not a mistake, and it was not evil. Malachi calls Israel to remember the law, which shows how seriously it is meant. Malachi does not say how far it reaches into the new covenant.

Jesus came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it

Jesus spoke these words to His disciples, with the crowds around. They rule out any idea that He simply threw Scripture away. They must stay true alongside the later passages that say plainly that the law has changed:

Hebrews is quoting a promise God made through Jeremiah:

Paul describes believers' relationship to the law the same way:

Matthew 5 and these passages are both true. Jesus' stated purpose is to fulfil the law. The later passages explain how the law changed with the new priesthood and the new covenant. They never say the earlier words were false. This answer does not need, and does not claim, that every prophecy has already been fulfilled.

The apostles refused to command Gentile believers to keep the law of Moses

Two things were in dispute in Acts 15. The first was salvation:

The second was a demand that Gentile believers be commanded to keep the law:

The apostles' letter answered that demand directly:

So Acts 15 was not only about trying to earn salvation by the law while quietly keeping every statute as daily practice. It also rejected the command to keep the law of Moses.

Some say the Gentiles kept four rules at first and were expected to take on the whole law later through the synagogue readings. That idea rests on this verse:

The verse says Moses is read every sabbath. It does not command these Gentiles to attend, or to take on every statute later. Such a command would go against "no such commandment" and "no greater burden". Moses being read in public is the reason James gives for his advice, not a hidden command that reverses the letter.

Years later, the same decision was stated again. The elders noted that the Jewish believers kept the law zealously:

Then they set the Gentile believers apart:

Jewish custom therefore does not create a tattoo ban for all believers. The four requirements are not a complete list of every moral duty, because other passages give many more, as the next section shows.

Paul's letters agree:

1 Corinthians 7:19 is especially direct. Circumcision was a bodily sign that God once commanded, and Paul sets it apart from keeping God's commandments. Speaking of God's commandments does not bring back every bodily sign in the law of Moses.

Moral duties remain

Being free from the law as a code does not mean being free from duty to God:

The old law still teaches. Paul applies a command of Moses to the support of workers:

Love of neighbour, from the same chapter as Leviticus 19:28, is quoted and carried forward:

There is real evidence against a careless kind of liberty, and it has to be weighed. Peter quotes Leviticus:

The link is real, because the reason God gives in both places is His own holiness. Believers must be holy in all they do.

Peter's words also appear in Leviticus 11, right beside food laws:

Yet the New Testament says plainly that those food rules do not bind in the same way (Colossians 2:16, above), and Romans 14 says:

So the call to holiness stays, but it does not carry every nearby rule over unchanged. Liberty cannot cancel holiness either: Galatians 5:13 and Romans 6:15, above, say so plainly.

God also promises that His people will obey Him:

These are real promises. They rule out any idea that life in the Spirit has no commands. They strengthen the duty to obey God. They do not mention tattoos. They do not say that the change of law in Hebrews 7:12 did not happen. In Ezekiel they come with promises about the land, a reunited people, a shepherd-king and God's sanctuary. That setting should not be turned into a stand-alone command to keep every statute of Moses unchanged.

James also warns against picking and choosing:

James's point keeps its full force: no one may excuse a wrong by pointing to the commands they do keep. In James the royal law is love of neighbour, the case is favouritism, and the same God forbids adultery and murder. Reading James 2:10 as putting every bodily requirement of Moses on believers unchanged would clash with 1 Corinthians 7:19, Acts 15 and Hebrews 7:12.

This answer does not split the law to keep the pleasant parts. It follows the changes Scripture states openly, and it keeps the moral commands Scripture actually gives.

Each of these is ruled out by a verse it would make false.

• "Scripture says nothing relevant, because the word 'tattoo' isn't there." Leviticus 19:28 is a real command about printed marks.
• "Every command of Moses binds every believer in exactly the same form." This would make Hebrews 7:12 and Acts 15:24 false.
• "The old command was false or evil, or the law can no longer teach anything." This would make Romans 7:12 false, and Paul uses the ox command in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 to teach.
• "Freedom from the law makes sin permissible." Romans 6:15 rejects this directly.
• "The body is private property, so wanting it is enough." 1 Corinthians 6:19 says "ye are not your own".
• "Every cut or change to the body defiles what belongs to God." God commanded a cut to the body:

  Leviticus 12:3

  "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." (Leviticus 12:3)

  Paul also circumcised a disciple, for a reason the text gives:

  Acts 16:3

  "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." (Acts 16:3)

  These comparisons only go so far. Neither says anything about a tattoo's design, purpose, method or effects, and neither permits tattoos. They disprove only the claim that changing the body is always defiling in itself.

• "If the conscience is confident, an otherwise forbidden act becomes right." The ban on idolatry still stands however confident someone feels:

  1 Corinthians 10:14

  "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (1 Corinthians 10:14)

• "Every mark on the body is the mark of the beast." This is dealt with below under Revelation.

Some other claims are not disproved, because nothing in the text read supports them in the first place, so they stay out of this answer. These include: that every ancient mark was a pagan mourning rite; that every visible design is vanity; that anyone's dislike automatically makes an act sin; and that Isaiah's graven palms, Paul's marks or the rider's written name are commands to get a tattoo.

The temple passages

There are two temple passages, and they speak of different things. In 1 Corinthians 3 the temple is the church community. Paul is rebuking divisions:

This warning is serious and must not be brushed aside. But the passage does not call a mark on the skin "defiling".

The Greek word for "defile" here is used elsewhere for corrupting manners, people, minds and conduct:

So the word means corrupting or ruining. It is not about damaging a surface, and it does not equate ink in skin with defilement.

1 Corinthians 6 is about the body itself. Its immediate subject is sexual sin:

Verse 16 quotes Genesis:

"All things are lawful" does not mean everything is right, because the same chapter condemns fornication. The reason Paul gives in verses 19 and 20 is wider than his example: the body is God's, bought with a price, and is to glorify Him. That reason reaches every bodily choice, including a tattoo. It does not make getting a tattoo the same act as fornication, and nothing in the passage says every tattoo dishonours God.

What honouring God with the body asks

These passages raise the standard. Wanting something is never the whole test:

Romans 12:2 asks for a renewed mind. It does not mean that everything people in the world do is worldly by nature.

Hebrews joins a washed body with sincere faith, love and good works:

It does not call a tattoo unclean.

Christ's suffering in His body is a reason to live righteously:

Peter is quoting Isaiah:

These verses do not command anyone to copy His wounds with chosen marks.

All of this makes the duty clearer: a person in Christ is to honour God with the body and answer to Him for it. None of it shows that every mark in the skin is evil. The general permission to serve God with the body also does not mean every particular tattoo serves Him.

Liberty is real, and it comes with duties to God and to other people.

Idolatry. A design or purpose that actually takes part in idolatry is wrong:

Paul makes a careful distinction here. Ordinary food sold in the market is fine to eat:

The earth it comes from is the Lord's:

But sharing in sacrificial worship is forbidden. Calling both of these "just food" would miss Paul's reason. In the same way, calling every tattoo idolatry because some design could express idolatry would make the same mistake from the other side.

Vain glory.

Faith and conscience.

Romans 14 is about eating, but its "whatsoever" gives a wider reason. Getting a tattoo while knowingly going against one's own conviction before God is not made right by another person's freedom. A clear conscience is not enough on its own either, because the ban on idolatry stays true however confident someone feels. Romans 14's statements that food is pure do not make every kind of act pure.

Other people.

Romans 14:21 reaches "any thing" that makes a brother stumble, not only food. Even so, someone simply disliking a choice does not automatically forbid it, since 1 Corinthians 10:29 still speaks of liberty. The question is what the real effect on another person would be. Harm should not be invented, and neither should harmlessness.

Adornment. Scripture gives standards for how a person adorns themselves:

No design can take the place of godly character. A tattoo, like anything else displayed, has to be weighed by these words: modesty, sobriety, godliness and good works. Wanting a visible design does not by itself show vanity or immodesty.

A tattoo for someone who has died. This would need its own careful weighing. Grief on its own does not make such a tattoo idolatry, and neither does a supposed ancient association. It cannot be said that all memorial tattoos are allowed, and it cannot be said that all are idolatrous.

Every other use of the Greek word for "appearance" was read. It is used for a bodily shape, the look of a face, a shape seen or not seen, and sight:

None of these teaches that whatever anyone thinks looks evil is evil. In 1 Thessalonians the command comes right after "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Whether "appearance" means evil in any visible form, or something that looks like evil, there still has to be a real link to evil. So this verse cannot be used to label every tattoo without showing that link. Other people's real conscience still matters under Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10.

Marks that seem to favour tattoos are not permissions. Isaiah 49 is God's answer to Zion's fear of being forgotten:

This is God's promise to remember. It is not a command, and it does not describe a person getting a tattoo.

Paul's marks come at the end of a letter about persecution, circumcision and boasting:

The text does not say how the marks were made, and the Greek word occurs only here. It does not show they were chosen tattoos, and it does not tell Christians to get religious ones.

The rider in Revelation 19 is part of a vision of judgment:

This passage does not describe ink and does not tell anyone to copy it.

A tattoo is not the mark of the beast. In Revelation that mark is tied to the beast's name and number, to buying and selling, and to worshipping the beast:

Revelation also shows God's people with His name written on their foreheads:

So not every mark on the forehead is the beast's mark. Calling a tattoo that mark leaves out everything the passage uses to identify it. The opposite conclusion fails too: one good name in a vision does not make every human mark good.

These were read to check speakers, sources and context. None of them adds a verdict on tattoos.

• Print and nail prints. Job's complaint about a "print" on his heels, and Thomas's words about the "print of the nails", concern suffering and the wounds of the risen Jesus. They do not concern chosen designs.

  Job 13:27 John 20:25

  "Thou puttest my feet also in the stocks, and lookest narrowly unto all my paths; thou settest a print upon the heels of my feet." (Job 13:27)

  "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25)

• What defiles. Jesus' teaching on what defiles is about eating with unwashed hands, and food that goes into the belly rather than the heart. Putting a design into skin is not the eating case He describes. These verses do not show that every outward bodily action is free of sin, and they are not used here as permission for tattoos.

  Matthew 15:20 Mark 7:19

  "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:20)

  "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" (Mark 7:19)

• Older promises behind 2 Corinthians 6. God's promises to be a father and to dwell with His people were checked as sources for 2 Corinthians 6. They neither permit nor forbid tattoos.

  2 Samuel 7:14 Ezekiel 37:27

  "I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:" (2 Samuel 7:14)

  "My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Ezekiel 37:27)

• Who wrote the letters, and to whom. The openings of the letters were read to confirm who wrote and who received them. 1 Corinthians is addressed to believers everywhere, not only in Corinth:

  1 Corinthians 1:2

  "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" (1 Corinthians 1:2)

  1 Timothy's opening speaks well of the law and puts love, conscience and faith at its heart:

  1 Timothy 1:5 1:8

  "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" (1 Timothy 1:5)

  "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;" (1 Timothy 1:8)

  The text read does not name the human writer of Hebrews or the writer of 1 John, so this answer names neither.

The letters quoted here were written to people who believe in Jesus Christ. This answer applies their teaching to "a person in Christ". The person asking has not said where they stand, and nothing is assumed. Nothing here is a verdict on anyone's standing before God, whether they are forgiven, or what God thinks of them. It weighs the act only.

The question asked was about getting a tattoo. Removing a tattoo someone already has was not asked about and was not studied, so this answer says nothing about it.

The reading did not search every passage of Scripture. Some search results were listed but not opened, and some search pages were not viewed. Those are named in the full record. No dictionary, ancient history, medical information or modern account of how tattoos are done was used. That is why the answer does not depend on any claim about ancient customs.

These are limits of the reading, and they are stated as such. They do not mean Scripture leaves the question open. The answer above rests on what the covenant, holiness, liberty and bodily-service passages actually say.

To think through one particular tattoo, these are the questions Scripture's own words raise:

• What tattoo is being considered, and why is it wanted?
• Would getting it go against the person's own conviction before God?
• Would it lead someone else into what that person believes is wrong?

The general answer above does not wait on these. They matter only for applying it to one real choice, and no answer to them has been assumed here.