By Gbenga Osinaike
The right place to go when dealing with issues of personal preference is the Bible. It can also be the “wrong” place to go if not handled correctly. Why? Because the Bible is a faithful record of both the good and the bad.
There is perhaps nothing one cannot attempt to justify using the Bible. God allows this record so that we can first get our heads straightened out and understand that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). The scriptures remind us that these things were “written for our examples” (1 Corinthians 10:11). Therefore, you must make up your mind and decide what to emulate from the Holy Book.
It is called “God’s Word” not because God uttered every single syllable recorded therein, but because he inspired the authors to write every word. it is the absolute truth about what God said, what the Devil said, and what people did or did not do. It is a perfect record of history. Thus, when placing a life under scrutiny, it must be done through the lens of proper exegesis. The word must be interpreted in its full context.
The Unity of the Testaments
A significant challenge for many believers is the tendency to compartmentalize the Bible. While we have the Old and New Testaments, the truth is that it is one cohesive book centered on the person of Jesus. It is “Old” and “New” only because Jesus came to interpret and fulfill the earlier covenant.
Consider this: when Paul and the apostles preached, they didn’t invent new scriptures. They used the Law and the Prophets (Acts 28:23). What we call the New Testament is essentially their Spirit-led interpretation of the Old. If we miss this, we risk “shipwrecking” our faith by focusing on the “letter” of the law rather than the “spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible follows a deliberate narrative account. From the Garden of Eden, where a lamb was slain to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21), we see a foreshadowing of Christ’s blood being shed. This reality was also an allegory.
Throughout the Old Testament scriptures we see stories and personalities that represent salvation, grace and law. The flood and the Noah’s Ark is the ultimate message of salvation..Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob are careful positioning of Law versus Grace. Check their lifestyles and predilections..
The Law, Grace, and Tattoos
Why this preamble? I see many using the Bible to address the issue of tattoos, but the argument often backfires. Critics point out that those citing Old Testament prohibitions often ignore hundreds of other laws in the same books. They are right.
The Mosaic Law contains roughly 613 commandments. No one can perfectly live by them. God, in His wisdom, used Moses to enact these laws to make a point: humanity cannot meet His standard. As the prophet noted, “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). The Law was a schoolmaster designed to show us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
The good news is that Christ’s death fulfilled the Law and supplied the grace to live by a higher principle. We are now called to present our bodies as “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1). Under this higher law, your actions are not dictated by external “dos and don’ts” but by the Holy Spirit within. Your love for God becomes a delight, not a drudgery. You’re are living sacrifice not like the dead sacrifice of the old testament scriptures. What that means is the you have your will to sin but you refuse to sin.
Liberty vs. Stumbling Blocks
The uniqueness of being a living sacrifice is that while the ability to sin remains, the delight in sin and capacity to sin are removed. You are guided by the Spirit.
You might ask, “By what standard then do we judge a man’s actions?” It is simple: “By their fruits, you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16).
The “new man” is sensitive to the Spirit and concerned for his neighbor. Jesus summarized the law as loving God and loving your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). However, liberty is not a license for chaos or distraction.
Many Old Testament laws aimed at order and sincerity. For example, when the Bible says, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4), it wasn’t just about animal welfare. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 that this was a moral code regarding the support of those who work.
When the Bible talks about firstfruit..it is no longer physical fruit we harvest in the farmland..it is about Christ being our first fruit.1 Corinthians 15:23. And the apostles made this clear in their messages. They even referred to new converts as first first fruit. Romans 16:5
When the old talks about tithe the new sees it from giving lovingly and cheerfully because that is what God loves. There is no more legalism . Unlike the Jews who had to pray about three times a day, we are encouraged to pray always. The beautiful thing is that the Christian is no longer put in a box of a to-do list. But that does not remove the place of order and discipline..
The Case of the Tattoo
That is why I am amused at the suggestion by Pastor Kingsley Okonkwo, Lead Pastor of David’s Christian Centre, that millions are being “saved” by his tattoo. Or did he mean millions were being distracted? The tattoo in question is in Roman numerals which is unintelligible to the average person.
The point is, if they are going to be saved, they should in the first place understand what will bring them to Christ.
He should have perhaps done it in plain language and perhaps have something like : Jesus saves on his hands. Or the fore-head would have been ideal. That will catch attention at first appearance wherever he goes
But talking seriously, Okonkwo should understand that people are not necessarily criticizing the act of tattooing itself; they are questioning the intent. If a decision is truly of God, it rarely generates this kind of confusing hoopla. Even those outside the faith seem perplexed, as if the church is trying too hard to meet them in their territory.
If your “good” is spoken of as evil, what is the point of that good? (Romans 14:16). And to complicate the act, he took precious time to justify it, describing it as being creative. That was a slippery slope. Because he is setting a loose boundary. Would he justify his congregation coming to church nude in the name of creativity?
The irony of Okonkwo’s action is thaf the very people he was trying to impress by his tattoos are the ones pumelling him on social media. You only need to check the comments section of wherever the post appear. They have no good words for him. They wonder why he was just waking up to tattoo at age 50.
Apostle Paul gave us the ultimate boundary: ”But meat commendeth us not to God… But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:8-9)
“Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” (1 Corinthians 8:13)
Identification without distraction
The reason Okonkwo’s tattoo is problematic is because it has no contextual basis. He made a rather weak argument justifying it that the people he is sent to have that culture. That itself is a problem because there are a good number of that segment that are not at home with that culture. Even in the US it’s not a prevalent culture.
Ironically, we see mostly black folks doing weird things in the name of being avant-garde. In the true sense most of the supposedly weird cultures are their own way of revolt against the status quo and not necessarily a cultural thing. Would Okonkwo justify sagging in the name for the prevalent culture among young people?
As believers we must look at the principle of contextualization in our preferences. Consider a story often told in mission circles: A missionary couple moved to a remote, unreached tribe where the people lived in total nudity, using only leaves for basic modesty.
When the couple first arrived in their Western clothing, the villagers fled wondering what manner of people are so dressed in strange covering.
To the villagers, the missionaries weren’t “well-dressed”. They were “aliens.” The clothes were a massive distraction that made the Gospel message secondary to the strange fabric the messengers were wearing.
Rather than give up on the village, they beat a retreat and made a radical choice and returned to the village. They set aside their clothes and adopted the local attire (leaves). By doing so, They didn’t become “sinners”; they became relatable.
The irony in Kingsley Okonkwo’s case is that he has done the exact opposite because the tattoo has replied rather than attract.
In the missionary story, the messengers gave up a “right” (wearing clothes) to reach a culture. In Okonkwo’s case, he has adopted a “right” (the tattoo) which can be likened to what the “clothes” did for the villagers: it is a visual barrier.
Instead of the tattoo serving as a bridge to the lost, it has become a “billboard of contention” and a subject of distraction. He now has to devote quality time defending the act rather than preaching the gospel.
If the goal of the “New Man” is to be “all things to all men that I might by all means save some” as stated by Paul (1 Corinthians 9:22), we must ask: Does this tattoo make the Gospel clearer, or does it require Okonkwo to spend more time defending the tattoo than preaching the Cross?
The truth is, Okonkwo has caused too much distraction with his attempt to represent a culture that is not prevalent in this clime.
I don’t know what God is saying directly to him. And I don’t know what God will bring out of this. But from what is on the ground already, it’s obvious that the messenger has become the message. The prognosis of the seed being sown does not look look.
