Another Look at Matthew 24 Through Pronominal Lenses

In what has historically been labeled the “Olivet Discourse,” Jesus foretold the destruction of the Jewish temple and surrounding buildings approximately four decades prior to it happening, while also addressing questions about the sign of his coming and the end of the age. The parallel accounts are recorded in Matt. 24:1–25:46; Mark 13:1-37; and Luke 21:5-36 (note also Luke 17:23-37; 18:8; 19:41-44).

Immediate Context

Jesus was at the temple in Jerusalem with his disciples, one of whom commented on the massive buildings and impressive architecture. Jesus then predicted the total destruction of “all these things” (Matt. 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6). Later, at Mount Olivet, Peter, James, John, and Andrew privately asked him two questions: (a) “when will these things be?” (the destruction of the temple and buildings); and (b) “what is the sign when all these things are to be accomplished?” (Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7); “what is the sign of your coming and of the consummation of the age?” (Matt. 24:3).¹

Using Matthew’s more extensive account as our base text, Jesus answered the first question about the temple’s destruction in 24:4-34, concluding, “Truly I say to you that this generation will not have passed away until all these things have occurred” (v. 34). He then answered the second question in 24:35–25:46, affirming, “But concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the heavenly angels nor the Son, but only the Father” (24:36). 

Differentiating Pronominal References

Attention to pronouns and related pronominal references further establishes the separate responses. Plural demonstrative pronouns describe the events surrounding the temple’s destruction: “these [things]” (ταῦτα) (24:2, 3, 8, 33, 34) and “those days” (ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις) (vv. 19, 22, 29). The singular is used for the end of the age: “that day” (τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης) (v. 36).

When Jesus addressed and alluded to his immediate (contemporary) disciples, he used second person plural (“you”) terminology (vv. 2, 4, 6, 9, 15, 20, 23, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 44, 47).² When speaking of those who were not his disciples, he used third person plural (“they”) terminology, inclusive of (a) false prophets (vv. 5, 11, 24, 26); (b) enemies (v. 9); (c) apostates (v. 10).³

The Challenging Verses

In the midst of answering the two questions, Jesus employed symbolism (vv. 27-31) that raises the issue of whether these verses apply to both of his responses, or just one to the exclusion of the other. Adding to the confusion for modern, westernized thinkers are the impediments of (a) ingrained linear thinking, (b) unfamiliarity with apocalyptic imagery, (c) a tendency to literalize, and (d) failure to recognize pronominal distinctions.

False claims of Christ’s premature arrival (v. 26) are to be rejected because the coming of the Son of Man will be like “lightening” (v. 27)—sudden, observable, unmistakable—while the fall of Jerusalem is likened to birds of prey gathered around a lifeless body (v. 28).

Shortly⁴ after the horrific events of “those days” (parallel to verses 19 and 22 leading up to Jerusalem’s fall), a dark, terrible day of judgment will occur against nationalistic Judaism, vividly portrayed with apocalyptic symbolism: “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (v. 29). These enigmatic descriptors, corresponding to no biblical accounts of Christ’s second coming, would have been familiar to anyone acquainted with Jewish apocalyptic literature. The darkening of atmospheric luminaries and plummeting constellations symbolize the collapse, downfall, and devastation of prominent powers (cf. Isa. 13:1-13; 14:4-15; 34:1-9; Amos 5:1-20; Luke 10:18): in this case, the first-century Jewish state.

“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory. And he will send his angels with a great trumpet [sound] and will gather his chosen ones from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto their ends” (vv. 30-31).

Contextually, while these verses could be interpreted figuratively with reference to the Lord’s swift judgment against Jerusalem and providential protection of his disciples,⁵ there seems instead to be a momentary shift, elaborating on what was said in verse 27, introducing what will be more fully disclosed in verses 35 ff., while contrasting what is to occur in the near and distant futures.

The visual and perceptual “seeing” verb ὁράω is consistently used throughout this discourse with the second person plural (“you”) form of address when applied to Christ’s contemporary followers: “you see [to it] that you are not troubled” (v. 6); “when you see ...” (v. 15); “if anyone says to you, ‘See ...’” (v. 23); “See, I have told you ...” (v. 25); “If they say to you, ‘Look ... look ...’” (v. 26); “when you see all these things ...” (v. 33). However, there is a pronominal shift in v. 30, “they will see ...” Many of the Lord’s personal disciples will still be alive to see the events leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction but not when the Lord himself returns.

The correlative adverb of time, “then” (τότε), occurring twice in verse 30, is used “of any time at all that fulfills certain conditions” (BDAG 1012). What Jesus says here is comparable to what he had revealed earlier to these same individuals (Matt. 13:39-43), as well as similar teachings elsewhere in the NT (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:13–5:10; 2 Thess. 1:6-10).

The parable of the fig tree illustrates for “you” (the current listeners) what “you know” about the foliage of a fig tree as a sign that summer is near (v. 32). “Thus also you, when you see all these [things], know that it is [ἐστιν] near, at the doors” (v. 33). Again, the expression “these [things],” repeatedly referring to the temple’s destruction (vv. 2, 3, 8), is not applicable to what “they will see” at the end of time (v. 30) but what “you see” from the perspective of the ones to whom Jesus was speaking on this occasion.

Conclusion

The pronominal switch from “you” (Matt. 24:2-26) to “they” (v. 30) back to “you” (vv. 32-33) leads to the concluding statement: “Truly I say to you that this generation will not have passed away until all these things have occurred” (v. 34). Then, starting at verse 35 through to the end of chapter 25, the second question is more fully addressed about “that day and hour” of the Lord’s return and the end of the age, the timing of which “no one knows, not even the heavenly angels nor the Son, but only the Father” (24:36). “Be watchful, therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man comes” (25:13).

--Kevin L. Moore

*Thanks to Martin Klamm for bringing this “Pronoun Shift” to my attention <Topical Bible Studies>.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The disciples are alluded to by Matthew in third person narrative (vv. 2, 4). Others, contemporary with Peter, James, John and Andrew, are spoken of in the third person: “Then the [ones] in Judea, let them flee to the mountains” (v. 16); “the [ones]” pregnant and “the [ones]” nursing (v. 19).

     ³ Third person plurals are also used in reference to angels (v. 31), the pre-flood population (vv. 38-39), and the master’s household (v. 45). Third person singulars denote the one having endured to the end and saved from destruction (v. 13), “the [one] reading ...” (v. 15), “the [one] on the housetop ...” (v. 17), and “the [one] in the field ...” (v. 18). Note also verses 40-51.

     ⁴ While the adverb εὐθέως is often rendered “immediately,” the sense of “shortly” better conveys its use here, i.e., after an indefinite but not a greatly extended period of time (as in Luke 13:5). In the midst of these signs, the end does not come “immediately” [εὐθέως] (Luke 21:9).

     ⁵ See K. L. Moore, “Matthew 24: End of the World or Jerusalem’s Fall,” Moore Perspective (8 Feb. 2014), <Link>.

Related Posts: The Day of the Lord, Anticipating Christ's Return: Part 1, Part 2 

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://askgramps.org/what-is-the-olivet-discourse/ 

The Process of Identifying, Selecting, and Appointing Elders

Each congregating community of God’s people is autonomous, designed to be organized with a plurality of qualified men serving as the principal leaders, designated as elders, overseers, shepherds (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Qualifications of these leaders are provided in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

No Procedural Pattern

The first mention of elders in a local church is Acts 11:30, but nothing is said about how these men were selected and instated. When Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders in every church” during their first missionary campaign (Acts 14:23), no details are given about a selection process or conferment procedure. Titus was instructed to “appoint elders” in every city of Crete where churches had been established, but other than the necessary qualifications of these men (Titus 1:5-9), no procedural guidelines are given.

Throughout the NT we read of elders already serving (Acts 15:2-6, 23; 20:17, 28; 21:17-19; Eph. 4:11-12; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), but the mechanics of how these men were chosen and installed is not recorded. 

What About Acts 6:1-6?

The special circumstances of Acts 6:1-6 do not necessarily establish a set pattern for appointing congregational leaders. The twelve apostles were the recognized church leaders at the time, and the Christian community in Jerusalem consisted of multiplied thousands of disciples (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1). When it became necessary to delegate the benevolence-ministry responsibilities to deacon-like servants, the apostles sought input from “the multitude of disciples” to help identify the men who exhibited the predetermined qualifications. This would have been most expedient under the circumstances, since twelve apostles could not have possibly known, on an individual basis, the thousands of men from which to choose.

Procedural Expediencies   

The Bible provides sufficient information for us to know what is expected of church leaders and the type of men who should serve. But God has not disclosed specific guidelines for the selection and conferment process, probably because every situation is different in relation to membership, circumstances, cultural environment, and human resources. Explicit procedural details are not biblically mandated. As long as the end result is a scripturally organized church in accordance with God’s purpose, the divine will as revealed in scripture has been fulfilled.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Elder Qualifications (Part 1) and accompanying Links, Congregational Leadership Without Elders 

 

Image credit: https://livingontheedge.org/2000/01/02/how-do-i-begin-reading-the-bible/?srsltid=AfmBOoq9VvN4sg5gVz8L_B_JF8iqeAMn4JobJiKIXi0tT7J3fZOI_vht 

Singlehood and “the Present Distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26)

As Paul gives instructions for virgins and widows (1 Cor. 7:25-40), he begins with the περι δε formula (“now concerning”), responding to a specific question he has been asked by the Corinthians (cf. v. 1). We don’t have a copy of the letter they sent to Paul, so we can only infer what their questions were from Paul’s responses.

Paul's Advice

The apostle’s expressed judgment about unmarried persons at the time in Corinth is based on “the present distress” (ESV, NASB, NKJV) or “impending crisis” (NRSV) [τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην],¹ whether current or in the near future (v. 26b). This is probably an allusion to a period of persecution (vv. 28-31; cf. Acts 14:22; 2 Tim. 3:12) or perhaps any difficulties faced by those trying to follow Christ in a godless environment.

Paul could assume his original reading audience knew what he was talking about (based on their shared experiences and communications), without further explanation needed. But today we only have one side of the conversation, so our understanding of the situation cannot be as precise, although what Paul says is reasonably clear.

Hard Times

It is good to remain as you are, whether married or unmarried (vv. 26c-27). It is not sinful to marry, but in “the present distress” you “will have trouble” (v. 28). Persecutions, government restrictions, and related hardships would cause Christians to be separated from their spouses, “as though they had none”; unable to have or attend funerals, “as though they did not weep”; unable to enjoy celebrations, “as though they did not rejoice”; lose property, “as though they did not possess”; denied basic rights, “as though they did not make full use of [this world]” (vv. 29-31a).

The world as the mid-first-century Corinthians knew it was passing away (v. 31b), so why would anyone want to start a family in this environment? If already married, stay married. If not, Paul’s advice in the current situation is to stay single and use it to the glory of God.

Conclusion

Paul’s counsel for unmarried Christians, as stated in 1 Corinthians 7, was issued in a particular context that does not necessarily correspond to different environments and circumstances. Nevertheless, in principle, singlehood is legitimized and is still a practical option. Faithfully serving the Lord does not depend on marital status.²

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The articular perfect-tense participial form of ἐνίστημι (“present,” “imminent,” or “impending”) + the accusative form of the noun ἀνάγκη (“pressure,” “distress”).

     ² See K. L. Moore, “The Single Christian,” Moore Perspective (23 April 2015), <Link>.

Related Posts: The Case for the Single Missionary 

Image credit: https://www.physiology.org/publications/news/the-physiologist-magazine/2019/november/stressed-out?SSO=Y

Let Us Reason Together (Isaiah 1:18)

The Context: God speaks through Isaiah the prophet concerning the rebellion and wickedness of his people. Their sinfulness has made their prayers and other acts of worship empty and displeasing to God. He issues an angry rebuke (Isaiah 1:1-15), followed by a gracious offer.

The Call of Restoration: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow” (vv. 16-17, NKJV).

The Invitation: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the Lord ...” (v. 18a). The initiative is taken by God, extending his lovingkindness with a benevolent invitation, “Come.” The qualifier “now” conveys urgency—no legitimate reason to wait. The exhortation “let us” requires a cooperative spirit. The verb “reason” implies the ability to think and to form judgments. However, since fallible human reasoning is often incongruous with the higher ways of God, he graciously invites us into his way of thinking—always right, good, and reasonable. The adverb “together” indicates a relationship in which God allows us to participate.

The Promise: “‘Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool’” (v. 18b). Two shades of red—scarlet (fiery red) and crimson (deep red), the colors of fire and blood—portray the deep, dark, conspicuous, and destructive nature of sin, deserving of fiery judgment. But in his mercy God is willing and able to turn the reddest sin into the purest white, like “snow” and “wool,” symbols of purity among ancient Jews (Psa. 51:7; 147:16; Dan. 7:9; Rev. 1:14).

The Condition of Pardon: “If you are willing and obedient ...” (v. 19a). God does not force himself into our lives. With clear instruction and strong incentive, we are given the freedom to obey and be blessed or to not obey and suffer the dreadful consequences of our own foolish choices.

Ironically, it is blood that God has prescribed as the means of spiritual cleansing, that which turns the deep redness of sin into the pure whiteness of forgiveness. As penitent baptized believers walking in the light of God’s word, let us be counted among the great multitude of the redeemed, having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14).

-- Kevin L. Moore

*Prepared for The Estes Echo (20 March 2026), bulletin of the Estes Church of Christ in Henderson, TN.

Related Posts:

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://wfuv.org/content/white-driven-snow 

Does Prayer Actually Change Anything?

Prayer Impacts Relationships

Prayer strengthens our relationship with God. Since no relationship can be healthy without genuine and regular communication, prayer grants us ready access to the heavenly throne. “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4:6, NKJV).

Prayer strengthens our relationships with those with whom we pray. “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing .... Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thess. 5:11-18).¹ Conversely, strained relations hinder prayers (1 Pet. 3:7).

Prayer strengthens our relationships with those for whom we pray. “We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you .... For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you ...” (Col. 1:3-9).² How could the Colosse saints not be encouraged by this realization? “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving thanks be made for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1).

Prayer Impacts Spiritual Health

Prayer benefits those who pray. “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you” (1 Pet. 5:6-7). It’s comforting to know that no one has to carry life’s burdens alone. There are many things we don’t understand or know how to deal with that we can just turn over to God. We ought to feel better when we pray. “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might .... praying always with all prayer and supplication ...” (Eph. 6:10-18).³

Prayer Impacts Circumstances

“The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much” (James 5:16b).⁴ The specifics of how this works, however, is beyond our comprehension, which is why we trust God, who is infinitely smarter and more powerful than we are. “Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him” (1 John 5:14-15).

We can and should know God’s will as revealed in scripture (the other side of communication), so we pray accordingly—not for selfish or petty or ungodly things. And we have confidence in God hearing and answering our prayers according to his providential will. We may not be able to specifically pinpoint the how, the what, and the when, but we can be assured that he has our best interests at heart. His ways are infinitely better than we even know how to ask (Rom. 8:26-28).

Conclusion

Whether or not we ever figure out all there is to know about prayer, we do know that Jesus and the early church considered it essential. It is something God expects us to take seriously and practice routinely. We can’t be faithful in our Christian walk without it.

“Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 2:20-21).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See also Acts 2:42; 4:23-31; 6:4, 6; 8:24; 12:5, 12; 14:23; 20:36; 21:5.

     ² See also Rom. 1:8-9; Eph. 1:16; Phil. 1:3-4; 1 Thess. 1:2; 2:13; 3:9-10; 2 Thess. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:3.

     ³ See also Matt. 6:6-13; Luke 11:1-13; Acts 16:25; 22:17; 27:35-36; 28:15.

     ⁴ See also James 5:15-18; Gen. 25:21; 2 Sam. 21:14; 24:25; 2 Chron. 33:12-13; Psa. 102:17; Acts 12:5; 28:8; 1 Tim. 2:1-4.

Related Posts: God Answers Prayer, The "Acts" of the Apostles 

Related articles: Caleb Colley, 'Answered Prayer' Research

 

Image credit: https://www.umc.org/en/content/making-prayer-a-way-of-life 

What About Tattoos and Body Piercings?

Does Leviticus 19:28 constitute a binding mandate, establish a lasting principle, or have any relevance at all in the Christian Age? Translated literally, the verse reads: “And you (all) shall not make cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor put marks on you (all), I am Yahweh.” The Hebrew noun seh'-ret refers to an incision, cut, or gash. The corresponding term qa`aqa`  essentially means the same but can also include “imprintment” or “tattoo.”¹  The latter expression, with the verb naw-than' (“put” or “give”), is variously rendered in English, “put any marks upon” (KJV), “print any marks upon” (ASV), “tattoo” (ESV), “tattoo any marks on” (NKJV, N/RSV), “make” or “put” any “tattoo marks on” (CSB, NASB, NIV).²

Context

The above directive could be used against circumcision and ear piercing, both enjoined in the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:3; Deut. 15:16-17), if context and the qualifier “for the dead” are ignored. And what about other medical surgeries and procedures, cosmetics, athletic glare-reducing “eye black,” face painting, or temporary water-based tattoos? Obviously the Law of Moses does not contain prohibitions against such matters, unless, of course, context is disregarded and the hermeneutical fallacy of proof-texting is implemented. “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.”³ 

Leviticus 19–20 addresses moral and ceremonial laws for the post-exodus/pre-Christian people of Israel, including Sabbath observance, sacrifices and offerings, harvest surplus for the needy, not mixing livestock or seed or clothing fibers, corporal punishment, abstaining from fruit until the fifth year of production, hair removal restrictions, death penalty, distinguishing between clean and unclean animals, et al.  

Many of these instructions were intended to make observable distinctions between the set-apart children of God and the idolatrous peoples around them.⁴ “And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them .... You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine" (Lev. 20:23-26, ESV; cf. 18:3, 24-30). Separation from heathen religious practices is clearly a major concern in this passage (Lev. 19:4, 26, 31; 20:2-6, 27), and the law concerning cuttings and markings on the body (Lev. 19:27; cf. 21:5) immediately follows instructions about blood, the occult, and haircutting.

Rounding off or shaving part of the scalp-hair and shaving or disfiguring the beard were conventional signs of devotion to a cultic deity. Hair-offering rituals were also common.⁵ Jeremiah, using a derogatory epithet, alludes to uncircumcised pagan nations who “cut off” (qatsats) “corners” (pe'ah) [of hair] (Jer. 9:26; 25:23; 49:32).⁶ The fifth-century-BC historian Herodotus, in describing the Arabians in particular (descendants of Ishmael, inhabiting lands southeast of Israel), observed that in dedication to their god Orotal (’Οροτάλ), Greek equivalent Dionysus (Διόνυσος): “the cropping of their hair is like the cropping of the hair of Dionysus, cutting it round the head and shaving the temples” (Histories 3.8).

From an ancient Jewish perspective, cutting off a man’s beard, or even a portion of it, was regarded as shameful (2 Sam. 10:4-5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 15:2), purification ordinances notwithstanding. Cutting the flesh, as a frenzied religious practice (1 Kings 18:28), and shaving the hair were also mourning rituals borrowed from pagans (Jer. 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37). The Lord, therefore, commanded the Israelites, “you (all) shall not make cuttings in your flesh for the dead ...”

New Testament Application

Certain moral principles have been carried over from the old-covenant system of Judaism into Christ’s new-covenant order (e.g., Rom. 1:17; 2:6; 7:7; 12:19-20; 13:9; et al.). But many of the specific rules, prohibitions, and practices have not. Note, for example, Leviticus 20:25, “You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean ... which I have set apart for you to hold unclean,” compared to Romans 14:14, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself ...” It is a mistake, therefore, to try to bind any of these old-covenant regulations without clear parallels in the New Testament (cf. Acts 10:9-16; 15:1-5; Rom. 14:3-5; Gal. 3:10-13; 15:1-4; et al.).

What, Where, Why?

When it comes to modern-day tattooing, the deciding factors for Christians should be (a) what it is, (b) where it is, and (c) why it’s there. Surely we can appreciate the difference between a satanic symbol and a Bible verse, between the blatantly obvious and the subtle, between an inconspicuous or innocuous image in memory of a deceased loved one and a swastika tattooed on the forehead. Let’s be careful about making blanket statements and extreme arguments that do not and cannot equally apply.

Cultural or Countercultural?

In a number of places, tattoos and other forms of body art have cultural significance and are more socially acceptable, representing things like tribal identity, rites of passage, kinship, and family history. For the Māori people of New Zealand, for example, tattoos (tā moko) are inextricably linked to cultural heritage, genealogy, and personal identity. For Samoans, tattoos (tatau) represent commitment to family and cultural values. The red dot (bindi) on an Indian woman’s forehead is indicative of marital status. Some African Americans practice skin branding or scarification to commemorate African heritage or commiserate ancestral slavery.

In other cultures, however, tattoos and comparable markings have been associated with rebellion and civil defiance, gang affiliation, criminality, or overall worldliness. A Christian’s appearance can either inhibit or enhance his or her influence. What are my motives? How do I want to represent Christ? Do I wish to draw others to the Lord or inadvertently give them pause or drive them away? As we consider the what, where, and why, let’s not forget the why not? A wise and observant person of faith ought to be able to make these distinctions.

The Overriding Factor

The New Testament principle of modesty addresses this issue most readily. With respect to outward appearance, 1 Timothy 2:9-10 is concerned about adorning oneself in such a way that draws undue attention to oneself. In mid-first-century Mediterranean societies this involved elaborate hairstyles, ornate jewelry, and expensive clothes. Although the text’s immediate focus is on Christian women, the “likewise also” (ὡσαύτως καί) of v. 9 makes the principle just as applicable to Christian men. Anything that stands out and silently screams “look at me,” focusing more attention on one’s outward appearance than one’s inward character, especially if it displays more worldliness than godliness, is not conducive to a Christ-like demeanor (cf. Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet. 3:3; Rev. 17:4).⁷

Immodesty in today’s westernized world would include skimpy or vulgar outfits, over the top makeup and jewelry, unnatural hair colors and outlandish hairstyles, countercultural attire and body art, and extreme facial or body piercings. While facial piercing and associated jewelry are not foreign to the biblical record,⁸ surely common sense sees the difference between discreet versus immoderately excessive.

Conclusion

What about those who already have tattoos and piercing-scars before becoming Christians? While options might include concealment or laser removal, it seems to me the better option, especially considering prospective and new Christians, is relatively simple. We can extend grace and non-judgmental acceptance. “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all ...” (1 Cor. 9:19).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The New Brown–Driver–Briggs–Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon by Francis Brown, with S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs (Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1980) 891.

     ² The wording could also be rendered, “nor make engraven (or branded) writing upon yourselves.” See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the OT: The Pentateuch, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 424.

     ³ D. A. Carson attributes this quote to his father. See “Filled with the Spirit,” The Gospel Coalition (27 March 2005), <Link>.

     ⁴ This is illustrated as a constant reminder in the prohibition against mixing livestock, seed, and fabric (Lev. 19:19; cf. Deut. 22:9-11).

     ⁵ See Bellarmine Museum of Art, “Hair in the Classical World Ritual and Rites of Passage Wall Text,” Ephemera 16 (2015), <Link>; G. J. Tassie, “Hair-Offerings: An Enigmatic Egyptian Custom,” Institute of Archaeology (1996) 7:59-67, <Link>. Pliny the Elder reported: “The Arabs wear turbans or else go with their hair unshorn; they shave their beards but wear a moustache—others however leave the beard also unshaven” (Natural History 6.28).

     ⁶ Cf. ASV, CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV. Some translations render the expression, “in the farthest corners” (NKJV) or “in distant places” (NIV), but miss the apparent derision implied by the description. See J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 322.

     ⁷ See K. L. Moore, “Braided Hair, Jewelry, and Expensive Clothes,” Moore Perspective (19 July 2023), <Link>.

     ⁸ Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; 35:4; Ex. 32:2-3; 35:22; Num. 31:50; Judg. 8:24-26; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12.

Related Posts: How is "Modest" Apparel to be Measured?, The Christianization of a Pagan Symbol

Related articles: Wayne Jackson, Does the OT Condemn Tattoos? 

*For a non-religious case against tattooing, see John Mac Ghlionn, “Inked Nation: The link between tattoos and exhibiting troubling behaviors is growing stronger,” The American Mind (21 June 2023), <Link>.

Image credit: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/shocking-face-tattoos/