The question of whether Jesus had a tattoo is an interesting one that arises from a particular verse in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 19:16, there is a description of Jesus returning as a conquering king:
On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (Revelation 19:16 ESV)
The key detail here is that Jesus has a name written on his thigh. Some have interpreted this to mean that Jesus had a tattoo on his thigh. The Greek word used here for “written” is γεγραμμένον (gegrammenon), which can mean written, inscribed or engraved. This has led some to conclude that Jesus must have had a tattoo with the title “King of kings and Lord of lords.”
However, there are several reasons to doubt this interpretation:
- The book of Revelation contains a lot of vivid symbolic imagery that is not intended to be taken literally. The image of a name written on Jesus’ thigh is likely symbolic rather than literal.
- There is no other place in Scripture that describes Jesus as having any tattoos. Something as significant as Jesus having a tattoo would presumably have been mentioned elsewhere if historical.
- Tattoos were forbidden under the Mosaic Law. Leviticus 19:28 states: “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.” Although Christians are not under the Old Testament Law, it seems unlikely that Jesus would have violated this command.
- The original context and audience would not have interpreted this as referring to a literal tattoo. Tattooing was extremely uncommon in 1st century Judea. The original hearers would have recognized the language as symbolic.
- The name written is “King of kings and Lord of lords,” which communicates Jesus’ supremacy and sovereignty. A symbolic description of His divine nature and authority makes more sense than a literal tattoo of a title.
With these considerations in mind, it seems very unlikely that the passage in Revelation 19 actually indicates that Jesus had a tattoo. Some of the reasons this interpretation is problematic include:
- The highly symbolic nature of the Book of Revelation makes a symbolic meaning more plausible.
- There is no corroborating evidence anywhere else in Scripture that Jesus had any tattoos.
- Tattoos were expressly forbidden in the Mosaic Law, which Jesus perfectly obeyed.
- Tattoos were not common in 1st century Judea, making a figurative meaning more likely.
- The name written fits better as a symbolic description of Jesus’ divine authority.
Looking at the passage in its broader context also points to a figurative meaning. Revelation 19 describes a vision of the victorious return of Christ as the conquering King of kings. Verse 13 says that “He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.” This clearly uses symbolic imagery to portray Christ’s attributes. It is highly unlikely the very next verse suddenly shifts to the literal description of a tattoo on Jesus’ thigh. The continuation of symbolic imagery makes better sense.
Additionally, consider these reasons against understanding the passage as a literal tattoo:
– A tattoo does not fit Jesus’ character – He perfectly obeyed the Mosaic Law which forbade tattoos, and Romans 15:3 says Jesus did not please himself. A showy tattoo seems out of character for the humble servant portrayed in the Gospels.
– Jesus’ resurrection body is glorified – 1 Corinthians 15 describes the resurrected body as incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and spiritual. A tattoo on a glorified, immortal body seems incongruous.
– The name written is not a name – “King of kings and Lord of lords” is a title or declaration of sovereignty, not a personal name. It is strange to think of inscribing a title as a tattoo.
– Jesus’ divine nature is in view – The context highlights Christ’s deity and supremacy over all earthly powers. The name written symbolically complements this theme by declaring His ultimate authority.
In conclusion, the evidence strongly favors interpreting the name written on Jesus’ thigh in Revelation 19:16 as symbolic imagery rather than a literal tattoo. Some key reasons include:
- The highly figurative style of the Book of Revelation
- The lack of any other Scripture mentioning Jesus having a tattoo
- The Mosaic Law prohibition against tattoos
- The rarity of tattoos in 1st century Judea
- The contextual focus on Christ’s divine supremacy and glorified return
- The character of Jesus as the humble, Law-abiding Servant
- The resurrection body being incorruptible and glorious
- The name written being a declaration of authority rather than an identifier
Rather than a literal tattoo, the passage is intended to use vivid word-pictures to convey deep spiritual truths about Jesus’ cosmic reign, His flawless holiness, and His right to rule over all creation. As with all Scripture, we must seek the intended meaning rather than inventing improbable interpretations. And in Revelation 19:16, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a figurative description of Christ’s majesty, not a literal tattoo on His thigh.
While an intriguing hypothetical question, the text itself gives no grounds to conclude Jesus had any tattoos. Revelation 19 instead proclaims the preeminence of the risen Christ using powerful symbolic language. The passage ultimately points to the majesty and glory of the King of kings who will one day return to make all things new.
Although Revelation 19:16 is sometimes debated, the bigger picture of Scripture leaves no doubt about Jesus’ supreme authority and the promise of His return. Focusing on peripheral uncertainties can distract from central truths. As Hebrews 12:2 advises, we should fix our eyes on Jesus, the perfecter of our faith, who endures beyond all earthly monarchs. The fanciful suggestion of Jesus having a tattoo shifts our gaze from eternal realities to superficial speculation. Revelation calls us to worship Christ the King, not quibble about tattoos.
The compelling biblical evidence makes it extremely improbable that Jesus had any tattoos. Revelation 19:16 is clearly symbolic imagery, consistent with the literary style of the book. But even if Jesus did miraculously receive writing on His thigh, it would hold no spiritual significance. Speculation over tattoos misses the purpose of Revelation and of Scripture as a whole – to proclaim Christ’s preeminence and to transform believers into His image.
In conclusion, there is simply no credible basis for believing Jesus had a tattoo. Revelation 19:16 is conveying profound spiritual truths through symbolic language, not describing a literal tattoo. Seeing a tattoo rather than recognizing the passage’s true meaning is a superficial reading that obscures its revelatory insights. Instead of speculation, Scripture calls us to worship Christ in spirit and in truth, contemplating His majesty rather thanhypothesizing over irrelevant curiosities.