Nigerian gospel artist Mike Abdul has waded into the heated debate surrounding body art, asserting that tattoos do not “dishonour the body” and that God prioritises internal transformation over unmarked skin.
In an Instagram post shared on Monday, Abdul argued that tattoos have historically served purposes of “identity, memory, status, covenant, and storytelling across ancient cultures, nothing more.”
He countered traditional religious arguments by stating that the significance of a mark lies in what it “points to” rather than the ink itself.
He wrote, “Tattoos don’t dishonour the body. What dishonours a temple is not writing on the walls, what matters is what the mark points to, not the mark itself.
“God reads hearts, not skin. Ink without conviction is decoration. Ink with conviction is remembrance.”
“If a tattoo leads you closer to gratitude, identity, or reverence, it has served a good purpose for you. Faith is not proven by unmarked skin, but by transformed lives,” he added.
Responding to critics who cite Leviticus 19:28—a scripture often used to condemn tattoos—Abdul provided a follow-up breakdown in a separate Instagram post on Tuesday.
The singer argued that if Christians are bound by the Old Testament ban on body marks, they must also adhere to ancient laws regarding mixed fabrics and specific hair rituals.
He wrote, “If Leviticus 19:28 were a universal, timeless ban on body marks, then Christians would also be bound by pagan hair rituals (Lev 19:27), dietary laws (Lev 11), mixed fabrics (Lev 19:19), and ceremonial purity laws.”
He also reminded his followers, saying, “The New Testament is clear: ‘You are not under the law, but under grace — Romans 6:14.”
“Let no one judge you… with regard to food or drink or a religious festival – Colossians 2:16,” he added.
In a further analysis, Abdul drew a parallel between tattoos and the biblical practice of circumcision, noting that while they differ in form, both serve as “permanent bodily marks” and “signs of identity.”
“Circumcision is not a tattoo in form, but it functions like one in meaning. Both are permanent bodily marks, signs of identity and belonging, visible reminders of covenant, more about what they signify than the act itself,” he wrote.
“Circumcision wasn’t a tattoo, but it proves God is not opposed to meaningful bodily marks,” Abdul added. “Circumcision was given as a physical sign of covenant. It was a mark on the body, but its power was never in the flesh itself.”
