Posted on 06/27/2020 8:26:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What, exactly, did Jesus look like? Was he black? Brown? White? Red? Yellow? We know that he was a first-century, Galilean Jew. But, beyond that, no reliable description of his appearance has been left for us.
There is a statement recorded in the Mishnah, the earliest code of Jewish law (compiled roughly 220 A.D.) attributed to Rabbi Ishmael, who lived from 90-135 AD. He said, “The children of Israel . . . are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade” (m. Negaim 2:1).
So, according to a rabbi who lived within one century of Jesus, the Israelites are “like boxwood,” neither black nor white but somewhere in between. This would be in keeping with other Middle Eastern peoples of the past and present.
As for the notion that Jesus was black, based on Revelation 1:14-15, that is a complete misreading of the text. Describing John’s vision of a glorious Jesus, the text states that, “The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.” (Revelation 1:14)
But the text does not say that Jesus had wooly hair. Rather, it pictures his hair as “white like wool, white as snow.”
This is not speaking of the texture of his hair (any more than the texture of hair is being compared to snow). Rather, it is speaking of the color of his hair. And even so, this is a glorious vision not meant to be taken literally – unless, of course, you believe that a sharp, double-edged sword came out of his mouth and that his face shone like the sun.
That being said, Jesus was certainly not white. (For the record, many translations of the Bible, including the King James Version, render Revelation 1:14 with, “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow.” From this you could argue that Jesus was lily white, since it says his head was white. That, too, is a gross misunderstanding.)
How, then, did we end up with a white Jesus in Europe and America?
There are two answers to this question, one quite innocent and the other not nearly as innocent. (You might be in for a surprise. Keep reading!)
The innocent answer is that it is common for other people groups to imagine Jesus to be just like them. Just do a search for “images of Chinese Jesus” or “images of Eskimo Jesus.” You will see a Jesus who looks Chinese or a Jesus who looks Eskimo.
This is no surprise. After all, according to the gospel, the Son of God took on human flesh and became one of us. It’s only natural that we envision him to look like us.
Back in the 1970s, I attended a black megachurch in Brooklyn with a friend I had met in college, himself an African American.
The first thing that struck me was the mural on the wall, depicting Jesus and his disciples as black.
When I asked my friend about it, he said to me, “When you look at a class picture, what’s the first thing you look for? It’s your own face in the crowd. It’s the same with people coming here. They’re looking for a Jesus they can identify with.”
That’s also why many pictures and statues of Jesus depict him as white. The white artists conceived of a Jesus who was just like them. That’s also why some of the medieval depictions of Jesus portrayed him and his followers as wearing medieval garb. That was the garb that they knew.
The problem is when that image is now exported to other cultures, and so the Jesus we preach in India or Africa is a white Jesus. That can lead to spiritual and cultural confusion, especially if the white race is also associated with conquest and colonization. Now the issue becomes thornier. (To help you relate to some of the challenges, if you’re a white Christian, ask yourself how you would relate to a black Jesus. Or an Indian Jesus.)
But here’s the big surprise when it comes to white images of Jesus. The historic contrast was not between a white Jesus and blacks. It was between a white, Gentile Jesus and Jews.
This was graphically illustrated by Prof. Bernard Starr in his book Jesus, Jews, and Anti-Semitism in Art: How Renaissance Art Erased Jesus' Jewish Identity & How Today's Artists Are Restoring It. (For relevant articles by Starr, see here and here.)
Starr pointed to famous medieval and renaissance paintings of Jesus, where he was depicted as a handsome, fair-skinned, Gentile European, surrounded by devilishly-ugly, hook-nosed Jewish teachers. Those evil Jews!
If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at this one painting, Christ Among the Doctors, by Albrecht Dürer. (By “doctors” Dürer meant “doctors of the law,” as in rabbis and Jewish teachers.)
Interestingly, Starr also pointed to artists in Africa and other dark-skinned cultures who depicted a dark-skinned but also non-Jewish Jesus. How interesting!
So, a major reason that white artists depicted Jesus as white was because they forgot about his Jewish (and Middle Eastern) roots. Not only so, but since the Jews were viewed as demonic and evil, Jesus had to be different than them, hence a white, non-Jewish Jesus. (Or, in other cultures, a black, non-Jewish Jesus.)
BLM activist Shaun King, who ridiculously called for the removal of statues depicting a white Jesus, tweeted, “Experts have long since said this is likely the most accurate depiction of Jesus.
“White Americans who bought, sold, traded, raped, and worked Africans to death, for hundreds of years in this country, simply could not have THIS man at the center of their faith.”
King included in his tweet an image created in 2001 by forensic anthropologist Richard Neave. As the BBC reported, Neave “created a model of a Galilean man for a BBC documentary, Son of God, working on the basis of an actual skull found in the region. He did not claim it was Jesus's face. It was simply meant to prompt people to consider Jesus as being a man of his time and place, since we are never told he looked distinctive.”
So, contrary to King’s claim, this is not what, “Experts have long since said . . . is likely the most accurate depiction of Jesus.”
This is simply a 2001 image created by one expert, and it was not of an African man but of a Galilean Jew.
As the BBC also noted, “And what about Jesus's facial features? They were Jewish. That Jesus was a Jew (or Judaean) is certain in that it is found repeated in diverse literature.”
So, the real question for the cultural iconoclasts of our day, including the likes of Shaun King, is this: Would you be at home with a Jewish Jesus? With Yeshua, the son of Miriam, called rabbi rather than reverend? Would you be at home with him?
This is also a great question for Christians worldwide. Do you follow the Jesus-Yeshua of the Scriptures or a Jesus whom you have created in your own image?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?
Well said.
The Bible gives some good clues.
He obviously looked like an ordinary person of that area in 30 AD. Judas had to identify him to the soldiers.
He was descended from David on his Mother’s side. The Bible describes David as having a ruddy complexion. That would be like your average Scot.
My favorites are Our Mother of Sheshan in China (now probably obliterated by the CCP) She lifts the infant Jesus high above her head, not cradled in her arms.
And Our Lady of Akita, Japan mainly because of her message to the world.
Stomp out the iconoclasts!
That one of them would remove St. Michael’s icon is very, very telling.
Could it be.....?
Jesus doesn’t have a race. He’s the King of Heaven. There’s no race in Heaven.
Jesus was born a Jew. His family was Jewish. His mother was Jewish. He founded Christianity. The roots of Catholicism, I which He founded, are Jewish. The Catholic Mass is modeled on a Seder meal. We share the same Old Testament. Catholicism teaches to not hate anyone, individuals as well as groups
What could be the problem? Jesus has no race. He’s not here. While He was on earth, He was whatever race God chose Him to be. He’s no better or worse than anyone else. His spirit doesn’t have a race No does any of ours. It’s tge basis of why we’re not supposed to be prejudiced. We’re all equal.
What I have read is that there was a rather infamous Pope (Alexander VI, who had many children by his many mistresses) whose son was also rather renowned (Cesare Borgia)... Kardashians if you will... and that the Pope commissioned a painting of Jesus and his own son was used as the model in a painting many centuries ago... and it was so popular and ubiquitous that it became THE Jesus appearance to use. He happened to have flowing hair and blue eyes, and was chosen expressly because he was more European-looking.
Makes sense to me.
His human parents were of the peoples of the Middle East. While it may not be perfect to classify Middle East persons as “white”, they are generally light skinned and certainly lighter skinned than most central and southern Africans.
Yes, most portraits of Yeshua were first done by Europeans, who may have made Yeshua look more European than Middle Eastern.
But, that distinction is less of a stretch of the truth than if their early portraits had made Yeshua black, like most Africans south of the Sahara.
Biblicaly speaking, there is/was no painting of Jeseus because... it would be a graven image according to the Ten Commandments.
Maybe for the reason we see here, we are arguing about the Son of God’s physical features and not his message.
He looks a bit like Jeff Chandler...
Christ was as foretold from the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Levi... it is confusion to ignore the 12 tribes of Jacob. They were never called Jewish’.. Except from those that practice new age wisdom... each tribe was given their own specific inheritance... even to the last days..
I am silly enough to believe Jesus is light, He does have a glorified body now, but now He is like the shekinah glory that once filled the temple .
As for his color in Bethlehem it would have been brown.
Isaiah 53 1-3
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
What Christian doesn’t know Jesus was a Jew? It doesn’t matter what he looked liked though it is certain he looked like what the Jews of the time looked like. What *is* absolutely critical is not his looks but that his own people, Jews, were responsible for his crucifixion.
Well, if an entity shows up tossed out of heaven, who would know the difference.. Christ said the majority of the inhabitants on earth would be deceived... course that bit of wisdom gets A mass case of ‘whitewash...
“Nice” is a bourgeois mannerism. Jesus was never nice.
White Jesus?
They broke up in ‘73
Yes indeed. The episode of the woman at the well not knowing who he was could tell he wasn’t Samaritan and that he was Jewish. It could have been his clothing or his physical appearance but even so he wasn’t a blue eyed blond.
“ruddy” means red. Pale complexion is the northern european meaning of the word. The Egyptians weren’t pale and considered themselves “red” as compared to the peoples south of them which they depicted as black.. Given that the Jews spent centuries in Egypt, I opt for that meaning.
Adam and Man are the same word in Hebrew. Isn’t that odd?
Whatever
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.