Race and Ethnicity of Jesus?

[Soulfyre]

This can often prove to be a volatile topic, as there are those that tend to treat Jesus sort of like Santa Claus--a vague embodiment of "good" that can be any race or ethnicity. The problem with this issue is that historically, the incarnation of Jesus is foundational to our understanding of his person and work. And his humanity was not "generic", for it was equally important that Jesus fulfill his Messianic role. Hence, he would have to be a descendant of Judah, and, more specifically, of the lineage of David the King. Hence, one might be inclined to argue that at the very least, Jesus would have been Jewish. Some would argue further that it would be likely that Jesus would probably bear the characteristics of the Palestinian Jews at that time. Hence, when Rembrandt portrayed Jesus, he researched the appearance of Jewish people, probably Ashkenazic Jewry (originally from German areas), although he may also have been familiar with the Sephardim from Spain. As a result, he avoided the mistake of many artists of Western Christendom, who often portrayed Jesus with very European characteristics, sometimes with light brown or blonde hair and blue eyes. While these aspects cannot be proven to have been absent among Jews, they were certainly not typical. Eastern Christendom, among the Orthodox, traditionally always depicted Jesus in a manner similar to the icon used on this forum: dark hair, dark eyes, sometimes with a slightly prominent nasal bridge.

Interestingly, the churches derived from Western Christendom (including the churches of the Reformation and their fragmented children), rarely became particularly concerned with the ethnic attributes of the Jesus of their stained-glass windows and story books--at least until the African-identity movements began to portray a black-skinned Christ with decidedly non-'Aryan' characteristics. It is unfortunate that as a result, a push for accuracy in depiction of Jesus Christ can seem racially, rather than theologically, motivated. Do you think that it is important how we depict Jesus? Why or why not?

God bless and keep you all,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

I would say it's very important. My wife and I have always considered most of the Jesus movies completely ridiculous. One of them looked more like a surfer than a Jewish man during the time Jesus was ministering. When we were living in Europe we'd see painting after painting where all of the buildings and the clothing of the people involved in the last supper were all completely European. I wasn't into art like my wife (who has an Art degree) so I had no idea how misconceived Europe's view of Christ was. The adult heads on the paintings of baby Jesus were also very odd and seemed to me to take away from Jesus' humanity. I understand what they were trying to achieve, but still don't think it is theologically correct.

I think it would also help temper the anti-semitism which constantly rears it's ugly head. Any separation of any aspect of who Jesus was results in some sort of heresy. And the separation of Jesus from His ethnic identity (it seems to me) too frequently results in anti-semitism filtering into the life of the church. How any thinking Christian person could be racist, let alone anti-semitic!, and think judgement day is going to be a free ride I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the most Jewish looking man that ever lived just to make anti-semites quake even worse when they see Him and have to bow their knees to Him.

[melinky]

I'm with you guys on this one. I thought Jesus, Jim Caviezel, in The Passion of the Christ was much better than the norm, but if I had cast the role of Jesus, I probably would have chosen Francesco De Vito, who played Peter.

While watching the "surfer" Jesus movie, I was discussing this with someone who became outraged at my claim that Jesus would have had darker hair and skin than surfer Jesus. This person said NO! Jesus was white! I pointed out when, where and of whom he was born and the response was again denial because his mother was also white, just look at the pictures of her! (Referring to the types of pictures you see of Mary in the Catholic church.)

Personally, I don't think it matters how we visualize Jesus. To me it's kind of like visualizing God, I'm sure we each have our own idea of what God would look like. (I pretty much see Michaelangelo's version of God) I also think that if voicing my opinion of what Christ looked like causes someone to doubt or question his/her faith I should simply keep my mouth shut.

Here's one last example of why I don't think it matters how I visualize Jesus. Ron, I've never met you, nor have I ever seen a picture of you, yet I have picture of you in my mind, that's just the way I think. You are still the same person whether I see you as Caucasion, Asian, or African-American; the truth of what you look like really doesn't matter.

I've often had the idea flit through my mind that Jesus and/or God might appear to different people in different ways depending on how each person sees them in his/her mind. But that's just a fleeting thought and to be real honest, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Oh, one other thing. In the past, the men who portrayed Jesus in the movies often had, as Matthew said, light hair and blue eyes. They also tended to be very slender and weak looking. I liked the way Mel Gibson cast Jesus to be strong and sturdy, more like someone who worked as a carpenter might have looked.

Well, that's my rambling opinion,

Melinda

[fairbank]

I have met many who believe that it is a sin to even attempt to "visualize" the face of Jesus. They further believe that any depiction of Christ in statuary or painting is also sinful because any such depiction will fall so far short of the glory of who He truly is.

Granted...sculptors and painters are not perfect, so their images of Christ are likely to not be so either. Granted...our imaginations are flawed so our visualizations are bound to be imperfect as well. The problem I have with this is that God gave us creative ability, and imaginations. Imperfect though they may be, we should strive to utilize them to the Glory of God to the best of our abilities.

Ultimately, I am not deliberate about visualizing what Jesus looked like, but I do try to visualize the events of His life, and the impacts upon those in His immediate vicinity. I visualize limbs and eyes being healed, and someone seeing their child or walking for the first time. I visualize a woman being healed from an issuance of blood which lasted 12 years. I visualize hearts being broken, and lives being changed by His love.

I am sure that my visualizations of these are imperfect too, but God chose to communicate with us through the written word, and we can't help but visualize the events about which we read. Daily, I believe that it is my sacred duty to be an imitator of Christ, so that others may visualize what He has done in my life and what He could do in their lives. That would be imperfect too, but Jesus understands...because He is perfect.

[Soulfyre]

I was recently told by a friend of mine: "It is not whether or not you will use icons. It is whether are not you will use good ones." While one may in fact not know exactly what Jesus looked like, early theological battles in the church were waged concerning the importance of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was neither a disembodied spirit who only took on the appearance of flesh (like the Angel of the Lord and his companions who visited Abraham on the way to Sodom and Gomorrah), nor did "Christ" merely refer to a spiritual "annointing" upon a man named Jesus. It is a cardinal--or foundational--Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ was very God and very man, which characteristics were neither co-mingled nor confused. The importance of the incarnation, which Francis Schaeffer would point to as an event in "space-time history", lends importance to the manner of the incarnation and its aspects. This is, in fact, why the Orthodox have such strict guidelines as to the depicition, albeit in symbolic form, of Jesus Christ and other individuals in Biblical and church history. There is a sense in which the icons of the Orthodox are "apophatic"--they often indicate as much or more about what we canNOT assume to be true, as about what we can. Orthodox icons create a "circumference" of reality which is as much exclusive as it is inclusive.

I believe that what fairbank notes about visualization is important. Christian theology is uniquely "incarnational". God spoke to us in words that can be given graphic form, whether carved in stone, inscribed on parchment or vellum, or printed on a page. God chose to speak through human intermediaries, although he could have undboubtedly spoken directly to each one of us, either audibly or in visions. God has chosen that by the foolishness of preaching people should be saved. As God chose that His Son tabernacle among us as a human being, born of a woman, into the tribe of Judah, of the lineage of David, at a particular point in history, so God ordained that the representation of His Son on earth after the resurrection and prior to the Second Coming would be His Body, His Bride, the church, in its mystery already perfected and yet made up of fallible human beings. And in the final redemption of His creation, we are to be resurrected bodily and the world restored. Remember, even after His resurrection, the wounds of Jesus Christ remain visible.

Thus I do not believe we are given free reign to indulge our imaginations in a manner that would deny this incarnational reality. I think it potentially dangerous to assume that Jesus could appear to different people in different ways since the event of the incarnation. Such would tend to deny the importance of the incarnation, in which the physical is redeemed, not negated. That, I fear, is the problem with the otherwise "feel good" series, Joan of Arcadia, for the book of Hebrews makes it plain that in these last days God has spoken to us "through His Son", who is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being..." In Joan of Arcadia, the person through whom God speaks loses their significance when they become the "voice of God". In the Bible, the opposite is true. When in a proper relationship with God, humanity regains the true significance that was lost in the fall, restoring the image of God that was marred by our separation from God. Now I realize that this would seem to be to attach a great deal of significance to the appearance of Jesus Christ. But I would argue that through the incarnation God restores the significance of the very "image of God" in the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

God bless and keep you all,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Alejandro]

I saw a documentary about how Yeshua would look. They took a skull of an Israelite who would have been alive about 50 years after the death of the Christ. He had a very 'rough' face, not someone you would think is attractive (as he is depicted most of the time). He also had very tight curls that was very short.

And in another documentary, it was said that the modern depiction of Yeshua is actually Zeus superimposed upon what Yeshua might have looked like. This one, if I remember correctly, was from the History Channel.

The first one was, I think, the Discovery Channel. I do not remember because it was some time ago that I saw both of these specials.

Just thought I would add my piece.

Let us unite under Jehovah Nissi,
Alejandro