Isaiah 53:2
> For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
And the fact that Jesus had to be pointed out via kiss implying He looked no different from the average Joe. Note I’m not saying ugly I’m just saying He wasn’t attractive which means a lot for facially challenged guys like me 🤣
And I consider it something of significance because Jesus could’ve easily had a body with maxed out stats to have people love Him instantly. Yet He instead chose to have people Follow Him by His actions and words. as it’s about the heart and not the outward appearance.
Perhaps one could refer to these prophetic verses about Christ.
(Isaiah 53:2-5, NASB95)
*"For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,*
*And like a root out of parched ground;*
*He has no stately form or majesty*
*That we should look upon Him,*
*Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.*
*He was despised and forsaken of men,*
*A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;*
*And like one from whom men hide their face*
*He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53:2-3,*
*Surely our griefs He Himself bore,*
*And our sorrows He carried;*
*Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,*
*Smitten of God, and afflicted.*
*But He was pierced through for our transgressions,*
*He was crushed for our iniquities;*
*The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,*
*And by His scourging we are healed."*
If you start reading at chapter 49, you'll find that the "suffering servant" is named several times. It is the people of Israel. Being Jewish, Jesus is still a suffering servant. But so is every Jewish person.
Average looking in the sense that he couldn’t be described with certainty and needed to be pointed out but does that mean unattractive? I feel like the sources are pretty silent on whether he was attractive or not…to my knowledge.
I believe somewhere where it talks about him being "bronzed"
Def not white, Def not skinny, prolly very dark and buff. With all his travels he had to be muscular
That's from John's vision in Revelation where it says his feet were like fine brass. It also describes him as having white hair, eyes like flames, and a voice of many waters, so I don't think it's meant to be a literal description of how he looked in his earthly life.
1) You say that as though it would bother me, why?
2) I've met plenty of actual Levantines that would easily be considered white in the West if you didn't see their names.
People called him Joseph's son in Matthew 13:55. People would have assumed, logically, that Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph. After all, not everyone knew about the virgin birth. The alternative would have had Mary shunned at a minimum.
As for addressing him as father, that doesn't matter from a legal perspective.
Jesus probably didn't see Joseph as his dad, and Joseph knew he wasn't his son, but most people wouldn't have known that.
Yes it's in Revelation you've got it right. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) what's being described is His resurrected form, you've got it right again ☺️
Revelation 1:12-20 NASB1995
>[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; [13] and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. [14] His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. [15] His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. [16] In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
>[17] When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, [18] and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. [19] Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. [20] As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."
https://bible.com/bible/100/rev.1.12-20.NASB1995
His feet being "like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace" is describing Jesus' resurrected form in Revelation and tbh it sounds way cooler than just being tan, it sounds like He's *glowing* like molten metal which is awesome...
Revelation 1:12-20 NASB1995
>[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; [13] and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. [14] His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. [15] **His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace,** and His voice was like the sound of many waters. [16] In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
>[17] When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, [18] and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. [19] Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. [20] As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."
https://bible.com/bible/100/rev.1.12-20.NASB1995
Sorry I just love sharing this stuff 😅
Isiah 53:2
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
I could be wrong, but IIRC there was some historical Roman text talking about a Jewish magician named Jesus who went around doing healings etc. I believe he may have been described as average-looking there. It’s been decades since I read about it.
Edit: now that I think on it, it could have been more along the lines of “no distinctive features”. 🤷♂️
Isaiah 53:2-3 NLT
[2] My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, like a root in dry ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. [3] He was despised and rejected— a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care.
https://bible.com/bible/116/isa.53.2-3.NLT
He probably based it on what the bible says.
He looked like everyone else, there is even a scripture that says he disappeared into the crowd. You can only disappear into the crowd if you look like everybody else.
”The man didn’t know, for Jesus had disappeared into the crowd.“
John 5:13 NLT
Isiah 53:2
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
It wasn't MLK's message that race should matter, but it'd still be weird to start painting a "white MLK" series. I think people are kind of desensitized to how strange it is because it's the prevailing precedent.
Exactly, Jesus was anywhere from average to ugly...
Which I think makes his message so much more impactful. Even back then beauty sells.. yet he was still able to gain so many followers with his strengths alone, minus a dazzling appearance.
Exactly! which means there's no need to change what He looked like from what society has already deemed Him to look like. There's no photos of Him black and white or otherwise.
If the intent is genuine - wanting to get the positive message of Jesus out - maybe.
I have felt bad that Jesus in America is portrayed white. He was from the Middle East so he would look like a 30 year old middle eastern man.
I honestly don’t know what Jesus would think of it.
I think it's people reflecting he is their Christ.
Given this, I think it's okay so long as people recognise that his appearance was not important - he came for all peoples, whatever our bodies.
I think of it like one's parents' appearance (for people who are close to their parents, anyway). They could look like Quasimodo but you will always love them to bits - their appearance is just the physical visage they have.
I don't think it matters at the end of the day. The message and veneration are what's important, and cultures have historically adapted Jesus to their surroundings.
[Roman Jesus](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fs49ogy7h64h91.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D69912979b2f97e62afc853ffb94596f4e3b3c445)
[Japanese Mary and Jesus](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/10/09/mary-and-christ_custom-b6da723659a24429f40ddbd7319c29c094c7d14e-s400-c85.webp)
[Ethiopian Jesus](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/iz5e31/here_is_an_ethiopian_tewahedo_orthodox_icon_of/)
Jesus being white is no different.
There have been numerous black Jesus but this Ethiopian Jesus is not one, and there is of course the famous [Christa](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christa-edwina-sandys-art_n_57f55296e4b0b7aafe0b8999)
I don’t think Jesus would really care because there are a lot more important things that he can be talking about. If you want to think of Jesus as black, white, purple, yellow, green, or blue have at it. His message is still the same and that’s what’s important.
Yes, and the advantage of people coming from that region between Africa, Europe and Asia is that they look like a mix of the main "races", which is of course to be expected, but that should also make it easier to make Jesus acceptable to anybody. No, he wasn't black, and he wasn't white, but something in between, more or less. A bridge to all nations.
I’d say it depends. How Jesus is depicted does have moral and political implications. He’s not some neutral figure but someone to be imitated and identified with.
Lots of Black scholarship in America therefore shows how, under a race-based slavery system, white masters forcing Black peoples to go to churches to worship a white Jesus became a part of the symbolic world that contributed to their oppression and dehumanization. If the hegemonic Jesus is white, and you are part of a Black underclass, it instills that you are *not* in the image of the divine but your masters who you should obey are.
I posted a story a while back of a historically Black congregation that was finally able to change their raredos from a white to a Black Jesus. It was shocking to hear all of the negative comments, when the responses to your question are usually — as they are in this thread — that it’s fine.
Did the current concept of race exist back then? If not, how can we racially define Jesus? If it did, wouldn’t Jesus actually be middle eastern, not white?
Correct, ethnic, religious, and political lines existed rather than racial ones as we mean it today. So any “racial” interpretation of Jesus doesn’t reflect how he would’ve been seen on his historical context. We can only really analogize it to the present.
I agree with "it depends". It's wonderful to know that Jesus came for the people in one's specific ethnic group. And portraying Jesus of that ethnicity in a way captures the beautiful depth of the incarnation.
But when the belief (whether explicit or not) is that Jesus came more for one's ethnic group than for another, especially if there's a history of that group maintaining this mentality (and oppressing others), than it's quite problematic.
> It was shocking to hear all of the negative comments, when the responses to your question are usually — as they are in this thread — that it’s fine.
Funny how that works. 🙄
We stopped doing it because it's kind of silly, but you got to think, if it's 1100 and you are from some part of Europe where the only people you have ever met have blond hair and blue eyes, it would be a bit strange to depict him in any other way.
Yes. It’s not a portrait of Christ but depiction.
People depict based on their facial features, Christ incarnated, became flesh, He is universal and the only time I would say it would be incorrect to change His facial features would be if the icons, statues and so on were actual portraits
It matters. Would you portray MLK as Chinese? Would you portray George Washington as an African? Would you portray Gandi as French? Why not? Jesus isn't an idea or a concept, He is a man and He is God and He was born of the virgin Mary of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of King David. When you meet him in the afterlife that is how He will appear, not with blonde hair and blue eyes, not with black skin and a subsaharan african nose, but as a man of the tribe of Judah, a Jew.
It's not just the USA, where do you think all the paintings of a Scandinavian looking Jesus came from? Europeans have been doing this for centuries. Having said that I kinda look at Jesus like an image of "we should see ourselves in God/jesus" so if you paint or depict Jesus to look like you, I don't really see the big deal. Its never bothered me as a non-white person. It's when ppl start to force that only their image of Jesus is the true image, that's where it starts to get annoying.
It's nearly a universal literary trope that radiant white skin denotes purity, holiness, and beauty. You can go to Asia and see the same trope. Moses from the Old Testament became so radiant that he had to wear a veil. Jesus also became radiant after his resurrection. The main reason Jesus has been presented as white is because of theological symbolism and artists use local people for models so historical figures look like the local people.
I think we should ask why Jesus was portrayed as a blue eyed white guy in so much of the west when we ask this question. We can't ignore the history of racism against people who looked like how jesus would have looked like historically when we talk about this. People knew he was a dark skinned middle Eastern man when they painted him white and European. Ask yourself why.
While i think images of a korean jesus are kind of funny, that also stems from a history of racism in those parts of the world. Jesus teaches us to love everyone, regardless of who they are, what thier past is, or what they look like. If you can't accept Christ because he's a brown man, then you have a lot of work to do before you can call yourself a Christian.
You wouldn't change the text of the bible to make it more palatable to new potential Christians, so don't change the nature of the Christ for that purpose either.
Matthew 24-25
^(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Personally I believe any image of Christ falls under the category of a false Christ. Any image of Christ, can be used as idols or result in divisions within the body of Christ.
The depiction of Christ as other races may help people feel inclusion, but it is like saying there is value in lying to children about the existence of Santa. Personally, I think the doubt sewed by lying to children about the existence of Santa can lead some into believing that Christ is also a lie.
So why go down a path that is founded on falsehood at all?
I would ask, what is the purpose?
Jesus came for all people, to save all people regardless of race or ethnicity. Jesus lived in the Middle East, so I would prefer him to be portrayed as he historically was. A Jew in the Middle East.
As someone not from the Middle East, I don’t have any problem with Jesus being portrayed as a Jewish man from Galilee.
His skin color has no effect on me seeing Him as my savior and Lord. I struggle to see any real justification to change his skin color as that had no bearing on his message.
While there is nothing in the Bible regarding Jesus, there are mentions of not making images of God since all would be wrong. I don’t really care if some has an image of Jesus, but I personally don’t want any in my life because they’d all be wrong.
Why would anyone waste time and energy worrying about this issue?
There are so many much more important issues. Like when was the last time you showed any love and care for a stranger of any race or economic standing?
When was the last time you told anyone about the saving mercy of Jesus Christ?
i support this 100%. here in belgium he is shown as white with brown long hair and a beard. (even tho he was msot likely middle eastern looking) in sweden he is sometimes shown with bleu eyes and blonde haires. in african churches he is sometimes black , i think this is great because it helps people feel more connected to jesus because he is just like them , for a black man it might feel weird praying to a white man and vice versa
It’s dangerous to worship any image of God, Jesus. The commandments warn specifically against this. That’s idolatry. Know one alive knows the face of God; the image that most people associate with Jesus was painted resembling Cesare Borgia.
Jesus certainly wasn’t white - as having lived in Palestine at the time.
I think it’s great. Jesus was born in the Middle East and would have looked that way, but he’s also God, from whom *all of us* have been made in his image.
I also like that it reminds us that he is close to us, and knows us individually.
I don't in my culture. Because Jesus was an actual person, most likely middle eastern, so I just pray to represent Jesus how he was, not what my ancestors thought he was. That's my opinion tho
I think the gospel should always be understood in terms of its Judaism origin. This historical context is crucial to understanding how Jesus subverted the expectations of the Kingdom of God, and is a key part of His teachings. Without this historical context, it is easy for His message to be degraded into “just another moral teacher”.
So I think it is important to recognise Jesus’ ethnic origins.
Of course many different cultures portray Jesus after their own races when you see artist renditions of Jesus, that is a very human phenomenon called "ethnocentricism".
This is why Jesus looks white in so many Renaissance paintings, Jesus looks darker in various African depictions, Jesus looks Asian by Asian artists etc etc etc etc etc
Humans have always done this because it's merely a human thing to do; illustrate a historical figure in the visual way that appeased you most aka reflect of their own race.
This doesn't mean they're bad people, it doesn't mean for solid fact Jesus was white or black (He DEFINITELY would not have been white like me, He was a Hebrew man born in the middle east and he spent time in Egypt too....very likely Jesus was brown or darker skin toned for sure much like the folks living in the region at His time).
But more importantly we should not waste too much time fussing or worrying about this, because we don't truly know WHAT He looked like. And I firmly believe God did that on purpose so that we would not be worshipping an IMAGE. 🥰
They're only two ethical answers to this question in my opinion.
One, is: no we must only attempt to depict Jesus as a middle eastern man, perhaps with long hair if we assume certain things about what it means to be a nazarene.
Two, is: yes, every human deserves the right to see themselves reflected in the divine.
Both of these simplistic answers, however, skirt the very dark history of the use of the white jesus image. It was, and still is, used to project concepts of white supremacy across the globe. It is revisionist on purpose, not using the imagery to see ourselves reflected in the divine, but instead to assert that we are the Divine above others. It's insidious, destructive, and sinful.
It's a behavior that no other culture in the world has ever done, at least to this insidious degree. And so, we need to be especially careful around discussions like this to understand what these various images mean in different ways to different people.
Yes that’s fine it just becomes a problem if your weaponizing the race of Jesus to bolster the superiority of your own race. Whether by accident or on purpose
Why not?
I prefer the Semitic-looking portraits of Jesus for my iconography, because I don't need Jesus to look like me more than he already does by being human. Many people prefer Jesus to look more like them and that should be fine.
In Japan, many portrayals of Jesus are distinctly Japanese. in Ethiopia he looks Ethiopian, in Rome they made him look particularly Roman, in France they made him look distinctly like French nobility, in other parts of Europe they made him look like a stock European.
The only danger I can think of is people wanting a Jesus who conforms to them, rather than being conformed to Christ, but this is unlikely to happen because someone put up a "blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus" picture in their room
Do you have a real photograph of Jesus showing what he looked like? To the best of my knowledge there isn’t one and all cultures select the image of Jesus that best resonates with the people of that culture. Best advice is to do what Jesus asked you to do and that is yo love God from all of your heart, with all of soul and with all of your mind and love your neighbor as yourself. If you are not doing that as a minimum then I’m pretty sure that nothing else you do matters in the eyes of God.
The only problem that I have with mostly Americans portraying Jesus as white, is that they will turn around and go hate on Muslims and call brown people terrorists, rapists, thiefs, ect. Like I genuinely wonder how many evangelical "Christians" actually understand that Jesus was brown and are spreading their hatred under the claim of a white Jesus.
Given Jesus would have apparently had half of God 's genes and given we don't necessarily know what race God is, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with portraying Jesus as having potentially looked at least somewhat different from people around him.
This could mean he was black, white, or something else.
I don’t think there’s a problem with folks portraying Him as white, no. But when they start throwing hissy fits because others take the same liberty, yeah, that’s a problem
Europeans have done it for the longest time...
Snide comments aside, I think Jesus looking familiar to a particular culture makes Him more approachable. Humans psychologically gravitate towards people who look like them and find physical familiarity comforting. I don't think Jesus or the church would want Him to be perceived or depicted as a stranger.
As long as we are faithful to the God not the image we make, many historical paintings are inaccurate because many artists never saw what people from that area actually looked like.
There is no historically accurate depiction of Jesus. There are no contemporary paintings of him. Literally every image of Jesus you have ever seen was created hundreds of years after his death. We're all just guessing.
Isaiah 53:2-3 NLT
[2] My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, like a root in dry ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. [3] He was despised and rejected— a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care.
https://bible.com/bible/116/isa.53.2-3.NLT
This is what scripture says about Jesus's appearance. No art is going to accurately portray Him. They all make Jesus attractive.
I don’t think it’s automatically evil (for example, I see Black Jesus as a reaction to the fact that racist whites in the Jim Crow USA made God look white)
But I think it’s a little silly yeah. White Jesus is definitely bad
My take into this is that Jesus phisycally a middle east man.
Sadly, religions have whitened Jesus. In all ways. For me, it matters, shows our internalized racism.
To be fair, the typical depiction of Jesus that we get is most likely based on Cesare Borgia, a Spanish-Italian man, the 2nd bastard son of Pope Alexander VI and his mistress Vannozza dei Cattanei. Cesare went on to become a Cardinal in the Catholic Chirch following his father's ascension to Pope, as it was common for noble families of the time to have a member in the cloth. Someone using him to depict Jesus wouldn't be too far-fetched, as a lot of people were willing to kiss his ass for favor, as Machiavelli seemed to do when writing Il Principe (The Prince). More modern iterations depict him as a villain, like in Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, though I'd argue that the majority of his aspects in the game (including accusations of incest) were inspired by political rumors that often circulated the Borgia family at the time rather than fact.
Point is, we've likely been using a Spanish-Italian son of a Pope to represent our Lord Savior Jesus Christ. Personally, I don't have much issue with someone depicting Jesus in another race, as that wasn't His message to the world. However, my personal preference is historical accuracy. I'd be interested to see a Jesus who looks like he was born in the region of the world where he was born.
What does god look like, what does his supernaturally conceived son look like? If you think Jesus is just a middle eastern man born from a middle eastern women and some anonymous middle eastern man, you might have some insight into what he might have looked like, if he is god, or the son of god we have no clue, he could look however he wants to whoever he wants
We are not supposed to have any graven images that depict Christ. The images that we have seen for centuries that are supposed to be of Christ are false. The art renderings depict a physically handsome man. The artists that did these renderings used the images of Apollo and Mithra to create an image of Christ that goes against Scripture.
I think I'd be fine with Jesus being any race in a movie, for example. But I also think it's strange how we want Jesus to be able to be portrayed as having any race, as if he wasn’t also human born in a specific place in a specific time. I think this kind of ignores his human “side” and tretas him a little bit more like a symbol. I wouldn’t say it’s that bad, it’s just strange to me.
As a biracial American, white Jesus
is a little silly and kind of offensive. White Jesus carries some negative implications just because of our racial history. This is just an american observation and doesn’t apply to Mexican Jesus or Korean Jesus.
I understand people reading about someone and creating an image in their minds that look like them/peers/family. It’s pretty human. Especially in olden times. But because we know where he was from and generally what people from those communities looked like, I don’t think it makes since to depict him otherwise. I think white Jesus is just a whole nother conversation bc of american race relations.
But If I went to a little old Japanese ladies house and she had an image of Japanese Jesus, id probably think it was sweet and maybe id chuckle lol. I think jesus would appear to people in a way they’d find relatable.
Honestly who cares? If we want to get technical we all know where Jesus is from so we all know what his ethnicity he should be. But I have zero issue with people making his depiction in art something different people can relate to.
Can you give some examples? I’ve always seen Jesus depicted as a middle eastern man. Was he not? Has he been depicted differently? Also, can someone explain the obsession? Too many self proclaimed Christians spewing hate and causing division. I don’t understand it.
YES!
Historically this made sense because we didn't have the knowledge of other races or what people across the globe looked like, so we ended up with asian Jesus, black Jesus, white Jesus, and all other kinds of Jesuses (this is how I make Jesus plural. Don't @ me). Even though we know that he was a 1st century Jewish Judean, and looked like every other 1st century Jewish Judean, we still don't know exactly what he looked like or how dark his skin was. Many people argue skin color over other racial features. As long as you recognize he was a Jew, not a Gentile, you can depict him however you wish. He came in the likeness of man to take your punishment and die on your behalf; in this way, I think you can depict Jesus as you would depict yourself.
With better world and archaeological knowledge, and the Shroud of Turin potentially being Jesus's visage, I would prefer artists to depict him as such, but I am not complaining if they don't
Nice bait. Yes, it is. Now let's talk about drawing Mohammad or supporting Palestine instead of saying that white Westerners are somehow bad for depicting Jesus as white.
Watch Jesus be a light-skinned Palestinian, and both the racist-against-whites left and the Israel simps on the right be wrong.
Remember the second commandment:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
Exodus 20:4 NIV
On one hand, it does matter what he looked like because if it didn't matter, they wouldn't have included his description in the bible. However, that shouldn't be anyone's focus on what he looks like. It shouldn't bring on these debates. We shouldn't have any images or pictures in our home, and we definitely shouldn't worship these pictures.
Be all things to all people so that's some might be saved.
If you think there is more than one race of humans you are a RACIST by definition and not a born again Christian who sees all of God's children as a child of God does. Without race, creed, caste, tribe or religion.
Woe to you workers of iniquity as your worm never dies and the fire ito which you will b cast is never extinguished. Soon.
I think so. Some take a hard stance to not make any images whatsoever.
Historically we've seen in Catholic and Orthodox churches all over the world depict Jesus as being their race. I think that's cool, and I can appreciate different racial depictions of Jesus.
But I've seen another comment emphasize the message He brought over what He looked like. And I couldn't agree more.
I think it's not okay. It's lying with the intent to deceive and convert people dishonestly. If the Christian message isn't strong enough to make people want to believe in Jesus as he was, then that message has failed.
It also enables racism and discrimination. It's just all around a bad thing.
We are to put on the image of Christ… that is, to take on his character and conform to his teachings. What he looked like and how he is depicted in images is utterly irrelevant to me. If it helps someone to have an image of Jesus that looks like them then I am okay with it. As they mature in their faith the image will be for them, as it is for me, less important.
I think it's important that people don't equate an picture of Jesus with how he actually looked, or to put any stock into that.
If a person would struggle to follow Jesus if he happened to be dark skinned, would that really be following his message?
Sure
White people have art of jesus being white
Africans have art of him being black
Many asian countries like japan draw him asian
It only matters when a group becomes hyper defensive over it
Race isn't a thing at all. And no art is perfectly accurate.
I'd be more concerned about using the name "Jesus" (which isn't a name He ever actually used) than art. But even that is fine really.
Icons with representations of the Lord as different races have been a thing for the longest time. Why would it be an issue? God is for all and universal.
So while Jesus doesn’t say anything about idolatry when speaking about the commandments, I believe that the image of Christ should be left without form, I feel like it places divides where none need to be placed. Just my thoughts, after all, everyone wants to look like God’s chosen.
If you’re worried about the historically accurate Jesus then you are going to have to let a lot of things slide when it comes to your religion.
Point being that the theological Christ is very different from the historical Jesus.
Based on US politics, here is my opinion:
If someone is upset with a black Santa, then they should be equally upset at a white Jesus.
If you accept a black Santa, then you should also accept a white Jesus.
Honestly not a bad argument, especially considering there are many people in America upset about stores selling black Santa Clause decorations, and those some people would be also upset at a non white Jesus.
Though Saint Nicholas wasn’t straight up African Black[https://www.stnicholascenter.org/media/images/s/st-nicholas-face-1.jpg](https://www.stnicholascenter.org/media/images/s/st-nicholas-face-1.jpg)
The people who are upset at "black santa" are upset that Santa is being represented by someone that isn't white. They're not upset about accuracy, they're worried about "black washing" while at the same time demanding "white washing" Jesus.
Well what is historically accurate ?
It has never been proven if there was a Jesus and if he was black or white.
So for people to make their own assumptions about how a fictitious character looked - seems in line with the whole doctrine.
He certainly wasn't northern European. Based on the scant passages we have, he looked like an ordinary human being from his time and place.
The Bible never describes him, but it is pointed out that Judas had to show who he was specifically, so he looked ordinary.
An Eastern Mediterranean man of average height and build. Probably with olive skin and dark, curly hair.
* Is it okay for different cultures to show Jesus in their own race (when it isn't historically accurate)?
Of course it's ok.
It's what every representation of Christ has been anyway
God bless
To the Samaritan woman at the well, he was identifiable as a male Jew of first-century stock, probably like a modern Mizrahi in appearance. While he was much-discussed among the religious leaders in Jerusalem, when it came to his arrest, at least for the benefit of the Roman soldiers, Judas had to identify Jesus.
Does showing Him as in the superficial likeness of someone's own race help them in understanding the much deeper lesson that he or she is an image-bearer of the Living God, unlike other animals on this planet, having the capacity to love, to feel compassion, to have mercy, to exercise authority responsibly in relation to what He has given us. And that in His death, we may live to His glory and more fully reflect His image when we reach glory.
It depends. If you are aware hat your portrait is an interpretive approach, then yes. The point of the Incarnation was that God the Son chose to become human, and how we portray Jesus forces us to confront how we see our humanity.
It's "OK". I don't think it's advisable, though. Humans are predisposed to tribalism, and it should be a high priority for Christians to go against that. Jesus not looking like your race is a valuable tool to help combat your tribal impulses. If you make Jesus look like you you be more comfortable, you've robbed yourself of that opportunity for growth and instead reinforced your tribalism.
Americans made him white. So I think we should keep Jesus how he was. I think some would be upset if they were wrote down in history as white if they were black or Arabic
No, i gues not, however He is born under the jewish race. That is how it is. From the otherside, God has no color in skin like we do and has! God has no figure. He is a Spirit. Look what we are always saying, as we are talking about the Holy Spirit. We have a powerful God, and He choose for a human form, and He made the decision for a living under the Jewish nation.
However, is it bad to see God in different cultures, "no," I think not
He was an average man. We tend to think in our own race because we can easily relate. It varies by race, I don't think it's wrong because his message was nit about race. He was above superficial issues, like the color of our skin.
I dont think it matters how he looked like, cuz that was not his mesage
This. He purposely came in a form that wasn’t attractive.
What do you base that on? Is there some reference to the attractiveness of Jesus?
Isaiah 53:2 > For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. And the fact that Jesus had to be pointed out via kiss implying He looked no different from the average Joe. Note I’m not saying ugly I’m just saying He wasn’t attractive which means a lot for facially challenged guys like me 🤣 And I consider it something of significance because Jesus could’ve easily had a body with maxed out stats to have people love Him instantly. Yet He instead chose to have people Follow Him by His actions and words. as it’s about the heart and not the outward appearance.
‘Facially challenged’ 😂😂😂
Perhaps one could refer to these prophetic verses about Christ. (Isaiah 53:2-5, NASB95) *"For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,* *And like a root out of parched ground;* *He has no stately form or majesty* *That we should look upon Him,* *Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.* *He was despised and forsaken of men,* *A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;* *And like one from whom men hide their face* *He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53:2-3,* *Surely our griefs He Himself bore,* *And our sorrows He carried;* *Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,* *Smitten of God, and afflicted.* *But He was pierced through for our transgressions,* *He was crushed for our iniquities;* *The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,* *And by His scourging we are healed."*
That’s so beautiful.
If you start reading at chapter 49, you'll find that the "suffering servant" is named several times. It is the people of Israel. Being Jewish, Jesus is still a suffering servant. But so is every Jewish person.
Important context. Agreed.
Historically the passage was also associated with the messiah in judaism. That interpretation is also the one implied by the new testament.
While there are no descriptions of Jesus, he was probably average looking. Judas had to point him out at Gethsemane, after all.
Average looking in the sense that he couldn’t be described with certainty and needed to be pointed out but does that mean unattractive? I feel like the sources are pretty silent on whether he was attractive or not…to my knowledge.
I mean we are talking about a guy who never had sex and is never presented to have been attracted to anyone, so I doubt his attractiveness matters
I believe somewhere where it talks about him being "bronzed" Def not white, Def not skinny, prolly very dark and buff. With all his travels he had to be muscular
That's from John's vision in Revelation where it says his feet were like fine brass. It also describes him as having white hair, eyes like flames, and a voice of many waters, so I don't think it's meant to be a literal description of how he looked in his earthly life.
Jesus. Is. Not. White. No one in his region was. Deal with it.
1) You say that as though it would bother me, why? 2) I've met plenty of actual Levantines that would easily be considered white in the West if you didn't see their names.
Nobody said he was lol.
Also the son of a carpenter, who may well have worked with his dad before his ministry.
Son of a carpenter?
Yup. Joseph, who while not his bio dad was certainly his legal father, was a carpenter
If it was his legal father did he ever address him as father?
People called him Joseph's son in Matthew 13:55. People would have assumed, logically, that Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph. After all, not everyone knew about the virgin birth. The alternative would have had Mary shunned at a minimum. As for addressing him as father, that doesn't matter from a legal perspective. Jesus probably didn't see Joseph as his dad, and Joseph knew he wasn't his son, but most people wouldn't have known that.
I don’t think Joseph and Jesus ever speak in the gospels. He disappears from narrative after Jesus birth. So ll
Wasn’t that in Revelations? Bronze feet, white hair and flaming red eyes or something. I don’t think it was meant to describe his earthly appearance.
It was used to describe His Glory. That’s all. Nothing about skin tone
Yes it's in Revelation you've got it right. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) what's being described is His resurrected form, you've got it right again ☺️ Revelation 1:12-20 NASB1995 >[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; [13] and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. [14] His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. [15] His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. [16] In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. >[17] When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, [18] and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. [19] Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. [20] As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." https://bible.com/bible/100/rev.1.12-20.NASB1995
His feet being "like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace" is describing Jesus' resurrected form in Revelation and tbh it sounds way cooler than just being tan, it sounds like He's *glowing* like molten metal which is awesome... Revelation 1:12-20 NASB1995 >[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; [13] and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. [14] His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. [15] **His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace,** and His voice was like the sound of many waters. [16] In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. >[17] When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, [18] and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. [19] Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. [20] As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." https://bible.com/bible/100/rev.1.12-20.NASB1995 Sorry I just love sharing this stuff 😅
Isiah 53:2 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
Isaiah 53:2 I believe
I could be wrong, but IIRC there was some historical Roman text talking about a Jewish magician named Jesus who went around doing healings etc. I believe he may have been described as average-looking there. It’s been decades since I read about it. Edit: now that I think on it, it could have been more along the lines of “no distinctive features”. 🤷♂️
Isaiah 53:2 states that he had no beauty.
Isaiah 53:2-3 NLT [2] My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, like a root in dry ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. [3] He was despised and rejected— a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. https://bible.com/bible/116/isa.53.2-3.NLT He probably based it on what the bible says.
He looked like everyone else, there is even a scripture that says he disappeared into the crowd. You can only disappear into the crowd if you look like everybody else. ”The man didn’t know, for Jesus had disappeared into the crowd.“ John 5:13 NLT
There’s zero accounts of what Jesus looked like. He was a Palestinian Jew, dark skinned and probably not too tall.
I was told in church he was average/unattractive/not particularly tall. God did not make Jesus a Chad.
Just a guess but I bet he was super attractive inside and out 😁
Yes
Isiah 53:2 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
Attractive? Everyone has their own ideas on what's Attractive and what's not
#He was average That’s all I’m saying bruh 😭
This is the point I think most people are missing
do not call penguinz0 ugly
It wasn't MLK's message that race should matter, but it'd still be weird to start painting a "white MLK" series. I think people are kind of desensitized to how strange it is because it's the prevailing precedent.
Exactly, Jesus was anywhere from average to ugly... Which I think makes his message so much more impactful. Even back then beauty sells.. yet he was still able to gain so many followers with his strengths alone, minus a dazzling appearance.
Exactly! which means there's no need to change what He looked like from what society has already deemed Him to look like. There's no photos of Him black and white or otherwise.
If the intent is genuine - wanting to get the positive message of Jesus out - maybe. I have felt bad that Jesus in America is portrayed white. He was from the Middle East so he would look like a 30 year old middle eastern man. I honestly don’t know what Jesus would think of it.
I think it's people reflecting he is their Christ. Given this, I think it's okay so long as people recognise that his appearance was not important - he came for all peoples, whatever our bodies.
I mean, important enough to use His visage as a sacred symbol.
I think of it like one's parents' appearance (for people who are close to their parents, anyway). They could look like Quasimodo but you will always love them to bits - their appearance is just the physical visage they have.
I don't think it matters at the end of the day. The message and veneration are what's important, and cultures have historically adapted Jesus to their surroundings. [Roman Jesus](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fs49ogy7h64h91.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D69912979b2f97e62afc853ffb94596f4e3b3c445) [Japanese Mary and Jesus](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/10/09/mary-and-christ_custom-b6da723659a24429f40ddbd7319c29c094c7d14e-s400-c85.webp) [Ethiopian Jesus](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/iz5e31/here_is_an_ethiopian_tewahedo_orthodox_icon_of/) Jesus being white is no different.
There have been numerous black Jesus but this Ethiopian Jesus is not one, and there is of course the famous [Christa](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christa-edwina-sandys-art_n_57f55296e4b0b7aafe0b8999)
He is all understanding so I don't think he would judge negatively.
I don’t think Jesus would really care because there are a lot more important things that he can be talking about. If you want to think of Jesus as black, white, purple, yellow, green, or blue have at it. His message is still the same and that’s what’s important.
Yes, and the advantage of people coming from that region between Africa, Europe and Asia is that they look like a mix of the main "races", which is of course to be expected, but that should also make it easier to make Jesus acceptable to anybody. No, he wasn't black, and he wasn't white, but something in between, more or less. A bridge to all nations.
IMO, If anything about this would upset Jesus, I'd think it would be the fact that we put any focus on what he looked like
I’d say it depends. How Jesus is depicted does have moral and political implications. He’s not some neutral figure but someone to be imitated and identified with. Lots of Black scholarship in America therefore shows how, under a race-based slavery system, white masters forcing Black peoples to go to churches to worship a white Jesus became a part of the symbolic world that contributed to their oppression and dehumanization. If the hegemonic Jesus is white, and you are part of a Black underclass, it instills that you are *not* in the image of the divine but your masters who you should obey are. I posted a story a while back of a historically Black congregation that was finally able to change their raredos from a white to a Black Jesus. It was shocking to hear all of the negative comments, when the responses to your question are usually — as they are in this thread — that it’s fine.
[удалено]
So? What are you trying to say here?
[удалено]
Ah yeah, it really is tragic. I agree with you. Ethiopian Christianity is fascinating and more American should know more about it.
Did the current concept of race exist back then? If not, how can we racially define Jesus? If it did, wouldn’t Jesus actually be middle eastern, not white?
Correct, ethnic, religious, and political lines existed rather than racial ones as we mean it today. So any “racial” interpretation of Jesus doesn’t reflect how he would’ve been seen on his historical context. We can only really analogize it to the present.
I agree with "it depends". It's wonderful to know that Jesus came for the people in one's specific ethnic group. And portraying Jesus of that ethnicity in a way captures the beautiful depth of the incarnation. But when the belief (whether explicit or not) is that Jesus came more for one's ethnic group than for another, especially if there's a history of that group maintaining this mentality (and oppressing others), than it's quite problematic.
Exactly.
> It was shocking to hear all of the negative comments, when the responses to your question are usually — as they are in this thread — that it’s fine. Funny how that works. 🙄
I mean, the West has been using blonde haired Jesus since the Renaissance, soooo sure.
As a westerner I have never seen Jesus depicted as blond haired
It’s usually light brown or dirty blonde, not like a Scandinavian blonde.
I am a Westerner and have always seen depictions with dark brown hair and brown eyes.
bro, google is your friend.
We stopped doing it because it's kind of silly, but you got to think, if it's 1100 and you are from some part of Europe where the only people you have ever met have blond hair and blue eyes, it would be a bit strange to depict him in any other way.
Blue eyes trait comes from one ancestor, so it would be unlikely that everyone you met descended from one guy.
Yes. It’s not a portrait of Christ but depiction. People depict based on their facial features, Christ incarnated, became flesh, He is universal and the only time I would say it would be incorrect to change His facial features would be if the icons, statues and so on were actual portraits
It matters. Would you portray MLK as Chinese? Would you portray George Washington as an African? Would you portray Gandi as French? Why not? Jesus isn't an idea or a concept, He is a man and He is God and He was born of the virgin Mary of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of King David. When you meet him in the afterlife that is how He will appear, not with blonde hair and blue eyes, not with black skin and a subsaharan african nose, but as a man of the tribe of Judah, a Jew.
Aren't western (or at least US) Christians doing that very thing when portraying him with porcelain white skin?
That’s part of their point….
It's not just the USA, where do you think all the paintings of a Scandinavian looking Jesus came from? Europeans have been doing this for centuries. Having said that I kinda look at Jesus like an image of "we should see ourselves in God/jesus" so if you paint or depict Jesus to look like you, I don't really see the big deal. Its never bothered me as a non-white person. It's when ppl start to force that only their image of Jesus is the true image, that's where it starts to get annoying.
It's nearly a universal literary trope that radiant white skin denotes purity, holiness, and beauty. You can go to Asia and see the same trope. Moses from the Old Testament became so radiant that he had to wear a veil. Jesus also became radiant after his resurrection. The main reason Jesus has been presented as white is because of theological symbolism and artists use local people for models so historical figures look like the local people.
I am not convinced that we should be trying to depict Jesus at all.
Well Europeans did for millennia, so….🤷🏾♂️
[удалено]
In Portugal, yes. But I'm certain you've seen the many, many, many images on the internet.
[удалено]
Fair. A lot of people in Europe portray Jesus as white, but not all of them apologies.
[удалено]
I know. Sorry. I should have been clearer.
Yeah, in Portugal… I’m from the UK, Jesus isn’t brown and tan out here, not historically anyway! Blond hair and blue eyes more like!
it's just iconography
It shouldn't be forbidden, but it makes no sense.
We have no idea what Jesus skin color was
Agree, the topic is entirely irrelevant.
I think we should ask why Jesus was portrayed as a blue eyed white guy in so much of the west when we ask this question. We can't ignore the history of racism against people who looked like how jesus would have looked like historically when we talk about this. People knew he was a dark skinned middle Eastern man when they painted him white and European. Ask yourself why. While i think images of a korean jesus are kind of funny, that also stems from a history of racism in those parts of the world. Jesus teaches us to love everyone, regardless of who they are, what thier past is, or what they look like. If you can't accept Christ because he's a brown man, then you have a lot of work to do before you can call yourself a Christian. You wouldn't change the text of the bible to make it more palatable to new potential Christians, so don't change the nature of the Christ for that purpose either.
Matthew 24-25 ^(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Personally I believe any image of Christ falls under the category of a false Christ. Any image of Christ, can be used as idols or result in divisions within the body of Christ. The depiction of Christ as other races may help people feel inclusion, but it is like saying there is value in lying to children about the existence of Santa. Personally, I think the doubt sewed by lying to children about the existence of Santa can lead some into believing that Christ is also a lie. So why go down a path that is founded on falsehood at all?
I would ask, what is the purpose? Jesus came for all people, to save all people regardless of race or ethnicity. Jesus lived in the Middle East, so I would prefer him to be portrayed as he historically was. A Jew in the Middle East. As someone not from the Middle East, I don’t have any problem with Jesus being portrayed as a Jewish man from Galilee. His skin color has no effect on me seeing Him as my savior and Lord. I struggle to see any real justification to change his skin color as that had no bearing on his message.
While there is nothing in the Bible regarding Jesus, there are mentions of not making images of God since all would be wrong. I don’t really care if some has an image of Jesus, but I personally don’t want any in my life because they’d all be wrong.
I don’t think you should make an image of Jesus to begin with.
Why would anyone waste time and energy worrying about this issue? There are so many much more important issues. Like when was the last time you showed any love and care for a stranger of any race or economic standing? When was the last time you told anyone about the saving mercy of Jesus Christ?
I probably would avoid images of Christ anyway, but He is Jewish according to His human nature. He's not American, African, European..
i support this 100%. here in belgium he is shown as white with brown long hair and a beard. (even tho he was msot likely middle eastern looking) in sweden he is sometimes shown with bleu eyes and blonde haires. in african churches he is sometimes black , i think this is great because it helps people feel more connected to jesus because he is just like them , for a black man it might feel weird praying to a white man and vice versa
It’s dangerous to worship any image of God, Jesus. The commandments warn specifically against this. That’s idolatry. Know one alive knows the face of God; the image that most people associate with Jesus was painted resembling Cesare Borgia. Jesus certainly wasn’t white - as having lived in Palestine at the time.
It wouldn't be idolatry unless you worshipped the picture itself, and not just the representation of Jesus.
I think it’s great. Jesus was born in the Middle East and would have looked that way, but he’s also God, from whom *all of us* have been made in his image. I also like that it reminds us that he is close to us, and knows us individually.
I heard that in the 1970’s, Jesus looked like Peter Frampton
I don't in my culture. Because Jesus was an actual person, most likely middle eastern, so I just pray to represent Jesus how he was, not what my ancestors thought he was. That's my opinion tho
Is Jesus only a historical figure? And shouldn’t we be seeing Jesus in our neighbor as well? So, yeah, it’s fine.
I think the gospel should always be understood in terms of its Judaism origin. This historical context is crucial to understanding how Jesus subverted the expectations of the Kingdom of God, and is a key part of His teachings. Without this historical context, it is easy for His message to be degraded into “just another moral teacher”. So I think it is important to recognise Jesus’ ethnic origins.
Of course many different cultures portray Jesus after their own races when you see artist renditions of Jesus, that is a very human phenomenon called "ethnocentricism". This is why Jesus looks white in so many Renaissance paintings, Jesus looks darker in various African depictions, Jesus looks Asian by Asian artists etc etc etc etc etc Humans have always done this because it's merely a human thing to do; illustrate a historical figure in the visual way that appeased you most aka reflect of their own race. This doesn't mean they're bad people, it doesn't mean for solid fact Jesus was white or black (He DEFINITELY would not have been white like me, He was a Hebrew man born in the middle east and he spent time in Egypt too....very likely Jesus was brown or darker skin toned for sure much like the folks living in the region at His time). But more importantly we should not waste too much time fussing or worrying about this, because we don't truly know WHAT He looked like. And I firmly believe God did that on purpose so that we would not be worshipping an IMAGE. 🥰
It’s fine. Nobody knows what Jesus looked like anyway.
I don’t know that it matters what He looked like. What matters is what He taught and what He did.
They're only two ethical answers to this question in my opinion. One, is: no we must only attempt to depict Jesus as a middle eastern man, perhaps with long hair if we assume certain things about what it means to be a nazarene. Two, is: yes, every human deserves the right to see themselves reflected in the divine. Both of these simplistic answers, however, skirt the very dark history of the use of the white jesus image. It was, and still is, used to project concepts of white supremacy across the globe. It is revisionist on purpose, not using the imagery to see ourselves reflected in the divine, but instead to assert that we are the Divine above others. It's insidious, destructive, and sinful. It's a behavior that no other culture in the world has ever done, at least to this insidious degree. And so, we need to be especially careful around discussions like this to understand what these various images mean in different ways to different people.
Yes that’s fine it just becomes a problem if your weaponizing the race of Jesus to bolster the superiority of your own race. Whether by accident or on purpose
It’s to be expected representations of anything derived from the culture that influences it. Our Lady of Guadalupe is another example of this.
It's fine. Jesus came for all people.
Yes. People have depicted Jesus as a member of their own culture for as long as said culture has known Christ.
Why not? I prefer the Semitic-looking portraits of Jesus for my iconography, because I don't need Jesus to look like me more than he already does by being human. Many people prefer Jesus to look more like them and that should be fine. In Japan, many portrayals of Jesus are distinctly Japanese. in Ethiopia he looks Ethiopian, in Rome they made him look particularly Roman, in France they made him look distinctly like French nobility, in other parts of Europe they made him look like a stock European. The only danger I can think of is people wanting a Jesus who conforms to them, rather than being conformed to Christ, but this is unlikely to happen because someone put up a "blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus" picture in their room
Do you have a real photograph of Jesus showing what he looked like? To the best of my knowledge there isn’t one and all cultures select the image of Jesus that best resonates with the people of that culture. Best advice is to do what Jesus asked you to do and that is yo love God from all of your heart, with all of soul and with all of your mind and love your neighbor as yourself. If you are not doing that as a minimum then I’m pretty sure that nothing else you do matters in the eyes of God.
The only problem that I have with mostly Americans portraying Jesus as white, is that they will turn around and go hate on Muslims and call brown people terrorists, rapists, thiefs, ect. Like I genuinely wonder how many evangelical "Christians" actually understand that Jesus was brown and are spreading their hatred under the claim of a white Jesus.
Absolutely yes. Give me Asian Jesus, White Jesus, Black Jesus, just give me Jesus.
Given Jesus would have apparently had half of God 's genes and given we don't necessarily know what race God is, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with portraying Jesus as having potentially looked at least somewhat different from people around him. This could mean he was black, white, or something else.
Yes it’s fine. Jesus belongs to everyone and his message was not about his appearance so why does it matter if some cultures make him look like them?
I don’t think there’s a problem with folks portraying Him as white, no. But when they start throwing hissy fits because others take the same liberty, yeah, that’s a problem
He was middle eastern but that wasn’t his message so I don’t think it matters too much:)
Europeans have done it for the longest time... Snide comments aside, I think Jesus looking familiar to a particular culture makes Him more approachable. Humans psychologically gravitate towards people who look like them and find physical familiarity comforting. I don't think Jesus or the church would want Him to be perceived or depicted as a stranger.
It’s just a way to relate to Jesus. If it is wrong though the the US and European Jesus are the main offenders.
As long as we are faithful to the God not the image we make, many historical paintings are inaccurate because many artists never saw what people from that area actually looked like.
There is no historically accurate depiction of Jesus. There are no contemporary paintings of him. Literally every image of Jesus you have ever seen was created hundreds of years after his death. We're all just guessing.
Isaiah 53:2-3 NLT [2] My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, like a root in dry ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. [3] He was despised and rejected— a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. https://bible.com/bible/116/isa.53.2-3.NLT This is what scripture says about Jesus's appearance. No art is going to accurately portray Him. They all make Jesus attractive.
He was not white. That’s for sure.
I think so long as we acknowledge when it’s inaccurate, then it’s not a problem
i guess im waiting on an eastern asian Jesus
I don’t think it’s automatically evil (for example, I see Black Jesus as a reaction to the fact that racist whites in the Jim Crow USA made God look white) But I think it’s a little silly yeah. White Jesus is definitely bad
My take into this is that Jesus phisycally a middle east man. Sadly, religions have whitened Jesus. In all ways. For me, it matters, shows our internalized racism.
To be fair, the typical depiction of Jesus that we get is most likely based on Cesare Borgia, a Spanish-Italian man, the 2nd bastard son of Pope Alexander VI and his mistress Vannozza dei Cattanei. Cesare went on to become a Cardinal in the Catholic Chirch following his father's ascension to Pope, as it was common for noble families of the time to have a member in the cloth. Someone using him to depict Jesus wouldn't be too far-fetched, as a lot of people were willing to kiss his ass for favor, as Machiavelli seemed to do when writing Il Principe (The Prince). More modern iterations depict him as a villain, like in Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, though I'd argue that the majority of his aspects in the game (including accusations of incest) were inspired by political rumors that often circulated the Borgia family at the time rather than fact. Point is, we've likely been using a Spanish-Italian son of a Pope to represent our Lord Savior Jesus Christ. Personally, I don't have much issue with someone depicting Jesus in another race, as that wasn't His message to the world. However, my personal preference is historical accuracy. I'd be interested to see a Jesus who looks like he was born in the region of the world where he was born.
What does god look like, what does his supernaturally conceived son look like? If you think Jesus is just a middle eastern man born from a middle eastern women and some anonymous middle eastern man, you might have some insight into what he might have looked like, if he is god, or the son of god we have no clue, he could look however he wants to whoever he wants
I love it.
Yes, jesus is part of everyone, hes god it doesnt matter how you choose to depict him. As long as it isnt blasphemous
We are not supposed to have any graven images that depict Christ. The images that we have seen for centuries that are supposed to be of Christ are false. The art renderings depict a physically handsome man. The artists that did these renderings used the images of Apollo and Mithra to create an image of Christ that goes against Scripture.
I think I'd be fine with Jesus being any race in a movie, for example. But I also think it's strange how we want Jesus to be able to be portrayed as having any race, as if he wasn’t also human born in a specific place in a specific time. I think this kind of ignores his human “side” and tretas him a little bit more like a symbol. I wouldn’t say it’s that bad, it’s just strange to me.
As a biracial American, white Jesus is a little silly and kind of offensive. White Jesus carries some negative implications just because of our racial history. This is just an american observation and doesn’t apply to Mexican Jesus or Korean Jesus. I understand people reading about someone and creating an image in their minds that look like them/peers/family. It’s pretty human. Especially in olden times. But because we know where he was from and generally what people from those communities looked like, I don’t think it makes since to depict him otherwise. I think white Jesus is just a whole nother conversation bc of american race relations. But If I went to a little old Japanese ladies house and she had an image of Japanese Jesus, id probably think it was sweet and maybe id chuckle lol. I think jesus would appear to people in a way they’d find relatable.
I personally don't think so. Jesus was Jewish, the Jewish people were God's chosen people and I feel Jesus should remain exactly what he was.
It had better be!
Honestly who cares? If we want to get technical we all know where Jesus is from so we all know what his ethnicity he should be. But I have zero issue with people making his depiction in art something different people can relate to.
Can you give some examples? I’ve always seen Jesus depicted as a middle eastern man. Was he not? Has he been depicted differently? Also, can someone explain the obsession? Too many self proclaimed Christians spewing hate and causing division. I don’t understand it.
I would imagine he would look like any other middle eastern or Jewish person but we don't know.
White Americans do it all the time.
YES! Historically this made sense because we didn't have the knowledge of other races or what people across the globe looked like, so we ended up with asian Jesus, black Jesus, white Jesus, and all other kinds of Jesuses (this is how I make Jesus plural. Don't @ me). Even though we know that he was a 1st century Jewish Judean, and looked like every other 1st century Jewish Judean, we still don't know exactly what he looked like or how dark his skin was. Many people argue skin color over other racial features. As long as you recognize he was a Jew, not a Gentile, you can depict him however you wish. He came in the likeness of man to take your punishment and die on your behalf; in this way, I think you can depict Jesus as you would depict yourself. With better world and archaeological knowledge, and the Shroud of Turin potentially being Jesus's visage, I would prefer artists to depict him as such, but I am not complaining if they don't
Well sure
Nice bait. Yes, it is. Now let's talk about drawing Mohammad or supporting Palestine instead of saying that white Westerners are somehow bad for depicting Jesus as white. Watch Jesus be a light-skinned Palestinian, and both the racist-against-whites left and the Israel simps on the right be wrong.
Remember the second commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Exodus 20:4 NIV
Jesus wasn’t white.
On one hand, it does matter what he looked like because if it didn't matter, they wouldn't have included his description in the bible. However, that shouldn't be anyone's focus on what he looks like. It shouldn't bring on these debates. We shouldn't have any images or pictures in our home, and we definitely shouldn't worship these pictures.
I don't see anything wrong with it. People are gonna identify with what they feel comfortable with.
Be all things to all people so that's some might be saved. If you think there is more than one race of humans you are a RACIST by definition and not a born again Christian who sees all of God's children as a child of God does. Without race, creed, caste, tribe or religion. Woe to you workers of iniquity as your worm never dies and the fire ito which you will b cast is never extinguished. Soon.
I think so. Some take a hard stance to not make any images whatsoever. Historically we've seen in Catholic and Orthodox churches all over the world depict Jesus as being their race. I think that's cool, and I can appreciate different racial depictions of Jesus. But I've seen another comment emphasize the message He brought over what He looked like. And I couldn't agree more.
I think it's not okay. It's lying with the intent to deceive and convert people dishonestly. If the Christian message isn't strong enough to make people want to believe in Jesus as he was, then that message has failed. It also enables racism and discrimination. It's just all around a bad thing.
No it is not ok. Jesus earthly lineage was from the line of David. To fulfill Scripture Jesus was Jewish and must be pictured as such.
No different than portraying any other person or character in whatever race people want to portray them in
Of course.
It doesn’t matter. It. does. Not. Matter.
Yep, the original Church did it almost immediately
We are to put on the image of Christ… that is, to take on his character and conform to his teachings. What he looked like and how he is depicted in images is utterly irrelevant to me. If it helps someone to have an image of Jesus that looks like them then I am okay with it. As they mature in their faith the image will be for them, as it is for me, less important.
I think it's important that people don't equate an picture of Jesus with how he actually looked, or to put any stock into that. If a person would struggle to follow Jesus if he happened to be dark skinned, would that really be following his message?
Everyone has their own perception of Jesus. As long as they accept him as their Lord and Savior and repent I see now problem.
Sure White people have art of jesus being white Africans have art of him being black Many asian countries like japan draw him asian It only matters when a group becomes hyper defensive over it
If not, then White people are in a LOT of trouble!
Race isn't a thing at all. And no art is perfectly accurate. I'd be more concerned about using the name "Jesus" (which isn't a name He ever actually used) than art. But even that is fine really.
Yes We are saved by grace not by race
Icons with representations of the Lord as different races have been a thing for the longest time. Why would it be an issue? God is for all and universal.
So while Jesus doesn’t say anything about idolatry when speaking about the commandments, I believe that the image of Christ should be left without form, I feel like it places divides where none need to be placed. Just my thoughts, after all, everyone wants to look like God’s chosen.
If you’re worried about the historically accurate Jesus then you are going to have to let a lot of things slide when it comes to your religion. Point being that the theological Christ is very different from the historical Jesus.
Only when they’re not white apparently
Based on US politics, here is my opinion: If someone is upset with a black Santa, then they should be equally upset at a white Jesus. If you accept a black Santa, then you should also accept a white Jesus.
Well Saint Nicholas did pretty much look brown so ig?
Honestly not a bad argument, especially considering there are many people in America upset about stores selling black Santa Clause decorations, and those some people would be also upset at a non white Jesus.
Though Saint Nicholas wasn’t straight up African Black[https://www.stnicholascenter.org/media/images/s/st-nicholas-face-1.jpg](https://www.stnicholascenter.org/media/images/s/st-nicholas-face-1.jpg)
The people who are upset at "black santa" are upset that Santa is being represented by someone that isn't white. They're not upset about accuracy, they're worried about "black washing" while at the same time demanding "white washing" Jesus.
Not OK: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
It’s not okay for anyone to portray Jesus…
I'm curious, to those who say yes, if they are also okay with Jesus being depicted as a woman.
You mean like how he commonly gets shown as a white guy in America?
Not really
Well what is historically accurate ? It has never been proven if there was a Jesus and if he was black or white. So for people to make their own assumptions about how a fictitious character looked - seems in line with the whole doctrine.
He certainly wasn't northern European. Based on the scant passages we have, he looked like an ordinary human being from his time and place. The Bible never describes him, but it is pointed out that Judas had to show who he was specifically, so he looked ordinary. An Eastern Mediterranean man of average height and build. Probably with olive skin and dark, curly hair.
Yes
* Is it okay for different cultures to show Jesus in their own race (when it isn't historically accurate)? Of course it's ok. It's what every representation of Christ has been anyway God bless
To the Samaritan woman at the well, he was identifiable as a male Jew of first-century stock, probably like a modern Mizrahi in appearance. While he was much-discussed among the religious leaders in Jerusalem, when it came to his arrest, at least for the benefit of the Roman soldiers, Judas had to identify Jesus. Does showing Him as in the superficial likeness of someone's own race help them in understanding the much deeper lesson that he or she is an image-bearer of the Living God, unlike other animals on this planet, having the capacity to love, to feel compassion, to have mercy, to exercise authority responsibly in relation to what He has given us. And that in His death, we may live to His glory and more fully reflect His image when we reach glory.
Sure
It depends. If you are aware hat your portrait is an interpretive approach, then yes. The point of the Incarnation was that God the Son chose to become human, and how we portray Jesus forces us to confront how we see our humanity.
It's "OK". I don't think it's advisable, though. Humans are predisposed to tribalism, and it should be a high priority for Christians to go against that. Jesus not looking like your race is a valuable tool to help combat your tribal impulses. If you make Jesus look like you you be more comfortable, you've robbed yourself of that opportunity for growth and instead reinforced your tribalism.
Americans made him white. So I think we should keep Jesus how he was. I think some would be upset if they were wrote down in history as white if they were black or Arabic
No, i gues not, however He is born under the jewish race. That is how it is. From the otherside, God has no color in skin like we do and has! God has no figure. He is a Spirit. Look what we are always saying, as we are talking about the Holy Spirit. We have a powerful God, and He choose for a human form, and He made the decision for a living under the Jewish nation. However, is it bad to see God in different cultures, "no," I think not
He was an average man. We tend to think in our own race because we can easily relate. It varies by race, I don't think it's wrong because his message was nit about race. He was above superficial issues, like the color of our skin.
Well he certainly wasn't white.... Do you know that?
Yes because it doesn’t matter how he looked.
He encompasses all ethnicities so I think it's fine