Last week in a post at the DesiringGod blog, John Piper responded to a question about portraits or pictures of Jesus. Part of what he said:
I’m a little hesitant about portraits of Jesus at all. There’s that argument about whether that’s breaking the first Commandment — don’t make any graven images, don’t have pictures of Jesus in your house. The reason I’m not a stickler on that is because Jesus became incarnate, therefore we know he had a face. God the father didn’t have a face, except insofar as He and the Son are one.
Jesus had a face and even though we don’t know what it looked like I think renderings of it to show various things are okay. And if we’re going to do that, they should be real diverse. I think they should be real diverse because you lock in on that famous one–I don’t know what it’s called, the one with the long hair, kind of the idyllic face and the blue eyes—that’s absolutely absurd.
But I think there should probably be black portrayals of Jesus, and white portrayals of Jesus, and Chinese portrayals of Jesus. And everybody knows that they’re not accurate. There isn’t one that’s accurate. That’s why it’s legitimate to do lots of inaccurate works. Because you just say we all know that we don’t know what he looked like so what we want to say with our inaccurate Jesus is something true about Jesus. Namely, he’s there for everybody.
On what basis should there be “black portrayals of Jesus,” and “white portrayals of Jesus,” and “Chinese portrayals of Jesus”? Piper bases his reasoning on the fact that any portrayal of Jesus is inaccurate, so why not say something that is true about Jesus in the midst of the inaccuracy: “Namely, he’s there for everybody.”
But do racially diverse images of Jesus really convey the message that Jesus is “there for everybody”? Does the fact that Jesus indeed was God incarnate in the flesh of a Jewish male, and not in the flesh of a African male, or a European male, or a Chinese male, make it any less true that “he’s there for everybody”? The image is the shadow, the type. The incarnation is the real thing. Is the real incarnation of Jesus in a non-diverse image therefore not effective in conveying the truth that Jesus is “there for everybody“? I know Dr. Piper does not believe that!
Jesus was not incarnated in reality in the form of every race. He “took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.” He was found “in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2:7,8). Biblically speaking, Jesus shows that he is indeed there for all of humanity in the incarnation: “Forasmuch then as children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself likewise took part of the same” (Hebrews 2:14) It is Jesus’ HUMANITY – not his race – that demonstrates he is “there for us.” And in his humanity as a Jewish male “he redeemed us to God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” making us a new nation – a kingdom of priests – a people for his own possession without regard to race (1 Peter 2:9).
To suggest that we need racially diverse images of Jesus cheapens the reality. The reality is that Jesus, through his humanity and as God in human flesh, died to banish racial, social and class distinctives. In Christ we “…have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:10,11). All the nations of men are made “of one blood” (Acts 17:26) and are redeemed by “his own blood” (Hebrews 9:11-15).
We don’t need white images of Jesus, black images of Jesus, Chinese images of Jesus, or even Jewish images of Jesus. We need Jesus! “That I may know HIM, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death” (Philippians 3:10). The image is a mere distraction from the reality that is the person of Christ.
Like Fanny Crosby wrote; I shall know Him, I shall know Him,… by the print of the nails in His hand. I know Him by heart now, but then face to face.
“O that will be Glory for me”!
Glad most of us agree that Jesus (Yeshua) was Jewish. Personally, I would prefer we not have potrayals of Him at all. Piper says he is not a stickler on this because Jesus was incarnate on the Earth, but that fails to take the WHOLE commandment into account:
“You shall not make .. any likeness of what is in Heaven above OR ON THE EARTH BENEATH or in the water under the earth.”
Yet God commanded the tabernacle to be adorned with various images, not least of which were golden, winged cherubim atop the mercy seat itself! That helps me feel better about my own inconsistency. I don’t have a problem with photography. I just try to remember that all we can do is imitate. The real thing is all to God’s glory!
Wow Lary, your opinion is anything BUT rational. But I digress.
This topic doesn’t require “deep theological thought” as was suggested yesterday. Jesus was born a Jewish man, and we have a general idea of what a Jewish man in that area looks like….this isn’t rocket science. Sure, a blond, blue-eyed Jesus is probably not accurate, but that doesn’t mean we just make him into any image we want, based on our race. He was and is born of the Jewish people, period.
How is this for a description of Jesus.
“I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis,and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned , I saw seven golden candlesticks;
And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me fear not; I am the first and the last:
I am he that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”
Brethren, this is a picture of the One with whom we have to do!
This image makes me grateful, I’m in the right camp!
That “fear not” part I especially enjoy.
Since we don’t know exactly what the birth place of Jesus looked like either, how ‘bout we present pictures of it in a nice clean New England type farm house manger . . . and while we’re at it, let’s ADD an inn keeper for good measure ; )
If you’re one of those who need a picture to strengthen your faith, you better check your faith.
Interesting Larry,
Your commentary speaks for itself.
For the benefit of the rest of us;
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Just one of those “religious things”!
The sacred biography of Jesus Christ is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities.
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of OTHER mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such ‘signs’ had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
There are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’ purported life. No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing. Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first and second centuries of the Common Era.
We have nothing but love for those who choose to believe in Jesus, or Robin Hood, Superman or Ethan Hunt. But we choose to be rational.
More about Jesus would I know,
More of His grace to others show,
More of His saving fullness see,
More of His love who died for me.
My sin not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more!!!!!!!!!
Tell me the old old story,
Tell me the old old story,
Tell me the old old story,
Of Jesus and His love.
Then sings my soul, my Savior God to thee,….
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!!!!
While we may not have an accurate representation of Jesus’ likeness, we certainly have all the accurate information we need to believe in His Jewish identity. The fact that, according to the book of Acts, He has made all nations “of one blood” says enough about not needing a variety of racial/ethnic depictions of the man Jesus of Nazareth. What people need is a spiritual look at “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Exactly. Jesus made a point of coming as a Jew. We cannot change that fact by allowing pictures of Him as any nationality we please. While it is the person of Christ and not His nationality/race that we accept as our Saviour, we still cannot rewrite or ignore the truth of Who He was while He lived on earth.
We may argue that Piper is wrong about encouraging a diverse multicultural representation of Jesus, but we should also be courageous enough to acknowledge that our treasured likenesses of Jesus found on everything from highway billboards to children’s literature are rooted in European art traditions and not Biblical or historical evidence. Would we be offended if artists depicted a Jesus that to us looked more like an Islamist terrorist than a European nobleman? The picture that you included in your blog is an interesting case in point. Also, check http://picturesofjesus4you.com/gallery1.html for “traditional” portraits of Jesus and compare them with images of a typical male from the middle east. Here’s an interesting side question: If Adam was created in the image of God, would we assume that he had a “trans-racial” appearance? What would Adam look like to us today? If we had to categorize his race according to modern racial markers, how might we proceed? Scripture says that Jesus was the second Adam, and while born of a woman was conceived and fashioned as a man by the Holy Spirit. How much or little of the genetic/racial material of Mary’s lineage was present in Jesus? Did Jesus bear Adam’s likeness and not the likeness of either Mary or Joseph? After all is said and done though, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.
I’m not sure, at the end of the day, that what you say at the end: “We don’t need white images of Jesus, black images…. We need Jesus!” is something that John Piper would disagree with – it seems like he was reluctant to even get into the topic (at least from the audio). However, I think both you and John are correct. John is right because if someone – let’s say they are Swedish, for instance, has trouble with Jesus because they think of him a Palestinian Jew, John is saying that shouldn’t be a stumbing block. On the other hand, to deny that he was God incarnate in a real human body with a real human face would be folly. (Though that is not what he was saying). Great question though – all questions that make us meditate on Jesus are great questions!
My dear brother,
You get the point.
Without Him, where would we be?
Its like the old time “brider’s”. They missed the point. Regardless of any earthly trappings, he is Jesus Christ The Lord. And beside Him there is none else!