Board index ‹ Jesus

[Ignorant]

Isn’t “white Jesus” proof that Christianity cares more about cultural comfort than truth?

Same goes for “Asian Jesus” or “African Jesus.” I just mention “white Jesus” because I’m from American where I see him everywhere.

This issue should be such a simple fix. It’s been talked enough about in recent years that Christians collectively should have been like “Huh, I guess you’re right. I just never thought about it before.” and then proceeded to adapt depictions of Jesus as necessary. If I walk into your Church and see “white Jesus” nailed to a cross, that raises some red flags to me. There’s no good reason to hold on to “white Jesus,” unless you just feel some sort of superiority when looking at a savior who happens to be your own race/the race of the people who surround you. How many of you actually go to churches where the depictions of Jesus are more Middle-Eastern?

[jimwalton]

There are good reasons the Bible tells us not to make images of God. It's because any image of God necessarily reduces Him and misrepresents Him. He is portrayed that way by white people who want to identify with Him (and likewise by Africans or Asians), not because of any racism or cultural comfort).

Jesus isn't white. The genealogy of Jesus makes clear that he was from the Middle East, with ancestors who were Mesopotamian (Abraham), Canaanite (Rahab), and Moabite (Ruth). It is possible that also that he has some genetic connection with Africans since Solomon had many wives, and we don't know the heritage of all of them. There is also the possibility of other interracial marriages in the long line of his ancestry.

Essentially, Jesus was of mixed Near-Eastern heritage. There's every reason to believe he had normal skin tones for that part of the world (medium to dark brown), dark brown eyes, and dark brown hair. He had a beard and, being a lawful Jew, he most likely had payot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payot).

Since the average height of a man in those days was about 5' or a little taller, that was likely his height. Obviously we don't know anything about his weight.

There is nothing about his appearance that would have been considered unusual or striking (Isaiah 53.2). He looked much like anyone else in that era and culture.

Usually Jesus is portrayed as a certain race because people want to feel a sense of connection. It's not racist as much as it is yearning to see Jesus as "someone like me."

[Ignorant]

The bible tells different people different things all the time. Clearly the majority of Christians didn’t get the memo that it’s not Kosher to depict Jesus.

Wanting to see “someone like me” in a historical figure who is objectively not like you in this regard (skin color) definitely qualifies as “cultural comfort” in my book. It’s the same as the (especially older) Christians who harp on the evils of homosexuality but ignore other basic sins enumerated. And it’s the same as the (especially newer) Christians who ignore all of the content in the bible that says homosexuality is not okay.

It seems like Christianity just reflects what any particular small group of Christians wants it to reflect. In that regard it’s no different from any other religion.

If all the Churches across America were to change their depiction of Jesus to a brown-skinned man overnight, I expect that there would be at least a small uprising. Why? Because their culture isn’t comfortable with a non-white Jesus. It shouldn’t matter what people “want to see” in their Christianity—should it? Shouldn’t Christianity hold fast to the truth and a set of ideals, rather than adapting to what makes the masses comfortable?

[jimwalton]

> The bible tells different people different things all the time

The Bible has a proper way to be interpreted, but it has endless applications. It shouldn't tell different people different things, but it can mean different things to different people.

> Wanting to see “someone like me” in a historical figure who is objectively not like you in this regard (skin color) definitely qualifies as “cultural comfort” in my book

Skin color has nothing to do with it, or shouldn't. We identify with Jesus because of the nobility of His heart, the compassion in the way He treats people, and the wisdom of His responses to people.

You'll notice that everyone wants a piece of Jesus. Hindus consider Him an avatar. Buddhists consider Him enlightened. Muslims consider His a prominent prophet. Many people regard Him as an admirable teacher.

This is why we want to see ourselves in Jesus and Jesus in ourselves. He suffered nobly, was filled with wisdom, and treated people with compassion.

> And it’s the same as the (especially newer) Christians who ignore all of the content in the bible that says homosexuality is not okay.

I know this is a different conversation, but only if you ignore all the content of the Bible will you conclude that homosexuality is OK.

> It seems like Christianity just reflects what any particular small group of Christians wants it to reflect

To some extent this is true, but it shouldn't be. Christianity was never intended to be "whatever I want it to be and whatever makes me comfortable." It's a distortion of Jesus and Christianity.

> If all the Churches across America were to change their depiction of Jesus to a brown-skinned man overnight, I expect that there would be at least a small uprising.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. This is the 2020s, not the 1950s. Many people now recognize rightfully that Jesus was not of European descent.

> Shouldn’t Christianity hold fast to the truth and a set of ideals, rather than adapting to what makes the masses comfortable?

Absolutely. Yes, yes, yes.

[Ignorant]

> It shouldn't tell different people different things, but it can mean different things to different people.

Yeah I guess all it “tells” people is whatever is explicitly written on the page. So for all intents and purposes, this is what I meant when I said it “tells” people different things.

> We identify with Jesus because of the nobility of His heart, the compassion in the way He treats people, and the wisdom of His responses to people[etc.]

That’s awesome. Those are great qualities to relate to. I also think Jesus is a great guy, and if more people modeled their lives after his, the world would be a better place. Still, if people can relate to him in all those other ways, surely you can agree that painting him white for “relatability” is unnecessary? And therefore if you do paint him white, it begs the question: “WHY?” There was a reason for that choice.

> only if you ignore all the content of the Bible will you conclude that homosexuality is OK.

I 100% agree. That was my point, in fact (not to mention a considerable part of why I left Christianity. I agree that God does not like homosexuality, so I decided to not like God). Some really homophobic Christians spend all their energy shouting that homosexuality is a sin, only to continue committing other sins without remorse (in other words, they don’t care about what the bible says, they only care about their own values). Other gay and gay-accepting Christians blatantly ignore what the bible says on that matter, but still follow other parts of the bible (in other words, they don’t care about what the bible says, they only care about their own values).

> Many people now recognize rightfully that Jesus was not of European descent.

Sure, I agree that many do, I would even guess that the majority do. So why don’t they do something about it? Again, it’s such a quick fix. Maybe only 10% of self-identifying Christians would actually care. But if they get so upset about a more closely historically accurate Jesus that they reject the message of Christianity, do you even want them to identify as Christians in the first place? That seems like they need further conversion anyways.

[jimwalton]

> Still, if people can relate to him in all those other ways, surely you can agree that painting him white for “relatability” is unnecessary?

I agree that it's unnecessary. Some people find it helpful, but hopefully, taken in the right way, it shouldn't be offensive. It's not that Jesus can be whatever we want Him to be; rather, it's that Jesus finds a point of connection with everyone.

> only to continue committing other sins without remorse

I agree. There's far too much hypocrisy, double standards, and turning a blind eye to one's own sins while condemning the sins in others.

My brother made an interesting comment about this conversation: "How often in recent years have many felt the necessity of picturing Jesus with secondary racial characteristics that match their own? After centuries of European Jesuses, we now have black Jesuses, Asian Jesuses, and Hispanic Jesuses. All of these subtly or not so subtly convey the idea that if Jesus is not like me, I cannot identify with Him. While the Incarnation did involve Jesus becoming like us, the important thing is not that we identify with Him, but that He identified with us, and this has nothing to do with external physical characteristics. Such portrayals focus attention on the wrong aspects of the Incarnation, and teach people that what makes Jesus worthy of our attention is how He looked."

[I'm Wrong]

> The Bible has a proper way to be interpreted,

How do you know, and how do you know what it is?

[jimwalton]

As with all writing, we know we are not free to read it as we wish. There are common and consensual understandings in culture and academia that make language work. We take words to mean what they mean in the culture of the era or how the author has identified to define them. We have to understand words in the context of their culture, historical era, and in the context of the sentence in which they are used. We understand sentences in the context of the paragraph, and paragraphs in the context of the sections. We can use these grammatical and literary tools to discern the viewpoint of the author and the thesis of his work. We understand words or phrases to be figures of speech when taking them literally doesn't make sense (as in if I were to call you a "clever fox").

The Bible is no different from a letter, a historical document, a science text, or a play by Shakespeare. It's how language works. For instance, if I can't assume that you are understanding even this post because you either intrinsically know how language works or are able to use these tools to figure it out (what I mean by what I'm saying), then all communication is worthless. But we know it's not. I can trust and assume you can understand my post, because you know these rules.

So it is with the Bible. Just as a science text has a way it was meant to be understood and uses words and sentences accordingly, we can both read that science text and understand what it is saying. So also any literature professor can walk you through Shakespeare's Macbeth and analyze his plot development, nuances, and character psychology. It is so with the Bible. The Bible also has a proper way to be interpreted. The problem with the Bible is that it has many detractors who willingly and intentionally distort it, and the multiplication of these distortions has created cultural confusion and even disdain. And yet in truth, despite what irresponsible people have foisted on the biblical text to deprecate it, the Bible has a proper way to be interpreted and can be understood.

[I'm Wrong]

> As with all writing, we know we are not free to read it as we wish.

Of course we are. You are hereby free to read any book in any way you wish.

> The Bible is no different from a letter, a historical document, a science text, or a play by Shakespeare.

I agree. Like all of these forms of writing, it was written by people and has no special claim to divine involvement.

> The Bible also has a proper way to be interpreted.

Unfortunately, Christians cannot seem to agree on what it is.

[jimwalton]

> Of course we are. You are hereby free to read any book in any way you wish.

So what you are saying with this statement is that the animals in the zoo are fun for children to see, right?

The question is: Am I really allowed to read your statement in any way I wish if language means anything and if communication can be effective? I say no.

> Like all of these forms of writing, it was written by people and has no special claim to divine involvement.

Ah, but these people claim not only divine involvement but also divine inspiration, and that's what we must honestly evaluate. The Bible has many similarities with other forms of writing, but the special claims is where we must evaluate the evidence at hand. You are remiss to casually cast it aside without proper assessment, or you're guilty of bias.

> Unfortunately, Christians cannot seem to agree on what it is.

I agree that there are a lot of debates out there. Is there a text you'd like to specifically discuss?