What Did Jesus Look Like?

The Gospel Coalition ^ | 07/10/2013 | Justin Taylor

[SeekAndFind]

The answer, of course, is that we don’t know.

We do know that Jesus was probably in his early 30s when he began his ministry and would not have had long hair.

It’s fair to assume that Jesus had a beard, in light of first-century Jewish culture and tradition—though Scripture doesn’t say this explicitly. (Isaiah 50:6 says the suffering servant, ultimately exemplified in Jesus, has his beard plucked out, but the NT doesn’t cite this).

Isaiah’s messianic prophecy suggests that there was nothing unusually attractive about him (“he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him,” Isa. 53:2)—though it’s taking it too far to say that he was thereby unattractive or homely.

He was a Galilean Jew who spent a lot of time outdoors, so his skin tone would likely be a darker olive color, as is typical of those in Mediterranean countries.

In December 2002 Popular Mechanics did a cover story called “The Real Face of Jesus.” The positioning of the piece was obviously sensationalistic. But it was nevertheless quite interesting. Using “forensic anthropology” scientists and archaeologists combined to investigate what a first-century Galilean Semite might have looked like, with medical artist Richard Neave commissioned to do the rendering. The article describes the process:

The first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli archeology experts, who shared them with Neave.With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave used computerized tomography to create X-ray “slices” of the skulls, thus revealing minute details about each one’s structure. Special computer programs then evaluated reams of information about known measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying a representative Semite skull.

The entire process was accomplished using software that verified the results with anthropological data. From this data, the researchers built a digital 3D reconstruction of the face. Next, they created a cast of the skull. Layers of clay matching the thickness of facial tissues specified by the computer program were then applied, along with simulated skin. The nose, lips and eyelids were then modeled to follow the shape determined by the underlying muscles.

How tall would a first-century Jew be? “From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds.” I admit that it feels a bit strange to think of being over a foot taller than Jesus! But it’s good to have our cultural preconceptions—even prejudices—challenged.

Of course no depiction can tell us what Jesus looked like for sure. But the following rendering is undoubtedly closer to reality than the typical rendering by artists and film-makers:

[MNDude]

wow! that’s fascinating!

[.45 Long Colt]

I’m sure I’m out-of-step with most here, but I do not believe it’s biblical to depict Christ in any manner. On the basis of Exodus 20:4-6, among other passages, I believe it’s forbidden idolatry to paint pictures of Jesus Christ or portray Him in movies. Graven images are forbidden because God is a Spirit, not to be conceived of or fashioned in man’s image, or the image of any other created thing.

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

And in Romans 1, the Apostle Paul wrote:

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[count-your-change]

I’m pretty sure this is a picture of Ronald Reagan.....

[GreyFriar]

I agree. The tv show where that face was created from the shroud of turnin was excellent.

[Sirius Lee]

Maybe he looked like any other young adult Israeli, just with more beard and less gun - well, he already had the most powerful weapon in the universe at his disposal.

[zot]

I agree with the facial reconstruction based on the Shroud of Turin.

[Bigg Red]

One of the good programs the History Channel produced was a documentary of the reconstruction of His Face using images from the Shroud. It actually brought tears to my eyes and awe to my heart when they showed the computer image.

[ExGeeEye]

As for Samson, "long" means however long it would have grown had it never been cut. Long enough, indeed, that it was possible to weave it into the cloth on a loom (Judges 16:13-14).

Samson, of course was a Nazirite, which is a bit more involved than being a Nazarene...

[Bigg Red]

I thought the program was very well done, and was presented in a very respectful manner.

&&&
I agree. I was pleasantly surprised, considering the agenda the History Channel seems to have these days.

[Bigg Red]

I have a 4-year-old grandson who is presently at the stage of delineating what is appropriate behavior and appearance for boys vs. girls. Recently, I was reading to him a book about God and the angels.

When he saw a picture of God the Father, in which He was depicted with a long white beard and long white hair, he made no comment. But when we turned to a picture of Jesus, my little sweet pea wanted to know why Jesus had long hair in the picture, as it made him look like a girl.

I tried to explain to the child that long hair was in style for men when Jesus was on the Earth. In all earnestness, my grandson asked, “Well, don’t they have any barbers up there?”

[captmar-vell]

I tend to agree and for the reasons you state here, God is a spirit,

Many tend to have a need for an image to focus their attentions toward,

It only matters who he was, what he did for us, and that we accept the gift he provided freely to us,

With that said, I do think the shroud, and the image of a man with a graceful and broken face is very interesting, especially if its ever proven to be related to the madylion, which would push its history back centuries,

As a side note, the robe that Jesus wore, the ones they cast lots for at the cross, was most likely a seamless garment like a High Priest would wear,

He was our High Priest,

[pepsi_junkie]

Graven images are forbidden because God is a Spirit, not to be conceived of or fashioned in man’s image, or the image of any other created thing.

To apply that to Jesus is to say that he never became man, that he was a spirit the whole time who only appeared as a man. The gnostics thought that way, that the body was corrupt and that God could never be corrupt so therefore Jesus was never a man. This of course would then more or less makes Jesus' sacrifice meaningless because as a spirit he never could have suffered or died for us. That's the main reason gnosticism was deemed heretical.

I believe Jesus did become a man and that we can depict the man Jesus became, as close as we can after 2,000 years anyway.

[boop]

I remember that picture of Jesus, and someone said it made him look like a caveman.

I don't know what to believe. There are passages that indicate he wasn't great looking. "That no one should lust after him".

But at the same time, I've had friends that said he clearly must have had that certain "something" to attract people to him. And not just his words.

One woman said that she always assumed Jesus had to be good looking. Like Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings.

[workerbee]

That artist’s rendering makes me think of Judas!

[Gamecock]

I’ve had friends that said he clearly must have had that certain “something” to attract people to him. And not just his words.
_____________________________

a. He is God. He drew those who were regenerated.
b. Some people were tagging along for a free lunch.
c. Some were drawn out of curiosity, there was a buzz and they wanted to be where the action was.

[.45 Long Colt]

Christ never became a mere man. Jesus had two complete natures—one fully human and one fully divine. When theologians speak of the “hypostatic union of Christ” they refer to the joining of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus. How can we possibly depict the divine nature of Christ without violating the 2nd Commandment? How can anyone accurately depict Christ while ignoring half of who He was and IS? Can there possibly be biblical support for an inaccurate depiction of Christ? I think not.

God is three persons, but one in essence; therefore to make an image of Christ is to make an image of God. Therefore any image of Jesus Christ must depict him as only man, which is contradicted by the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity did not relinquish His deity: He added to it by taking on a full human nature. The Divine and human natures are united in one person, therefore any image of Christ cannot do justice to the doctrine that His two natures are united in one person, without positing that it is permissible to make an image of the pre Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

To be consistent, those who argue “Jesus was a man, therefore we may make an image of Him” must believe one of the following heresies in order to not make an image of God. The only options are to deny the unity of two natures in one person (Nestorianism), deny that God is one in essence (Tritheism), reject the deity of Christ altogether (Ebionism, Arianism), or assert that Christ no longer was fully God or fully man (Monophycitism).

Any image of Jesus Christ must represent both his divine and human natures. As Jesus Christ is fully God, any image of Him cannot represent His deity, and therefore does not represent the Jesus Christ revealed by God in Scripture.

Here are a few quotes demonstrating how Christians of old viewed this issue:

“The sins forbidden in the second commandment are …the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it.” – Westminster Larger Catechism

“It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ … because, if it does not stir up devotion, it is in vain, if it does stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.” - James Durham (Puritan theologian)

“May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body? By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, John 1:14, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent, Psalm 45:2. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians? Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man” - James Fisher (Puritan)

“Pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will-worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.” – John Murray

“Many there are who, not comprehending, not being affected with, that divine, spiritual description of the person of Christ which is given us by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, do feign unto themselves false representations of him by images and pictures, so as to excite carnal and corrupt affections in their minds. By the help of their outward senses, they reflect on their imaginations the shape of a human body, cast into postures and circumstances dolorous or triumphant; and so, by the working of their fancy, raise a commotion of mind in themselves, which they suppose to be love unto Christ.” – John Owen

“The beauty of the person of Christ, as represented in the Scripture, consists in things invisible unto the eyes of flesh. They are such as no hand of man can represent or shadow. It is the eye of faith alone that can see this King in his beauty. What else can contemplate on the untreated glories of his divine nature? Can the hand of man represent the union of his natures in the same person, wherein he is peculiarly amiable? What eye can discern the mutual communications of the properties of his different natures in the same person?” – John Owen

“Those who make pictures of the Savior, who is God as well as man in one inseparable person, either limit the incomprehensible Godhead to the bounds of created flesh, or confound his two natures like Eutyches, or separate them, like Nestorius, or deny his Godhead, like Arius; and those who worship such a picture are guilty of the same heresy and blasphemy.” – Philip Schaff

“The Bible presents no information whatever about the personal appearance of Jesus Christ, but it does teach that we are not to think of him as he may have appeared “in the days of his flesh,” but as he is today in heavenly glory, in his estate of exaltation (2 Cor. 5:46). Inasmuch as the Bible presents no data about the personal appearance of our Saviour, all artists’ pictures of him are wholly imaginary and constitute only the artists’ ideas of his character and appearance. … [Liberals] inevitably think of Jesus as a human person, rather than thinking of him according to the biblical teaching as a divine person with a human nature. The inevitable effect of the popular acceptance of pictures of Jesus is to overemphasize his humanity and to forget or neglect his deity (which of course no picture can portray). In dealing with an evil so widespread and almost universally accepted, we should bear a clear testimony against what we believe to be wrong.” – Geerhardus Vos

“If it is not lawful to make the image of God the Father, yet may we not make an image of Christ, who took upon him the nature of man? No! Epiphanies, seeing an image of Christ hanging in a church, brake it in pieces. It is Christ’s Godhead, united to his manhood, that makes him to be Christ; therefore to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ - we separate what God has joined, we leave out that which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ.” – Thomas Watson

“The second commandment is broken when men attempt to make a graven image or a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that there is one God. It teaches us to worship the three persons, the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. But Paul tells us that we “ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29).” – G.I. Williamson

[.45 Long Colt]

His sheep followed because He is the Good Shepherd.

“I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” (John 10:14)

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27)

[Future Snake Eater]

Wow, that’s really incredible.

[Iscool]

I’m sure I’m out-of-step with most here, but I do not believe it’s biblical to depict Christ in any manner.

I'll bet when the anti-Christ shows up, he'll look just like the picture of the shroud of Turin...

[Vendome]

LOL!!!