Representations of Jesus
Remove the beard, and you have a woman
I tend to shy away from posting or linking to representations of Jesus, first, to avoid any suggestion of veneration or idolatry and, second, from aversion to portrayals that artists make of him. So it is with a bit of consternation that I note I did it today, twice. On my English translation of the Portuguese devotional and on my Facebook profile.
On the latter, at least, the Byzantine mosaic shows him as a beardless youth—after all, he was not yet 50, as the Jews delighted to point out. So that gives one something different to mull over about our Lord’s appearance, which, in the end, matters not at all. But some portrayals of him don’t agree with the written record at all. The feminine Jesus is one horrible example of that, coming as it apparently does from the distaff-driven Catholicism.
In our youtube—MTV—cinema world, it stands as no small difference that the gospel is based, not on images, but on words. There are no reliable descriptions of any of Christianity’s major players, much less a graphic image of them. But there are no less than four accounts of the ministry of Christ. That is significant.
Does anyone else tend to avoid graphic representations of Christ? Is this a hangover from my religious background? Or is there good reason for it, as I’ve hinted at above?
Chad Dollahite 3:45 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink |
I also have an aversion to them, Randal, mostly for the same reasons as you. I still can’t figure why He is often presented in such an effeminate, almost weak, kind of way. Just going on His early work as a carpenter, as well as the immense physical torture He endured (which killed many before ever getting to the cross), He undoubtedly would have been a rather stout man. In fairness, I have seen some images which present Him as such, but I still shy away from them, again, for the reasons you have given. I love your thoughts here, though…good stuff (as always)!
J. Randal Matheny 4:06 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink |
Thanks, Chad. Somehow even the better images seem to lack something. Thanks!
Eugene Adkins 9:07 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink |
I admire the hardwork/artwork that’s done of “Jesus” in a respectable way, but I myself am not fond of most interpretations of him nor of the adoration given/offered to them.
John Henson 3:13 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink |
This is not a very big deal to many people in this country, mainly because they haven’t seen the influence this kind of thing has had on people of other countries. In Russia, the icons of the Orthodox Church are venerated. The images themselves, to them, are divine. In this, the same warnings of Jeremiah 9 and 10 apply: these figures are not God. They are not alive, they have no power, they are not divine.
johntpolk2 12:46 pm on January 13, 2012 Permalink |
Randal,
I agree with your point. God always condemned images of Him or His Creation that would become objects of worship and devotion:
“Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth. And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19 NKJV) Even in the New Testament it is plainly stated: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” (1 John 5:21 NKJV)
Notice in the Deuteronomy passage, God emphasized that none had seen the “form” of God, thus there should be no attempt at “picturing” God to de-emphasize any attempt to worship the “form” and not God, Himself.
Then came Jesus Christ who “became flesh” (John 1:1-4, 14), but in “image” (eikon) was like God, and “form” (morphe) like God and man. It is worthy of note that, not one drawing, illustration, depiction of Jesus’ physical body survives from the 1st century. There are representations of Romans and others from that time, but God kept physical depictions of Jesus completely out of the ruins of the day.
Therefore, only out-dated, completely subjective, and mistaken representations of the physical appearance of Jesus Christ are available today! Christians must bear the “image” (eikon) of the heavenly “Adam,” but all humans bear the “image” (eikon) of the physical “Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:49).
Since God is not to be physically imaged, and Jesus is God, then surely it should give pause to all those who attempt to picture Him “whom no man has seen or can see” 1 Timothy 6:16.