Many debates are going on in our American society today. Many of the disputes have merit and should be heard. Once violence is threatened or organized, the discussion ends, and fear shuts down others who would like to join the conversation. One of the interesting debates currently is the representation of Jesus in North American/European art as Caucasian. This is not true of all of the art but is prominent enough to be well documented without noting sources.
There are three sides to this debate, in my opinion. One, should there be any statutes likeness of Jesus produced? Two, we can speak of the color of Jesus in the historical sense, but also, thirdly, we can talk about the color of Jesus in the theological understanding.
The prohibition of making images of God seems to be muted by the incarnation; that is, Jesus is God and murals, paintings, statutes, and other depictions have been made. The argument was settled in the church in the 8th and 9th century with the rise of the iconoclasts. The iconoclastic movement was a political and religious movement stating that all images, icons, etc., should be destroyed, for they were idolatrous. The iconodules who were for keeping the images and icons, based this on the incarnation. If God has now been made visible through Christ, how can it be idolatrous to portray his likeness? This argument eventually prevailed, and the iconoclasts were defeated. The Eastern church celebrates this victory as the Feast of Orthodoxy. I stand with the iconodules who see images as aids to worship or portals into the heavenly. Of course, anything can become an idol, and one can go to extremes and worship a painting or a statute, and that would be idolatry.
The second and third issues of the Color of Jesus are interrelated. Jesus Christ is the last Adam and represents every nation, tribe, and race that has ever existed, is existing, and shall exist. He is the representative to God, the Father of the human race. When in various countries, I have seen the nativity scene adapted to the culture of the community. For example, in Nigeria, most of the nativity scenes were like this one:
Theologically, this does no damage to the nativity story. Since Jesus represents all of us, he could be in the manger as black, brown, white, or any other color of humankind. Theologically, this is a correct representation of Jesus dying for all of humanity. So depicting Jesus as white is not theologically incorrect; however, I am not saying that such depictions were free of racial bias. They were not. What I am saying is that Jesus can be depicted theologically in any color of humankind and be authentic to the Scripture of dying for all of us. Now in the historical context, we should most likely see Jesus as olive skinned with brown eyes. He was born in the Middle East as a Jew. An authentic portrait could not be red, black, white, but would most likely be brown.
What am I saying? Jesus is still the answer to our problems. He is the solution to our world’s cry for justice. Jesus is the answer. Don’t go about destroying images of the One who truly loves all humanity and identifies with every sin, every struggle, and understands our infirmities and weaknesses: The Jesus who is not color blind, but color saturated.
Jim Allen
June 26, 2020
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. James D Allen
Dr. Allen served as a seminary VP, pastor, and as a trustee on a Christian mental health Board. He has earned a BA, MA, MA Biblical Counseling, Doctor of Ministry. Dr Allen has also preached on 5 continents, lived in 3 nations, and so has a diverse Christian experience. He has a distinguished career of being a pastor, consultant, author, and educator. MY FIRST LOVE--Being a Pastor and encouraging others!