Was Jesus portrayed as he actually appeared? Megan Kelly recently said that Jesus was white. The liberal elite went spastic! "How dare you, Megan, to insinuate that Jesus had a race!" "How dare you to imply that Jesus is not a composite of all races who worship him!" "How dare you imply that Jesus looks like the paintings of him in the western world!" The best way to get an accurate description before "Kodak Moments" existed, is to get a description from an eye-witness. Years ago, I read a description of Jesus. Why, as a young man did I read about such things? I have an inquiring mind! I think about things and I think about Jesus! I vaguely remembered the description, but with Google it's now easy to find information from long ago. Publius Lentullus was the Roman Governor of Rome under Tiberias Caesar and he preceded Pontius Pilate, the governor who had Jesus crucified.
First off, Pilate would have been prefect (governor) A.D. 26. That means that Lentullus was before that. How old would Jesus have been. Originally the birth of Jesus was taken to be year "1" Anno Domini, the year of our Lord (A.D.). (There was no year "0"). Later works place his birth at between 6-4 B.C. (English before Christ). That would place Jesus as old as from 30 to 32 years old when Lentullus was prefect. Hence, Lentullus would have seen Jesus as an adult near the time of his death! (All scholars of history do not agree that Lentullus held that office, but nevertheless, here is the description along with an introduction:
The Description of Jesus of Publius Lentullus
The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.
"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"
He is described as "comely". In seventeenth century English, "comely" meant "attractive" or for a man "handsome". A friend of mine offered contradictory information. It comes from scripture. Scripture must always take precedence over secular literature because the basis of Christianity is truth. If scripture does not teach truth then any argument is beside the point. I accept the following as truth as did my friend who was the one to profer it:
Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."
Casual reading readily shows that there is a problem! Lentullus contradicts the inspired word of God as written by Isaiah. Scripture is without error. That is expressed several places including:
Proverbs 30:5 " Every word of God is pure (flawless): he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
How is the contradiction explained?
1) The letter of Lentullus is fraudulent as some contend.
2) People define beauty differently.
3) Isaiah's prophecy was incorrect.
4) Some other explanation.
Much has been written as to the authenticity of Lentullus' letter. It's remains unproven that it's a fake. This issue may never be settled. Hence, let's assume that it's an accurate description. He did use Jewish terminology in his description, but since he was familiar with the language and people, that's explainable.
We all know that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a paraphrase pf Plato's words. Do people see and evaluate differently. Most certainly! Those living today view Adolph Hitler as an ugly monstrous person. The 93% of the Germans who voted for him saw something different. They saw hope, suaveness and a pleasing appearance. They, and now us, see the same person, but we see them differently. Hence, that is a valid hypothesis. Lentullus, impressed by his manner and speech could have seen beauty whereas Jesus may have actually been ordinary and plain. Lentullus saw Jesus through an embellished eye.
The inerrancy of scripture has been discussed. I accept by faith that the words of Isaiah are true. Likewise, his prophecy was all fulfilled so as my friend implied, "Why would he be wrong on this one point?" I accept that Isaiah was correct. Jesus was not handsome as seen by Isaiah.
Was there another explanation? I kept asking myself that question. We have an eye-witness account. Why would Lentullus lie about Jesus' beauty? I can see that he may have lied about his power, persuasiveness or personality, but appearance just didn't make sense! I accept Lentullus' description as objective. Then it came to me! Jesus was transformed!
Luke 9:28 "And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. 29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."
Or as the English Standard Version says "the appearance of his face was altered"!
Providing that The Transfiguration of Jesus was before Lentullus saw Jesus, that explains the discrepancy in what they saw!
Lentullus saw the "Son of God". Isaiah saw the "Son of Man". In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus consistently referred to himself as "the Son of Man", even in reference to himself after the transfiguration! In fact each gospel and some of the epistles and Revelation refers to Jesus as "the Son of Man"!
However, at the transfiguration, most theologians believe that the fullness of God's Spirit was transferred to the Jesus and I believe that "the Son of Man" became the "Son of God"!
He was the "Son of Man", but after his death on the cross it was clear that he was "the Son of God":
Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name..."
It would appear that Jesus became the "Son of God" at his death, but throughout the gospels he was also was made reference to in those words. It's a guess, but God bestowed the fullness of his Spirit on Jesus at the transfiguration, in preparation to a full transformation at his death.
I believe that the transfiguration is a plausible explanation for Lentullus' physical description to differ from what Isaiah saw. We will never know, but it's interesting to know that a pagan described the Savior in appearance and power. If this account by Lentullus is true, then skeptics should be profoundly influenced by a secular eye-witness identification of the Messiah the Romans eschewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment