Pictures of Jesus

The Wheaton College Graduate School is housed in the Billy Graham Center. The bottom floor of this building contains a large museum dedicated to Graham and evangelism during the 20th century. Currently there is an exhibit of pictures of Jesus by Warner Sallman, pictures which I am sure at least some of you have seen before. As I was looking at them, I began to ponder whether these were legitimate pictures of Jesus. I came to the conclusion that they were and they were not.

They were not legitimate in the sense that they accurately portray what Jesus actually looked like. I hate to break this to you, but Jesus was not European! He looked very little like this pictures which were done by Sallman. A more likely portrait is the one done by Popular Mechanics several years ago.  

But on the other hand, it is legitimate. It helps people to identify with Jesus. It is other than us, but it is also close enough to us that we can identify with it. It is much easier to identify with the Sallman Jesus than the Popular Mechanics Jesus, in my opinion, precisely becuase it is closer to us. So I do not think it was morally wrong of Sallman to paint these pictures.

But this brings up interesting questions. Can we picture Jesus in any way we want? Is an African Jesus legitimate? How about an Arab Jesus? An Asian Jesus? I would have to say that these kind of pictures would be fine because they help people to identify with Jesus. After all, we do believe in the Incarnation, don't we? But to get a little more radical, how about a female Jesus? Would that be legitimate?  

Login to add comments