|
Oh, we should certainly strive to be accurate when we can. When it comes to images, I actually prefer to avoid pictorial depictions of Jesus other than highly stylized representations (and quite selectively even then). Everyone "knows" what Jesus looks like (shoulder length hair, beard, kind expression, white bathrobe) from medieval paintings, children's Bible story illustrations, and such, but nearly all of those pictures are wildly wrong, and tend to stereotype Jesus as a character who wouldn't have fit into the world in which he lived and moved, and often much too soft and effiminate for the reality of his life and behavior. We have no physical description of Jesus beyond his race and sex and approximate age, and so only generalizations about his appearance are warranted. Specific images tend to pigeonhole the Lord in ways that he didn't seem to want to be packaged. If people are going to use pictorial depictions of Jesus, it would be nice to at least understand and convey the message that this is just an artist's concept, an imaginary representation of a real person who would have looked quite different. Isa 53:1-5
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
NIV
|
