Was Jesus a Black Man?
The reason I ask the question is because of Revelation 1:12-15. It reads, “Then I (the apostle John) turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands, I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice the sound of many waters."
”A similar description appears in the book of Daniel 10:4-6, “On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was on the bank of the great river Hiddekel (which is the Tigris), I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose loins were girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body was also beryl
Scholars believe what Daniel saw was what is called a Christophany;
a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.
Black activists like Israelite United in Christ and the Black
Israelites and others have concluded based on two descriptions; hair like wool,
and feet like bronze that Jesus was black. That gives them pride that the Messiah is a
man of color. What I find interesting is that the other descriptions said His
head and His hair were white like wool. If Jesus were black based on these
descriptions, why would you describe a black man with a white face or head? Remember
this is a vision of the resurrected Christ. In another vision, John sees Christ
as a lamb that was slain. Here Jesus is described with seven horns and seven
eyes. So based on the vision, Jesus is some bizarre looking beast if one takes the
vision literally. Are we to take this
description literally, or are we take it symbolically (Revelation 5:6)?
This is a classic case of eisegesis. This is when someone
manipulates a text of scripture to make it say what they want it to say. In
other words, one reads into the text what they want with their presuppositions
and biases. This is the opposite of exegesis, interpreting the text by its
original context.
The vision that John and Daniel saw was Jesus coming in His
glory as judge. His face and hair appeared white because His face shined like
the sun. Just because Revelation 1:14 says His hair was white like wool does not mean his hair was wooly or coarse which is often the texture of black people's hair.
So, I guess for many non-white people if Jesus was white, He
would be rejected based on the color of His skin. That is what we call racism
today. At the end of the day Jesus’ skin color is not relevant. He is the only
Savior of the world. Despite His ethnicity, all must believe on Him for eternal
life (John 14:6).
Finally, here is the wisdom of the Lord in Exodus 20:4, You
shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that
is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth.
Point being is that when one makes any image of what Christ
supposedly looks like, they become enamored with that image. It becomes their
idol – whether they make Him black or white.
This matter is discussed in the movie Malcolm X played by
Denzel Washington. Denzel
portraying Malcolm is having a debate with the chaplain. The chaplain is claiming God/Jesus is white based on the portraits we see all over the world. Denzel-Malcolm is arguing that Jesus is a man of color based on Revelation 1:14-15, and where Jesus was born and lived - a region where people have darker skin; what we call the middle east, Israel. While I do not agree that one can use Revelation 1:14-15 as a proof text to determine Jesus' skin tone, Denzel's argument wins the debate against the chaplain in my opinion. Here’s the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU7V5NXdSkI
[i]
Beryl comes in different colors: Green, pink, blue, yellow, colorless. Perhaps
Daniel sees this man (Christ) sparkling like a
Precious jewel.
Comments