Jesus was not White.
He wasn’t Black, either.
Jesus was Middle Eastern.
Biblically, he was descended, not from Japheth, nor from Ham, but from Shem.
Historically, he lived, not in Europe, nor in Africa (though he did spend some time in Egypt as an infant), but in the Middle East.
A Galilean man
Physically, he probably had olive skin, brown eyes, and brown to black hair, similar to this modern reconstruction of a Galilean man created by forensic anthropologist Richard Neave. (See: What did Jesus really look like? By Joan Taylor, BBC News, 24 December 2015. See also: Wikipedia: Race and appearance of Jesus.)
Does this mean it’s wrong to picture Jesus as White, or as Black? Do we all have to start picturing Jesus as a Middle Eastern man?
I don’t think so. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
The Hebrew Table of Nations
The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was peopled. (Genesis 9:18–19)
This is the basis for the Hebrew Table of Nations. It is spelled out more fully in the genealogy in Genesis 10. As seen in this map, Shem was considered the ancestor of the Semitic peoples, Ham of the Hamitic or African peoples, and Japheth of the Indo-European peoples.
In simple terms, based on common present-day racial categories, if Jesus were White, he would have been descended from Japeth. If he were Black, he would have been descended from Ham. But Jesus was descended from neither of these. As covered extensively in biblical genealogies, Jesus was descended from Shem, meaning that in today’s terms, he was Middle Eastern.
It is true that Jesus lived in Canaan, which was originally populated with Hamitic peoples. However, as covered in Genesis 11:27–12:9, his people originally came from Chaldea, in present-day southern Iraq.
It is also true that there was some intermarriage with Hamitic peoples in the early lineage of the Jews. For example, in the book of Genesis the wife of Joseph, one of Jacob’s twelve sons, was Egyptian. This means that Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh, to whom two of the tribes of Israel trace their lineage, were half Egyptian (see Genesis 41:45, 50–52).
However, over time strictures developed against intermarrying with the existing inhabitants of the Land of Canaan. See, for example, Genesis 28:1, Deuteronomy 7:1–4. This tended to keep the Israelites distinct as a cultural and ethnic group. (But see also Deuteronomy 21:10–14, which does allow an Israelite man to marry a foreign woman under certain circumstances. There was not an absolute prohibition on intermarriage with people of other races and nations.)
As a people, the Israelites, and later the Jews, strongly identified with their Semitic heritage. Right up to New Testament times, and even to today, they see Abraham as their ancestor. And Abraham was descended from Shem, not from Ham or Japeth.
Jesus’ ancestry
This applied to Jesus as much as to any other Jew, as encapsulated in the very first verse of the New Testament:
An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1)
It is true that the genealogy that follows (Matthew 1:1–17), and also the genealogy in Luke 3:23–38, are presented as genealogies of Mary’s husband Joseph—who, according to the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke, was not Jesus’ biological father. But Mary, his biological mother, was also an Israelite, likely from the tribe of Levi, since her relative Elizabeth was a descendent of Aaron, of the Levite tribe (see Luke 1:5, 36–40).
Bottom line: Jesus was a Jew, and the Jews were Semites, not Hamites or Japhethites. Or in today’s language, he was a Middle Easterner, not a Black or a White.
Today’s Jesus is not the son of Mary
Does this mean we must all picture Jesus as a Middle Easterner? Does it mean that all Christians must picture an olive-complected, brown-eyed, dark-haired Christ?
Once again, I don’t think so.
You see, the Jesus Christians pray to is not the Jesus who was the son of Mary.
Yes, he is the same Jesus who walked on our earth and spoke the words recorded in the Gospels, who was born of Mary.
But as the Bible tells us, and as I believe, Jesus went through a process of “glorification,” in which he became divine and one with the Father. In other words, by the time he rose from the dead and ascended to the Father, he was no longer human as we are, but was instead a divine human being. This necessarily meant leaving behind everything of the limited, created human nature he received from his human mother Mary. For more on this, please see:
What Does it Mean that Jesus was “Glorified”?
It was from Mary that Jesus received his biological heritage. It was from Mary, and from his adoptive father Joseph, that he was a Middle Easterner and a Jew.
In other words, although Jesus lived on earth as a Middle Easterner and a Jew, he no longer is. Now he is fully God, having become fully united with the divine soul (“the Father”) from whom he came, and which was his own inner self. And God is not limited by any race or ethnicity. God is the God of all people, of every race and nation. Jesus is the one God of heaven and earth. Please see:
Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?
Picturing Jesus
Jesus depicted as being of various races (image courtesy of en.wikipedia.org)
This means that although the historical Jesus was Middle Eastern, today we can picture Jesus in heaven as any race we want. Jesus is God. God encompasses all races.
Personally, being a White person of European stock, who grew up in a mostly White American church organization, all the artwork of Jesus I saw was of a white man, making it easiest for me to picture Jesus that way.
But that’s just me. When I was in fifth grade growing up in the state of Missouri, I had a Black teacher, Miss Evans. I vividly remember one day when she assigned us to read the short story, “The Boy who Painted Christ Black,” by John Henrik Clarke, which was originally published in 1940. In it, a boy in a school for Black children in the southern U.S. paints a beautiful picture of Jesus as a Black man. Even at that young age, I found this idea fascinating!
Ever since then, I have felt that it is perfectly fine for Christians of any race to picture Jesus as being of their own race, even though for most us, the historical Jesus wasn’t our own race. God can appear to us personally in whatever form we find most approachable, understandable, and lovable.
In fact, when Annette and I were living in Africa, I always thought it was strange to see pictures of a White Jesus on the walls of some of the Black churches there. It didn’t seem right. I understand historically how this happened. Christianity did become a predominantly European religion for many centuries. It was European and American missionaries who spread Christianity to Africa, bringing their White Jesus with them. But in its origins, Christianity was Middle Eastern, not European. And Jesus simply wasn’t a white man.
Christians can picture Jesus however they want. But when I see artwork of a Black Jesus in a Black church, it makes me happy. Jesus is speaking to the people of that church just as Jesus speaks to the people of the church in which I grew up: in their own culture and language.
For further reading:
- Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?
- What Does it Mean that Jesus was “Glorified”?
- A Swedenborgian in Dialog with Black Consciousness and Black Liberation Theology
- The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus
- How does Jesus Appear to Us? Can We See God Face to Face?
Share this:
Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.
Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life 
That pic makes him look like a unabomber, let’s hope he looks better than that, lol
Hi angelgirl62,
Haha! Well, that’s just a modern reconstruction of an ancient Galilean man. It’s not intended to be an actual likeness of Jesus.
Hi Lee,
I love reading what you post. I learn something every time you send out an email.
Kelly
Hi Kelly,
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Hello Lee,
I’ve just finished watching the first season of “The Chosen”. It is very well cast, with actors who wouldn’t look out of place to the region at the time (as far as I would know anyway). The actor who plays Jesus has a somewhat darker complexion than us of European descent (I believe he is half Egyptian), and very kind looking brown eyes. I have enjoyed it quite a bit and have even been moved to tears by its wonderful story so far. Just curious if you’ve seen any of it and what your thoughts on it might be. Thank you for all that you do.
Hi Brian,
Good to hear from you again. I think I watched an episode or two when it first came out, but it’s faded from my mind now. I was pleased to see that they picked an actor who is closer in appearance to what Jesus probably looked like.
I must say I liked the depiction created by Richard Neave from the first time I saw it. It seemed more believable than the depiction I constantly saw on the walls of the predominately white churches I grew up in.
Hi seriouslyseekinganswers,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment. Glad you’re enjoying the articles here. However various Christians may want to picture Jesus for their own prayer life, I do think it’s good to have a more realistic picture of the historical Jesus.
Creationists would propose that Shem married a Neanderthal, Ham married a Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Japeth married a denisovan (or whatever the Homo Sapiens was that lived in East Asia). But scientists disagree, and you would say “Want rebuttals to those theories? Don’t ask me. Ask the scientists.”
Why didn’t the Neanderthal and Denisovan subspecies survive to live contemporaneously with Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
Hi World Questioner,
I presume some YECs have worked neandarthals and denisovans into their nutty “history.” But it’s all a lot of hooey.
Another criticism of Christianity I heard is that Bible stories (especially of Christ) are similar to older mythology of other religions. Like mythology of Mithras being similar to Bible stories about Christ, right down to resurrection and son of a god stuff.
Hi K,
Have you ever heard of foreshadowing? A good novel gives you indications along the way of what is going to happen, so that even if you didn’t put it all together as you read the chapters, by the time you get to the climax, it all makes sense, because it’s built on the materials that were provided earlier in the story.
Just because there are other examples in mythology of virgin births, resurrections, sons of God, and so on, that doesn’t mean the reality is false. Only that these themes are repeated throughout human spiritual and mythological writings because they point to the truth.
Thanks for reply.
Also what of the contradictions between the Gospels on the life and resurrection of Christ? For example, the gospels seem to tell different stories about the Sunday morning with the open tomb.
I guess the New Church explanation is that those different stories have spiritual meanings, while whatever happened IRL was supposedly more or less like those accounts but is not as relevant?
PS: table of contradictions can be seen at:
https://www.walkingwithgiants.net/apologetics/miracles/do-the-resurrection-accounts-add-up/
Hi K,
Clearly even the original authors were not too concerned about the exact historical accuracy of their accounts. These Gospels coexisted with one another. Some were known while others were being written. See the first verses of the Gospel of Luke. If the authors had wanted to present strict historical accuracy, they could have made their accounts agree with one another right down to the details. But they didn’t. That’s because they were not writing histories. They were conveying a message that went far beyond these little details of exactly who said and did what, when, and how.
The message is what’s important, not the precise literal details of how it came to be.
Yes, all the details of each account do have a spiritual meaning. But even if they didn’t, it still wouldn’t matter all that much that the accounts don’t agree with each other on all the details. In the case of the Gospel of John, the whole chronology is quite different from that of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). It still doesn’t matter.
If four different people watched a natural disaster unfolding in which thousands of people died, and there were differences and disagreements in their four accounts of the tragedy, would this mean that the natural disaster never happened, and nobody died? Obviously not. Something much bigger than the details has happened. That’s what people will pay attention to. Anyone who is all wrapped up in the fact that each of the four Gospels tells the story differently has completely missed the point of all four Gospels.
I think God intentionally allowed the Gospels not to entirely agree with one another literally precisely to sort out people whose spiritual eyes are open from those whose spiritual eyes are closed. The materialistic ones will get stuck on the contradictions in the literal meaning, and will set the whole thing aside as a fable. That is better for them spiritually. If they took it seriously, and rejected it because they are unwilling to walk a spiritual path, their spiritual situation would be worse than if they never took it seriously in the first place.
Meanwhile, those who are looking for spiritual insight, understanding, guidance, and inspiration won’t care about the niggling details of literal consistency. They will see the divine message shining through, embrace it with joy, and have their lives transformed by it.
Hi Lee,
I was recently reading about the Grand Human and how our body is a reflection of the Lord. I was thinking, the descriptions of Jesus however we picture his race, would that be what the look of the Grand Human, the Lord looks like since God is human with a body and since Jesus was the Lord coming down to balance the hells out would the descriptions of Jesus be what the Lord which is the Grand Human look like? Of course us being finite we wouldn’t be able to see the entirely of the the Lord/Grand Human so would Jesus looks be a way that the Lord has given us a way to have a connection so like when we pray we can have a relationship and seeing Jesus would make that easier to relate? Because like in eastern religions like “Nirvana” or whatever else people come up with in spiritual circles it’s always so abstract and thats why I think people can twist whatever they want and make a story out of it to serve their interests like people who think they’re “ascended masters” with crowd followings which it’s so far divorced from the reality of a loving personal God which that’s who Jesus is?
And one more question pop up when typing this lol, I hear often the phrase “the avatar or Jesus” or “Jesus is an Avatar” or an “Avatar for God”. But wouldn’t that not be right because the how Jesus looked was an expression of the Lord not some arbitrary “meat suit” as some people say about our bodies?
Thank you Lee
Hi Sam,
The Universal Human (traditionally “Grand Man”) of heaven is not a literal human-shaped thing. It is functionally like a human form. The different communities of heaven are not shaped like livers, kidneys, hearts, brains, noses, fingers, and so on. Rather, they perform the functions of those organs, but correspondentially on a spiritual level. If we were able to see all of heaven in one view, it would not look like giant human being. It would look like whole arrays and expanses of lands, one within another like concentric spheres, all centered on the sun of heaven, in whose middle is the Lord.
The appearance of heaven as a human being is a metaphorical one, not a literal one. All of heaven could appear as a human being, if we could get far enough away from it to see it all as a whole. But that would still be a symbolic or representative appearance, not the literal shape of heaven. Of course, I don’t think any human being can do, any more than we could get far enough away from our universe to see all of it as a whole. We will always see heaven from within heaven, just as we see the universe from a position within the universe.
However, even if we were able to do this, we’d probably just see it through our own filters, so that to us it would look like our own race. Most people are most familiar with their own race, which means that’s what a default human being looks like to them. The other day I was watching a video by an elderly Black man who grew up in one of the Black areas of New York City. He remembered being amazed when he first learned that most people in the U.S. are not Black! For him, Black people were just people. That’s how most people think of their own race. And that’s why most people would likely see heaven itself as their own race, just as people commonly depict Jesus as being of their own race.
As for Jesus, none of the body that he had while he was living on earth exists anymore. That body, together with its racial characteristics, came from his human mother Mary. According to Swedenborg, he left the last of that body behind in the tomb. It is true that his followers recognized him during those forty days after the resurrection. But at first, some of them didn’t recognize him, as illustrated in the story of the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13–35. How could these two followers not have recognized him? This suggests that Jesus’ resurrection body was somehow different from his previous body.
In general, as I suggest in the above article, I believe people see Jesus in whatever human form, with whatever racial characteristics, they expect to see. This is not because Jesus actually looks that way. It’s because we see God through our own particular cultural lenses. And God is happy to appear to us in a way that reaches us and touches us.
Similarly, I don’t believe the universal human form of heaven has any specific racial characteristics, such as looking like a first-century Middle Eastern man, as Jesus did during his lifetime on earth. Rather, it encompasses all races, cultures, and nationalities, and can express any of them as required by the person who is experiencing a vision that comes from heaven.
Hi Sam,
About this:
Of course, the common Hindu idea that Jesus is just one of many avatars of God is not correct from a Christian point of view. To use the New Testament’s language, Jesus is God’s only Son. In other words, from a Christian perspective, God came to earth only once, not many times. This parallels the Christian belief that we have one life and then go on to live forever in the afterlife, in contrast with the Eastern view that we are born many times on this earth before moving on to Nirvana at the time we finally break free of the wheel of reincarnation.
Having said that, the idea that Jesus, during his lifetime on earth, was an avatar of God is not totally wrong.
Jesus had a human mother, Mary. He inherited from her the particular Middle Eastern physical body and mindset that he inhabited during his lifetime on earth. If human history had been different, he could just as well have inhabited a European or Asian or African body, mindset, and culture. The particular body and culture he lived in is just an “accident of history.” It could have been different than it was. That particular body didn’t express the divine nature any more than if it had been a Chinese or French or Nigerian body.
In that sense, the body he did have could be considered an “avatar” in the Eastern sense. But once again, from a Christian perspective (which I believe is the true understanding of things), God inhabited only one avatar, not many. God was able to accomplish everything necessary in that one lifetime, in that one body. There was no need for God to come back over and over again, inhabiting one body after another.
Another way the “avatar” idea is not wrong is that Jesus only temporarily inhabited the body that was the son of Mary. He left the last of it behind in the tomb. Here is how, according to Swedenborg, Mary herself expressed this in heaven:
In this sense, Jesus did take on an “avatar” during his lifetime on earth, and used it to accomplish his purposes for being born on earth in the first place. When it had served its purpose, he left it behind, so that none of it still exists or is any part of him. As Mary says in the above quote, “everything in him is divine.”
Usually, speaking of Jesus as an “avatar” is meant to put him on par with other divine avatars, such as Krishna. But from a Christian perspective, that is a mistake. Krishna might be a mythological foreshadowing of Jesus, but Jesus is the real thing. Jesus actually is “God with us.”
Hi Lee,
Super interesting and appreciate the clarification on these topics and what they mean. For some reason I always thought the grand human and God was actually shaped like a human but knowing it’s more of a metaphor and God is like the Sun which makes sense because of how that is a direct correspondence to our Sun.
And that makes a lot of sense regarding Jesus and his human body. For our bodies saying we are Avatars is wrong because it’s an actual expression of us and our spirit but for the Lord encompassing all races it would make sense that he was born with the looks of a middle eastern man that would be an avatar but when glorified he looked different more in accord with the Divine. But wouldn’t “accident of history” of the location of Jesus’ birth, would that be considered Divine Providence? Since the Lord is always working with our free will choices to lead us towards heaven?
Thank you kindly Lee
Hi Sam,
“Accident of history” doesn’t actually mean “accident” in the usual sense. More like a coincidence or happenstance. Things happened to happen that way, but they could have happened a different way if history had unfolded differently.
Why was Jesus born where and when he was? Primarily because that’s where Judaism had its religious center, and Judaism was the main monotheistic religion in the world at that time. I.e., Judaism was the most advanced religion on earth. So the Savior had to be born among the Jews, and the Jews were living in what today is called Palestine.
But also, that particular tract of land is at the crossroads between the three major populated continents at the time: Asia, Europe, and Africa. Many trade routes went through that area as goods and people passed between the different continents. This means that anything that happened there could easily travel to all corners of the then-known world. So even geographically, it was the best place for the Incarnation to take place.
However, if instead of Middle Eastern, the Jews had been African or European, and had moved to occupy the Holy Land, the culture would have been different, but the underlying message and events would have been the same. Here’s a fascinating quote from Swedenborg to that effect:
In other words, if the Bible had been written among Chinese people instead of among Middle Eastern people, its literal meaning—the stories, poetry, and so on—would have been different, but the spiritual meaning—the deeper message—would have been the same. The literal meaning of the Bible is symbolized by the new set of tablets that Moses carved out of the rock after he broke the first set. The spiritual meaning is symbolized by God writing on those human-made tablets the same words God had written on the first set of tablets, which God had made.
If the culture had been different, say, Chinese, then Jesus would have been Chinese, not Middle Eastern, the book would have been written in Chinese, not Hebrew, and the stories and culture in the Bible would have been all about Chinese history and culture, not Israelite history and culture. But the deeper meaning would have been the same.
So the particular body that Jesus was born in just happened to be a first-century Jewish body. However, the message he delivered through that body, in the context of that culture, is a universal one. So is the redemption and salvation of all of humanity that he accomplished. (But not all humans accept that redemption and salvation.)
Hi Sam,
About this:
Yes, I think so.
Just as our body comes from a unique combination of unique offshoots from our parents’ DNA, I think our soul comes from a unique combination of the “DNA” of our parents’ souls. How closely this “spiritual DNA” matches our physical DNA is an open question. There do seem to be some mismatches, such as people born with an X and a Y chromosome who feel inwardly female from the time they first begin to have any kind of gender-based feelings. So I’m not prepared to say that our spiritual body always looks exactly like our physical body, or that our physical body is always a perfect expression of our inner character.
However, I do think that our physical body is heavily influenced by our soul, and is built under the supervision of our soul, so that it tends toward being an accurate reflection of the character of our soul, even if the match isn’t always perfect.
When we move on to the spiritual world, we leave our physical body and its DNA behind. Then our spiritual body does become a perfect expression of our soul and character even if it wasn’t here on earth.
Hi Sam,
What our physical body definitely is not is just some random body that our soul happened to enter at some point along the way, as the reincarnationists believe. Every new body that is conceived has a brand new soul, and they develop into a human being together with one another.
Hi Sam,
To continue those thoughts, the complication is that the physical world has its own “ideas” about how things should be, and often resists spiritual influences. For example, if a person is born with a strong genetic tendency toward a particular type of disease, such as cancer or heart attacks, that is not an expression of the soul. It is a physical influence that asserts itself despite the life-giving influence of the soul.
This is why our physical body doesn’t always match our spirit. The material universe is its own realm. It has its own rules, which are not the same as the rules of the spiritual world. Yes, the laws of the material universe do correspond to spiritual laws. But they also have a certain amount of autonomy, and they don’t always allow spiritual influences to work perfectly within them. They have, in a sense, “a mind of their own.”
That is why our body perfectly corresponds to our spirit and character only in the spiritual world, but not necessarily in the physical world. In the physical world there are many outside forces and influences that affect our life, health, and appearance. In the spiritual world, everything around us is an expression of what’s within us, and of what’s within the people around us, who are sympatico with us.
This, I think, is why the process of evolution was so complicated and unlikely in getting to us. Evolution wanted to happen in its own way, based on the particular physical environments that existed at various eras and areas of the earth. But within, the influences from the spiritual world were always pushing things toward the human form. Natural law didn’t necessarily always cooperate, so it took billions of years to get to us, and it happened on a very complicated, zig-zag path. Looked at from a purely external, material perspective, there was no guarantee that evolution would reach the point of intelligent, self-aware creatures such as us. But the effort to get there was always flowing in from God and the spiritual world.
I forgot to add as well. Even if we were able to see the universal human outside of heaven, that still would be inside God?
Hi Sam,
Nothing is outside of God. God is everywhere, in all time and space in the physical universe, and in all states and experiences in the spiritual universe. It is not possible to get away from God. Yes, we can mostly shut God out of our life if we want to. But even then, God is still flowing in at our inmost center and keeping us alive. It’s just that we’ve turned our back on God instead of facing God.
As for seeing the universal human from outside of heaven, it’s just not possible. Heaven includes all people. All angels are inside heaven. Even the world of spirits is inside the universal human. It is the digestive tract of heaven. Hell is outside of heaven, but it is facing the opposite direction, so it never looks at heaven. It’s like a monstrous, upside-down universal inhuman. And it avoids looking at heaven, because it hates everything heaven represents. Even if it did look at heaven, it would be like looking straight upwards at the soles of a person’s feet while the person is standing upright up above you. You really couldn’t see what the person looked like. But as I said, everyone in hell is looking in the opposite direction anyway. They have all turned their back on God and heaven.
There is just no place that a human being could stand to “see” the universal human of heaven. This, I think, is why Swedenborg was never allowed or able to see it. The most he could see was individual communities of heaven in the form of a single angel. But once he got close to those communities, they looked like ordinary human villages, towns, and cities laid out on the land, under the sky and the sun.
Hi Lee,
Thank you again for the further information and clarification on all these topics. It’s really amazing learning the reasons why the Lord picked that location and the reasons for the events and how even if being born in other cultures how the inner spiritual truths would be the same shows how God is truly Love and Wisdom. And how the human shape and us as people are not random but are built from a soul to be the closets expression on earth until we are into the spiritual world. Which makes us unique and special, having a special role whether that be contributing to heaven or hell rather than some random body that doesn’t mean anything to us. It puts importance on our choices and how we contribute to society which I think eastern religions don’t do. But also how there is earthly and spiritual influences at work which is separate and have their own influence so being sick or cancer isn’t from us or our soul that we chose it like some spiritual religions think like pre birth everything is laid out what will happen, it’s just what happens randomly physically but knowing that will be gone along with our DNA when we go to the world of spirits to continue to express our unique selves and continue growing a relationship with God for eternity is a wonderful feeling.
Thank you kindly again Lee
Hi Sam,
Well said! You are most welcome, as always.