The Physical Appearance of Jesus

[Scruffyzach]

Many people I have met seem to believe that Jesus was beautiful in appearance and could not have been ugly. However, from what I can find both the Bible and the Early Church imply that Jesus was unattractive.

2 He 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. (Isaiah 53:2)

"Thus spoke even they who despised His outward form. His body did not reach even to human beauty, to say nothing of heavenly glory. Had the prophets given us no information whatever concerning His ignoble appearance, His very sufferings and the very contumely He endured bespeak it all. The sufferings attested His human flesh, the contumely proved its abject condition. Would any man have dared to touch even with his little finger, the body of Christ, if it had been of an unusual nature; or to smear His face with spitting, if it had not invited it (by its abjectness)?" (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 9).

“ And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies by Esaias: ‘And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness but His form was mean, inferior to men’”(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.1).

I know many people will say "His appearance doesn't matter" but I believe that by choosing an unattractive form, Jesus showed extreme humility and that He was willing to be regarded as a nobody.
Does anyone agree or disagree?

[David Hayward]

I know many people will say "His appearance doesn't matter" but I believe that by choosing an unattractive form, Jesus showed extreme humility and that He was willing to be regarded as a nobody.
Does anyone agree or disagree?

I agree. In an honour-shame society (as today also) ugliness detracts from honour and esteem, and his ugliness emphasises:

Philippians 2:5-11

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Thanks for the research.

David

[Manwë Súlimo]

Just about everything else about Jesus life and ministry was, at least superficially, dishonorable. He was the equivalent of a redneck Jew born to a low-born father whose brothers didn't even believe He was divine (for a time, anyway), what following He did gather shrunk as time went on, and ultimately even His closest followers deserted Him, leaving only the socially irrelevant woman, at the time of His crucifixion, the most shameful of shameful deaths. If Jesus was ugly, I wouldn't find it hard to believe. God can be very ironic when He wants to be.

[Manwë Súlimo]

In an honour-shame society (as today also) ugliness detracts from honour and esteem,

I don't necessarily doubt this, but can you quote a source for me? It'd be nice to have on hand. I vaguely remember David DeSilva saying beautiful people were considered graced by the gods.

[One Bad Pig]

Many people I have met seem to believe that Jesus was beautiful in appearance and could not have been ugly. However, from what I can find both the Bible and the Early Church imply that Jesus was unattractive.

2 He 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. (Isaiah 53:2)

"Thus spoke even they who despised His outward form. His body did not reach even to human beauty, to say nothing of heavenly glory. Had the prophets given us no information whatever concerning His ignoble appearance, His very sufferings and the very contumely He endured bespeak it all. The sufferings attested His human flesh, the contumely proved its abject condition. Would any man have dared to touch even with his little finger, the body of Christ, if it had been of an unusual nature; or to smear His face with spitting, if it had not invited it (by its abjectness)?" (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 9).

“ And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies by Esaias: ‘And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness but His form was mean, inferior to men’”(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.1).

I know many people will say "His appearance doesn't matter" but I believe that by choosing an unattractive form, Jesus showed extreme humility and that He was willing to be regarded as a nobody.
Does anyone agree or disagree?

IMO Isaiah is talking about Jesus' appearance at His crucifixion. People did attempt to seize Him to make Him king, so I doubt He was exceptionally unattractive. I also think that, if His appearance was really hideous, the allegation would have been preserved in libelous Jewish tales post-Resurrection. My guess is that His physical appearance would not have stood out as unusual for His culture.

[Cow Poke]

I just hate those "images" of Jesus that make him look sissified.

[David Hayward]

I agree. In an honour-shame society (as today also) ugliness detracts from honour and esteem, and his ugliness emphasises

I don't necessarily doubt this, but can you quote a source for me? It'd be nice to have on hand. I vaguely remember David DeSilva saying beautiful people were considered graced by the gods

You have caught me out in an assumption: that physical appearance is such an important part of honour-shame today -- think youth and "cool" -- that it must always have been so. Having spent a little time looking online for evidence, I have not found anything explicit to support my claim -- just a few modern assertions unsupported by anything I can check.

Physiognomy does seem to have been used in ancient times to judge character, hence honour, but not necessarily beauty or comliness.

David

[Cow Poke]

As long as he is portrayed with blue eyes and blond hair, I'm good! OH yeah, and speaks King James in a British Accent!

[RBerman]

You have caught me out in an assumption: that physical appearance is such an important part of honour-shame today -- think youth and "cool" -- that it must always have been so. Having spent a little time looking online for evidence, I have not found anything explicit to support my claim -- just a few modern assertions unsupported by anything I can check.

Physiognomy does seem to have been used in ancient times to judge character, hence honour, but not necessarily beauty or comliness.

There are numerous references in the Bible to people getting special (good) attention based on their looks. Just do a word search for "handsome" or "beauty" or "beautiful" for many examples.

[Scruffyzach]

IMO Isaiah is talking about Jesus' appearance at His crucifixion. People did attempt to seize Him to make Him king, so I doubt He was exceptionally unattractive. I also think that, if His appearance was really hideous, the allegation would have been preserved in libelous Jewish tales post-Resurrection. My guess is that His physical appearance would not have stood out as unusual for His culture.

Isaiah said that he "grew up" and that he "had no beauty or majesty". It seems, at least to me, that Isaiah is talking about Jesus' pre crucifixion appearance. I agree that Jesus was not necessarily on the level of Quasimodo , but the text does implies that He didn't look like the Messiah the people would have expected. Interestingly, Celsus apparently thought it was a tenable argument against Christianity when he said, "Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have been different from that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness. For it is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not differ in any respect from another, but was, as they report, little, and ill-favoured, and ignoble." Even more intriguing, Celsus says "as they report" which seems to imply that others used this as an argument.

[Hamster]

Not having beauty isn't really the same as being so hideously ugly that it's remarkable, it seems like it just means "plain" or unattractive

[One Bad Pig]

Isaiah said that he "grew up" and that he "had no beauty or majesty". It seems, at least to me, that Isaiah is talking about Jesus' pre crucifixion appearance. I agree that Jesus was not necessarily on the level of Quasimodo , but the text does implies that He didn't look like the Messiah the people would have expected. Interestingly, Celsus apparently thought it was a tenable argument against Christianity when he said, "Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have been different from that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness. For it is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not differ in any respect from another, but was, as they report, little, and ill-favoured, and ignoble." Even more intriguing, Celsus says "as they report" which seems to imply that others used this as an argument.

Meh. Others also argued that Christians worshiped the head of an ass, sacrificed infants, and committed incest.

ETA: The consensus I'm getting from commentaries is that Is. 53:2 is understood to mean that His appearance was insignificant.

[Y'hoshua]

Personally, when I'm reading the Gospels and imagining the events visually in my head, I picture Jesus looking like this

yeshua7.png
yeshua5.png

[Scruffyzach]

Meh. Others also argued that Christians worshiped the head of an ass, sacrificed infants, and committed incest.

ETA: The consensus I'm getting from commentaries is that Is. 53:2 is understood to mean that His appearance was insignificant.

Most Christians would deny they did those things. Affirming that their Savior was unattractive seems to imply that they honestly did believe Isaiah 53:2 was implying that. Nonetheless, I agree that all Isaiah 53:2 shows was that Jesus was "unattractive" it does not give us an head to toe description or say how "unattractive" He was.

[Cow Poke]

Most Christians would deny they did those things. Affirming that their Savior was unattractive seems to imply that they honestly did believe Isaiah 53:2 was implying that. Nonetheless, I agree that all Isaiah 53:2 shows was that Jesus was "unattractive" it does not give us an head to toe description or say how "unattractive" He was.

In my opinion, part of the point was that it doesn't matter what the outside looks like. A reinforcement of the principle that "man looks on the outside, God looks at the heart". Jesus wasn't here just to save the "pretty and the popular", but the sinner and the down-and-outer.

It wasn't what he LOOKED LIKE that was important, but who He was inside.