The physical attributes of the Son of God

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

I have been lately contemplating on the complete lack of physical description in the Scriptures regarding the visible attributes of the Incarnate Word of God, and I barely recall learning some time ago that this was a circumstance of the style of writing of that period. This, of course, may simply be the case, but I was wondering if we could discuss this in further detail.

Can anyone recall learning about this extraordinary, complete, and what appears to be intentional and conscientious omission in the Scriptures of what the Saviour of all the Cosmos looks like.

Surely this wasn't simply a coincidence, was it?

(as usual, Patristic sources on this would be invaluable)

[John Charmley]

Dear Antonios,

I will check out some Patristic sources and get back to you: I have a very dim recollection that there may be something there, but quite late on.

The Apostles were, of course, concerned to spread the Good News, and unlike the contemporary world, entirely unconcerned about the personal appearance of the One who brought the news. One might say they concentrated upon the Word Incarnate, rather than the form of the Incarnation - which, of course, is what we ought to do!

Still, an intriguing question, and I will what comes up - I'm sure others here have better information to hand.

In Christ,

John

[Antonios]

Dear John,

Thank you for the reply and for your statement that the Apostles were not concerned about what the Lord looked like, but rather the spreading of the Gospel. This is an extremely important point and may contribute to why nothing is mentioned in the Scriptures about his physical appearance.

I was wondering if any Patristic sources mention this fact, whether this was a commandment of the Lord to His Apostles, whether through the Holy Spirit, they knew it was better not to describe His appearance. Surely, as they went all over the known world and preached about the Lord of Heaven, the Savior of all mankind, they must have been asked over and over and over again, countless times by their audience what He looked like (being that we in the fallen world hold so much weight to such matters). I find it Providential that nothing is described about His appearance, and not simply a matter of 'the style of writing' at the time.

Again, thank you John and everyone else who can help me with this.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Not that it matters I suppose, but I don't believe there are much in the way of specific physical descriptions of ANYBODY in the New Testament and not too much other than general descriptions in the OT (Esau was "hairy", Sarai and Rachael were "beautiful", etc.).

[Trudy]

As Herman said, not much more than cursory comments were made regarding people's appearances. However, I recalled something that said that His appearance was nothing to remark upon, or something to that effect. I managed to find it. It is Isaiah 53, specifically verse 2.

Further thoughts appreciated.

~Trudy~

[Michael C.]

I saw this about the physical appearance of our Lord on the web:

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/MOM%2001%202003.htm

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

Thank you for the posts. I especially liked the link provided by Michael. I had never read this before. Is it legit?

[Paul Cowan]

Did Christ not give us His icon when he healed King Abgar of Edessa?

This from http://www.archangelsbooks.com/iconindex.asp



The icon "made without hands" or "the icon of the Lord on the cloth", known in the West under the name of the "Holy Visage", occupies the central place among the images of Christ.

"We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." Mark 14:58

The image "made without hands" is above all the incarnate Word, which "shewed" Itself in "the temple of His body."

"The Jews then said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But Jesus spoke of the temple of his body" John 2:20-21

From that time on, the mosaic law which forbade images (Exodus 20:4) had no more meaning and the icons of Christ became undeniable witnesses of the Incarnation of God. Instead of creating according to their own inclination, "with their hands", the image of the God-Man, iconographers must follow a tradition which attaches them to the original archetype.

According to Byzantine tradition, the "image made without hands" is the image of Christ impressed on a piece of linen, which Christ had pressed to His face and sent to the envoy of King Abgar, the King of Edessa. Therefore, the Holy Napkin or "icon made without hands" is the prototype or pattern by which all subsequent icons of Christ are reproduced.


Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Antonios,

The following came up in my reading over the past few days, which I thought I might share with you and others here. Although they are from non-canonical sources, they are certainly from the early Church.

The first comes from Clement, one of the early bishops of Rome who wrote that Jesus:

had no comeliness of beauty, but His appearance was insignificant, inferior to the beauty of men, a man of stripes and soil, who knew how to endure pain; for his face was turned away, he was dishonoured and discountenanced.

The second is from the Apocryphal Acts of John 88-89:

For when he had chosen Peter and Andrew, which were brethren, he cometh unto me and James my brother, saying: I have need of you, come unto me. And my brother hearing that, said: John, what would this child have that is upon the sea-shore and called us? And I said: What child? And he said to me again: That which beckoneth to us. And I answered: Because of our long watch we have kept at sea, thou seest not aright, my brother James; but seest thou not the man that standeth there, comely and fair and of a cheerful countenance? But he said to me: Him I see not, brother; but let us go forth and we shall see what he would have.

89 And so when we had brought the ship to land, we saw him also helping along with us to settle the ship: and when we departed from that place, being minded to follow him, again he was seen of me as having rather bald, but the beard thick and flowing, but of James as a youth whose beard was newly come. We were therefore perplexed, both of us, as to what that which we had seen should mean. And after that, as we followed him, both of us were by little and little perplexed as we considered the matter. Yet unto me there then appeared this yet more wonderful thing: for I would try to see him privily, and I never at any time saw his eyes closing (winking), but only open. And oft-times he would appear to me as a small man and uncomely, and then againt as one reaching unto heaven.
These Acts are 2nd century, with later, Docetist additions, and are traditionally held to be the work of Leucius Charinus, a companion of St. John. There are those who hold that it 'preserves strains of early oral traditions about the "beloved disciple".'

Interestingly, Origen also taught that Our Lord did not always have the same appearance.

The Acts of Peter, another 2nd century work, contains (chapter XX) the following:
this God who is great and small, fair and foul, young and old.

Of course, none of these has canonical status, and as early as Eusebius, the Acts of Peter were judged to be heretical. But, having come across them, I thought I would post them here as contributions towards answering your question. (And in the hope of prompting others).

In Christ,

John

[Paul Cowan]

Is this not the one we should be looking forward to seeing?


Ezekiel 1: 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.


Revelation 1: 12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me,[h] “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen.


Revelation 4: 2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was[a] like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald.

I don't mean to take the Book of Revelation at face value, It is replete with symbolism. I look forward with fear and trembling for the risen Christ.

Paul

[Antonios]

Dear John and Paul,

Thank you for the above posts. I found the part about the Lord never blinking especially fascinating. I wonder if this is where Franco Zeffirelli got the idea in his movie "Jesus of Nazareth'? Indeed, just looking into the eyes of Jesus would probably be enough to cease one's own self from blinking!

Thanks again for the posts.

[Mourad Mankarios]

I have been lately contemplating on the complete lack of physical description in the Scriptures regarding the visible attributes of the Incarnate Word of God, and I barely recall learning some time ago that this was a circumstance of the style of writing of that period. This, of course, may simply be the case, but I was wondering if we could discuss this in further detail.

Can anyone recall learning about this extraordinary, complete, and what appears to be intentional and conscientious omission in the Scriptures of what the Saviour of all the Cosmos looks like.

Surely this wasn't simply a coincidence, was it?


In hellenistic and ancient times where there would have been so much focus on figures, shapes, much pageantry and pomp along with all the other externals, in the incarnation we have the Lord of the cosmos who all along dismissed such vanities bring light upon the more weightier matters and no wonder that there is no record of His physical appearance. Hence scriptures tells us:

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Sam 16:7)

"He takes no pleasure in the legs of a man. The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear Him, In those who hope in His mercy." (Ps 147:10, 11)

"Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Pet 3:3, 4)

I think this is quite consistent with the message throughout all of scripture, whether there be some form of comeliness or otherwise, such was of little importance to the Lord in contrast to the inner beauty of the heart.

In actual fact the only description we have of Him is that given in Isaiah and as has already been quoted by St. Clement of Alexandria. Here they are:

"He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him." (Is 53:2)

"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.” Yet who was more admirable than the Lord? But it was not the beauty of the flesh visible to the eye, but the true beauty of both soul and body, which He exhibited, which in the former is beneficence; in the latter—that is, the flesh—immortality." (Clement of Alexandria, Bk 3, Chap 1)

[Andreas Moran]

The Turin Shroud?

[Antonios]

...in the incarnation we have the Lord of the cosmos who all along dismissed such vanities bring light upon the more weightier matters and no wonder that there is no record of His physical appearance.


Thank you Mourad for this. I agree with you that we should not allow ourselves to get bogged down on the mere physical appearances of things, but truly try to see the "heart" of things (that is, the logoi) to eventually allow us to contemplate the Logos of God (sounds like a good thread to begin ;)

The Son of God is Saviour to all, and our fallen, vain, envious, and corrupt mind might solely use our observances of sensible realities to predicate on God and His Will for humankind's salvation. Jesus Christ needs to 'appear' in the 'eyes' of our hearts by faith first if we are ever to experience Him by our senses. These may be reasons as to why His physical appearances are not described in the Gospels. Perhaps the Gospel writers recognized this problem. A possible stumbling-block, that is, to those new in the faith. Perhaps by their various encounters with people during their apostolic mission, they saw too much emphasis being placed by many on the Lord's outward appearance, at a hindrance to a true understanding of the Gospel. I know my own fallen self would have asked for a physical description if I was given the opportunity. He is, after all, the incarnated Creator of the universe, taken on physical flesh, able to be perceived, observed, and held.

Perhaps the role of icons can now be entered into this discussion. How do they possibly weigh in? Does the lack of written description in the Scriptures dovetail into the development of icons? Does this intentional absence somehow find it's fulfillment in the ecclesial use of religious icons? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Nina]

I wonder if this is where Franco Zeffirelli got the idea in his movie "Jesus of Nazareth'?


This movie made me cry so many times before but this year during Lent while watching it again, I noticed the teeth of the main actor and the reaction was not as powerful. I know I am being very superficial but his (not so straight) teeth kept distracting me. And the actor does not blink but recently I notice sometime a coldness in his eyes... but of course I like his acting and his admirable mission and I try to concentrate on the movie. I know that there is no man worthy to play Christ in a movie, however if we judge with our human minds and standards I prefer James Caviezel.