And just when you thought all was covered. With all of the historical records and uncovered literary and art works produced. Even regardless of the Bible addressing the common Afro-ethnicity features, it would seem that a film could be produced that would not reflect Jesus Christ in the flesh as a Caucasian. Another movie, Risen...a new film about a Roman soldier understanding the divinity of Christ....does the same thing. When will it change? Does it even need to?
Before we get into all of that, let's take that verse out of the Book of Revelation that's got the revolving Black Power population sold on the 'Jesus was an African' campaign. Along with Daniel 10:6, Revelation 1 seems to give a racial account of Jesus. However, one must realize that both of these descriptions are from people seeing spiritually enhanced images...not the actual skin color of Christ. If we were to use those scriptures to confirm race, we'd also have to acknowledge that Jesus as a human also had white hair...when in fact, the Black Power advocate continues to insist His hair was black. So, we can't use these scriptures as reliable racial identification. But what we can use are the works that support the scriptures.
Assyrian relief works and Egyptian paintings, most of which date centuries before any European work concerning the subject, depict Jesus and other Hebrews of His time with brown skin and African features. Additionally, Judah, the region and Jewish tribe that humanly produced Jesus, was less populated by other populations (as a result of captivity) than other regions of the Israel. Meaning, people from Judah were more likely to present the physical features of the ethnic native. It also means that the probability of Jesus looking like Russell Brand is less than 1%. We don't need to ask the question of why do we get Russell Brand Jesus every movie. We're somewhat passed that. The question now is more ministry related. How does continuing to promote an inaccurate account of Jesus physically help people receive Christ?
While many argue that it doesn't matter, I'd counter that it just may. Evangelists, ministers, and others make pleading cases concerning the reality of sin, eternity, hell, and how Jesus paved the way to an ultra-pleasurable life with God. But with so much emphasis on "reality", why can't the image itself be real? In my mind, this is one of the easiest ways to dissuade young minorities away from Christ....because we're starting off lying. Now, this doesn't change the fact of who Christ is as much as a preacher with a side chick doesn't effect another persons' Salvation. But if we're purposely promoting a well-accepted falsehood we have two choices: we remove imagery from the conversation all together (which is what was commanded in Deuteronomy anyway) or we tell the truth...all of it. My vote actually would be for the former, but that's only because I know the truth and understand where the lies come from. But for the young, smart, African-American who still believes all blacks learned Christianity from European slave traders and not from Christians in 1st and 2nd century Ethiopia, this may not be the case.
This Jesus' race thing is yet another example of what happens when avoiding biblical law. Many times, doing that will lead down a path of difficult return...and deep untruths that kill people. We can't, however, say Jesus' earthly race doesn't matter; because in a sense it does. Not from the viewpoint that one skin tone being superior than the other, but from the viewpoint of understanding why lying was suggested in the first place. It always interests me what we Christians determine to be important reality.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment