I recently
finished watching A.D. Kingdom and Empire. It’s a fascinating, fast-paced
mini-series on the events that occurred after the death and resurrection of
Jesus. Over 12 episodes, the viewer is taken through the experiences of the
disciples, the birth of the early Christian church, the spread of Christianity,
and looms over the events that led to the eventual destruction of Jerusalem in
AD 70.
It depicts the
escalating tensions between the early followers of Jesus and the religious
system of the day, in a gripping style. It does take liberties to fill in gaps
between the chapters of the Gospels, and in some instances, does not portray
Biblical incidents in true context. That being said, it is eminently watchable
and will rouse a desire to better understand the roots of the early Christian
church.
The series is
produced by Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, who also produced the Bible
mini-series telecast on the History channel, and the movie ‘Son of God’.
As a kid, I
enjoyed watching movies on the life of Jesus and have fond memories of viewing
them with my family. Those were early years; I continued watching the newer
movies made on Jesus and happily, never grew tired of them.
A strange trend emerged
as Hollywood decided on a bigger say in the genre – the appearances of the men
cast for the role of Jesus grew more and more striking.
From the sculpted Jim
Caviezel, to the traffic-stopping Diogo Morgado,
to the blinding Juan Pablo di
Pace.
As a child, I
used to wonder why the Bible did not include a more detailed description of
Jesus’ physical qualities. If the Bible described how tall he was, what the
color of his eyes were, what his build was like, wouldn’t that put all
speculation to rest? Now we have people molding Jesus per their own
imaginations. Some claim he was white, some black, and some brown.
On the other
hand, there’s also the most common picture of Jesus we’ve all seen. Almost
universally, Jesus is shown as a light-skinned, lean man, with flowing robes,
holding a lamb serenely and looking forlorn with a halo around his head. Where
did that image come from? At some point, we created a sissified Jesus (as
Voddie Baucham puts it), who looks like an ethereal supermodel, with silky smooth
shampooed hair, manicured hands which haven’t seen a day’s work and feet
softened from walking on roses.
Years later, in
a moment of clarity, I realized why the Bible was silent about Jesus’ physical
attributes. In stark contrast to His portrayals, the Bible leads us to believe that
the historical Jesus was actually plain-looking and unremarkable, as stated by Isaiah
– “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that
we should desire him.” Yet, we think of Him as a
pinnacle of male attractiveness in all our depictions and imaginations of Him.
Imagine how many
mothers would have desired the perfect baby, how many men would have chased the
ideal look, and how many women would have pursued the textbook man, in their
quest to look like, or be with, a reflection of Jesus.
That Jesus was “despised
and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering’ is glossed
over or completely forgotten. The Holy Spirit was intentional in allowing
minimal details of Jesus’ appearance in the Bible, since He is never meant to
be the standard of beauty, but instead the model for character and godliness,
for life on earth. As the Bible makes abundantly clear, man looks at the
outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.
There are no
accidents or oversights in the Bible – we ought to recognize and absorb the
gravity of the simple truth behind the silence of Jesus’ appearance. It will
also open our eyes to other realities – First, looking beyond people’s external
appearance and valuing them as fellow beings made in the image of God, with
intrinsic worth. And second, having a renewed understanding of beauty – by discarding
the chase to look younger, lighter, or shinier, and instead cultivating the
authentic beauty of character, virtue and a gentle spirit.
