Does The Bible say Jesus was Black?

Does The Bible say Jesus was Black?

Most people are aware of the traditional portrayal of the image of Jesus. The long haired white man most commonly used by the vast majority of the Christian world today. It doesn't take too much investigation or common sense to come to the realization that this image is not and in no way can be what the actual Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago looked like.

There is however a movement that claims that Jesus was not only not white but in fact Jesus was black. Many parts of this movement also claim that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were also black as are the “true” Israelites.

This writing is not intended to prove that Jesus or anyone else was any specific colour it is solely intended to answer the biblical verses used by those that claim that Jesus was black and that the Bible depicts him as such. Here I will only be answering the biblical evidence for the physical appearance of Jesus and nothing more.

There are in fact only 2 passages of the Bible that are offered as evidence that Jesus himself was black based on the description of Jesus given in the Bible.

The first and most often used passage is in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 1- 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

So it is claimed that Jesus had hair like wool which is used to demonstrate the tight curly afro hair of black people and also that his colour was that of brass with this meaning Jesus was of a dark brown colour.

So lets see if the claim stands up to scrutiny.

The first thing that we need to understand is that this ISNT actually Jesus that is being described although it does resemble the image of Jesus.

The simple fact is that when John turns to see who was talking to him in revelation he actually sees one LIKE unto the son of man, NOT the son of man himself We are told this in the 2 previous verses

Revelation 1- 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

John actually saw an Angel. This was the angel that Jesus has sent unto John. This is made very cleat at the beginning of the book of Revelation.

Revelation 1-1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John

God gave the revelation of Jesus that God gave him, Jesus gave it to his angel and the Angel went and gave it to John. So when John is spoken to and turns to see who it is it is this angel that he sees. Now the angel looked LIKE the son of man so the description of what the angel looked like was a representation of what the son of man looked like but wasn't actually Jesus.

What is more important to notice is that this depiction of Jesus in Revelation is referencing aresurrected Christ after he has ascended to heaven. This is Jesus in his glorified body. There is no reference whatsoever to the body of Jesus that walked the earth as a Jewish man before his death burial and resurrection. To try and link the reference in Revelation to the physical man Jesus is a complete and utter distortion of scripture and is either due to a lack of study or a purposeful deception.

But let's continue and analyze the description itself. 
Let's start with the claim that Jesus had afro style hair. 

Revelation 1- 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

This verse states his hair was WHITE like wool not that his hair was like wool. The comparison is regarding the colour not the texture. To further illustrate the whiteness rather than the texture we then have a 2nd comparison with snow, both are referring to the colour not what it looked like. It must also be noted that it doesn't just make reference to his hair but his head also. Not only is his hair white but also his head I have yet to see a black man with a white head.

Furthermore why is it only the first part of the verse is used as evidence. If the first part of the verse is used to prove the way that Jesus physically looked like then why wouldn't the second part also be used, “his eyes were as a flame of fire”. How many black men have eyes as a flame of fire. Im yet to meet any man regardless of colour that possesses this physical attribute although it could be argued this could be referencing a red eye colour possessed by those who are albino but this would be assumption rather than fact and most advocates of a black Jesus do not use the second part of the verse in their argument.

Then we have verse 15

Revelation 1- 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters

It is this verse that is used to demonstrate the dark skin colour of Jesus. The claim being made that Jesus had feet the colour of brass that had been burned in a furnace. Therefore Jesus had dark “burnt” colour skin.

So lets again analyze what the verse actually says against the claim.

The verse starts by saying “And his feet like unto fine brass”. Notice the word fine before the word brass. The colour was like fine brass not burnt brass. Fine brass (polished) is not brown or black but a golden or yellowish colour

The Greek word translated “fine brass” is chalkolibanÅ orichalcum, meaning a fine metal, or frankincense of a yellow color.

The verse then states “as if they burned in a furnace” (present tense) so the colour is linked to BEING burned in a furnace not having already been burned in the furnace. The Greek word here is πεπυρωμÎνης pepyrÅmenÄ"s this is the perfect participle from of the word πυρáω pyroÅ.  It literally means made to glow.
Anyone that has seen metal being burned in a furnace will know that it causes a very bright white/yellow light. So bright in fact that those working with the metal in the furnace wear special eye protection goggles. We must also take the second part of the verse and apply this as well. “and his voice as the sound of many waters”. Can this really be stated of black men, or any man for that matter.

Again the claim just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The scripture is simply twisted or misrepresented in order to make it appear to be saying something that is actually isn't.

Both the eyes like fire and the feet like fine brass are stated again in revelation 2-18

Revelation 2-18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

The description of Jesus continues on in verse 16 although this is not quoted by those who use verses 14 and 15 but as verse 16 is a continuation of the description we must also look at what it says and be consistent and apply this in the same way as verses 14 and 15.

Revelation 1- 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Here Jesus is depicted with a twoedged sword coming out of his mouth. “and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword”

I am yet to find anyone that can give a convincing argument as to why this would be referencing a black man, I don't think I need to offer any other statement than this but if we are going to take part of the description as literal we must take ALL the description as literal as we have no indication that any is meant to be taken non literally while other parts are. To state some are literal and others are not is to make personal assumptions that are not indicated in the text itself.

Then we have “and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.”

Countenance being the Greek word áψις opsis meaning the features, outward appearance his face his look was like the sun in its strength meaning in its brightness.

The outward appearance of Jesus was like the sun in its brightness. We see this kind of reference when Jesus appeared to Saul (who became Paul) on the road to Damascus.

We are told about Jesus appearing before Saul in acts 9

Acts 9 - 1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Saul saw a light from heaven.

Acts 9- 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

When Saul/Paul recounts the event we are told that the light was above the brightness of the sun.

Acts 26-13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

The word “above” in the above the brightness of the sun is the Greek word áπáρ hyper meaning above, beyond, greater than

The brightness of Jesus being beyond the brightness of the sun.

Jesus calls himself the light of the world

John 8-12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

When we go back to acts 9 we see that Saul/Paul was actually blinded by this light for 3 days.

Acts 9- 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

In the new Jerusalem there is no need for the sun as The lamb, Jesus, is the light thereof.

Revelation 21- 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Jesus is the brightness of the glory of God

Hebrews 1-3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

At the transfiguration of Jesus, Peter James and John saw a vision of Jesus in his glorified body.

Matthew 17- 1And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Again we are told that the face of Jesus did shine as the sun.

The Prophet Daniel saw the glorified Jesus during a vision he was given. He described the appearance of what he saw.

Daniel 10-6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

Again we see that the feet (and this time arms also) were as POLISHED brass not burned brass. The Hebrew word translated as polished is qÄ-lÄl; ×Ö×ÖÖ'× which means burnished which literally means to be polished. This again would mean a golden/yellowish colour not a dark brown one.

We must also again be consistent. If we are going to use one part of the description in this verse we must also use all the description in this verse. The body is likened to beryl. The Hebrew word translated as beryl is ×ÖÖ×Ö×Ö×××× tarshish which means a yellow or golden precious stone most likely to be a yellow jasper.

The face is as the appearance of lightning and the eyes as lamps of fire. None of which has any likeness to a black man.

The use of these verses to show that Jesus was a black man work only if you take the representation of the verses by those making the claim, without any investigation into what the verses are actually saying, ignore parts of the verses and misrepresent them in a way that allows you to represent them in a way to support the claim. This is either through ignorance or dishonesty, either way the claim the Bible describes Jesus as being black is incorrect.

What Is “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16?

What Is “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16?

In Galatians 6:15-16 the apostle Paul writes to the churches in Galatia: 

“15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor is uncircumcision, but what counts is a new creation. 16 And those who will walk by this rule, may peace and mercy be upon them, that is, upon the Israel of God.” 

My translation here depends on matters to be discussed below, as I will explain in due course. 

There is a big debate about what Paul means by “the Israel of God” in v. 16. Some Christians say that it refers to the church. Others say that it refers to ethnic Israel as a whole. And another group says that it refers to all Jewish Christians. 

In this article, I will try to determine which of these interpretations is correct. And then I will say something about why this is important. 

PRELIMINARY POINTS 

Before getting into the main part of the discussion, there are two preliminary points that I need to make about this passage. 

The identity of “those who will walk by this rule” 

Firstly, we need to consider who “those who will walk by this rule” in v. 16 refers to. 

“This rule” is very probably the whole principle of v. 15: “neither is circumcision anything, nor is uncircumcision, but what counts is a new creation.” Much less probably, “this rule” refers specifically to the new creation. 

Regardless of which of these options is correct, however, Paul clearly understands “those who will walk by this rule” as Christians who are doing the will of God. 

Simplifying a little, then, but not in a misleading way, we can say that “those who will walk by this rule” refers to the church. There is wide agreement about this. 

The Greek word kai 

Secondly, I need to say a few words about the Greek text in the second half of v. 16. 

I have translated v. 16 in this way: 

“And those who will walk by this rule, may peace and mercy be upon them, that is [kai], upon the Israel of God.” 

The Greek word that underlies my translation of “that is” is kai. In this translation, kai is being used in what is known as an explicative or epexegetic sense. This means that what comes after the kai gives more information about what is referred to before the kai. 

The explicative use of kai is fairly uncommon in the New Testament, but it does occur (e.g., in Mark 1:19; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Colossians 1:2). For the reasons that I will give below, I have chosen to understand kai as explicative in Galatians 6:16. 

However, this is not the only potential way that kai could be translated. This word more commonly means “and,” and we could potentially translate v. 16 in this way: 

“And those who will walk by this rule, may peace and mercy be upon them, and [kai] upon the Israel of God.” 

If kai is explicative, meaning “that is,” then “those who will walk by this rule” are the same group of people as “the Israel of God.” 

But if kai means “and,” there are two potential options: 

Either (i) “those who will walk by this rule” is a separate group of people from “the Israel of God,” or (ii) Paul narrows his focus as he moves from “those who will walk by this rule” to “the Israel of God,” he uses “and” loosely, and he understands “the Israel of God” to be part of “those who will walk by this rule.” 

Actually, it gets even more complicated than this, because I think the translators of some English versions of the Bible that translate kai as “and” did actually understand “those who will walk by this rule” and “the Israel of God” to be the same group. 

Anyway, I don’t want to get into a long discussion of exactly how to translate and the meanings of Greek and English words here. The key point I am making is that it is potentially possible to understand the Greek of v. 16 in any one of three ways: 

(a) “those who will walk by this rule” is the same group as “the Israel of God.” If so, then, because “those who will walk by this rule” is the church, as we saw in the first preliminary point, “the Israel of God” would be the church. 

(b) “those who will walk by this rule” and “the Israel of God” are separate groups. If so, then “the Israel of God” would be ethnic Israel. It is true that some ethnic Jews in Paul’s day were Christians (as is also true today), so some people would have fallen into both categories. But Paul could loosely be referring to the church and ethnic Israel as separate groups of people. 

(c) “the Israel of God” is part of “those who will walk by this rule.” If so, “the Israel of God” would be all Jewish Christians. 

The Greek will allow any one of these three options, although some have more natural Greek than others as we will see below. 

INTERPRETING “THE ISRAEL OF GOD” 

We are now ready to begin trying to determine what “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to. 

As we have seen, there are three options: 

(1) It refers to the church. 

(2) It refers to ethnic Israel as a whole. 

(3) It refers to all Jewish Christians. 

Which, then, is the correct interpretation? 

It does not refer to all Jewish Christians 

To begin with, we should reject the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all Jewish Christians, i.e., option (3): 

First, there is the minor point that this would involve using kai, meaning “and,” in quite an unusual way to refer to a part of the entity mentioned before the kai. 

Second, having invoked a blessing of peace and mercy on “those who will walk by this rule,” i.e., on the whole church, it looks very strange for Paul then to partly repeat himself by invoking this blessing again on the Jewish part of the church. 

Third, one of Paul’s main aims in Galatians has been to show that Gentile Christians are on an equal footing with Jewish Christians. In Galatians 3:28 he has said that in Christ, “there is neither Jew nor Greek [i.e., Gentile].” And in Galatians 6:15 he has just said, “neither is circumcision anything, nor is uncircumcision.” Having said that Christian identity is not dependent on ethnicity, it would be very strange for Paul then to invoke a blessing specifically on the Jewish part of the church. 

We should therefore reject the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all Jewish Christians. 

A reference to the church is to be much preferred 

We are left, then, with interpreting “the Israel of God” as the church or as ethnic Israel. If “those who will walk by this rule” are the same group as “the Israel of God,” then “the Israel of God” is the church. And if “those who will walk by this rule” are a separate group from “the Israel of God,” then “the Israel of God” is ethnic Israel. 

In favor of seeing a reference to ethnic Israel is the fact that the word kai, which I discussed briefly above, far more often means “and” than it means “that is.” Furthermore, the Greek expression tout’ estin is more commonly used to mean “that is.” 

However, the combined weight of the counter arguments is much more impressive: 

(a) First, there is the minor point that when Paul adds “of God” to “Israel,” he is probably hinting that he is using the term “Israel” in an unusual way. It seems likely that he means something along the lines of “what God really regards as Israel,” which would be something other than ethnic Israel. 

I am not suggesting that Paul is implying that ethnic Israel no longer has validity in God’s sight. Nor am I suggesting that the church has replaced ethnic Israel in the purposes of God. But Paul does most naturally seem to be saying that there is a non-literal kind of Israel that is more significant than ethnic Israel. It is well worth noting that he makes almost exactly this point in Romans 2:28-29. 

(b) Second and much more importantly, there is Paul’s blessing to consider. In this passage he invokes God’s peace and mercy on the Israel of God. 

However, a large majority of ethnic Jews alive at the time Paul wrote Galatians did not accept Jesus as Messiah, and Paul (rightly) saw this as rebellion and as a grievous sin (e.g., Romans 9:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). It therefore seems strange that he would invoke God’s blessing on ethnic Israel in their rebellion. 

This becomes even stranger when we note how Paul’s invocation of peace and mercy on the Israel of God is parallel to his invocation of peace and mercy on those who will walk by this rule, i.e., the church: 

The first point to note here is that the peace and mercy Paul invokes on the church seems to be specifically because of the salvation they have in Christ. 

At the beginning of this letter, in Galatians 1:3, he has already said: 

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

The grace and peace Paul refers to in 1:3 is because the Galatians are saved. So surely the peace and mercy he invokes on those who will walk by this rule, i.e., on the church, in 6:16 also has to do with the fact that they are saved. 

Yet if the Israel of God in 6:16 were a reference to ethnic Israel, Paul’s invocation of blessing on the Israel of God would not be because they were saved, but it would be a kind of hope that they might become saved. So in one breath Paul would be invoking two very different kinds of blessing, one based on salvation and a second that is just a hope for salvation. And without any hint in the context that a second kind of blessing is in view, this looks very awkward. 

A consideration of Paul’s blessing, then, counts strongly in favor of seeing “the Israel of God” as a reference to the church. 

Therefore, in view of points (a) and (b), but especially (b), it looks much better in the context to understand “the Israel of God” as referring to the church. 

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT 

If in this verse Paul is describing the church as the Israel of God, as he seems to be, it would mean that he is referring to the church as a kind of spiritual Israel. 

There are, in fact, many other biblical passages which teach that the church is spiritual Israel (e.g., Romans 2:25-29; 9:6; Philippians 3:2-3; James 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9). This is a major New Testament theme. And Galatians 6:16 adds to the weight of evidence for this theme. 

In Christian theology today, the movement known as dispensationalism is very popular. In the most common form of this movement, a clear distinction is made between God’s purposes for ethnic Israel and His purposes for the church. This thinking denies that the church is spiritual Israel. 

Those who claim that Israel and the church have distinct purposes in God’s plans are actually making a big mistake. And I don’t think there is any evidence that any Christians before the 19th century believed this anyway. 

It is not my intention in this article to discuss the relationship of Israel to the church. My goal has been much more limited. I have simply tried to show that Galatians 6:16counts as a strong piece of evidence that the Bible describes the church as spiritual Israel. And because it describes the church in this way, that counts against the view that God has distinct plans for Israel and the church.