David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Years ago, I learned something about the image of Jesus which I’ve never thought about much, but which I’ve never forgotten. I wish to share it now, with great regard and caution.
I was with one of my very best Christian friends, in his home, back in West Haven, Connecticut. It was a Sabbath afternoon, and we were looking at religious literature. We were both Adventists, and we were discussing an article in some Adventist journal. It was about the appearance, the physical appearance, of Jesus. Traditionally, Jesus has been portrayed both as a normally swarthy, dark-haired, dark-eyed Middle Eastern Jew, as well as a white, Anglo-Saxon protestant! The old Catholic icons were intentionally variant, depending on the locale served.
My friend Phil and I noticed that the article quoted Ellen G. White (1827-1915), a revered name and spiritual authority in the Advent Movement and in the church which evolved from it. She had been asked which of all the portraits she knew most resembled the Christ she had seen in her visions of his life on earth. From a collection, she chose one which featured a man with a reddish-blonde hair and beard. (I am searching now for this article, but, at the time of this writing, I have not recovered it. I have also sought to reach my friend about it.)
Ellen Gould White, 1827-1915.
We were naturally surprised, and Phil, who had blonde hair, teased me about it. He had had long blonde hair before he became an Adventist Christian. In fact, he was a drummer in a professional rock band. But he had cut his hair short, and started wearing three-piece suits for church. Seeing the painting of the long blond haired Christ, he laughed, “Does this mean I can grow my hair back?”
We don’t know what Jesus looked like. We know that, in His earthly life, He wasn’t anything to look at. Isaiah saw Him (53:2):
He hath no form, nor comeliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.
Given our last article on King David’s red hair, however, we might consider what significance it might have if Jesus really had this reddish-blonde hair.
Jesus is understood to be a descendant of the tribe of Judah, the line from which was to come the lawgiver, the scepter, at least until the time of the Peace Giver (Shiloh), Genesis 49:10. Paul states explicitly that Christ was “of the seed of David,” directly (Romans 1:3). Interestingly, however, Jesus never claimed to be King of the Jews, but instead declared his kingdom foreign to this world (John 18:36).
Of course, we would otherwise understand that His being the “supposed” son of Joseph, his connection to Judah was by adoption. Joseph was his step father, not his biological father. This would then imply that the seed of David must be in Mary’s line, for this is His only biological link to this world.
Yet, the only indication of any blood line of Mary that we are given is the suggestion of of Luke 1:36, her elderly cousin Elizabeth–who was a Cohen, a direct descendant of Aaron, the Levite. The tribe of Levi was the priestly tribe, and Levites did not intermarry with other tribes, normally. This is 1st century AD now, however, and there may have been intermarriages by then. But, it is peculiar that the only blood relative of Mary’s mentioned at all is this Cohen. This makes us consider more seriously the priestly role of Christ, as so gloriously portrayed in Hebrews 5:4-10, invoking the prophetic authority of Psalm 110:4.
The apparently abject, irreconcilable genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 lead us to wonder further. Italian ‘atheist’ scholar Marcello Craveri dramatizes the irreconcilable elements in The Life of Jesus (New York: Grove, 1967), pp. 6-9. Craveri also notes some major historical attempts to account for the wide disparity.
Christologically speaking, I’ve always seen the priesthood of Christ much more significant than the kingship idea. The priesthood is functional. The kingship was only figurative, even as His heirship to it but adoptive.
Yet, if Jesus had red hair, whatever shade, then I would be forced to reconsider the genealogy of Mary. The Coptics believe Mary was orphaned at the age of eight. (Romanists, like Copts, also believe, based on extra-scriptural sources, that her parents were Joachim and Anne.) All I see is that neither Matthew nor Luke give the lineage of Mary. The red hair element would definitely link Him to line of Judah, but, unless Mary was in fact of that line, Jesus would not be. (I have somewhere some obscure, probably unorthodox, Catholic story that romanticizes Mary’s original orphan status, attributing purity and sanctity to such a condition–such unapproachableness being the intent of the status.
Does it matter? Is it critically important to know Mary’s genealogy? If so, why isn’t it given? If not, and considering what is given, then Christ was the seed of David–by adoption, every much like the Christian believer, particularly the heathen (non-Jew) is the seed of Abraham by faith (Galations 3:19). In this since, the adoption theme becomes essential. So, for the sake of the validation of faith, we should rather believe Jesus was David’s seed strictly by adoption, not through Mary.
So then, what do we do with the reddish blonde hair? I also regard Ellen G. White as inspired. She says what she saw of Jesus in his earthly life was a man with light, reddish blonde hair.
Well, Esau was the first instance of red hair (–among the Hebrews, if not in the world). Not that his descendants were heirs of the promise, or numbered among the Hebrews, but, he came out of the same mother as Isaac. The recessive gene was perhaps passed to Isaac as well. Who knows? Maybe Adam (ארס, ‘âdâm, Hebrew for “red”) himself was a red head! That would make genetic sense. The male inherits only the Y chromosome.
In any case, if Jesus was nothing to look at, then, despite my friend’s compelling Christian spirit, he doesn’t look like Jesus.
My friend Phil.
35 responses so far ↓
1 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2010 at 4:55 pm
As I remember, there were a number of people at Phil’s that Sabbath afternoon (as there usually were!). It was an interesting crowd that always gathered about Phil. A people of vast peculiarity, all seeking peace, support, confidence. I told Phil once that I counted myself among them. Phil’s Christian experience seemed more genuine than most. Maybe it was just his personality. I didn’t know him before he became an Adventist. He said we would have never, ever met otherwise. Much too different in styles, interests, etc. Phil, by the way, was the one who taught me to ride a motorcycle.
2 johnnymac // Jan 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Good evening doctor. Well, in that the Bible gives no mention at all of what Christ looked like I’d have to assume that as semite he’d probably would have had dark or olive-complexed features.
3 Thrasymachus // Jan 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm
This is what I think Jesus looked like, and, yes, reddish-blond is a possiblity:
4 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Is that from the Shroud?
I’m going to do a major search on available images. I would immediately recognize the picture Phil and I saw in the article.
Remember, according to Isaiah, Jesus was nothing to look at. Not pleasing to the eye. However, there must have been something extraordinary about His presence. Nothing Hollywood can even conceive of. Of course, there really isn’t any point in the concern over His appearance. It obviously does not matter, spiritually.
I Sam. 16:17 says the Lord sees men differently than we see each other. He knows the heart. We don’t know, not by looking, anyway.
5 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2010 at 8:37 pm
In the mean time, here’s a red headed Catholic Icon:
6 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Here’s a interesting one by a Renaissance “Follower of Rembrandt,” called Christ with a Pilgrim’s Staff
7 Thrasymachus // Jan 15, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Yes, that picture was from the Shroud of Turin.
8 John Sandusky // Jan 15, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Christ was not the seed of David and said as much in Matthew 22:
41 And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David’s. 43 He says to them: How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying: 44 The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word: neither dared any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
What Ellen G. White said she saw is as meaningless as any other visions by false prophets.
9 John Sandusky // Jan 16, 2010 at 12:07 am
The fact of the matter is, that a thorough knowledge of the New Testament, and the spirit thereof, would suggest that Christ was an average looking man, muscular and with short black hair.
God sent him to us as a humble average man, that was a carpenter (therefore muscular) with short hair.
1Co 11:14 ” Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”.
If Christ had long hair, Paul would never have said such a thing.
10 Gary DeLoriea // Jan 16, 2010 at 1:33 am
Ass far as what christ looked like? Who knows ? He probably was a dark haired semitic looking man. As far as the images of Christ they were based on statues of Zeus in the early days of the Catholic church. Two things you have to remember is that 1) Jesus was a pharisee jew which means no drawings of the human face 2) the greeks and romans where a Henothiestic society right before the adoption of xtianity with Zeus being the God of most impotence. As such his image would be incorperated to smooth over the conversion of the people.
Gary Deloriea
Normannii Riek
11 Tsu-Nami // Jan 16, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Mr. White was certainly inspired. Didn’t she see those tall, majestic people of Jupiter and knew that masturbation makes you go blind?
12 Thrasymachus // Jan 16, 2010 at 4:33 pm
PILATE’S LETTER TO TIBERIUS CAESAR CONCERNING ARREST, TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS
(Note: Gives physical description of Jesus)
From the “Archko Volume” containing manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of the Senatorial docket taken from the library at Rome translated by Drs. Macintosh and Twyman of the Antiquerian Lodge, Genoa, Italy.
This has been checked and is in accord with the copy of the original lodged in a British Museum that has verified the accuracy of the transcription. It was verified in November 1935.
TO TIBERIUS CAESAR, EMPEROR OF ROME
Noble Sovereign, Greetings: The events of the last few days in my Province have been of such a character that I will give the details in full as they occurred, as I should not be surprised if, in the course of time, they may change the destiny of our nation, for it seems of late that all the gods have ceased to be propitious. I am almost ready to say, cursed be the day that I succeeded Vallerius Flaceus in the government of Judea; for since then my life has been one of continual uneasiness and distress.
On my arrival at Jerusalem I took possession of the Praetorium, and ordered a splendid feast to be prepared, to which I invited the Tetrarch of Galilee, with the high priest and his officers. At the appointed hour no guests appeared. This I considered an insult offered to my dignity, and the whole government, which I represent. A few days after the high priest deigned to pay me a visit, his deportment was grave and deceitful. He pretended that his religion forbade him and his attendants to sit at the table of the Romans, and eat and offer libations with them, but this was only a sanctimonious seeing, for his very countenance betrayed his hypocrisy. Although I thought it expedient to accept his excuse, from that moment I was convinced that the conquered had declared themselves the enemy of the conquerors; and I would warn the Romans to beware of the high priests of this country. They would betray their own mother to gain office and a luxurious living. It seems to me that, of conquered cities, Jerusalem is the most difficult to govern. So turbulent are the people that I live in momentary dread of an insurrection. I have not soldiers sufficient to suppress it. I had only one centurion and a hundred men at my command. I requested reinforcement from the Prefect of Syria, who informed me that he had scarcely troops sufficient to defend his own province. An insatiate thirst for conquest to extend our empire beyond the means of defending it, I fear, will be the cause of the final overthrow of our whole government. I lived secluded from the masses, for I do not know what those priests might influence the rabble to do; yet I endeavored to ascertain, as far as I could, the mind and standing of the people.
I WAS TOLD IT WAS JESUS
Among the various rumors that came to my ears there was one in particular that attracted my attention. A young man, it was said, had appeared in Galilee preaching with a noble unction a new law in the name of the God who had sent him. At first I was apprehensive that his design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between him and his hearers, with their black beards and tawny complexions. Unwilling to interrupt him by my presence, I continued my walk, but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. My secretary’s name is Manlius. He is the grandson of the chief of the conspirators who encamped in Eturia waiting for Cataline. Manlius had been for a long time an inhabitant of Judea, and is well acquainted with the Hebrew language. He was devoted to me, and worthy of my confidence. On entering the Praetorium I found Manlius, who related to me the words Jesus had pronounced at Siloe. Never have I read in the works of the philosophers anything that can compare to the maxims of Jesus. One of the rebellious Jews, so numerous in Jerusalem, having asked Jesus if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, he replied: “Render unto Caesar that things that belong to Caesar, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
I EXTENDED TO HIM MY PROTECTION
It was on account of the wisdom of his sayings that I granted so much liberty to the Nazarene; for it was in my power to have him arrested, and exiled to Pontus; but that would have been contrary to the justice which has always characterized the Roman Government in all its dealings with men; this man was neither seditious nor rebellious; I extended to him my protection, unknown perhaps to himself. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and address the people, and to choose disciples, unrestrained by a Praetorian andate. Should it ever happen (may the gods avert the omen!) should it ever happen, I say that the religion of our forefathers will be supplanted by the religion of Jesus, it will be this noble toleration that Rome shall owe her premature death, while I, miserable wretch, will have been the instrument of what the Jews call Providence, and we call destiny. This unlimited freedom granted to Jesus provoked the Jews — not the poor, but the rich and powerful. It is true Jesus was severe of the latter, and this was a political reason, in my opinion, for not restraining the liberty of the Nazarene. “Scribes and Pharisees” he would say to them, “you are a race of vipers; you resemble painted sepulchres; you appear well unto men, but you have death within you.” At other times he would sneer at the alms of the rich and proud, telling them that the mite of the poor was more precious in the sight of God. Complaints were daily made at the Praetorium against the insolence of Jesus. I was even informed that some misfortune would befall him; that it would not be the first time that Jerusalem had stoned those who called themselves prophets; an appeal would be made to Caesar. However, my conduct was approved by the Senate, and I was promised a reinforcement after the termination of the Parthian War.
Being too weak to suppress an insurrection, I resolved upon adopting a measure that promised to restore the tranquillity of the city without subjecting the Praetorium to humiliating concession. I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with him at the Praetorium. He came. You know that in my veins flows the Spanish mixed with Roman blood as incapable of fear as it is of weak emotion. When the Nazarene made his appearance I was walking in my basilica, and my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement, and I trembled in every limb as does a guilty culprit, though the Nazarene was as calm as innocence itself. When he came up to me he stopped, and by a signal sign he seemed to say to me, “I am here,” though he spoke not a word. For some time I contemplated with admiration and awe this extraordinary type of man — a type of man unknown to our numerous painters, who have given form and figure to all the gods and the heroes. There was nothing about him that was repelling in its character, yet I felt too awed and tremulous to approach him.
“Jesus,” said I unto him as last — and my tongue faltered — “Jesus of Nazareth, for the last three years I have granted you ample freedom of speech; nor do I regret it. Your words are those of a sage — I know not whether you have read Socrates of Plato, but this I know, there is in your discourses a majestic simplicity that elevates you far above those philosophers. The Emperor is informed of it, and I, his humble representative in this country, am glad of having allowed you this liberty of which you are so worthy. However, I must not conceal from you that your discourses have raised up against you powerful and inveterate enemies. Nor is this surprising. Socrates had his enemies, and he fell a victim to their hatred. Yours are double incensed — against you on account of your discourses being so severe upon their conduct; against me on account of the liberty I have afforded you. They even accuse me of being indirectly leagued with you for the purpose of depriving the Hebrews of the little civil power, which Rome has left them. My request — I do not say my order — is, that you be more circumspect and moderate in your discourses in the future, and more considerate of the, lest your arouse the pride of your enemies, and they raise against you the stupid populace, and compel me to employ the instruments of law.” The Nazarene calmly replied: “Prince of the earth, your words proceed not from true wisdom. Say to the torrent to stop in the midst of the mountain-gorge: it will uproot the trees of the valley. The torrent will answer you that it obeys the laws of nature and the Creator. God alone knows whither flows the waters of the torrent. Verily I say unto you, before the rose of Sharon blossoms the blood of the just shall be spilt.” “Your blood shall not be spilt,” said I, with deep emotion: “You are more precious in my estimation on account of your wisdom than all the turbulent and proud Pharisees who abuse the freedom granted them by the Romans. They conspire against Caesar, and convert his bounty into fear; impressing the unlearned that Caesar is a tyrant and seeks their ruin. Insolent wretches! They are not aware that the wolf of the Tiber sometimes clothes himself with the skin of the sheep to accomplish his wicked designs. I will protect you against them. My Praetorium shall be an asylum, sacred both day and night.”
“THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOKS OF THE PROPHETS MUST BE
ACCOMPLISHED.”
Jesus carelessly shook his head, and said with a grave and divine smile: “When the day shall come there will be no asylums for the son of man, neither in the earth nor under the earth. The asylum of the just is there,” pointed to the heavens. “That which is written in the books of the prophets must be accomplished.” “Young man,” I answered mildly, “You will oblige me to convert my requests into an order. The safety of the province which has been confided to my care requires it. You must observe more moderation in your discourses. Do not infringe my order. You know the consequences. May happiness
ttend you. Farewell.”
“I COME NOT TO BRING WAR INTO THE WORLD, BUT PEACE, LOVE AND CHARITY.”
“Prince of the earth,” replied Jesus, “I come not to bring war into the world, but peace, love, and charity. I was born the same day on which Augustus Caesar gave peace to the Roman world. Persecutions proceed not from me. I expect it from others, and will meet it in obedience to the will of my Father, who has shown me the way. Restrain, therefore, your worldly prudence. It is not in your power to arrest the victim at the foot of the tabernacle of expiation.” So saying, he disappeared like a bright shadow behind the curtains of the basilica — to my great relief, for I felt a heavy burden on me, of which I could not relieve myself while in his presence.
JESUS APPEARED TO BE ONE OF THOSE GREAT PHILOSOPHERS THAT GREAT
NATIONS SOMETIMES PRODUCE
To Herod, who then reigned in Galilee, the enemies of Jesus addressed themselves, to wreak their vengeance on the Nazarene. Had Herod consulted his own inclinations, he would have ordered Jesus immediately be put to death; but, though proud of his royal dignity, yet he hesitated to commit an act that might lessen his influence with the Senate, or like me, was afraid of Jesus. But it would never do for a Roman officer to be scared by a Jew. Previously to this, Herod called on me at the Praetorium, and, on rising to take leave, after some trifling conversation asked me what was my opinion concerning the Nazarene. I replied that Jesus appeared to me to be one of those great philosophers that great nations sometimes produced; that his doctrines were by no means sacrilegious, and that the intentions of Rome were to leave him to freedom of speech, which was justified by his actions. Herod smiled maliciously, and, saluting me with ironical respect, departed.
CLAMORING FOR THE DEATH OF THE NAZARENE
The great feast of the Jews was approaching, and the intention was to avail themselves of the popular exultation, which always manifests itself at the solemnities of the Passover. The city was overflowing with a tumultuous populace, clamoring for the death of the Nazarene. My emissaries informed me that the treasure of the temple had been employed in bribing the people. The danger was pressing. A Roman Centurion had been insulted. I wrote to the Prefect of Syria for a hundred foot soldiers and as many cavalry. He declined. I saw myself alone with a handful of veterans in the midst of a rebellious city, too weak to suppress an uprising, and having no choice left but to tolerate it. They had seized upon Jesus, and the seditious rabble, although they had nothing to fear from the Praetorium, believing, as their leaders had told them, that I winked at their sedition, continued vociferating; “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Three powerful parties had combined together at that time against Jesus. First, the Herodians and Sadducees, whose seditious conduct seemed to have proceeded from double motives; they hated the Nazarene and were impatient of the Roman yoke. They never forgave me for having entered the holy city with banners that bore the image of the Roman emperor; and although in this instance I had committed a fatal error, yet the sacrilege did not appear less heinous in their eyes. Another grievance also rankled in their bosoms. I had proposed to employ a part of the treasure of the temple in erecting edifices for public use. My proposal was scorned. The Pharisees were the avowed enemies of Jesus. They cared not for the government. They bore with bitterness the severe reprimands which the Nazarene for three years had been continually giving them wherever he went. Timid and too weak to act by themselves, they had embraced the quarrels of the Herodians and the Sadducees. Beside these three parties, I had to contend against the reckless and profligate populace, always ready to join a sedition, and to profit by the disorder and confusion that resulted therefrom.
CONDEMNED TO DEATH
Jesus was dragged before the High Priest and condemned to death. It was then that the High Priest, Caiaphas, performed a divisory act of submission. He sent his prisoner to me to confirm his condemnation and secure his execution. I answered him that, as Jesus was a Galilean, the affair came under Herod’s jurisdiction, and ordered his to be sent thither. The wily Tetrarch professed humility, and protesting his deference to the lieutenant of Caesar, he committed the fate of the man to my hands. Soon my palace assumed the aspect of a besieged citadel. Every moment increased the number of malcontents. Jerusalem was inundated with crowds from the mountains of Nazareth. All Judo appeared to be pouring into the city.
“BEWARE, BEWARE, AND TOUCH NOT THAT MAN; FOR HE IS HOLY.”
I had taken a wife from among the Gaels, who pretended to see into futurity. Weeping and throwing herself at my feet she said to me: “Beware, Beware, and touch not that man; for he is holy. Last night I saw him in a vision. He was walking on the waters; he was flying on the wings of the wind. He spoke to the tempest and to the fishes of the lake; all were obedient to him. Behold, the torrent of Mount Heron flows with blood, the statues of Caesar are filled with lemonade; the columns of the interim have given away and the sun is veiled in mourning like a vestal in the tomb. Ah! Pilate, evil awaits thee. It thou wilt not listen to the vows of thy wife, dread the curse of a Roman Senate; dread the frowns of Caesar.” By this time the marble stair groaned under the weight of the multitude. The Nazarene was brought back to me. I proceeded to the halls of justice, followed by my guard, and asked the people in a severe tone what they demanded. “The death of the Nazarene,” was the reply. “For what crime?” “He has blasphemed; he has prophesied the ruin of the temple; he calls himself the Son of God; the Messiah, the King of the Jews.” “Roman justice,” said I; “punishes not such offenses with death.”
“CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!”
“Crucify him! Crucify him!” cried the relentless rabble. The vociferations of the infuriated mob shook the palace to its foundations. There was but one who appeared to be calm in the midst of the vast multitude; it was the Nazarene. After many fruitless attempts to protect him from the fury of his merciless prosecutors, I adopted a measure, which at the moment appeared to me to be the only one that could save his life. I proposed, as it was their custom to deliver a prisoner on such occasions, to release Jesus and let him go free, that he might be the scapegoat, as they called it; but they said Jesus must be crucified. I then spoke to them of the inconsistency of their course as being incompatible with their laws, showing that no criminal judge could pass sentence on a criminal unless he had fasted one whole day; and that the sentence must have the consent of the Sanhedrin, and the signature of the president of that court; that no criminal could be executed on the same day his sentence was fixed, and the next day, on the day of his execution, the Sanhedrin was required to review the whole proceeding; also, according to their law, a man was stationed at the door of the court with a flag, and another a short way off on horseback to cry the name of the criminal and his crime, and names of his witnesses and to know if anyone could testify in his favor; and the prisoner on his way to execution had the right to turn back three times, and to plead any new thing in his favor. I urged all these pleas, hoping they might awe them into subjection; but they still cried, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
I THEN CALLED FOR A BASIN, AND WASHED MY HANDS
I then ordered Jesus to be scourged, hoping this might satisfy them; but it only increased their fury. I then called for a basin, and washed my hands in the presence of the clamorous multitude, thus testifying that in my judgment Jesus of Nazareth had done nothing deserving of death; but in vain. It was his life these wretches thirsted for. Often in our civil commotions have I witnessed the furious anger of the multitude, but nothing could be compared to what I witnessed on this occasion. It might have been truly said that all the phantoms of the infernal regions had assembled at Jerusalem. The crowd appeared not to walk, but to be borne off and whirled as a vortex, rolling along in living waves from the portals of the Praetorium even into Mount Zion, with howling screams, shrieks, and vociferations such as were never heard in the seditions of the Pannonia, or in the tumults of the forum. By degrees the day darkened like a winter’s twilight, such as had been at the death of the great Julius Caesar. It was likewise the Ides of March. I, the continued governor of a rebellious province, was leaning against a column of my basilic, contemplating athwart the dreary gloom these fiends of Tartarus dragging to execution the innocent Nazarene. All around me was deserted. Jerusalem had vomited forth her indwellers through the funeral gate that leads of Gemonica. An air of desolation and sadness enveloped me. My guards had joined the cavalry, and the centurion, with a display of power, was endeavoring to keep order. I was left alone, and my breaking heart admonished me that what was passing at that moment appertained rather to the history of the gods than that of men. A loud clamour was heard proceeding from Golgotha, which, borne on the winds, seemed to announce an agony such as was never heard by mortal ears. Dark clouds lowered over the pinnacle of the temple, and setting over city covered it as with a veil. So dreadful were the signs that men saw both in the heavens and on the earth that Dionysius the Areopagite is reported to have exclaimed: “Either the author of nature is suffering or the universe is falling apart.” Whilst these appalling scenes of nature were transpiring, there was a dreadful earthquake in lower Egypt, which filled everybody with fear, and scared the superstitious Jews almost to death. It is said Balthasar, an aged and learned Jew of Antioch, was found dead after the excitement was over. Whether he died from alarm or grief is not known. He was a strong friend of the Nazarene.
THE SACRIFICE WAS CONSUMMATED
Near the first hour of the night I threw my mantle around me, and went into the city toward the gates of Golgotha. The sacrifice was consummated. The crowd was returning home, still agitated, it is true, but gloomy, taciturn, and desperate. What they had witnessed had stricken them with terror and remorse. I also saw my little Roman cohorts pass by mournfully, the standard-bearer having veiled his eagle in token of grief, and I overheard some of the Jewish soldiers murmuring strange words, which I did not understand. Others were recounting miracles very like those, which have so often smitten the Romans by the will of the gods. Sometimes groups of men and women would halt, then, looking back toward Mount Calvary, would remain motionless in expectation of witnessing some new prodigy.
THEY ALL SLUNK OFF LIKE COWARDLY CURS
I returned to the Praetorium, sad and pensive. On ascending the stairs, the steps of which were still stained with blood of the
Nazarene, I perceived an old man in a suppliant posture, and behind him several Romans in tears. He threw himself at my feet and wept most bitterly. It is painful to see an old man weep, and my heart being already overcharged with grief, we though strangers, wept together. And in truth it seemed that the tears lay very shallow that day with many whom I perceived in the vast concourse of people. I never witnessed such an extreme revulsion of feeling. Those who betrayed and sold him, those who testified against him, those who cried, “Crucify him! We have his blood,” all slunk off like cowardly curs, and washed their teeth with vinegar. As I am told that Jesus taught a resurrection and a separation after death, if such be the fact, I am sure it commenced in this vast crowd. “Father,” said I to him, after gaining control of my feelings, “who are you, and what is your request?”
PERMISSION TO BURY JESUS OF NAZARETH
“I am Joseph of Arimathaea,” replied he, “and am come to beg of you upon my knees the permission to bury Jesus of Nazareth.” “Your prayer is granted,” said I to him, and at the same time I ordered Manlius to take some soldiers with him to superintend the interment, lest it should be profaned. A few days after the sepulchre was found empty. His disciples proclaimed all over the country that Jesus had risen from the dead, as he had foretold. This created more excitement even than the crucifixion. As to its truth I cannot say for certain, but I have made some investigation of the matter; so you can examine for yourself and see if I am in fault, as Herod represents.
Joseph buried Jesus in his own tomb. Whether he contemplated his resurrection or calculated to cut him another, I cannot tell. The day after he was buried one of the priests came to the Praetorium and said they were apprehensive that his disciples intended to steal the body of Jesus and hide it, and then make it appear that he had risen from the dead, as he had foretold, and of which they were perfectly convinced. I sent him to the captain of the royal guard (Malcus) to tell him to take the Jewish soldiers, place as many around the sepulchre as were needed; then if anything should happen they could blame themselves, and not the Romans.
When the great excitement arose about the sepulchre being found empty, I felt a deeper solicitude than ever. I sent for Malcus, who told me he had placed his lieutenant, Ben Isham, with one hundred soldiers, around the sepulchre. He told me that Isham and the soldiers were very much alarmed at what had occurred there that morning. I sent for this man Isham, who related to me, as near as I can recollect, the following circumstances: he said that at about the beginning of the fourth watch they saw a soft and beautiful light over the sepulchre. He at first thought the women had come to enbalm the body of Jesus, as was their custom, but he could not see how they had gotten through the guards. While these thoughts were passing through his mind, behold the whole place was lighted up, and there seemed to be crowds of the dead in their grave clothes. All seemed to be shouting and filled with ecstasy, while all around and above was the most beautiful music he had ever heard; and the whole air seemed to be full of voices praising God. At this time there seemed to be a reeling and swimming of the earth, so that he turned so sick and faint that he could not stand on his feet. He said the earth seemed to swim from under him, and his senses left him, so that he knew not what did occur. I asked him in what condition he was when he came to himself. He said he was lying on the ground with his face down. I asked him if he could not have been mistaken as to the light. Was it not day that was coming in the East? He said at first he thought of that, but at a stone’s cast it was exceedingly dark; and then he remembered it was too early for day. I asked him if his dizziness might not have come from being wakened up and getting up too suddenly, as it sometimes had that effect. He said he was not, and had not been asleep all night, as the penalty was death for him to sleep on duty. He said he had let some of the soldiers sleep at a time. Some were asleep then. I asked him how long the scene lasted. He said he did not know, but he thought nearly an hour. He said it was hid by the light of day. I asked him if he went to the sepulchre after he had come to himself. He said no, because he was afraid; that just as soon as relief came they all went to their quarters. I asked him if he had been questioned by the priests. He said he had. They wanted him to say it was an earthquake, and that they were asleep, and offered him money to say that the disciples came and stole Jesus, but he saw no disciples; he did not know that the body was gone until he was told. I asked him what was the private opinion of those priests he had conversed with. He said that some of them thought that Jesus was no man; that he was not a human being; that he was not the son of Mary; that he was not the same that was said to be born of the Virgin in Bethlehem; that the same person had been on earth before with Abraham and Lot, and at many times and places.
It seems to me that if the Jewish theory be true, these conclusions are correct, for they are in accord with this man’s life, as is known and testified by both friends and foes, for the elements were no more in his hands than the clay in the hands of the potter. He could convert water into wine; he could change death into life, disease into health; he could calm the seas, still the storms, and call up fish with a silver coin in its mouth. Now, I say, if he could do all these things, which he did, and many more, as the Jews all testify, and it was doing these things that created this enmity against him — he was not charged with criminal offenses, nor was he charged with violating any law, nor of wronging any individual in person, and all these facts are known to thousands, as well by his foes as by his friends — I am almost ready to say, as did Manlius at the cross: “Truly this was the Son of God.” Now noble Sovereign, this is as near the facts in the case as I can arrive at, and I have taken pains to make the statement very full, so that you may judge of my conduct upon the whole, as I hear that Antipater has said many hard things of me in this matter.
With the promise of faithfulness and good wishes to my noble
Sovereign, I am your most obedient servant, Pontius Pilate.
END
13 John Sandusky // Jan 16, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I suspect PILATE’S LETTER TO TIBERIUS CAESAR is as reliable as Ellen White’s many visions.
14 David Yeagley // Jan 16, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Mr. Sandusky (GMS), you yourself have earned the reputation on Bad Eagle as being an unusual fraud and dishonest pretender yourself, so, what you say now about anything is quite irrelevant and unworthy. Naturally, you miss the point, make another one falsely, and otherwise confruse matters.
However, I tend to agree without about the tedious Pilate letter!
This whole matter is speculative. I surmised it was less than wise of me to expose this obscure and unimporant remark of Ellen White. As I recall the article Phil and I looked at, the pictures (of paintings) offered in the article were printed in black and white. This detail I can’t remember exactly. Memory can play tricks.
Christ did not in fact say He was not the son of David. He asked why David would call Him “my Lord,” if He was. The issue there was about His divinity, not his incarnation.
Mr. “Sandusky”, if you do not believe Jesus was flesh, the “seed of Abraham,” as is it written in Hebrews 2:14, 15, then you are in fact anitchrist, and a deceiver, as written in 1 John 4:3, 2 John 7.
Christ’s human body was either Davidic, or Cohen.
The Ellen White issue is not pertinent here at all, except as an introduction of the idea that Jesus had reddish-blonde hair.
15 David Yeagley // Jan 16, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Again, on the matter of Christ’s appearance, Isaiah says He was not fancy to look at. He was not attractive. He was not handsome.
All the artistic renditions seem to emphasize the best-looking face possible. They are trying to depict kindness, warmth, love, etc., These things are indeed attractive.
But, then, our real issue here is the imagination. We haven’t seen Jesus. How should we imagine him? The imagination tends to beautify, perfect, idealize, etc. This is what’s going on in the artistic renditions–subjective and culturally specific as they are.
16 David Yeagley // Jan 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm
The internet has over a million photos connected with “Jesus Christ.” I have looked through 1,000 of them. There are depictions of a red-headed Christ in early Byzantium (early medieval) painting. I had not noted this before.
17 David Yeagley // Jan 16, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Thras, can you supply a link to the apochryphal Pilate account? I’d like a date. I note it says “golden colored” hair as a contrast to the dark hair of the “Jews.” The letter is more anti-semitic than anything else. Of course, that’s not the point, but the context.
18 David Yeagley // Jan 16, 2010 at 7:16 pm
On the matter of long hair, Sandusky, your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.
Paul was a compulsive Jew, who, despite and perhaps on account of his message that Gentiles should not become Jews, was constantly practicing the most intense Jewish orthodoxy, even after his conversion. (Cf. Act. 21:24.) He shaved his head every time he went to Jerusalem. Why? He was ‘defiled’ by association with the Gentiles. That was the tradition.
I certainly don’t fault him for his personal preferences. But, if you are going to sanctify opinion, then, on the basis of Paul, you’d have to anathematize all women who speak in church, in any capacity.
19 zephyr // Jan 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm
GMS should also read up on the Nazirite vow–those who followed it were considered especially dedicated to the Lord, and a razor never touched their heads (Num 6.5, Judg 13.5).
20 John Sandusky // Jan 16, 2010 at 10:47 pm
“Christ did not in fact say He was not the son of David. He asked why David would call Him “my Lord,” if He was. The issue there was about His divinity, not his incarnation.”
That’s your interpretation; what Christ said is crystal clear. So clear that it stunned and silenced some of the best Jewish minds of the time. I take the words of Christ over any of the apostles.
“Mr. “Sandusky”, if you do not believe Jesus was flesh, the “seed of Abraham,” as is it written in Hebrews 2:14, 15, then you are in fact anitchrist, and a deceiver, as written in 1 John 4:3, 2 John 7.”
I suggest you learn what John meant by the antiChrist. AntiChrist has nothing to do with the belief that Christ said he not the son of David.
2 John 7 For many seducers have gone out into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is a seducer and an antichrist.
The meaning of this Scripture is simple: antiChrist are those that don’t believe Christ was the Savior of mankind.
“On the matter of long hair, Sandusky, your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.”
Again, common sense would tell a person that if Christ had long hair, Paul would not have said what he said. It is your arrogance and ignorance that is on parade here, not mine.
“The internet has over a million photos connected with “Jesus Christ.” I have looked through 1,000 of them. There are depictions of a red-headed Christ in early Byzantium (early medieval) painting. I had not noted this before.”
Who cares, so what? . . . the New Testament says nothing about Christ’s looks, so one must try to use knowledge of what was actually said in the New Testament and extrapolate. Are you saying the internet is more valuable than the New Testament?
“Paul was a compulsive Jew, who, despite and perhaps on account of his message that Gentiles should not become Jews, was constantly practicing the most intense Jewish orthodoxy, even after his conversion. (Cf. Act. 21:24.) He shaved his head every time he went to Jerusalem. Why? He was ‘defiled’ by association with the Gentiles. That was the tradition”
I suggest you actually read the Chapter and verse that you point out here. Are you talking about the same Paul that was close to being killed by the Jews for bringing Gentiles into the temple? The same Paul that was actually saved from being killed by angry Jews by Roman soldiers and centurions? The same Paul that was stoned by Jews for his thoughts on Gentiles and left for dead, but was lifted up by God.
Don’t make the mistake Doctor and think that I am not well versed in the New Testament. I read it and listen to it on tape, anywhere from a half hour to an hour a day.
21 John Sandusky // Jan 16, 2010 at 11:37 pm
More logical extrapolation from the New Testament with regard to what Christ looked like.
According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples . . . if Christ had red or blond hair, the identification from Judas would not have been necessary. . It is clear that Christ’s features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era.
It is also clear that since Jesus worked outdoors as a carpenter until he was about 30 years old, he was muscular and physically fit.
22 Thrasymachus // Jan 17, 2010 at 3:40 am
“Thras, can you supply a link to the apochryphal Pilate account? I’d like a date. I note it says “golden colored” hair as a contrast to the dark hair of the “Jews.” The letter is more anti-semitic than anything else. Of course, that’s not the point, but the context.” — David Yeagley
I have spoken to one student of History, and he says that many Historians think that Jesus may have been of European descent, rather than modern Ashkenazk Jewry. My point is, I was not there, I have no way of knowing! I make absolutely no claims one way or the other. The quote was found on a Christian Identity church website:
http://www.christianidentitychurch.net/pilate.htm
23 Thrasymachus // Jan 17, 2010 at 3:47 am
Although I’m not CI, here is one point they frequently raise: Abraham was promised to be the father of many nations, yet the modern Jews are only one nation: Israel. Christian Identity believers are convinced that the original people of the Bible were those who make up modern European nations, and that most (not all) modern Jews (Ashkenazi) are, as Benjamin Freedman claimed, of mixture with the Khazars. Since they (the Ashkenazim) are not racially pure, they are regarded as not accepted under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant (see Bible, Ezra Chapter 9, regardless of their origin).
One thing I do know: God told the Children of Israel not to commit mass miscegenation with their neighbors. This miscegenation is precisely the practice that took their arch-enemy, the Philistines, clear out of the picture and off the pages of history.
24 Thrasymachus // Jan 17, 2010 at 5:51 am
Christ HAD long hair: the Nazarene vow required that the hair NEVER be cut!
“The first information concerning the Nazarite vow is found in Numbers 6. The year is BC 1490, here Jehovah instructs Moses that he should tell the Israelites that when a man or woman separates themselves to Jehovah, it was to be called a Nazarite vow, and very strict rules were attached. During the time of this separation, no wine or strong drink was to be drunk, the hair was not to be cut, no dead body was to be touched.”
http://www.revelationsmessage.co.uk/Nazarite%20Vow.htm
25 Thrasymachus // Jan 17, 2010 at 7:06 am
“Of course, there really isn’t any point in the concern over His appearance. It obviously does not matter, spiritually.”
This is absolutely correct.
However, Jesus became a man, and it seems, for psychological reasons, that this is very important. God planned that his Son would be the God-Man. He shares our basic human nature, though He remains sinless.
So it is necessary, psychologically speaking, to picture him as a man, rather than the Absolute Being that is the Father. In this respect, Jesus’ words are important:
“John 14: 8 ¶ Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?”
26 David Yeagley // Jan 17, 2010 at 9:58 am
Well, it is evident that Mr. “John Sandusky” may be ignored. Never was such blasphemous insincerity and pretense effected on the internet, as well as arrogance and ignorance. Incredible, really. Perhaps there is some illness connected.
I suppose the reason I leave his intentionally erroneous remarks on these public threads is that, hopefully, objective viewers well understand my intent in patience and forebearance. He is insulting, presumptuous, and ever other odious element to be associated with complete pretense.
Can this possibly contribute to an understanding of scripture? Doubtful, indeed. But, perhaps we can consider it a lesson in the operations of perversion.
Now, everyone has the freedom to “interpret,” however, the trick is to be able to recognize when one is interpreting, and one is simply reading the text for what it apparently says.
It seems to me that “Sandusky” has blasphemed, and is antichrist, in that he has denied the human, genealogically connected flesh of Christ.
I do not know that this is the exact theological position of the Roman Catholic Church. I know that “Sandusky” is a complete manipulator (as abundantly evident on the Bad Eagle forums), and therefore cannot be trusted with regard to any claims he makes.
The Qur’anic position is that Jesus was born miraculously, but was not a literal son of Divinity. This is very much like “Sandusky’s” position. The Documents of Vatican II are explicit regarding the humanity of Jesus, even that He was “born of the Jewish people.” (index, “born a Jew”), and this would seem to necessitate a genealogical phenomenon inherent. Nevertheless, the Documents do not address this issue.
27 David Yeagley // Jan 17, 2010 at 9:59 am
Perhaps sincerity alone can safely guide thoughts. I despise lying. Pretense and manipulation are very close to lying.
28 Phyllis // Jan 17, 2010 at 11:40 am
Thrasymachus……the Pilate document fascinated me and I would wish that it were authentic, however I think it has been judged a fraud. What do you think? Also, it matters not to me what Christ looked like. That He was Who He was and Is….is all that matters.
29 Thrasymachus // Jan 17, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Phyllis,
I too am fascinated by it and would wish that it were authentic. I have not looked into the scholarly opinions on the subject.It is brilliantly written and gives words of Jesus that are in a more conversational mode, so to speak. These are certainly things I might expect Him to say to a man He allowed to be an earthly ruler.
I, for one, need some idea of what Jesus looked like. Every time I read the words of any author, I like first to get a clear picture, whoever it be. In days before the Internet I would read quotes, famous or otherwise, by famous authors and historical figures and not know the face with which to associate those words–a problem for me. I have great difficulty learning History without visual aids.
In the Bible, God told His people not to intermarry with the heathen nations. In fact, such intermarriage is now known to have been the undoing of the Philistines, who were the arch-enemies of the Biblical Israelites. Based on the Lamentations of Jeremiah and other passages in the Bible, I conclude that loss of nationhood thru intermarriage is one of God’s methods of eliminating a people He is not pleased with — it is a judgment of God.
30 David Yeagley // Jan 17, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Maybe this was lurking in my own mind. Maybe this is why I dealt with the red hair of Esau and David first, then remembered the comment of Ellen White on the paintings of Christ showed to her.
Red hair among the Jews is not indicative of anything but the fact that they are Shemites, descendents of Shem, of the general Caucasoid race.
I am still trying to ascertain that Adventist article my friend Phil and I saw and discussed together. I think Phil must be on vacation or something right now. Can’t get ahold of him.
31 John Sandusky // Jan 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm
The erroneous remarks on this thread are all yours Sir.
You are incapable of simple deduction, employ a perverse, self serving translation of the Scriptures and stoop to one of the worst sins known to Christendom . . . bearing false witness.
Christ made it clear that he was not the Son of David as does the Scripture.
Matthew 1:
Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. 3 And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. 4 And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. 5 And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse.
6 And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7 And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. 8 And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. 9 And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. 10 And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11 And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. 12 And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. 13 And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. 14 And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. 15 And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Read man! Think man! And stop lying about the meaning of my words. See how many generations passed after David before Christ was born. Christ is the Son of God and he makes it clear throughout his ministry.
You Sir are weak and inept when it comes to words of the New Testament.
32 Phyllis // Jan 17, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Dr. Y.
I have personally known red headed and light haired Jews. I remember reading one time red hair and freckles can be a mutation. When the vikings invaded Ireland more than a thousand years ago, I think the Celts were all dark haired and dark eyed….then as a result of the invasion the red hair and light eyes, and of course blonds were found among the Irish progeny.
King David was red haired….but who knows as to whether Jesus was light haired.
In a way, thinking of Jesus as a Jew and with Semitic features helps to quash the Aryan superiority mantra. Interesting to think about.
33 David Yeagley // Jan 17, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Sandusky, I hoped to have banned you from the forums. Perhaps I shall start deleting your posts from the frontpage now. You have proven yourself unworthy, as did your other artificial personality, GreetingsMySon. I regret you are not able to manage the integrity of your own soul. This is tragic, and I fear intentional.
34 David Yeagley // Jan 17, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Phyllis, I think maybe a point to be made is that, the Aryan supremacy bid, regarding a light-haired Christ, would be nullified if it were established that red hair is a Jewish original.
Something like that. As I said, historical depictions of Christ come in all colors! We simply don’t know. That one isolated and insignificant comment of Ellen White I simply found interesting, given this entire train of thought about red hair. It is, in fact, the only comment I’ve ever heard of where anyone claimed to have seen Him and identified a visual. Not that the painting necessarily looked anything like Him at all, but, only that it had light hair. Everyone knows about the white-haired Christ of Revelation. That’s something else.
35 Phyllis // Jan 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
I like that concept of nullification…excellent!
You must log in to post a comment.