What explosive emotions have erupted when Megyn Kelly of Fox News declared that Jesus and Santa were white men. Let me focus on Jesus which will readily address the Santa nonsense.
Jesus was black.
No wait, Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew, so he was probably more olive-skinned, possibly browner, but definitely not black.
Of course, I am kidding, Jesus was Asian or Indian.
No matter what, I think we can at least agree that Jesus was not white with blond hair and blue eyes, but only because his hair was brownish and eyes were hazel.
In America — a country obsessed with race, privilege and oppression while being largely ignorant of other cultures’ historical narratives — it should come as no surprise that many believe the race of Jesus is just as, if not more important, than his message.
I will settle the question of Jesus’ ethnological make-up once and for all right now, as I have uncovered a divine truth: No one will ever know exactly what “race” Jesus was and arguing about it is pointless.
In America, we almost always see Jesus depicted as a white man because America has been majority white throughout its history. For many in the black Christian community, this has made Jesus less relatable.
When you take a look at the history of the Roman province of Judea in the periods surrounding Jesus’ life, you see a group struggling to assert itself and its identity in the face of imperial subjugation. From the Maccabees to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Hebrews fought with Rome constantly. Jesus as the suffering servant speaks to Black America: slavery, oppression, crucifixion/lynching, and a struggle for full citizenship and respect for its particular culture.
But image can mean everything and white Jesus sends a mixed message to certain people. The visage represents superiority and privilege, the history says struggle. But what if I told you that the Bible depicts Jesus as black? Not only that, his mother was from Africa. And there is evidence that the original Jews were black, not olive to brown skinned.
Suddenly, a black Jesus changes the narrative. It makes sense and speaks to the black community in a way a white Jesus never could.
Except black Jesus is as much a myth as white Jesus.
The history of the Middle East is the story of conquest, invasion, and migration. Wave after wave of peoples were pushed in and out of the area, from Africa to Asia to Europe, the region has been in flux since the dawn of recorded history. Pointing to a modern group or sub-culture as proof of Jesus’ true race is a fallacy. It assumes that if people living in a place look like this now, then they must have looked like that 2,000 years ago. We have paintings of Judeans from the time period, but that is as close as we can get to nailing down what Jesus looked like and that means little.
What we do know is that every culture and ethnicity adapts the image of Jesus to fit itself. This tradition goes back to Paul himself adapting Jesus message to the Gentiles, seeing more possibility in converting Romans than convincing the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Unsurprisingly, early Christian art found in Roman catacombs shows Jesus and other biblical figures as very Roman looking.
Proponents of either black or white Jesus may be shocked to travel to China and learn that many Chinese Christians believe God and Jesus to be Chinese. Such assimilation is the norm.
But many times the crusade to claim Jesus, as well as other historical figures, as one race or another is not concerned with unveiling the truth. It is usually about power, real or imagined.
By “proving” Jesus is one skin color or another, many people believe it discredits the history of another race while empowering their own. If Jesus were white, then God is white and favors Caucasians. On the other hand, proving He was black serves to affirm black aesthetics, culture and history. Furthermore, “authenticating” Jesus’ heritage can insinuate that one group is oppressing the truth in order to subvert history and a race of peoples.
We can point to historical examples of groups twisting Jesus’ heritage. In the 20th century alone we saw the Ku Klux Klan co-opt Jesus for religious justifications to oppress and lynch blacks. Nazi Germany actively pushed the idea of the Aryan Jesus, fabricating scholarship about Aryan colonies in Judea and such, in a direct attempt to de-Judaize Jesus.
Every insistence that Jesus is actually such and such ethnicity only serves to demean Christianity, obfuscate Jesus’ message, and create hate and bitterness.
We cannot definitively state the skin color or facial features of one particular person who was never described nor sat for a portrait or sculpture, and the Bible contains no first-hand descriptions of Jesus’ appearance. In fact, racial descriptions and depictions of Jesus did not begin to appear until centuries after his death. The key to understanding the irrelevance of Jesus’ race is right in front of us. If the writers of the Gospels found it unimportant to tell you exactly what Jesus looked like, then perhaps it does not matter.
What do the Gospels tell us? They tell us of the ministry of Jesus. His message to love all — friends, family, and even your enemies — to be forgiving; to act genuinely; and that God is not the wrathful, vengeful, and jealous God of the Old Testament, but a loving and kind Father.
These ideas are universal. They know no color, creed, or race. It is the love and honesty that Jesus preached that we must herald and strive to uphold. To get caught up in futile discussions of an unknowable and trivial tangent only serves to belittle ourselves and our brothers and sisters. The only race which Jesus belonged to that matters is the human race.
• Armstrong Williams is the author of the book “Reawakening Virtues.” Join him from 4-5 a.m. and 6-7 p.m. daily on Sirius/XM Power 128. Become a fan on Facebook and follow him on Twitter.