The hashtag, “HotJesus” went viral last week. It all had to do with the Son of God movie that was released to theaters and the physical appearance of actor Diogo Morgado who portrays Jesus. Apparently some people think Morgado is a good-looking guy and said so. That raised the issue of whether or not his physical good looks detracted from the message. On the other side people were saying as long as it gets people to the movie to hear the message, what does it matter. As you may have guessed I have some thoughts on the whole thing.
First this is not new that Jesus in movies is good-looking. In the early 60’s Jeffrey Hunter played Jesus in The King of Kings. He was a Hollywood Hunk at the time. In the 70’s it was Ted Neely in Jesus Christ SuperStar and more recently Jim Caviezel in The Passion of the Christ. Neither of them are ugly men. So why would we be surprised that the latest portrayal by Diogo Morgado is any different. It’s Hollywood. Unless you are a character actor who needs a certain look, chances are you are going to be above average in the good looks department. At least you will be once they make up and airbrush you enough.
Is there a reason to be concerned about the physical portrayal of Jesus? Does it really matter as long as people see the movie and hear the message? Clearly it does. In our overly sexualized culture some folks become way too focused on “HotJesus” and missed the point of the message. Certainly there will be people who go to see the movie because they heard about “HotJesus” and in spite of that they will get the message. But even still there is a reason to be cautious, even concerned with how we portray Jesus. First and foremost is that we have absolutely no description of what Jesus looked like. So any attempt on our part will be pure speculation that is heavily influenced by our own biases. Such portrayals can unintentionally say more about us than they do about Jesus while at the same time telling some people Jesus is not for you. The recent statement by a politician that “Jesus was white” only serves to show the danger. For the record Jesus was a middle eastern Jewish guy. Not exactly a candidate for a Western European Caucasian.
The one statement in Scripture that gives any hint to the physical appearance of the Messiah comes in Isaiah 53:2 which says,
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him
In other words, Jesus was very average looking. You wouldn’t pick him out of a crowd because of his looks, good or bad. I am convinced that was by God’s design. Jesus came into the world to be our representative on the Cross. In literary terms he came as an everyman character. He was someone we all could relate to so it would make sense for him to be average looking.
Being average looking was important for another reason. It meant that people were drawn to Jesus not by his physical good looks but by three other more important traits, his unconditional love, his authoritative teaching and his miraculous power. In his love for people Jesus reached out to the sinner and the rejected as well as the religious and social insiders. In all cases they experienced love and personal acceptance while at the same time being told that they were sinners in need of repentance. Jesus showed how to love people welcome them while rejecting their lifestyles and calling them to do the same. That is a skill woefully lacking and needed in today’s world. His teaching was done with such confidence and a sense of authority that when he spoke people marveled and debated and chewed on what he said. The Word of God has the effect. And finally when he healed people, cast out demons, turned water into wine, walked on water and raised the dead, people noticed and they marveled. At no point did his appearance become the topic of discussion. It was all about his message, his love and his power.
Where the follower of Christ must be concerned with portrayals of Jesus is that, as Marshall McLuhan said , “the medium is the message”. Whatever vehicle one uses to transmit a message will in some way impact the message itself. Radio impacts the message differently from television which is different from a movie which is different from Broadway which is different from a tweet. An ugly Jesus impacts the message differently from “HotJesus” which is different from average looking Jesus. If he came originally as an average looking man then maybe we should be more diligent to see him as such.
Maybe more importantly there is a lesson here on God’s command to not make any images of him. As soon as we make an image of God we confine God to something that cannot contain him and we run the risk of focusing on or even worshipping the image more than God. There is a lesson to be learned from both Islam and Judaism with their connections to Moses. They each forbid any human depiction that may be worshipped or which of necessity would be woefully inadequate, not to mention inappropriate, in its portrayal of deity. We will never get to that point with Jesus. That ship has sailed. There are more physical depictions of Jesus in art than you could ever count. But that should not keep us from continually moving the conversation away from what Jesus looked like to who Jesus was and is, God come in the flesh, crucified, buried, risen, ascended to the right hand of the Father,the only way of salvation, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and the one who is coming again.
Dan Lacich: Provocative Christian Living 
What a very EYE catching title to this blog post. It caught MY eye. I have read a few pieces about this too around the web. I think because it IS a movie, we need not worry if Jesus was sexy or not, it’s the story line & message of “HOPE”…..
I happen to be a member of “Faith Driven Consumer” and the same thing is being spread about the movie coming out of “NOAH” and how many say Hollywood has twisted the gospel around. We need to remember, These are JUST MOVIES PEOPLE, not perfection……Great Post! *Catherine* 🙂
Thanks Catherine. Appreciate you adding to the discussion on this. I am looking forward to the Noah movie just to see what they do with it.
I have heard they depicted Noah getting drunk, embarrassing his sons, in order to show his sinful side. My concern is they did not put it into perspective as the Bible teaches it, where he became drunken on the wine he produced, AFTER the flood. Many think this was not intentional but due to the changes in the environment after the flood. Noah was a preacher of righteousness and don’t like the idea of them putting him in the “same boat” so to speak, as the sinful and evil men of that day that God was going to destroy. My thought is, if Noah was devoted to God enough to receive instruction personally to build an ark, on dry land, to save man kind mind you, I don’t believe he was not going to get drunk and risk ruining his testimony or the possibility of others possibly being saved by believing the words God had said to him. I think before the flood he remained sober and it was event he was different from the lives being lived which were to be destroyed. As God said, he was a righteous man.
typo, “event” is actually “evident”, sorry-my fingers have minds of their own.
Thanks, Dan — I do often wonder what he looked like. The one thing that I believe was certain was that he was “buff” — as most men of their day must have been. If he was a carpenter, he was slinging logs, axes, saws, pounding (not to mention walking miles in a day). . . But that’s all I can imagine. Can’t wait to see him in person to see if my assumptions were correct!
I have mixed feelings about movies depicting biblical stories.
In general, they tend to stray from the biblical record and take artistic license. That’s just sort of the nature of movies.
For most books, I don’t mind the screenplay writer taking articistic licence in communicating the storyline of the book. However, it seems a bit cavalier to take the same approach with sacred scriptural texts…with God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.
On the other hand, I’m all for communicating the message of the gospel using the communication tools we have available. I fully realize that, for many people, the movies may be their first introduction to the gospel…which is pretty awesome if they catch the message…and pretty scary if they instead leave with a distorted message…
Of the biblical movies I’ve seen, my favorite was the movie “Matthew” which used the word-for-word biblical text (NIV) as the script for the screenplay.
Oh…and on the article’s question about the looks of the character playing Jesus…I guess I’m much more concerned about adequate communication of the biblical message, of which the appearance of the actor is but a small part.
No doubt about it- Jesus was the most beautiful human to have ever walked the earth. How (on earth) would you depict that? Look within his heart and the rest becomes media fodder….
Very much agree with you here, regardless of Jesus’ appearance what is important is the message that He brought, and what He did for us on the cross, and it is important that we focus on this more than His appearance.
Interesting read. I do think everything matters when trying to potray Jesus in movies. Of course, some things matter than others. I don’t think paying attention to his looks was a bad idea if it’s not done at the expense of something superior.
http://idivinewisdom.com
I think Jesus was portrayed as “handsome” for the American people. The Bible says he was nothing to be taken in…because it made it clear people were not just following after a beautiful face like people in Hollywood today. There was real power and authority in His teachings. As long as people don’t allow this to remove from the message I think there are worse things they could have changed.
Not a bad article, except a shame for the end you writing “But that should not keep us from continually moving the conversation away from what Jesus looked like to who Jesus was and is, God come in the flesh,” not accepting the Word of God (the Eternal Spirit being no man can see) Who clearly said that Jesus was His beloved son.
Man can not see God nor can do something to Him let stand kill God.
Jesus was seen by many and was really killed, buried, risen, and ascended to the right hand of like you seem to agree with, though still call Jesus also your god.
We only can hope you shall one day come to see that Jesus is the way to God (and not to himself) and the only way of salvation, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and the one who is coming again, to judge the living and the dead. In the meantime he is the High priest for God and the mediator between God and man.