Damn! Jesus had a BEARD! What do we do now?

by JanH 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • JanH
    JanH

    Questions from Readers (w68 5/12 p. 86-8)

    * When Jesus Christ was a man on earth, did he wear a beard?-K.A., U.S.A.

    Biblical evidence is the most reliable testimony to be found on this question, and a recent careful review of what it says indicates that Jesus did indeed have a beard.

    Jesus, born a Jew, "came to be under law" and he fulfilled the Law. (Gal. 4:4; Matt. 5:17) This was in order that he might pave the way for the abolishing of the Law and for release of the Jews from the curse of the Law, the condemnation of death that it brought against them. (Eph. 2:15; Gal. 3:13) Like all other Jews, Jesus was under obligation to keep the whole law. One of the commandments of the Law was: "You must not cut your side locks short around, and you must not destroy the extremity of your beard." (Lev. 19:27) God doubtless gave Israel this law because among some pagans it was the practice to cut the beard in a certain fashion in worship of their gods. (Jer. 9:26; 25:23) Nevertheless, that law did not mean that a beard was not to be well kept, for in the Near East a well-groomed beard was considered a symbol of dignity and respectability.-2 Sam. 19:24.

    During extreme grief, shame or humiliation, one might pluck hairs from his beard or leave the beard or the mustache untended. (Ezra 9:3) In several prophetic statements, the shaving off of the beard was used figuratively to illustrate great mourning because of calamity. (Isa. 7:20; 15:2; Jer. 48:37; Ezek. 5:1) Significantly, a prophecy concerning Jesus' suffering states: "My back I gave to the strikers, and my cheeks to those plucking off the hair." (Isa. 50:6) Hanun the king of Ammon grossly insulted the ambassadors kindly sent by David by cutting off half of their beards. Because of their great humiliation, David told these men to dwell in Jericho until their beards grew abundantly. This act of Hanun was, of course, aimed at David as an insult, and provoked war.-2 Sam. 10:1-8; 1 Chron. 19:1-7.

    Also, it was generally customary for men to wear beards, even before the law covenant was made. While the Hebrews did not make monuments with figures of themselves, many monuments and inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Mesopotamia and other Near-Eastern lands in which Assyrians, Babylonians and Canaanites are pictured with beards, and some representations dated as far back as the third millennium B.C.E. show beards of varying styles. Among the above-named peoples eunuchs were the only ones depicted as beardless. Often boys were made eunuchs so that later they could be used to care for the king's harem. (Matt. 19:12) This making eunuchs of men was not a practice in Israel, however, because the Law excluded eunuchs from the congregation of Israel. (Deut. 23:1) At the time Jesus was on earth, the Roman custom was beardlessness. Therefore, if Jesus had been beardless he might have been challenged as either a eunuch or a Roman.

    Men of ancient Semitic groups, as we have seen in our consideration of ancient monuments, wore beards, even prior to the time of the Mosaic law. Since a beard grows naturally on most men, it is reasonable to conclude that their forefathers also wore beards. Consequently, it seems evident that Noah, Enoch, Seth and Seth's father Adam were likewise bearded men.

    It is appropriate, however, to give consideration to arguments advanced to the effect that Jesus was beardless. This idea has been largely based on theories built up by certain archaeologists with regard to the so-called "Chalice of Antioch." This is a large silver beaker or cup within a silver framework shell of vines and figures of men. On one side of the cup is a boy, with five men facing him, and on the other side a young but more mature man, beardless, with five others facing him. All appear to be seated. The cup, supposedly found by some natives in Antioch of Syria, was acclaimed as being of the second half of the first century C.E., and therefore the earliest pictorial representation of Christ.

    However, an analysis of the facts now makes it evident that the figures on the cup have been identified according to the imagination of the individuals interpreting them. The boy is considered to be Jesus at the age of twelve and the other central figure is said to be Jesus, possibly after his resurrection, or, again, it may be John the Baptist. The other ten figures have been interpreted variously to be ten of the apostles; or the apostles and evangelists; or, on one side the four evangelists with James the son of Zebedee, and on the other side Peter, Saul, James, Jude and Andrew.

    There are serious objections made by many archaeologists to these identifications. Really it has been guesswork, and it is impossible to say what is represented by the figures. Some even doubt the authenticity of the cup, believing that it may be a forgery. Most, however, acknowledge it as an authentic discovery but give it a much later date, from the fourth to the sixth century. So it is very doubtful that the cup is an early representation of Christ, if, indeed, it was ended to portray Christ at all.-See The Biblical Archaeologist, December 1941 and February 1942.

    Bearing directly on the question is the fact that the early Christian writers, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and others, clearly indicate that no satisfactory record of the physical likeness of Jesus and the apostles existed in their time. Augustine, writing about 400 C.E. (De Trinitate, VIII, 4), said that each man had his own idea of Christ's appearance, and the concepts were infinite.

    Evidence from the Roman catacombs has been adduced to bear on the subject. In catacombs thought by some to date from the second century C.E., but by others as no earlier than the third century, pictures have been found. The unusually extensive catacomb called the Catacomb of Priscilla contains wall pictures, one of which is thought to portray the resurrection of Lazarus. It is almost obliterated and is very difficult to make out, but in the center there is a figure that has been taken to be Christ, depicted as a young beardless man. But in the catacombs apocryphal and false religious ideas are also plentifully represented. For example, in the Catacomb of Priscilla, and of about the same date, is a scene of the apocryphal Story of Susanna. A ceiling painting dated a little later contains a Madonna with child, with a star above her head. In the Crypts of Lucina a ceiling painting dated as the middle of the second century includes a little winged person, known as Erotes or Amoretti, which, on pagan tombs, represented departed souls. Therefore, it has become evident to us that the catacomb representations of Jesus are seriously questionable as to authenticity.

    It is true that, beginning with the fourth century, the majority of pictures show Christ and his apostles with beards, having emaciated, sad, weak and effeminate "monastic" countenances, usually with a pagan nimbus or halo. These are surely no true representations of the man Jesus Christ, of whom Pontius Pilate said: "Look! The man!" or of him who overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple, and drove their cattle out, neither of the apostles, who vigorously preached God's Word until it spread over all the Roman Empire. (John 19:1, 5; 2:14-17) No, these were strong, active and happy men, servants of the happy God Jehovah. (1 Tim. 1:11; 6:14, 15; Acts 20:35) The dreary religious pictures are products of the apostasy, which by the fourth century was in full bloom, pagan Emperor Constantine making a fusion of apostate Christianity with pagan religion the State religion.

    Nevertheless, as already shown, it is apparent that Jesus did wear a beard, and so artistic representations of him in future Watch Tower publications will harmonize with the Scriptural evidence to that effect.

    Doubtless the early Christians followed the custom of the time and locality in which they lived, with regard to the wearing of a beard. The Roman custom was beardlessness. Romans converted to Christianity would very likely continue in the Roman custom, while converts from the Jewish community would continue in the Jewish custom of wearing a beard.

    Today Christian ministers, like the early Christians, are concerned with neatness and cleanness, but they strive to dress inconspicuously, so that their appearance does not in any way detract from the dignity or the effectiveness of the message they bear. (2 Cor. 6:3, 4) In recent years in many lands a beard or long hair on a man attracts immediate notice and may, in the minds of the majority, classify such a person undesirably with extremists or as rebels against society. God's ministers want to avoid making any impression that would take attention away from their ministry or hinder anyone from listening to the truth. They know that people are watching true Christians very critically and that to a great extent they judge the entire congregation and the good news by the minister's appearance as a representative of the congregation.

    In paradise restored on earth it would not be out of order if men returned to wearing beards, in perfect fashion, like Adam in Eden.

    - Jan
    --
    Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I say to my mother, "There is no way to reconcile Christianity with treating a man differently, witholding portions of christian activity from someone, simply because he chooses to wear a neat, well groomed beard. Why would any reasonable man who had a beard, ever choose to become a witness, if he knew the extent of this psuedo doctrine?"

    She has no reply other than to say, "I don't understand it either."

    But from a company man's standpoint; "Jesus had a beard, what do we do now?" Whatever the hell the next guy up the line says we ought to. The buck stops there. The "buck" never makes it all the way to Jesus in the witness organization. Never.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Hey Jan!

    Why do all Norwegian men wear beards?

    It reminds them of their mothers!!! HoHoHo!

    Englishman.

    ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

  • Bendrr
    Bendrr

    I've always wondered the same thing about beards. How on earth has having a neat beard ever meant rebellion? I've never seen anyone in "the world" think twice about a beard.
    Now long hair I can understand. In the 20th century we all got far too repressed and a lot of great heads of hair got cut needlessly. It seems to be getting more acceptable though, thank god!
    The recent tv movie last year about Jesus was excellent. A LONG HAIRED AND BEARDED Jesus who didn't look like those awful middle ages pictures. Honestly, those middle ages pictures make him look like he's a crack head. No, this was one good looking dude.
    I'd be more likely to listen to an evangelizer with a beard and ponytail than some clean-cut clone.
    mike.

    Expect nothing and you will never be disappointed,

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    We went camping for a few days during the summer of 1988 when we were doing our research. I grew my beard out while we were gone. Upon return we bumped into a couple of elders in the grocery store. Boy did I get some funny looks.

    The beard has been there ever since. I'm an accountant and nobody in the business world gives a damn that I have it.

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Hi, JanH... and may you have peace!

    May I add that my Lord was not only under the Law Covenant which restricted the cutting of facial hair, but he was the TRUE 'Nazarite' in that 'no razor' could come upon his head at all?

    Some might find that hard to believe, in that John the Baptist was a Nazarite and did not drink wine ( Nazarite restriction), and yet, my Lord drank wine. Why?

    First, because one BECAME a Nazarite two different ways, and the 'law' applied a few different ways:

    1. One was a Nazarite because GOD made him one (Samson, John the Baptist), or

    2. One CHOSE to be Nazarite by means of a vow. My Lord was the latter ("I have come to do your will, oh JAH, in the scroll it was written about me...")

    Some were Nazarites their entire life; some took a vow for a specified period of time. Some took a vow, broke it, and had to start all over, but only had to fill the vow 'period' (1 year, 2 years, etc.) that they had vowed. The count just simply started over.

    Second, a most importantly, he drank to show the Pharisees the hypocrisy of their judging. He was a Nazarite by means of keeping the law ON HIS HEART and not by making an 'outward appearance' of keeping it, as they did (wearing scripture cases and long beards and long fringes, etc.). Big whoop! They LOOKED good on the OUTSIDE, but inside were 'full of dead men's bones'.

    Like the Pharisees who based 'spirituality' on what they could SEE... so, too, the folks of the WTBTS have been taught to do. They judge spirituality by what a person LOOKS like... not what is IN them (as if they knew anyway). They base their perception on meeting and convention attendance, field service, elder and ministerial servantship, pioneering, etc., and will deem a single mother with three or four kids who can barely get herself fed and dressed and so doesn't make all the meetings, as 'spiritually weak'.

    All while harboring and placing in positions of SPIRITUAL oversight men who molest children.

    Ah, the WTBTS. Can always see the 'straw'... but never the 'rafter'.

    Peace to you, JanH!

    A slave of Christ,

    SJ

  • JanH
    JanH
    May I add that my Lord was not only under the Law Covenant which restricted the cutting of facial hair, but he was the TRUE 'Nazarite' in that 'no razor' could come upon his head at all?


    Aren't you confusing and mixing two words here, SJ: nazarene and nazirite?

    - Jan
    --
    Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Hey, JanH...

    No, dear one, a 'Nazarene' is one who hails from Nazareth. That is an issue of geography or 'nationality'.

    A 'Nazarite', however, is a special people within a special people, who have taken certain vows to God, or been 'set aside' by Him under special vows. For some, their heads had to be initially shaved, as a 'sign' of their vow; for others, it could NOT be shaved, as a 'sign' of the vow.

    Matthew 2:23
    Numbers 6:2-21
    Judges 13:5-7
    Luke 18:37
    Luke 24:19

    Peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,

    SJ

  • JanH
    JanH

    SJ,

    I know very well the difference between the two. You, however, seems to be confused.

    I suggest you look up where the words nazarene and nazirite are used. Which are used in the NT texts? You seem to go on memory here, and that may not be entirely correct.

    There is no such a thing as nazarite; not in the translations I have here anyway.

    - Jan
    --
    Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Uh, JanH?? Did I miss something? If I did, I sincerely apologize!

    Forgive me if I misunderstood you and was required to refer only to one part of the Bible. Because you referred to the Law at Leviticus 19:27, which is stated in the Hebrew text, I, too went to the Hebrew text.

    Thus, with reference to the word 'Nazarite' then, the Hebrew word is 'nazir'... from the primitive root 'nazar'... and means 'consecrated, devoted, separated one'.

    The word 'Nazarene', however, is, in Greek, 'Nazoraios' ('nad-zo-rah-yos') and means 'an inhabitant of Nazareth'. Now, the town of Nazareth may very well have derived its name from a bunch of Nazarites residing there (who knows?), because the word 'Nazareth' ('nad-zar-reth' or 'nad-zar-ret') means 'the guarded one', but I wasn't trying to 'go there'. For all I know, its name could have been derived from its location.

    Uh, I also looked up your spelling... 'n-a-z-I-r-i-t-e'. I think it depends on which 'version' ones uses. For example, NKJV, NASB, RSV and ASV use 'Naz-I-rite'. However, the KJV, Webster's, Young's and Darby's uses 'Naz-A-rite'. And the HNV (Hebrew Names Version) simply says 'Nazir'. Since the word use is 'nazIr', but the primitive root 'nazAr', perhaps some felt it better to use one than the other.

    Personally, I don't think spelling is that much of an issue in this case (in truth, I didn't even know there WAS another spelling; I only knew of the 'position'). I simply pointed out a FACTUALITY... that of my Lord having long hair and a beard... in agreement with you. And, uh, that's all.

    Hmmmmm....

    Is there a 'problem', JanH?

    I bid you peace!

    Your servant, and a slave of Christ,

    SJ

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit