Should We Substitute a Black Jesus for a White One? - A Brief Response

My post content

The Categorical Nature of the Prohibition

The fundamental error in exempting Jesus from the second commandment begins with a misunderstanding of how the Decalogue communicates. When the commandment against coveting mentions "ox" and "donkey" (Exodus 20:17), no reader imagines that only those who own oxen and donkeys are addressed. These terms are specific examples standing for the entire category of property, applying to every person in every economic context, past and present. Similarly, when the second commandment prohibits making a pesel (carved or graven image) or any tĕmûnâ (likeness), these terms function as examples of modes of art, not as limitations on the prohibition. The commandment addresses the making of images of deity or attributed as deity regardless of whether those images are carved, painted, drawn, or otherwise produced. To restrict the commandment to carved idols or graven images is to commit the same error as restricting coveting to oxen and donkeys.

The commandment's three verbs—‘āśâ (make), hištaḥăwâ (bow down), and ‘āḇaḏ (serve)—form an integrated prohibition. The making is prohibited because it initiates a causal chain that leads inevitably to bowing and serving, whether those acts are explicit or implicit. The making itself already participates in idolatry's dynamics, because it has its genesis in the human imagination—the faculty that conceives, forms, and projects images of God. When an artist paints Jesus, countless decisions are made: skin color, eye shape, expression, posture. These are not neutral transcriptions but imaginative constructions shaped by culture and unconscious bias. The resulting image attributes to Jesus features He didn’t historically possess, making a claim about the relationship between divinity and human identity.

The Incarnation Creates No Exception

The fact that God became visible in Jesus Christ doesn’t authorize human beings—in the absence of a biblical description—to reproduce that visibility according to their own imagination. The Incarnation was a unique, unrepeatable event in which God assumed particular human features at a particular time and place. Jesus was a first-century north African Jewish man. He wasn’t a Nordic European, despite centuries of depiction.

The error lies in assuming that because God became visible in one human form, we are free to represent God in any human form we choose. This isn’t incarnation but projection—a fictive egalitarianism that treats Jesus' actual appearance as unimportant. Europeans projected themselves onto Jesus, and that projection became globalized as normative. The error isn’t merely inaccuracy but idolatry: making and/or fashioning God in our own image. The same would be true in depicting Jesus as any race under the pretext of being remedial, for this simply repeats the oppressor's fundamental error. Solomon counseled, "Do not envy the oppressor, and choose none of his ways" (Proverbs 3:31).

The Psychological Mechanism: Unconscious Formation

The assumption that images of Jesus are neutral contradicts decisive psychological evidence. Classical conditioning operates whether acknowledged or not. When a White child sees Jesus depicted with White features in every Sabbath or Sunday school lesson, children's Bible, and church window, that child's psyche is conditioned to associate Whiteness with divinity. The pairing is repeated thousands of times over years of formation. The emotional power of worship—reverence, love, awe, gratitude—is repeatedly attached to White features.

The Implicit Association Test research (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) demonstrates that exposure to White Jesus increases anti-Black attitudes even among people who consciously affirm racial equality. The effect operates below conscious awareness, shaping perceptions in ways that contradict stated beliefs. One can be genuinely committed to equality while unconsciously associating Whiteness with goodness, authority, and beauty. This is the commandment's wisdom: images form us in ways we can’t control or fully recognize.

The Historical Fruits of the Practice

If images of Jesus were benign, history would demonstrate benign effects. Instead, the record is devastating. The European image of Jesus accompanied and legitimated the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, the transatlantic slave trade, and centuries of colonialism. It justified enslaving Africans, dispossessing indigenous peoples, and suppressing non-European cultures. Missionaries carried images of a White Christ alongside the guns of empire. As a projection of the White psyche the image didn’t prevent this violence; it informed and sanctified it.

The image wasn’t neutral; it was easily conscripted into violence because it already reflected the racial identity of the violent. A White Christ naturally served White interests. Would the Crusaders have marched under a Black Christ? Would slave traders have invoked a Black Jesus to bless their voyages? Would the Black Christ adorn the stain glass windows of ornate European cathedrals? The image mattered because it was not merely illustrative but formative.

The Objection Answered

The objection that "having a depiction doesn't mean worshipping it" rests on a reductionistic definition of worship confined to explicit bowing and serving. This misses the deeper significance of ‘āśâ (to make) and its relationship to imagination. The commandment does not begin with "do not bow" but with "do not make." The making precedes the bowing, and the making has its genesis in imagination.

The causal chain proceeds from imagination to making to attribution to formation. Imagination conceives an image; the artist makes it; the viewer attributes authority ("this is what Jesus looked like"); the attribution forms the psyche unconsciously. By the time one explicitly bows or serves, the idolatrous work is already accomplished. The commandment's sequence—do not make, do not bow, do not serve—is logically ordered. The making is prohibited because it is the necessary condition for bowing and serving, but also because the making itself already participates in idolatry's dynamics.

The Question of Remedial Images

The objection arises: "Surely Ethiopian depictions of a Black Jesus or Korean depictions of an Asian Jesus serve legitimate purposes for those communities?" This question assumes that remedial images escape the commandment's reach. They do not! Making Jesus in any race's image repeats the oppressor's fundamental error: projecting human categories onto the divine. The psychological mechanism operates identically. A Korean child conditioned to associate divinity with Asian features will form an historically inaccurate unconscious association between Asianness and goodness. The problem is not which race is depicted, but the fictive act of depicting deity itself. The commandment prohibits making, not merely making in one's own image. All such making participates in the dynamics the commandment forbids.

Conclusion

Any image made of Jesus participates in the dynamics the commandment prohibits. The making itself is the problem, not merely misuse. The imagination that conceives the image projects human categories onto the divine. The resulting image carries the cultural and racial assumptions of its makers. Those assumptions shape viewers at unconscious levels regardless of conscious theology. The evidence shows that cumulative effect across centuries has been deformation and violence.

The second commandment stands as a guardrail, calling us to worship the invisible God who cannot be captured in any human image. It frees us from the endless human project of making God in our own image and then bowing to what we have made. This is difficult teaching, but it is faithful teaching. The simple solution is obedience: stop making them.