Showing posts with label images. Show all posts
Showing posts with label images. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Top 15 Illustration Problems in Genesis 1–11

Top 15 Illustration Problems in Genesis 1–11

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, July 23, 2025 (Donate)

I want people to realize the Bible is true right from the start, so it is good to avoid mistakes in some of the artwork depicting the events of Genesis 1–11. From time-to-time, people write books or articles with illustrations on the early pages of Genesis. Oftentimes, I see illustrated Bibles, particularly children’s Bibles or books on Genesis, that make the same classic mistakes.

In fact, I’ve seen so many of these books that I decided to list the classic mistakes in the illustrations (and a few extra ones dealing with the text) in hopes that artists and authors can use this in the future to make their books more accurate and effective.

When I see some brilliant artwork with inaccuracies in the illustrations or text, I usually stop and sigh because I really wish the message was accurate so that as a ministry we can say, “Here is a good product you can use to train the next generation.”

But these errors creep in, often due to simply looking at someone else’s artwork with the same mistakes, and it subtly undermines the Bible right from the start. We want people to realize the Bible is true right from the start, so it is good to avoid common mistakes and correct some of the artwork depicting the events of Genesis 1–11—the foundational chapters of Scripture.

Here are some of the common problems I have found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis: 

1. The Globe Looks Like It Does Today: This Would Specifically Be Before The Flood In Genesis 6–8. The earth was destroyed and rearrangements on a continental scale resulted from the Flood. In light of Genesis 1:9, many believe there was only one continent originally. Though we should not be dogmatic on this position, we know the Flood caused vast changes, leaving us with the seven broken continents we have today (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 104:8–9).
This is the earth after the global Flood of Noah's Day. Before that it was different, thus one has some liberty on pre-Flood arrangements. Image from Presentation Library.

2. Leaving Open Evolutionary Ideas: There is no need to impose evolutionary ideas on the Bible. These ideas come from the religion of humanism, and it contradicts the Bible. Sadly, some artists do mix humanistic thinking [like astronomical evolution (big bang as in progressive creation), geological evolution (millions of years as in the gap theory or progressive creation), chemical evolution (chemical origin of life without God) or biological evolution (like theistic evolution)]. These things are usually placed prior to the first day of creation. But God created everything in six days (Exodus 20:11; 31:17), and the context shows these were normal-length days. There is no need to take secular ideas and force them into the Bible. This removes the Bible as the authority when it comes to the age of the earth. One common example is showing stars in the background in pictures showing the creation of earth—the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day Four, after the earth.
 
3. Not Including Extinct Creatures Like Dinosaurs On Day Six: Dinosaurs were land animals after all, so they were made on Day Six just before mankind (who were made later that same day). The same is true with land-based insects.
Dinosaurs were made on day 6 (being land animals); Image from Presentation Library.

Also, there should be pterosaurs, bats, and flying insects with all of the birds and sea creatures like the plesiosaurs on Day Five with the fish and whales.
 
4. Putting Modern Variations Of Animals In The Creation Scene: Zebras, Clydesdales, and donkeys are all part of the horse kind and came to look like they do today since the Flood and are all part of the one horse kind. Species and the biblical kind are not necessarily the same things. The original horse kind likely had features resembling each of these. They diversified into what we have today through natural selection in the wild and artificial selection by man and for man’s benefit. The same is true with the cat kind. 

Domestic cats, lions, bobcats, tigers, and so on, are all part of the one cat kind that has developed through variations since the Flood. It is better to draw generic representatives of each kind, such as the cats, horses, parrots, deer, and elephants (which includes mammoths and mastodons, Asian, African, and so on). The various animals and plants within a created kind could have been created with some variety, but the odds of that variety being identical with post-Flood variations are astronomical, nor does the Bible allude to this being the case. 

The fossils from the Flood do not attest to identical selection features within the kinds compared to what we have today. Though there may be some examples where little change has occurred in that particular kind, animals that have great variation, like mammals and reptiles, should not be drawn exactly like animals today. Likewise, a Triceratops doesn’t necessarily represent the Ceratopsian kind that God originally created. It is only one of many forms we find in the fossil record.
 
5. Drawing Adam And Eve With Very Light Skin And Blond Hair And Blue Eyes: Adam and Eve were likely middle brown, having the information for both darker skin (which is largely based on more melanin production in skin) and lighter skin (likewise, less melanin production in the skin). Thus, even in one generation they could have had children that were darker or lighter in skin shade.
Adam and Eve likely had middle brown skin tone (not blond hair and blue eyes) so that it was possible for all the various skin shades today. Image from Presentation Library.

The same sort of thing is likely true with Noah.
 
6. Making An Apple The Fruit: The fruit was real and came from a fruit tree named the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We don’t know what it looked like, but since it was “pleasant to the eyes,” it probably wasn’t too repulsive (Genesis 3:6.) But there is no reason to assume the fruit was an apple. As I’ve mentioned before, “The confusion of this fruit with the apple may be due to the similarity of the two words in the Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate. 

The word evil in the tree’s name in Latin is mali (Genesis 2:17). The word apple in other places is mala (Proverbs 25:11) or malum (Song of Solomon 2:3). It seems like this similarity may have led to the confusion. In the original Hebrew, the words are not even close. The word in Genesis 2:17 for evil is rah, while the word for apples in Proverbs 25:11 and Song of Solomon 2:3 is tappuwach. We do know that it was a real fruit, growing on a real tree, in real history—and the impact of the rebellious eating of that fruit is still felt acutely today by every single person (in fact, the whole creation).”[1]

7. Having A Serpent Without Some Form Of Upright Posture Or Appendages During The Deception: Genesis 3:1 Calls It A Serpent. Part of the Curse was that the serpent was to crawl on its belly. This may indicate that the Curse produced a snake or a serpent with shortened legs. So, it is better to have a serpent more upright prior to the Curse and lower (i.e., crawling on its belly) after the Curse.

8. Neglecting That God Sacrificed Animals To Cover Adam And Eve: This is the very basis for the gospel in Genesis 3. The punishment for sin was death (Genesis 2:17), so death was part of the solution. This sin-death relationship is why Jesus Christ stepped into history to die for our sins. God covered Adam and Eve with skins (Genesis 3:21) to replace the fig leaf coverings Adam and Eve tried to make for themselves. 

This is the basis for wearing clothing (to cover the shame of sin) and for the sacrificial systems that Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Job, and the Israelites followed. The sacrifice of animals was not good enough to satisfy God’s wrath upon sin. The punishment from an infinite and holy God is an infinite punishment. We needed Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is infinite, to pay the infinite punishment we deserve, and only He could truly bear the punishment and satisfy the wrath of God so that the free gift of salvation could be offered. 

The very basis for the gospel is found in this first sacrifice. Many illustrators or even children’s Bibles (and so on) neglect the Fall and even have Adam and Eve remaining in fig-leaf clothing. This needs to be remedied to accurately reflect life after the Fall and our need for a Savior.
 
9. When Illustrating Cain And Abel, We Often Get The Impression They Were The Only Two Kids Adam And Eve Had At The Time: First, Cain had a wife per Genesis 4:17 (i.e., a sister or niece—either way, brothers and sisters had to marry originally, and this was okay until after the Exodus with Moses giving the Law in Leviticus 18). Remember, Abraham married his half-sister, and Moses’ father (Amram) married his aunt (Jochebed). Genesis 5:4 indicates that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters after Seth. Since the Bible mentions a girl and two boys before Seth, as well as all those whom Cain feared in Genesis 4:14, there were surely several other children by the time Cain killed Abel.
 
10. Ark Looks Like A Bathtub With Happy Animals Sticking Out Of It: The Ark was a huge vessel measuring an overall 300 by 50 by 30 cubits. Depending on the long or short cubit, it was either about 450 feet long or about 510 feet long (a long/older cubit was a hand-breadth longer than the normal cubit, which was the measurement from a person’s fingertips to their elbow). The longer cubit of about 20.4 inches is more likely since most ancient structures in the Bible were built using the longer/royal cubit, like the Temple mentioned by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:5, 43:13). Animals were confined in rooms inside the Ark, and it wasn’t a happy time. God was judging sin and, except for the eight on the Ark, the whole world perished (2 Peter 3:6).
"Bathtub" arks would never float; Image from Presentation Library.

Noah probably had brothers and sisters die in the Flood (Genesis 5:30). The dimensions for the Ark give the total length, width, and height. Some picture it as a box shape, which is better than the bathtub look, but we need to keep in mind a Corvette’s dimensions can also be given as length, width, and height too, yet it is not a box. The Ark was a ship, so it should have features like a ship to help it survive the Flood, even though it did not have to navigate to any specific location. Removing square angles that can more easily be destroyed and having something to help direct it into the wind and waves for safety should be drawn to make it more realistic. The Bible doesn’t rule out this sort of design.
 
11. Not Including Dinosaurs And Pterodactyls (e.g., Dragons) On The Ark: According to Genesis 6:20, these animal kinds would have been on the Ark. It was after the Flood that these animals died off. It was for the same reasons all sorts of animals went extinct and continue to . . . sin! Specific reasons for the extinction of dinosaurs include being hunted, a changed environment, genetic problems, local catastrophic events, diseases, and so on (i.e., think of the reasons on the endangered species list). So, two of the sauropod kind, two of ceratopsian kind, and so on, should be included.

12. Putting Too Many Individuals Of A Kind On The Ark: We often see lions and tigers and other cats entering or exiting Noah’s Ark.[2] There is only one cat kind (cats can interbreed with each other), so Noah only took two cats on the Ark. Of course, they had the genetic information which can account for the cat variations we see today (as a result of various selection processes over time). The same with dogs—there is only one dog kind, so Noah only needed two dogs on the Ark, no dingoes, wolves, coyotes, and so on. The same goes for the bear kind, ceratopsian kind, sauropod kind, elephant kind, horse kind (p.s. Zebras are part of the horse kind—they are a variation of the horse that is post-Flood), and so on. Learn more about kinds here.
 
13. Tower Of Babel Being Rounded: It was likely a pyramid or a ziggurat (step pyramid) instead of rounded. The Hebrew word for tower here is migdal, which is most often translated as “tower,” figuratively means a “pyramidal” bed of flowers. 

Tower was likely ziggurat in shape; Image from Presentation Library.

A ziggurat-style shape makes sense since this is the same style building project people took with them to other places around the world after fleeing from Babel. Pyramids are a specified type of ziggurat. Even historical accounts like that of Herodotus (an old Greek historian in the 5th century BC who saw a later iteration of the Tower of Babel before it was torn down) described it as a ziggurat.[3] There is also an archaeological artifact, the Tower of Babel stele, which has Nebuchadnezzar and the old run-down Tower of Babel engraved on it, and the tower is a ziggurat shape.
 
14. Tower Of Babel Reaches So High Into The Atmosphere That Its Top Is Covered With High Cirrus Clouds: It was a tower whose “top was in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4), but this does not mean it reached to space or the high stratosphere. Some of the 30 or so ziggurats that still remain in the Mesopotamian area have names that reflect something similar: Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven (Sippar) and the Temple which Links Heaven and Earth (Larsa), yet these towers do not reach up into the stratosphere. It simply meant that it reached far higher than the rest of the structures around it.

15. The Tower Being Only Partially Built (i.e., A Foundation): The Tower was built, according to Genesis 11:5 by most translations; it was the city that they stopped building (Genesis 11:8.) This has often been a point of confusion for many. Some have thought that the Hebrew wording doesn’t mean it was built, but the word for built/building is banah/baanuw and is used in a perfect tense meaning complete, e.g., perhaps some finishing touches were necessary. This could be complete up to a certain point (at the time of judgment) to serve the purpose if its final intent by keeping people from scattering. 

It is the context that should determine this. Many point to verse 8, but this only helps with the meaning regarding the state of the city, not the Tower. We can be confident that for the most part it was complete (e.g., the Tower was not a merely a foundation). If one argued that the Tower was not built to any significant degree, then one would have to argue that hosts of structures in the Old Testament were also not built, such as the Temple (e.g., 1 Kings 10:4), many houses (e.g., 1 Kings 9:24), many cities (e.g., Numbers 32:37-38), and so on since they all use this same Hebrew word in a perfect tense.[4] 

Furthermore, banah is used not just in reference to the Tower but also to the city in verse 5. If we were to argue the tower was not built, then we would have to argue that the city was not built to any degree either.[5]

Here are a couple more helpful guidelines that can be useful when dealing with the text in an illustrated Bible.
 
Not Using Biblical Dates: Why use secular timeframes instead of biblical timeframes when publishing a Bible? For example, don’t use BCE and CE; use BC and AD to honor Jesus as the focal point of history. Also, use biblical dates from a respected chronology like Ussher or Jones, not questionable dates that come from faulty assumptions like secular mythology or radiometric dates that are repeatedly in error. Stick to the biblical age of the earth and dates given in the Bible.

Calling The Accounts “Stories”: Although “story” does not necessarily imply myth or fairy tale, it is becoming more popular for people to use it in reference to fairy tales in today’s culture (e.g., Cinderella, Shrek, and so on). Bible authors did not view the Bible’s recorded history as fairy tales but as actual history—accurate accounts of what took place. Hence, it is better to say “account”, “history”, “what occurred in the past”, etc.
 
Don’t Paraphrase The Bible—Use A Respectable Translation: What often happens is that people want to “dumb down” or truncate the text for children, but this often introduces errors from the author—it can happen to all of us. People can understand more than many might think, including children.

Placing The Garden Of Eden Based On Post-Flood Geography: Many try to put the Garden of Eden in the Middle East, in Iraq. However, the Flood destroyed the Garden of Eden, and the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were later merely named for these pre-Flood rivers. The geography doesn’t match—direction of flow, etc. There was one river in Eden that broke into four headwaters, so these modern rivers cannot be the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2.

The Garden of Eden was not located here; It was destroyed in the Flood and this is now post-Flood features; The names Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were transferred forward to the new world. Image from Presentation Library.

Hopefully, these will help get you started as you evaluate teaching materials or seek to develop your own. But keep in mind there may be other mistakes, and all these must be checked against the text of Scripture—the authority when it comes to these matters. 


Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.



[1] Bodie Hodge, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2025/07/was-forbidden-fruit-apple.html.

[2] When animals came off the Ark, they came off by their “families” (Genesis 8:19), so it is possible some animals had offspring while aboard the year-long trip on the Ark. But this doesn’t mean we should have full-grown bobcats, lions, tigers, and so on coming off in great quantities from the cat kind.

[3] Herodotus, The Histories, Book 1.181, ed. John Marincola, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt in 1954, Penguin Books, 1996, pp. 71-72.

[4] The LXX added the word tower to Genesis 11:8 in their translation without biblical warrant, and this has likely been the main reason some still think the Tower was partially built. The LXX is good in many places, but is not known as a good translation in Genesis, messing up the ages of the patriarchs [e.g., Noah’s grandfather Methuselah would be living over a decade after the Flood without being on the Ark; mistranslates “sons” as angels in Genesis 6:2 (6:3 by the LXX’s reckoning); mixing the Greek philosophy of the day by having a solid dome to translate expanse (raqiya) as something solid and firm, and so on]. So by sticking with the Masoretic text (standard Hebrew text), there is no reason to assume the Tower is in reference to what was “ceased to be built.” Also, can large structures be built quickly? About 800 years ago, Richard the Lionheart and his men, while in France, built a huge castle fortress in the course of about one year. Its impressive remains still stand today and is called the Chateau Gaillard above the River Seine in Normandy, France. A determined group of people can perform enormous feats quickly, and the people in Genesis 11:1–4 were indeed determined.

[5] One may argue that Genesis 11:6 (“and this is what they begin to do”) is in reference to the tower being built. But it makes more sense that the Lord is making this declaration to their sinful intention of defying His Word where he told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth after the Flood in Genesis 9:1 and 9:7. Also, the oldest recorded image thought to be of the Tower of Babel is an inscribed stele with Nebuchadnezzar II and the image shows a virtually complete Tower. See Rossella Lorenzi, “Ancient Texts Part of Earliest Known Documents,” Discovery News, December 27, 2011, http://news.discovery.com/history/tower-of-babel-111227.html.

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Images of Jesus

 

Did Jesus Look Like The Pictures We Often See?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 20, 2020 (Donate)

Introduction

In our culture and cultures around the world, images of Jesus abound. What did Jesus look like—in other words, are the images we often see remotely close to what Jesus may have looked like when He became a man?

As one who rarely, if ever, uses images of Christ in my writing and speaking, I can’t write this without utilizing images of Jesus both present and past. The reason is simply that I have little choice but to show images when discussing this very delicate topic of “images of Christ”. Please don’t worship these images, but worship God in heaven in spirit and in truth. But I ask for a little grace on this since I am trying to educate readers on this subject.

Jesus from the Old Testament to the Cross

In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, Jesus, the “Anointed One” or Messiah/Mashiach (e.g., Daniel 9:26; “Christ” in Greek), is prophetically described. In His humanity, He was apparently not given to any attractive or beautiful form that we should look to Him. He had no noble rank or majesty by which would we would desire Him.  

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53:2-3, NASB) 

This should automatically be a red flag to the many movies and images of Jesus that have him have a great looking gent! He was likely an ordinary looking man with ordinary form and average, yet modest, clothes for ancient Israel.  

Naturally, Christ was marred and disfigured beyond human recognition at the Cross (Isaiah 52:14). After staying up all night praying, sweating blood in anguish, being tried by the Romans and Jews back and forth all night and then finally undergoing a beating by Roman soldiers, much of His fleshly form was destroyed. 

The Jews would administer no more than 40 lashes minus 1 in keeping with the Law. However, Roman did not honor the Law of Moses and beat Jesus until they felt like stopping. Jesus likely endured far more than the Old Testament limitations. After lashes and striking, with skin torn, blood, and mangled muscle and flesh, the ordinary body of Jesus was clearly broken for us—though no bones were broken (e.g., Psalm 34:20, John 19:36).  

Images of Jesus Influenced by Locale

When I look at images of Jesus in Ethiopia, Jesus looks like an Ethiopian—very dark skin for example. When I look at Jesus in England, He looks like an Englishman—fair skin for example. [Editor: I encourage internet searches to see these types of variations].  Interestingly though, I usually see certain commonalities though—with exceptions of course. 

The point I’m making is that most people want to picture Jesus like what they see in their local culture. In the past, cultures  were usually rather isolated from cultures in other distant parts of the world. Naturally, there were exceptions here too. 

For instance, nations that that bordered or were near in proximity to one another were often familiar with each other’s ways, styles, looks, food, and so on. But disconnected cultures were less so. In other words, in the AD 900s, Ethiopians were largely unfamiliar with the cultural goings-on in England and the English were largely disconnected with the cultural goings-on in Ethiopia.  

In the late AD 1800s and early 1900s, as news and magazines began allowing cultures to peer into each other’s societies around the world, things began to change. With the advent of the internet, information about cultures the world over began to be instant. In the grand scheme of history, information at our fingertips is a relatively recent luxury we have. 

But centuries and millennia ago this wasn’t the situation. Artists who pictured Jesus were limited to the people around them as well as previous images of Jesus that they had seen and had passed down to them. This is why many images of Jesus in various parts of the world resemble peoples in their local regions. So I don’t fault the artists attempted renderings of Christ even though they are tainted with the local flavor. It was really most of what they had to go on.    

In fact, I believe there are certain things we can learn from these images from around the world that may be more surprising than you might think.   

Jesus Hair

Was Jesus hair shaggy  and “short”? First, in accordance with the Law, the hair was to be kept kempt—orderly and in nice form. Jesus’ hair was not to be hanging loose since He was anointed—only lepers were to have their hair hanging out or unkempt as a sign to avoid them (e.g., Leviticus 10:6, 13:45, 21:10). 

When someone ministered inside the gate of the Temple (inner court) they were to wear turbans when men were ministering generally; they were forbidden to have their head shaved nor could they have long hair (by a female standard) but in the middle (per Ezekiel 44:20). Leviticus 19:27 indicates that men were not to cut the hair on the sides of their head and nor clip the edges of the beard. So Jesus, who fulfilled the law perfected abided by this. 

Though today we have a different standard of long hair and short hair since the Civil War and WWI began redefining long and short hair on men due to very short hair-cutting due to trench and military warfare. Typically long hair, for example on a woman, was extended down her middle back and longer as a covering, where a short hair would include shoulder length or even a little longer. 

Men with shoulder-length+ hair was not good in war trenches or other undesirable conditions due to disease, rats, lice, and fleas—unclean conditions. So they started cutting it even shorter and that has become the norm over the past 150 years. But we need to be careful of applying our modern cultural norms to what long and short hair were in Christ’s day. In years past, a man with short hair could have hair that was shoulder length.    

A Nazarite, who took a vow to God, was to grow their hair very long and this distinguished those men in vow (Numbers 6:18). But it was to be cut at the end of the vow as an offering—Paul once did this (Acts 18:18). 

The point is that Jesus’ hair should have been kempt instead of wild looking—most Jesus images have Jesus’ hair well-groomed and combed/brushed. I’ll credit them on this. Other images of Jesus fall short of this. Although I am forgiving on this issue, I would rather see the hair of Christ more kempt than this: 



The hair above is more of a leper’s hair. Interestingly, this style of hair is actually considered a “cool” hair style in the late 1990’s through the 2020’s. This image was also done in the United States by an artist of European descent. Notice how this particular image also looks like a person of European descent. So you can see how local and contemporary hairstyles and physical features still dominate how artists view Christ—even in our modern culture. Sadly as a taste, artists are making Christ in our image instead of following biblical guidelines. 

Early Images of Jesus

If we jump to early images of Jesus and James, perhaps there is a ring of truth to certain aspects of images of Christ. 

Ignatius was a disciple of John, the apostle of Jesus. He was much like Luke or Timothy was to Paul. A number of letters and documents from early church fathers have been kept and handed down through the church. Some of these items are correspondence between Ignatius to John and Mary (the mother of Christ) who was in John’s care. Mary even responds. The correspondence is repeated below: 

In A SECOND EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO ST. JOHN, he writes to John to whom Mary is in his care (John 19:26-27), 

His friend Ignatius to John the holy presbyter.

If thou wilt give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the

faithful saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they

report to be an object of admiration and of affection to all. For who would

not rejoice to behold and to address her who bore the true God from her

own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion? And in like

manner [I desire to see] the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom

they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in

method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. They

say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself, as to all the features and

aspect of His body. Moreover, [I desire to see] the other saints, both male

and female. Alas! why do I delay? Why am I kept back? Kind teacher, bid

me hasten [to fulfill my wish], and fare thou well. Amen.

 Then Ignatius writes to Mary too. He says in THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE VIRGIN MARY,

Her friend(1) Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.
Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.

Probably to his surprise, Ignatius receives a response back from Mary called, REPLY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN TO THIS LETTER, and it says,

The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple.
THE things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith, and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Savior. Amen.

By the way, Catholics despise this letter by Mary and say it is a forgery because they believe Mary was perpetually a virgin contrary to Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Regardless of Catholicism’s errant views on Mary, these letters teach us something significant about the way Jesus looked. James was also known as James the Just (not to be confused with James the apostle). He was Christ’s brother and later became a famous leader in the church. He looked very much like Jesus. An early image of James, the brother of Jesus is: 

Another later image of James with gray hair is: 

Many images of Jesus actually have similarities to this image of James. What can this tell us about the preservation of artwork of many images of Jesus? They might retain a few more elements of Jesus’ actual form than we realize.   

But there is more. The early images of Jesus in the Catacombs of Rome and other early Christian sites and objects in the early centuries look similar to James. Is it possible artists were using images of James as a baseline? Or did illustrators use paintings or drawings from earlier images that were passed down (now lost to history or decay) that they used as their baseline for their illustrations of Christ? A sampling of early images of Jesus is given below. 

In the AD 200s, there is a the moskophrus otherwise known as the bearer of the calf on the walls of St. Callisto catacomb in Rome: 

Also in the AD 200s is the Epiphany of the magi with baby Jesus on a sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museum in Rome[1]: 


Then there is the healing of the Paralytic in the AD 200s from a baptistery in an abandoned church in Syria[2]: 


The AD 300 brought us a painting in the Catacombs of Rome, specifically of St. Marcellinus and St. Peter on the Via Labicana. It depicts six martyrs pointing to Christ—the Apostle Peter, Apostle Paul,  and later martyrs Marcellinus, Gorgonius, another Peter, and Tiburtius. These last four martyrs were buried in that catacomb: 


Also in the fourth century in Rome we have: 

By the 6th century a Jesus image looked like many today:


These images give us some clues to what early artists thought Christ looked like. Some have glaring similarities in look to James, who was “a spitting image” of Jesus and younger brother of Jesus through Mary. 

Are these early images an accurate portrayal of Jesus? Great question. I’m not sure I could answer that question on this side of heaven with much precision. Although something interesting happened regarding the images of Jesus that many may not notice—churches all over from Orthodox, to Roman, to Oriental, to Protestant have images of Jesus that do share a lot of similarities—even with certain local flair thrown in. Why? 

The two reasons I’ve given before are: 

  1. Possibly using known  early images of James as a baseline
  2. Using paintings or drawings from earlier images that were passed down (now lost to history or decay) that they used as their baseline 

I’m not the only one to spot this. Consider another researcher (who only one week prior to my article going live), was writing on the same subject parallel to me. He just posted this in his article: 

“Even if that were true, how could Christians so quickly have united on one image? I mean, take a hundred artists scattered about without internet, and ask them to draw a picture of someone whom they have never seen, only heard of. What would we get? A hundred different fanciful images. But the Church emerged into freedom, with Christian iconographers quickly writing essentially the same icons of the Lord. Why didn’t one “Jesus” become the norm in Spain, and another in Egypt? Why the uniformity? 

For these artists and iconographers were scattered very far apart, through many regions from Ethiopia to Spain, in thousands of parishes. There was no central Church authority to decree that only this one image of Jesus must be used. And even if they had, there was no way to enforce that image on Christian artists. So what could possibly have produced this conformity? Why was it quickly produced all over the Church. 

I can imagine only one answer: They must all have been working off one already commonly accepted prototype of the Lord, passed down in the Church from the beginning.”[3]

I concur that this may well be the answer. Although, it is “not a hill to die on”. Nevertheless, we should remember that Jesus’ physical body was resurrected and He ascended to the Throne of God where He sits at the right hand of the Father. So one day, Christians will get a chance to see Jesus and see what He looks like—at least in His glorified, resurrected body.   

At any rate, I hope this helps you think more deeply about what Jesus really looked like and how that relates to images of Jesus around the world.   

Doctrine Of Missiology (Missions And Evangelism)

Doctrine Of Missiology (Missions And Evangelism) Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI Biblical Authority Ministries, May 19, 2026 ( Donate ) ...