As Christians reflect on the humanity of Christ, some wonder whether knowing His physical appearance—like His height—would deepen or distract from our faith. Join the discussion in Crosswalk Forums. #JesusChrist#FaithAndCuriosity#ChristianThought#christianforums#crosswalkforums#forums#crosswalk#faithcommunity#faithforums
We picture Jesus in paintings, films, and Sunday school books—but how close are those images to reality? Scholars have long debated what Jesus may have looked like, including His height, build, and features as a first-century Jewish man. The Bible doesn’t give us those details directly, which raises a deeper question: why not?
Do you think it would matter if we knew exactly what Jesus looked like?
Would it help your faith—or could it become a distraction from who He truly is?
Jesus came to reveal the heart of God, not to impress with outward appearance.
exodus 20: 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Hi,
How did the Romans describe Jesus’ appearance?
AI Overview
The Romans primarily described Jesus through the Letter of Lentulus, which is believed to be a fictionalized account. This letter, purportedly sent from a Roman official to the emperor, describes Jesus as tall, well-proportioned, with golden-colored hair and beard, and a reverent countenance. His face was described as having a “severity” that inspired both love and reverence. The letter also mentions his hair being chestnut-colored, straight to the ears, then curly and wavy around his shoulders. (Google)
I know this doesn’t help much.
Plus, I was only on Google 5 min.
But give it a whirl on there.
You might find what you are looking for.
of far more use and relevence is Isaiah 53: Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Maria Valtorta witnessed Jesus’s appearance and mannerisms on multiple occasions, at times through visions of scenes from His mortal life, or when He would appear to her. Her descriptions of Him are found in The Notebooks: 1944 (April 7th), The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II (August 4th, 1945), and The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. IV (August 15th, 1946).
On January 2nd, 1944, Jesus said the following:
It must be borne in mind that Galilee was not a vast world and that there were relatively few Galileans, who almost always married among themselves, and that bodily traits were thus repeated in two or three types which for centuries had been found over and over again on those faces. It would not be mistaken to say that in all the little towns, if one were to go back to the beginnings, two or three original family branches would be encountered which had married again and again among themselves, giving rise to a marked physical characteristic in the whole Galilean race.
It should thus cause no surprise that John displayed a physical resemblance to Me. He was a fair-haired Galilean—a particularity which was rarer than the case of the dark-haired Galilean, but which also existed. But his resemblance was even more marked as regards the spirit. (The Notebooks: 1944, January 2nd)
Chiara, I don’t question your devotion, but we do need to ask an important question: are we building our view of Jesus on Scripture or on post-biblical imagination?
The descriptions you shared from Maria Valtorta come across less like the inspired portrait of the Suffering Servant and more like a romanticized rendition fit for a Renaissance painting. Vivid details of sun-kissed curls, porcelain skin, and operatic tones may stir emotion, but that’s not the same as being biblically sound.
Let’s remember something crucial. The Gospels, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are silent on Jesus’ physical appearance. That silence speaks volumes. The point was never how He looked, but what He did. Isaiah 53:2 says plainly, “He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.” That verse isn’t about spiritual perception alone. It’s a prophetic declaration that the Messiah wouldn’t captivate by appearance, but would be rejected precisely because He didn’t meet human expectations.
The real danger here isn’t artistic imagination—it’s theological drift. When we start relying on mystics or private visions to fill in what God left blank, we’re not just embellishing the Gospel. We’re introducing another version of Jesus, one shaped by sentiment rather than Scripture. And Paul was clear about that in 2 Corinthians 11:4. If someone preaches “another Jesus,” it’s a counterfeit. No matter how moving the prose.
If we want a heavenly description of Christ, the book of Revelation gives it: blazing eyes, bronze feet, a voice like rushing waters, and a sword coming from His mouth. That is the awe-inspiring, risen Lord. Not a figure out of poetic fantasy, but the Judge and Redeemer of all.
Jesus doesn’t need us to polish His image. He calls us to proclaim His truth.
—Sincere Seeker. Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
With all due respect, Is. 53:2 isn’t about Jesus’s physical appearance.
He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. — Isaiah 53:2
My children, in this verse My servant Isaiah spoke of the wonderful illumination given to those who were Spirit-guided.
To those who know Me not, there is in Me nothing to appeal to them, or to attract them.
To those who know Me there is nothing more to be desired. “No beauty they could desire Him.”
Oh! My children, draw very near to Me. See Me as I really am, that ever you may have the Joy of finding in Me all you could desire. The fulfillment of all you could desire in Master, Lord, or Friend. — Jesus (God Calling)
Soul, I hear your reverence—but let’s set the record straight with a Bible in one hand and a theological fire extinguisher in the other, because we’ve got some smoke to clear.
You say Isaiah 53:2 isn’t about Jesus’ physical appearance. Respectfully? That’s exactly what it touches on—among other things. Let’s not pretend that verse is just floating in spiritual metaphor land. It says, plainly and prophetically: “He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.” That’s a statement about visible appeal. Surface-level. The way people saw Him with their eyes—and dismissed Him. Period.
This isn’t some coded invitation to a mystical interpretation where only the “spiritually enlightened” can decode His divine desirability. That’s Gnostic territory—secret knowledge for the inner circle. But the Gospel doesn’t play like that. It’s not hidden. It’s heralded.
Isaiah 53 is describing how the Servant of the Lord—Jesus—would come not with kingly glamor, but with humble scars. That’s the scandal of the incarnation. He didn’t glow. He bled. He didn’t dazzle. He died. That’s why the crowds rejected Him—because He didn’t fit their messianic mold. He was meek. He was ordinary. He was despised. That’s the whole point. That’s the Gospel!
Now, let’s talk about that “Jesus” quote you dropped from God Calling. With all due caution, that’s not Scripture. That’s a channeled message from two anonymous women who claimed to receive daily dictation from Jesus Himself in the 1930s. You want to know what that sounds like? New Age with a cross necklace. And I don’t care how sweet or inspirational it reads—if it’s not from the canon of God’s Word, it does not carry divine authority. Hebrews 1:1–2 says God used to speak through prophets and visions—but now? He speaks “by His Son,” and we’ve got His words in 66 books. No sequel. No side hustle.
The real Christ doesn’t need help from private revelations or devotional soundbites. He needs to be known through the Word, by the Spirit, for who He is—not who we dream Him to be.
Jesus doesn’t need rebranding. He needs reverence.
—Sincere Seeker. Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
@Soul,
I think you are to correct bring in the totality of the verse; it seems after reading both Isaiah 53:2 (unremarkable appearance to non-spirit filled) & 53:7 (regarding Jesus’ meek demeanor) that @Fritzpw_Admin, “Jesus came to reveal the heart of God, not to impress with outward appearance.” is the implication, and more importantly, the directive that meekness is a quality Christians should emulate.
Of note is how he was described by those in his home-town:
Mark 6:2 & 3
2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Isaiah 53 does not describe the physical appearance of Jesus in the way modern readers often hope, it offers no detailed visual portrait, but it does reveal how He was perceived, rejected, and disfigured through action verbs, especially in the context of His suffering and substitutionary death. The verbs do the heavy lifting, not a sketch of facial features.
Let’s break it down with precision.
ISAIAH 53:2 — “He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.”
– “He grew up” (Hebrew: יַעֲלֶה ya‘ăleh, Qal imperfect) — emphasizes organic growth, slow, unnoticed, not majestic.
– The phrase “no form or majesty” (אֵין־תֹּאַר לוֹ וְהָדָר) uses tō’ar (“form, shape, outline”) and hādār (“majesty, splendor”), explicitly stating there was nothing visually impressive about Him.
– “That we should look at Him” (וְנִרְאֵהוּ, wənirʾēhû, Niphal imperfect) — conveys the idea that even if we did see Him, He would not attract us. The verb ra’ah (“to see”) in the Niphal form means more than noticing—it implies evaluating, beholding—and the conclusion is: we saw nothing desirable.
ISAIAH 53:3 — “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.”
– “Despised” (נִבְזֶה nibzeh, Niphal participle) — He was held in contempt, the verb reflects passive, enduring shame.
– “Rejected” (וַחֲדַל waḥădal, Qal perfect, “lacking, forsaken”) — He was seen as not worth choosing, empty of value.
– “We hid our faces from Him” (כְּמַסְתֵּר פָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ) — we turned away, indicating a visual rejection of His appearance and condition.
– “We esteemed Him not” (וְלֹא חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ) — ḥāshav (“to reckon, consider”) — we didn’t count Him as anything significant.
ISAIAH 52:14 (the verse right before the servant song of Isaiah 53 starts) deepens this:
– “His appearance was marred beyond human semblance” (מִשְׁחַת מֵאִישׁ מַרְאֵהוּ) — mishḥat (from shāḥat, “to disfigure, ruin, corrupt”) — His visage was so distorted through suffering that He no longer looked human.
– The Hebrew literally says His appearance was corrupted more than any man, pointing to the violence of crucifixion and the deep scarring of atonement.
So what’s the sum?
Isaiah 53 does not offer facial details, no eye color, no stature, no beard length, but it tells you that:
– He had no beauty that would attract carnal men (verse 2).
– He was visually rejected and ultimately disfigured beyond recognition (52:14).
– His appearance was not merely unimpressive, it was offensive to those who saw Him suffer.
And why?
Because the horror of the cross was laid on Him, not only spiritually, but bodily.
Isaiah 53:5 says “He was pierced” (מְחֹלָל, meḥōlāl, Pual participle, passive intensive, literally “thrust through, fatally wounded”)
—and “crushed for our iniquities” (מְדֻכָּא, medukkaʾ, Pual participle, “shattered, broken to pieces”).
This is not portraiture, it’s prophetic trauma language, soaked in blood and substitution.
Final blow:
You want to know what Jesus looked like?
Isaiah 53 says: “Look at the cross.”
That’s the face we rejected, the body we broke, the Savior who bore it all.
Thanks for the quick fill-in (funny, I never considered checking Hebrew translations until recently).
Another add-in regarding Jesus’ apearance was that, people of that era dressed in garb of their trade & status. Imagine the disciples of different livelihoods following and learning from this working class, unremarkable-looking man. Ever shake hands with a carpenter?
Jesus’s explanation of Is. 53:2 that I posted shows that it doesn’t touch on that.
I didn’t claim that God Calling is Scripture, because it’s not, but it remains an inspired book.
Heb. 1-2 reads: “God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son”. There’s no mention of all of Jesus’s thoughts and words being confined to any one book, much less sixty-six books.
@SincereSeeker, im sorry u dont have any idea abt Catholic mystic theology.
I first read the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich on the Passion of Our Lord and it struck me, and thus i started on my journey on theology and philosophy, so Valtorta’s writings are beautiful as well.
SincereSeeker’s dismissal of Valtorta’s writings as a “Victorian romance novel” betrays a misunderstanding of private revelation’s role in Catholic theology. The CCC clarifies that private revelations, while not adding to the deposit of faith, serve to help the faithful live more fully by it in a particular historical context. THe Valtorta’s The Poem of the Man-God and The Notebooks fall under this category, offering detailed mediations on Christ’s life that align with the Church’s sensus fidelium.
SincereSeeker’s mockery of Valtorta’s detailed descriptions of Christ’s appearance is very disrespectful, and i condemn what u have said. It misconstrues the Catholic Sacramental imagination. This theological concept, rooted in the Incarnation, holds that the material world can mediate divine realities. The Church’s tradition of sacred art, from Byzantine icons to Renaissance painting,s reflects this, depicting Christ with culturally resonant features to foster devotion. Valtorta’s vivid imagery, far from being a “L’Oréal shampoo commercial” (very disrespectful, can we have a civilised conversation, what ur doing is mockery) aligns with this tradition, using poetic language to make the mystery of the Incarnate Word accessible to the imagination. The theandric nature of Christ as defined by the Council of Chalcedon underscores that His human nature is fully real, including physical characteristics. While the Scripture is silent on Christ’s appearance, this Catholic tradition permits imaginative engagement with His humanity as seen in the writings of mystics like St.Teresa of Ávila or St.John of the Cross (my fav).
U use Isa 53:2, it is contextually misapplied @sincereseeker. The verse, part of the suffering servant passage, emphasises Christ’s humility and rejection during His Passion, not a literal denial of Physical comeliness. The church fathers like St.Augustine, note that Christ’s human form, while not ostentatious, was fitting for His divine mission. @SincereSeeker’s accusation of “theological cosplay” and “another Jesus” invokes a serious charge of heresy, and i condemn such mockery. THe catholic tradition employs the discernment of spirits ( 1 Cor 12:10, 1 John 4:1-3) to evaluate mystical phenomena. St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and St. John of the Cross’s Ascent of Mount Carmel provide Criteria:
Does the Revelation glorify Christ?
Does it bear spiritual fruit?
Valtorta’s writings meet these criteria, as they emphasize Christ’s divinity, His redemptive mission and call to holiness as evidenced by their impact on countless readers’ faith.
The Church’s historical caution toward private revelation does not equate to rejection. For example, the visions of St.Margaret of Cortona or St.Catherine of Siena faced scrutiny but were ultimately embraced. Valtorta’s works, while controversial in some quarters like their temporary placement on the Index Liborum Prohibitorum, later lifted, have been defended by theologians like Fr. Gabriel Roschini, who praised their doctrinal fidelity.
Ur preference for Revelation 1:14-16 over Valtorta’s descriptions is are valid but incomplete perspective. Catholic theology balances cataphatic and apophatic approaches to God. The cataphatic approach seen in Valtorta’s vivid imagery uses human language to describe divine realities, while the apophatic approach as emphasized by u focus on Christ’s transcedent glory, acknowledges the limits of such descriptions. Both are necessary. The via media of Catholic mysticism as articulated by theologians like Hans Urs Von Balthasar, integrates these approaches to avoid reducing Christ to either a mere human figure or an abstract divine essence.
Revelation 1:14-16 depicts the glorified Christ, not the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Valtorta’s focus on the latter complements rather than contradicts this apocalyptic vision. Her writings like those of St.Faustina Kowalska’s Divine Mercy devotion, aim to make Christ’s humanity tangible, fostering a personal relationship with Him. Ur rejection of this approach leads to Docetic tendency, a heresy condemned.
edit:
Thanks sincereseeker for editing ur post, some contents of it were more inclined to “mockery”, i truly appreciate that u modified it to keep the discussion more respectful…thanks once again.
How Tall Was Jesus? | Christianity.com