A FACE LIKE JESUS?

 I do not believe Jesus necessarily looked vastly different from other Jewish men. Hence, in order to get an idea of what Jesus looked like, it would seem reasonable to try and recapture features of a first century Jewish man.

 

In my opinion, one of the more credible attempts to recapture such an image, has emerged from an exciting new field of science, Forensic Anthropology. Using methods similar to those police have developed to solve crimes, British scientists, assisted by Israeli archaeologists have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image of the most famous face in human history.

 

Experts in this highly specialized field require a working knowledge of genetics, and human growth and development. In their research they also draw from the fields of primatology (the branch of zoology that deals with primates), palaeoanthropology (the study of primate and human evolution) and human osteology (the study of the skeleton). Even seemingly distant fields like nutrition, dentistry and climate adaptation play a role in this type of investigation.

 

While forensic anthropology is usually used to solve crimes, Richard Neave, a medical artist, retired from The University of Manchester in England, realized it also could shed light on the appearance of Jesus.

 

Matthew's description of the events in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:48) offers an obvious clue to the face of Jesus. It is clear that his features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era. And so the first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli experts in archaeology, who shared them with Neave.

 

With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave used computerized tomography (a technique for displaying a representation of a cross section through a human body) of the skulls, thus revealing minute details about each one's structure. Special computer programs then evaluated reams of information about known measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying a representative Semite skull.

 

The entire process was accomplished using software that verified the results with anthropological data. From this data, the researchers built a digital 3D reconstruction of the face. Next, they created a cast of the skull. Layers of clay matching the thickness of facial tissues specified by the computer program were then applied, along with simulated skin. The nose, lips and eyelids were then modeled to follow the shape determined by the underlying muscles.

 

 

“Forensic depictions are not an exact science”, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of Anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "In some cases the resemblance between the reconstruction and the actual individual can be uncanny," says Galloway. "But in others there may be more resemblance with the other work of the same artist."

 

Despite this reservation, Galloway reaches one conclusion that is inescapable to almost everyone who has ever seen Neave's Jesus. "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters."

 

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul opined, “I want to know Christ [Jesus]”. He certainly was not referring to knowing the physical features of Jesus. In this and other texts, Paul was referring to an experiential knowledge of Jesus. Paul’s desire was to identify with what Jesus represented.

 

In another letter (Colossians 1:28-29), Paul “strenuously contended” to lead Christians into full maturity in Christ. The outcome is to look like Jesus, certainly not as a first century Jewish male. In 1963, I had an encounter with Jesus. It was not an academic encounter. Rather, it was an experiential encounter. One in which I acknowledged Jesus as my Lord. Today, fifty-seven years later, I can categorically confirm that such an encounter with Jesus is not merely credal. It is transformational.

 

 

 

 

 

BUILD A TRELLIS

According to Wikipedia, “a trellis is an architectural structure, usually made from an open framework or lattice of interwoven or intersecting pieces of wood, bamboo or metal that is normally made to support and display climbing plants, especially scrubs.”

In his book The Emotionally Healthy Leader, Peter Scazzero indicates that trellises are support structures that enable plants such as a grapevine to get off the ground. Trellises help plants to grow upward and become fruitful. 

A trellis is a beautiful image of the ancient practice called a Rule of Life. A Rule of Life is an intentional pattern of spiritual disciplines that provide structure and direction for growth and direction. It is a support structure that helps us to grow spiritually and emotionally.

Like trellises with plants, a Rule of Life organizes our unique combination of spiritual practices into a structure that enables us to pay attention to God in everything we do.

Presently, I am redesigning my trellis. I am preparing myself for a career change in Christian ministry. I am transitioning from administration in higher education to pastoral ministry. Providentially, I stumbled upon Peter Scazzero, a former senior pastor and now a pastor to pastors. I am absorbing his book on leadership. Cited earlier, this volume is transformational.

Before crafting a Rule of Life, Scazzero invites readers to work through the following:

● What do you do, that nurtures your spirit and fills you with delight? List them.

● What things or people deplete you and negatively impact your spirit? List them.

● What “must-attend-to” like health issues, make daily demands on you. List them.

Once you have a good idea of the things that nurture you, deplete you and are non-negotiables on your schedule, you have a basis for considering what you want to include in your Rule of Life. Prioritize the things that nurture your spirit and fill you with delight. Opposite to each item on your priority list, identify the things or people that negatively affects each item.

Now that you have itemized the things that bring you delight and the things that attempt to undermine these things, you are well-positioned to establish a structure for growth. Listen to the desires of your heart. What is it you want most in these areas of your life? The Psalmist got it right when he said: “Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4).

Building trellises or structures for growth take time. Time alone with God. Time in silence. Time in prayer and meditation. Pay attention to your emotions. Vocalize the things for which you are grateful. Express your sorrow for known sin and accept God’s forgiveness.

Interestingly, there is no need to tell others that you are building a trellis. With time, others will see changes in your personality. Your appetite for things that build will increase. The things that deplete your joy will be choked. Inner transformation will reshape your passions and character.

It is then we can express longings like King David, “Let me hear joy and gladness, let the bones you have crushed rejoice” (Psalm 51:8). Consider Isaiah 35 in rebuilding your trellis.

Do Black Lies Matter?

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was killed in the city of Minneapolis, after white police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street.

From a cell phone video, taken by one of the many witnesses, we learned that four cops ignored Floyd's repeated plea, "I can't breathe." By the time paramedics arrived, Floyd was unresponsive and apparently lifeless. After about an hour of attempted resuscitation by EMTs and emergency room staff, he was pronounced dead.

Like with the current pandemic, millions around the world were affected by this barbaric act in America. Many ignored social distancing guidelines and protested in major cities of the United States. Whereas protesting is perfectly legitimate, the accompanying destruction of property and looting are not.

Ostensibly, the protests are about “the alleged epidemic of widespread and race-based police brutality against blacks and the lack of confidence, in the case of Floyd, that justice will be done”. The problem with these assertions is that they are not supported by the data.

My research indicates that there is no epidemic of racist cops killing black suspects in America. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, police killings of blacks declined almost 80% from the late '60s through the 2010s, while police killings of whites have not increased. Meanwhile, in 2017, according to the CDC's National Vital Statistics Reports, non-Hispanic blacks were eight times more likely to be a victim of a homicide (homicide death rate: 23.2 per 100,000) than non-Hispanic whites (homicide death rate: 2.9 per 100,000).

The number one cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, such as car accidents and drownings. The number one reason for death, preventable or otherwise for young black men, is homicide, almost always at the hands of another young black man.

In 2018, there were approximately 7,400 black homicide victims, more than half of the nation's total number of homicides, while the black population is 13% of the U.S. total. Of that number, the police killed a little more than 200 blacks, and nearly all of them had a weapon or violently resisted arrest.

In recent years, the police have averaged killing about 1,000 Americans per year. Of that number, half are white, and one-quarter are black, with the race of remaining suspects of another race or unknown. Of the approximately 1,000 killed by cops, less than 4% (40 persons) involve a white officer and an unarmed black man.

Recent studies not only find no systemic abuse of black suspects by the cops, but if anything, cops are more hesitant, more reluctant, to use deadly force against a black suspect than against a white suspect.

The Manhattan Institute's Heather MacDonald writes: "Regarding threats to blacks from the police: A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male, than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer." Last year, according to The Washington Post, the police killed nine unarmed blacks. They killed 19 unarmed whites. In recent years, about 50 cops have been shot and killed annually in the line of duty. So, more cops are killed each year than are unarmed black suspects.

Minneapolis in 2020 is not Birmingham, Alabama, in the '50s. The top cop is not a racist segregationist like Birmingham's infamous Bull Connor, who released dogs and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters. The police chief of Minneapolis is Mexican American and black. The district's U.S. House representative is black. The vice president of the city council is black, as is the state attorney general.

In Baltimore, where in 2015, a black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody, how could one, with a straight face, argue that resident blacks suffer from institutional racism? The mayor was a black female; the top two officials in the police department were black; the city council was majority black; the state attorney who brought the charges against six officers was black; three of the six charged officers were black; the judge before whom two officers tried their cases was black; the U.S. attorney general was black, as was the then President of the United States.

Meanwhile, over Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, 10 persons were killed and 49 were shot. In a city where roughly one-third of the population is black, 70% of the city's homicide victims, according to the Chicago Police Department, are black.

As a black citizen of the United States, I must ask, do these figures confirm that there is systemic, structural or institutional police brutality against blacks in the United States? Agreed, there are despicable cases of brutality against blacks by deranged white law enforcement officers. But do the statistics rise to the level of “systemic, structural or institutional brutality?”

I recognize that my position will incense many. That is not my intent. My intent is to maintain the conversation, based on truth and less on emotion. Agreed, justice

must be available to everyone, and so must truth - justice and truth are inseparable.