Is a Feminized Christ Accurate?
By Joseph Andrew Settanni
Attempted various visualizations of Jesus Christ, as to attempted depictions of what He actually looked like, meaning while living on earth, have tended, especially in more modern-to-contemporary times, to be that of a weak looking or pathetic figure so meek and mild and, on average, tending toward anemic proportions.
Not an inspiring figure, to say the least. A weakling, by almost any measure or, at least, these tend to be the general perceptions. Unsurprisingly, Ted Turner and others have, consequently, called Christianity a religion of wimps and losers.
At times, a kind of tenderly feminine or, at least, feminized Christ that homosexuals would usually find attractive and fairly sensual has been (strangely) imagined as to a then supposed, generally realistic or assumed basic likeness of the (then assumed?) Son of God. It would be an erotic or, perhaps, mainly erogenous image tending toward indications of even potentially blurred or, in some versions, bisexuality itself, which surely suggests just how bizarre such odd or perverse pictures or representations can be.
And, even in the popular movies, besides what can be regularly found in widely available portraiture, the imaginative inclination (for better or worse) is to show someone quite average or less in physical build and stature who, normally speaking, would not be any kind of actually formidable figure, meaning just an unremarkable man; this is as to a merely assumed characteristic physical type. In any event, almost always the typical or standard depiction is, as above noted, certainly, most definitely, not that of any hearty, vigorous, masculine, virile, well-built man of truly muscular proportions.
The Argument for a Masculine Christ
Nonetheless, the direct opposite point of view is, e. g., visually and directly perceived, most forcefully, in a painting by the Roman Catholic painter, Philippe de Champaigne, in his interesting canvas titled: The Crowning of Thorns.
Would St. Peter, known as a brawling and quick-tempered kind of (husky and brawny) man prior to his full Christianization, have been really greatly and enthusiastically, tremendously and unreservedly, inspired to be the (laughed at) follower, later unto final death itself remember, of a mere weakling or a mostly puny, timid rabbi? Some critical thought is needed. Would St. James and St. John, called, e. g., the “Sons of Thunder” no less, have been so eagerly, heartily, inclined to also willingly seek death (aka martyrdom) for a milquetoast character, an unmanly miscreant?
Certain empirical evidence can be deduced. Because He was apprenticed (by his foster-father) as a carpenter, namely, by St. Joseph himself, it is likely that heavy physical labor would be required by which a human body would naturally get built up substantially from such intensive toil that would be done at intervals. It is known that the early body builders were sailors. Why?
Sailing a ship, in ancient toward modern times, involved manning it for sea duty, of course; but, there were the interludes of inactivity, especially with dead winds; by resting for several days at a time, there was the time made available for a body to build its muscles during those rest periods or days of light labor tasks.
It is extremely inconceivable for Jesus, working as a carpenter for many years, say, ages 14 to about 30, to have ended up being a weakling or milquetoast. Logically consider: He as a perfect man, the God-Man Himself, had to then possess all of the finest physical attributes allowed to the human species to perfection. It is highly likely, at a fundamental minimum, that St. Peter and others would be attracted (in a nonsexual way, of course) to a genuine man’s man, a natural-born leader of men, a manifestly masculine figure of quite substantial worth, as to a marked physical presence, in this world and the next.
Fishermen too had to be fairly tough men used to the arduous stress and strains of sailing and intense fishing, done not for mere temporary sport, but for an actual livelihood. Such men could so naturally respect and have admiration for other men as hardy as they. An empirical instance can, also, make the point here vividly.
When Christ was finally arrested, an overwhelming force was energetically sent against Him and, one notes here critically, only done at night so as to better mystify or hide their exact numbers; most people, normally, would assume that yet greater numbers might somehow exist in the darkness. In full broad daylight, it is much easier to estimate how big a gang might exist, of course. If Jesus was just an often assumed, oh-so-tender fellow, then a rather simple morning capture by one or two guards would have been absolutely sufficient, regardless of any protesters to the event.
Only Peter used a weapon, as is written. But, no hundreds or thousands are recorded as directly and energetically interfering with the single arrest. During Jesus’ life on earth, prior to the allowed capture, no one dared or was able to really attack Him physically, neither at night nor especially during the day. He was probably a very imposing figure; some rocks/stones may have been thrown toward or, perhaps, at Him –- when His back was turned, no doubt.
Jesus publicly excoriated (aka cursed) those Pharisees who hung in and around the Temple at Jerusalem by forcefully calling them, among other very strong epithets, whitened sepulchers. If the Messiah was seen to physically be, e. g., an inconsequential person, as to physical stature, an angry and outraged Pharisee would then probably have slapped such a meaningless miscreant across the face, for such completely undoubted (from the offended party’s point of view) insolence or overt impertinence.
But, only a fool, of course, would have, thus, dared to strike Philippe de Champaigne’s Christ, for fear that He might not have—what—turned the other cheek. After all, one ought to remember that he really did flog the money changers. This man from Nazareth, an itinerant rabbi, was not all sweetness and tenderness galore all of the time, meaning without any exception. Jesus, as had been so empirically proven, was both fully prepared and actually capable of getting physical with sinners. At that time, one also could, for rather easy confirmation, go ask those money changers who had felt the whipping given.
It is explicitly stated, in Scripture, that He (successfully, one assumes?) had robustly whipped all of those corrupt crooks right out of the Temple, which was, in fact, done at least twice, during what can be considered His ministry. There must have been, one can assert boldly, some manly force behind that particular whip concerning how the evil doers were truly convinced to rapidly leave, to quickly vacate, the holy place. Jesus meant business; no question.
Christ, being a rather formidable man with a body suitably conditioned by hard labor, which included intense work with heavy wooden structures, was, thus, not someone to be easily knocked down with a proverbial feather of force. Such a masculine presence, therefore, naturally commanded attention.
C. S. Lewis, e. g., had, quite interestingly, remarked that no one was ever indifferent upon having had an encounter with the Messiah, which would be so very natural if He were just or merely a fairly colorless, mediocre, nondescript fellow of supposed average stature and abilities. But, in fact, only one of three responses ever occurred, as was noted by Lewis and others.
People were either angered violently (or enraged) by what they heard and/or saw manifested by Jesus and opposed Him, frightened or shocked enough to walk away, or had felt the true need to genuinely render adoration to the Son of God. No obviously namby-bamby pseudo-prophet would have elicited any one of those cited strong reactions.
Of course, admittedly, with the unfortunate feminization of American and, for that matter, Western society and culture, this manifest truth about a necessarily masculine Jesus is not at all psychologically acceptable anymore to the majority of Westerners; degenerate people, as is known, do prefer their convenient version of a god capable of being nonjudgmental or, perhaps, at least somewhat motherly.
Consider, however, His extensive suffering prior to death. When, after being beaten repeatedly, of course, by the bullies at the Sanhedrin, He was later flogged mercilessly with a cat-o-nine-tails whip that was designed specifically to so savagely, violently, rip off pieces or chunks of flesh with each slash. The ancient Roman soldiers were themselves used to much brutal disciplinary punishments and were, in turn, fully capable, at a minimum, of administering the same to any hapless victim of hyper-rough physical chastisement.
Sadism was the Roman norm; pity was a joke. And, the brutal crown of thorns was added like icing to a cake in that the torturers intended, deliberately, to make a scornful point of such overt contempt and added relished cruelty done, passionately, even for its own vicious sake.
It is, therefore, so totally doubtful that, e. g., almost all the movie actors playing Christ would have had the needed husky physique to have withstood such a horrific beating, if it were really administered. Death would have resulted, well prior to any crucifixion. End of discussion.
Conclusion
Instead, Jesus actually survived and, moreover, carried His cross for probably most of the way, though falling three times, admittedly. And yet, it ought to be keenly remembered that He was, in fact, still alive enough, after that entire excessively brutal and, literally, blood-spilling ordeal from the Sanhedrin all the way to Calvary, to be further worth crucifying, regardless.
No simply weak-kneed or frail chap could, let it be vigorously asseverated, have lasted that long toward Golgotha. He must have had a strong body that could have absorbed such tremendous and excessive punishment unknown today in the entire Western world.
Given all the aforementioned reasoning involved in this subject, it is an accurate depiction of Jesus that one can find in Philippe de Champaigne’s The Crowning of Thorns. How so? A very obviously muscular Christ is clearly seen, not a supposed figure of narrow or less than average proportions for a man.
As this brief article has shown, there are a multiplicity of indications, directly from the New Testament and, also, from what can be properly deduced, that a certainly masculine and virile Son of God is the logical and reasonable assessment to be, in truth, fairly made of Him that ought to exist, not anything to the contrary.
A whimpy or supposedly delicate Jesus is, therefore, only a dumb figment of uninformed imaginations, especially considering His Resurrection, etc. as the one and only Son of the living Lord God Almighty, the Creator Himself, God the Father. What more can one say?
Athanasius contra mundum!
