Bringing you the "Good News" of Jesus Christ and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's magisterium
Home About
What's New? Resources The Church Family Life Mass and
Ask A Catholic
Knowledge base
AskACatholic Disclaimer
Search the
AskACatholic Database
Donate and
Support our work
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
New Questions
Cool Catholic Videos
About Saints
Disciplines and Practices for distinct Church seasons
Purgatory and Indulgences
About the Holy Mass
About Mary
Searching and Confused
Contemplating becoming a Catholic or Coming home
Homosexual and Gender Issues
Life and Family
No Salvation Outside the Church
Sacred Scripture
non-Catholic Cults
Justification and Salvation
The Pope and Papacy
The Sacraments
Relationships and Marriage situations
Specific people, organizations and events
Doctrine and Teachings
Specific Practices
Church Internals
Church History

Ramon Moreno wrote:

Hi, guys —

  • What should our response be as Catholics to the claim that Jesus is described as a black person in Revelations 1:14 and that we have images representing Him with light skin and long straight hair?


  { How should we respond to the claim that Jesus is described as a black person in Revelations 1:14? }

John replied:


First of all, you start by reading the text and nowhere does mention skin color in  Revelations 1:14.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 

Secondly, the text is using symbolic language. Just look at the rest of the text. Even in the last portion of that verse:

. . . and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 

  • Who has fire-colored eyes?, or
  • Is the Apostle John trying to says Jesus had bloodshot eyes?

All that said; this is completely irrelevant to our faith.  

Jesus was a Jew from the (Mediterranean/Middle East).  The portrayal of Jesus as a blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned man is most likely very inaccurate.  Pictures and statues of Him are simply representations made by artists. There is no Church teaching about Jesus's physical appearance, except for the fact that the Scriptures tell us He now, and will forever, bear the scars of the Crucifixion.   

It's more than likely that Jesus resembled the typical Jew. He got His DNA from Mary and her ancestry so He likely had darker skin, perhaps dark olive with dark hair. He might have had curly hair, but it would have been long and there is no evidence that he had hair typical of Africans. 

Yes, there were some Ethiopians that intermarried (and with Israelites), so the genes were somewhere in the gene pool but if someone wants to claim He had African type hair based on one allegorical text in Revelation, that says His hair was white as wool, they clearly don't know how to read.

The operative words in verse 14 are  white and like.  It doesn't say His hair was like wool. It says, it was white and again that's symbolic. The word wool is there to describe the word white, not the style of his hair. Anyone who has a Junior High School education ought to be able to read and understand that.

But if some guy wants to believe Jesus is a black man, based on that verse, I would assume there was a political (or some other) motivation.

What is important is that we know Jesus, was the Word Made Flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity Incarnate and who, for us men and for our salvation, suffered, and died for our sins, that whosoever believes in Him (with genuine faith and fidelity) will be saved.

All this other stuff is nonsense.


Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
© 2012 Panoramic Sites
The Early Church Fathers Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter. The Early Church Fathers on the Catholic Church and the term Catholic. The Early Church Fathers on the importance of the Roman Catholic Church centered in Rome.