The Most Beautiful One
For nearly two thousand years, the life of Yeshua has inspired more paintings than any other subject in Western art. More than landscapes, more than kings, more than mythology, more than war. The catacombs of Rome, the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel, the altarpieces of Flanders, the icons of Byzantium — all of it orbiting the same face, the same body, the same story. No one has been painted more. No one has been sculpted more. No one has drawn more human beings, across more centuries and cultures and media, to attempt the impossible work of rendering him visible.
This is a strange fact when you sit with it long enough. Because the Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John — never once describe what he looked like. Not his height, not his face, not the color of his eyes. The writers who walked with him, who watched him heal and weep and overturn tables in the temple, felt no need to tell us what he looked like. Every painting of Yeshua that has ever been made is, in this sense, an act of imagination. There is no source image. There is no description to work from. And yet the painters kept coming. The sculptors kept returning. Something in this man, this life, this death — something in whatever he carried in his spirit and in his flesh — has been pulling artists toward him ever since, as though the making of the image were not a choice but a compulsion. As though they were reaching for something they could feel but not see.
I have been thinking about what that beauty actually is. Not the golden-haired Renaissance invention, not the Warner Sallman portrait that blanketed the 20th century in soft light and softer theology. The deeper thing. The thing that kept Michelangelo on his back on the scaffolding and kept Rembrandt returning to the same scenes decade after decade and kept Rodin — Rodin, who was suspicious of religion and slippery about the sacred — carving a dying Christ in marble at the age of sixty-eight. What is it about Yeshua that the human hand cannot leave alone?
“Something in this man has been pulling artists toward him for two millennia — as though the making of the image were not a choice but a compulsion.”
I think it is both things at once: the holiness and the flesh. The spirit that moved through him — the quality of his presence, his mercy, his willingness to go all the way to the end of what love costs — and the body that housed it. A body that wept. That was anointed. That was touched by the woman with the hemorrhage who reached through a crowd and felt power leave him the moment her fingers found the hem of his garment. A body that was broken and that, in being broken, broke something open in everyone who has ever tried to look at it honestly.
This is what artists have always known, even when they couldn't say it theologically: the beauty of Yeshua is not separable from his suffering. The two things are the same thing. The glory is in the wound. And the impulse to paint him, to sculpt him, to render him in silver and marble and fresco and icon — that impulse is, at its root, the impulse to be near something you cannot fully comprehend but cannot stop reaching toward.
✦ ✦ ✦
There is a marble sculpture at the Getty that lives in my mind and will not leave. Rodin made it in 1908, and it is called, among other names, Christ and Mary Magdalene. A dying man, arms outstretched, nailed to rough stone. Against him — pressed fully against him, her garments fallen around her ankles — a woman. Her body is curved around his suffering. She is not observing it. She is entering it.
Rodin was not a religious man in any conventional sense. He would tell his secretary that the subject might equally be called Prometheus and an Oceanid, or The Genius and Pity — he was characteristically slippery about the sacred. And yet he spent his final decades circling this image. The sculpture was never publicly exhibited during his lifetime, never cast in bronze, existing in only two marble versions — both of which disappeared immediately into private collections as though they were too intimate to be seen. Something about the subject held him, even if he couldn't name what it was.
What Rodin understood about Yeshua was the body. The fact of the body. Christ in this sculpture is not enthroned, not transfigured, not yet risen. He is dying. The head drops sideways. The arms are outstretched not in triumph but in the helpless, terrible openness of crucifixion. And the stone around both figures — Rodin's signature non finito, borrowed from Michelangelo — is rough, uncarved, barely emerged. As though the bodies are being born from the rock. Or absorbed back into it. The line between creation and dissolution is precisely what Rodin refuses to draw.
Mary Magdalene is naked. A Jesuit writer who stood before this work described her nakedness not as nudity — not something offered for admiration — but as nakedness: the dropping of garments as an act of solidarity, of communion, of shared humiliation. He called it a kind of Eucharist. This is my body which is given to you. She presses herself against the dying Christ with everything she has, and in doing so she is doing what artists have always done — refusing the distance, insisting on contact, giving her own flesh as a witness to his.
Rodin's sculpture is the monumental version of the impulse. It is three and a half feet tall and weighs over six hundred kilograms. It is overwhelming in scale because it is about something overwhelming — the kind of love and suffering and presence that changes the temperature of any room it enters. You do not approach that sculpture casually. You approach it the way you approach something that is going to ask something of you.
✦ ✦ ✦
“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities — and by his wounds we are healed.”
But there is another way to respond to beauty you cannot fully hold. Not the monumental way. The intimate one.
Elsa Peretti designed a crucifix for Tiffany that is just over an inch long. It lives on a chain, against the skin, worn at the collarbone or just below — worn daily, worn to sleep in, worn in water. Peretti once said that jewelry should be comfortable enough to shower in. Her crucifix is that kind of object: the kind that becomes indistinguishable from the body that carries it.
Peretti was a woman who thought in bodies — specifically in how bodies carry things, how objects rest against skin, how metal warms and moves and becomes familiar. Her Bone Cuff was shaped from the bones of monks she encountered as a child in a Roman Capuchin crypt. Her Bean and her Open Heart were, in different ways, organs: soft, interior, alive. She said her designs were dictated by common sense. She meant: dictated by the body, by what the body already knows.
Her crucifix is small and its lines are organic — softly curved where traditional crucifixes are rigid, the arms of the cross slightly yielding, as though made from something that once bent. It does not shout its symbolism. It settles into whoever wears it. It becomes, over time, warm. It becomes, over time, unremarkable in the way that only the most intimate things become unremarkable. Like a scar. Like a name.
Peretti's crucifix does not ask you to contemplate the cross. It asks you to carry it — the way you carry your own weight, without ceremony, because it has become part of what you are.
This is a different rendering than Rodin's, but it is responding to the same beauty. Where Rodin gives you the overwhelming encounter — the full weight of that body, that suffering, that inexplicable love — Peretti gives you the daily one. The version where the beauty of Yeshua is not a confrontation but a constant. Not something you stand before, but something you carry. Something that warms against your skin while you make breakfast, while you work, while you sleep, while you forget and then, suddenly, remember.
✦ ✦ ✦
This is what I keep returning to: the fact that two artists so different in medium and temperament and century were both drawn, in their own idiom, to the same subject, and both found in him something worth rendering as poetry. Rodin, who called himself Prometheus as often as he called himself a Christian. Peretti, the Italian model turned craftsman who built a design language out of bones and seeds and organic form. Neither of them obvious candidates for religious art. Both of them unable to leave him alone.
The Gospels give us no face to work from. Isaiah's prophecy gave us a suffering servant, a man of sorrows — not a portrait but a shape of love, a description of what it costs to bear what he bore. And into that absence, that silence where a physical description should be, two thousand years of artists have poured themselves. Every image is an act of faith. Every rendering is a reaching. Not toward a documented face but toward something felt — the quality of his presence, the weight of his mercy, the particular beauty of a life given over completely.
The painters kept coming. The sculptors kept returning. And they will keep coming, I think, for as long as there are human hands — because whatever it was that moved through Yeshua, whatever holiness and sorrow and tenderness and power gathered itself into that particular life, it does not release its hold. It pulls. It has always pulled. In marble three and a half feet tall, in silver barely an inch long, in ten thousand altarpieces and icons and frescoes and carvings — the same unreasonable pull, the same irresistible subject, the same beauty we have no record of and have never been able to stop imagining.
