So many depictions of Jesus are available throughout the world..statues,  many  on the "cross", art works of all kinds.

Each depicts the "Jesus" that the artists choose to imagine our Lord looked like. Normally, He appears as Caucasian in appearance, with mostly brown-colored hair, and his visage is usually attractive, even in agony on the "cross".

Noone, obviously, has the slightest idea of what He looked like, but He was certainly not Caucasian and his hair would be dark, in keeping with His Hebrew origins.

I recall one time, after presenting my play, ROAD TO BETHANY..The Passion Play at a mega-Born-Again Church that one of the junior pastors took me to task for portraying Jesus,when I was considerably older than HIm..I was in my late 50'2.  I agreed  that I was too old for Jesus, but that a 30+ year old man, spending most of his time  in the elements would look considerably older than one would imagine.

Then, I shocked him, when I reminded him of His own people that declared, if He was going to heal people, why not heal Himself, as well.  There is no doubt that He must've had some obvious disfigurement of some sort, which was readily apparent. I wondered if it might not be a cleft palet, rendering Him less than attractive in appearance.

Time didn't permit me to remind him of what Isaiah prophesied, when he declared, "He has no form that we would be attracted to Him".

We put too much emphasis on appearance and I must admit, as an actor, I am guilty as well.

But, when you think about it, God doesn't always do the expected. He didn't choose the disciples because they were learned and well-connected, He chose plain men, fishermen and laborers of the soil to do His work.

So, why wouldn't He choose to reveal His Son as less than perfect physically?  paulnbob