Nephi saw the Savior, His earthly ministry, His death and His resurrection. As a result, Nephi would have seen the messianic meaning in many of the Isaiah passages.
Nephi has testified of Christ’s virgin birth. He saw it in vision. Therefore, he uses these words from Isaiah to testify as a second witness of the future birth of the Lord, through miraculous means. These testimonies confirm each other, and assure us Christ’s birth was through the extraordinary intervention of God the Father, and His birth came about from Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. Modern scholarly and scientific skepticism notwithstanding, Christ came to the earth through a miracle. He was not the son of the man Joseph. He was the Son of God.
Nephi saw this and knew of Christ’s parentage. He knew this was a “virgin birth” as a result of who the Father was. He saw the Lord during His mortal ministry, even though the ministry would be in the future. Although this is odd to us, it is not to God; for God is able to see the past, present, and future all together before Him at all times. It is a little thing for God to be able to show Nephi what would happen long before the events themselves took place.
Because he foresaw the Lord, Nephi would have been acquainted with the Lord’s appearance. Interestingly, none of those who have seen Him have felt the need to describe His appearance, other than in the most general of terms. Joseph’s descriptions in the First Vision (JS-H 1: 17) and the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110: 2-3) are insufficient to tell us any of His features. This is typical for all those who have seen Him. From the four Gospels, we have little to inform us of how He looked. That is no doubt to prevent idolatry. We cannot create statutes and paintings with His image if we do not have anything but our imagination to work from. Given the excesses of religious bigotry we have seen in history, it has been a blessing for us to not have a physical description of Him.
But we are not without some information to tell us in general terms about His appearance. Here is what we know from scripture: Since His mother was a Jewish resident of Palestine, she would have given to Him her genetic contribution from this ethnic group. As to the rest, His appearance would also bear markings from another source not typical of the genetic make-up of His generation. How that would be manifested, we have no complete record provided to us yet. But the scriptures do allow us to reconstruct some of the Lord’s physical characteristics. We know, for example He must have been significantly taller than His peers. The account of Zacchaeus gives us some indirect information about this. It reads:
And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. And he ran before, andclimbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. (Luke 19: 1-6, emphasis added.)
Zacchaeus was short (“little of stature”). He knew Christ was coming, and the route He was to pass. He wanted to see Christ and, based upon what he had previously heard about the Lord, devised a plan to make visual contact. His plan reveals to us what Zacchaeus had heard about the Lord. Zacchaeus knew if he could get elevated, he would be able to see Christ. He knew if he were elevated above the level of the crowd, Christ would then be visible to anyone’s sight, including his own. From this we can surmise Christ would stand out physically among His peers by His height. Anyone who elevated themselves above the crowd in which He was walking would be able to get an unobstructed view of Him. Therefore, it would seem the Lord was at least a full head taller than His contemporaries. Tall enough, anyway, so that if you were above the crowd in which He stood, He would be visible to you even from a distance.
Nephi also refers to Christ as “the lamb of God.” While this is a description of the innocence of the Lord, and His suitability for an offering for sin, it is more likely a description of His appearance, as well. Oftentimes we miss that. But it is unlikely He would be called a “lamb” by so many who saw Him if it did not also speak something of His appearance.
A “lamb” looks different from a goat or a ram. One of the most important sacrifices in scripture involved a “ram.” Therefore, if anything about Christ’s appearance looked the part of a “ram,” there was no reason to call Him otherwise. But He is not called a “ram” anywhere in scripture. He is invariably called a “lamb.” The appearance of a “lamb” is young, or tender. Nephi, who saw Him in vision, thought it appropriate to repeatedly call Him a “lamb.” If you reread Nephi’s account of his vision of Christ, you will find he calls Christ a “lamb” fifty-seven times in just Chapters 10 through 14 of First Nephi. Nephi is trying to tell us something about Christ by this repeated use of the description “lamb.”
Others, of course, call Him this as well. The Mosaic Law itself used a “lamb” to symbolize Him in many ordinances. We will assume this was intended to be descriptive of His physical appearance, in addition to His acceptability as an offering for sin.
That being true, our Lord would have seemed young, even tender or lamb-like, in His features. The first man placed on earth was also a son of Heavenly Father. Moses 6: 22: “And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.” (Emphasis added.) Adam’s status as a son of God does not displace Christ as the “Only Begotten in the flesh,” of course, because when Adam was first created he was immortal. He was not born into the flesh. Rather, flesh came about as a consequence of the Fall.
Adam fell, but then lived for nine hundred and thirty years after the Fall. It would seem apparent if Adam and Christ were sired by the same Father, Christ would similarly have had a longer lifespan than His contemporaries (or us for that matter). Accordingly, He would have looked lamb-like, or very young, perhaps not more than a teen in appearance, even though He began His ministry at about age thirty. Had you seen Him as a mortal, you would probably have been struck by how young He looked, and considered it unlikely for one with such apparent youth to be possessed of great wisdom. Wisdom is usually found in folks who have had many years to develop insight and acquire life’s experiences.
Christ labored up to the time His ministry began as a carpenter. He worked with Joseph in his trade. He also was “strong.” Physically we could expect this “lamb of God” to have appeared strong or sinewy. Therefore, from what we read in scripture we can conclude our Lord’s physical appearance in His mortal ministry would have been tall, youthful looking and sinewy or strong. His youthful countenance would have invited the older, presiding priestly authorities to doubt His status or wisdom. We see them confronting Him throughout His ministry. In a culture which valued age-related wisdom and experience, looking youthful would make you appear anything but an authority. The scribes and Pharisees, as well as the presiding High Priest and his family, felt uninhibited about challenging this young “lamb” of a Messiah, who looked to them ill-fitted to play the part of the Great Deliverer. “How,” they might think, “could someone who looked like a mere teen have the wisdom to compete with our years of learning?” He appeared to be a safe target for their barbs. So the scenes play out in the scriptures from Galilee to Judea. They show our Lord standing out in His countenance, height and youthful appearance. He looked every bit a “Lamb of God” for any of those who had eyes to see and ears to hear. For the rest, He was not at all what they wanted or expected in a Lord and Master, and was ill-fitted for such a role.
His appearance is not important, however. That is one of the reasons why it is never given in detail. It was who He was, and what He did that made Him Lord. He suffered temptation like every one of us. He never succumbed to any of the temptations, however. In that respect, He was “perfect,” just like the Father. Despite this, He was punished in the same way as if He had violated every commandment, failed every temptation, and succumbed to every vice. He was punished for our sins, and not for His own. It was this great act of mercy, which made possible the plan of salvation, which causes us to worship Him. He provided the way back from outer darkness for us all. Without His great sacrifice, none of us could be saved. We would all remain in the grave, without resurrection, and without hope for all eternity.