No Form Was Seen: The Theological Rationale for Aniconism in the Old Testament

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: A "Deep Dive" audio overview is available here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ohh3CvNetUkInsc8e--Iwdv0Koyo-i0_/view?usp=drivesdk

Introduction 

The prohibition of images in the worship of Yahweh, as articulated in the Old Testament, represents a cornerstone of Israelite theology, distinguishing it from the religious practices of neighboring ancient Near Eastern cultures. This essay explores the theological underpinnings of this prohibition, drawing on the biblical text and scholarly insights from Edward M. Curtis’s Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society article, “The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament.” Curtis, now professor of biblical and theological studies at Biola University in La Mirada, California, argues that the prohibition, rooted in the second commandment of the Decalogue, reflects a complex interplay of theological convictions about Yahweh’s sovereignty, self-revelation, and covenant relationship with Israel. It also served a pragmatic function in resisting the assimilation of foreign religious values. This analysis will examine the biblical basis for the prohibition, the negative portrayal of images in the Hebrew Bible, the theological rationale behind the ban, and its role in preserving Israel’s distinct covenantal identity.

The Biblical Foundation of the Prohibition

The prohibition of images is explicitly stated in the second commandment: “You shall not make for yourselves an image (pesel), or any likeness (təmûnāh) of that which is in heaven above or of that which is on the earth below or of that which is in the waters beneath the earth” (Ex 20:4). This commandment, reiterated in Deuteronomy 5:8 and supported by other texts such as Exodus 20:23, 34:17, Leviticus 19:4, 26:1, and Deuteronomy 4:15–19, 25, 27:15, forms the foundation for the consistent condemnation of images throughout the Hebrew Bible (Curtis 1985, 277). The prohibition is not merely a legal stipulation but a theological principle that shapes the evaluation of Israel’s and Judah’s fidelity to Yahweh in the historical books (e.g., 2 Chr 33:2–9; 2 Kgs 17:7–18) and the prophetic critiques of idolatry (e.g., Hos 8:1–6; Isa 2:6–8; Jer 1:16). The consistent emphasis on this prohibition underscores its centrality to Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, serving as a criterion for assessing the righteousness of kings and the nation’s adherence to God's will.

Negative Portrayal of Images in the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible employs a range of derogatory terms and vivid imagery to express contempt for idols, reflecting a deep theological aversion to their use in worship. Terms such as gillûlîm (“dung-pellets”), šiqqûṣ (“detestable thing”), tô‘ēbāh (“abomination”), hebel (“vapor, worthless”), šeqer (“deception”), šāw’ (“emptiness”), and miplēsēt (“horrible thing”) convey the worthlessness and impurity of images (Curtis 1985, 278–280). For instance, gillûlîm, frequently used by Ezekiel, carries connotations of uncleanness due to its phonetic similarity to gēl and gālāl, both meaning “dung” (Curtis 1985, 278). Similarly, šiqqûṣ is associated with ritual impurity, as seen in Ezekiel 5:11, where idols are said to defile Yahweh’s sanctuary. These terms, predominantly found in the prophetic literature (e.g., Hos 13:2; Isa 44:19–20; Jer 10:14–15), emphasize the lifelessness, ineffectiveness, and deceptive nature of images, contrasting them with the living, sovereign Yahweh who hears and acts (Jer 10:3–5; Ps 115:4–7).

The prophets’ ridicule of images often highlights their human origin, portraying them as mere products of craftsmen’s hands, devoid of divine power (Hos 8:4–6; Isa 40:19–20; Jer 10:14–16). This critique is not limited to the prophets but appears in other texts, such as Psalms 115:4–8 and Deuteronomy 27:15, though it is most pronounced in prophetic writings (Curtis 1985, 280). The use of such contemptuous language underscores the settled theological conviction that images are not only ineffective but also an affront to Yahweh’s covenant, polluting the land and rendering the people unclean (Jer 16:18).

Theological Rationale for the Prohibition

The theological basis for the prohibition of images is multifaceted, rooted in the nature of Yahweh’s self-revelation and sovereignty. Deuteronomy 4:12–18 provides key insight, noting that at Sinai, Israel heard Yahweh’s voice but saw no form (təmûnāh), only experiencing His presence through fire, cloud, and thick gloom (Curtis 1985, 283). This passage suggests that the prohibition is tied to the way Yahweh chooses to manifest himself, through His word and historical acts rather than through physical representations. Unlike the gods of Egypt or Canaan, believed to manifest through images, Yahweh’s self-disclosure excludes such means, preserving His freedom to reveal Himself as He wills (Curtis 1985, 284). This emphasis on divine sovereignty counters the ancient Near Eastern practice of using images to secure a deity’s presence through ritual manipulation, a concept incompatible with Yahwism’s view of Yahweh as uncontrollable by human or magical means (Curtis 1985, 284–285).

The narrative of the golden calf in Exodus 32–34 further illuminates this theological principle. The calf, whether intended as an image of Yahweh or another deity, was an attempt to secure divine presence, yet it jeopardized the covenant and provoked Yahweh’s wrath (Curtis 1985, 285). This incident underscores that images, even those ostensibly representing Yahweh, are counterproductive, infringing on His sovereign freedom to manifest himself. Brevard Childs argues that images constitute a rival human witness to Yahweh’s self-revelation, which is fully sufficient through His word and historical acts (Childs, as cited in Curtis 1985, 286). Thus, the prohibition reflects a theological commitment to Yahweh’s uniqueness and authority, reinforced by the Decalogue’s prefatory formula, “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Ex 20:2), which grounds the commandments in Yahweh’s redemptive acts and sovereign will (Curtis 1985, 285).

Preserving Israel’s Distinct Religious Identity

The prohibition of images also served a pragmatic role in safeguarding Israel’s distinct religious identity against the assimilative pressures of Canaanite culture. Archaeological evidence supports the antiquity of this aniconic tradition, as no images of Yahweh have been found in Israelite sites, despite the prevalence of mother-goddess figurines (Bright, as cited in Curtis 1985, 281). This suggests that the prohibition was firmly established before Israel’s settlement in Canaan, enabling resistance to the advanced material culture of the Canaanites (Curtis 1985, 282). The ban on images, including those of Yahweh, prevented the syncretism that could arise from adopting Canaanite religious practices, which often involved image-based worship (Curtis 1985, 282). Other laws, such as the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Exod 23:19), similarly aimed to separate Israelite worship from Canaanite rites, reinforcing the covenant’s distinctiveness (Curtis 1985, 282).

The prohibition’s theological and pragmatic dimensions are intertwined. By excluding images, Israel’s worship remained focused on Yahweh’s self-revelation through His Word, historical acts, and covenant stipulations, rather than on physical objects that could blur the line between representation and veneration (Curtis 1985, 282). This focus preserved the theological principle that Yahweh is sovereign, free from human control, and distinct from the gods of neighboring peoples, whose worship often involved images believed to embody divine presence (Curtis 1985, 284).

Conclusion

The prohibition of images in the Old Testament, as elucidated by Curtis (1985), is deeply rooted in Israel’s theological understanding of Yahweh’s sovereignty, self-revelation, and covenant relationship with His people. The second commandment, supported by prophetic critiques and historical evaluations, reflects a rejection of images as incompatible with Yahweh’s nature and will. The derogatory language used for idols underscores their worthlessness and impurity, contrasting them with the living God who manifests Himself through His Word and acts in history. Theologically, the prohibition safeguards Yahweh’s freedom and sovereignty, preventing human attempts to control or replicate His presence. Pragmatically, it preserved Israel’s distinct religious identity, enabling resistance to the assimilative pressures of Canaanite culture. This aniconic tradition, firmly established before the conquest of Canaan, underscores the fundamentally different religious value system that set Israel apart from its ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, ensuring the survival of Yahwism as a unique covenant faith.

Postscript: Contemporary Relevance of the Old Testament Image Prohibition

The theological rationale for the prohibition of images in the Old Testament retains enduring relevance, particularly in contemporary discussions surrounding the use of icons, statues, and other visual representations in Christian worship. While the Christian tradition diverged in its treatment of images, especially after the Christological controversies of the early ecumenical councils, the aniconic impulse rooted in Old Testament revelation continues to raise critical questions about the nature of divine representation, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the integrity of worship.

In traditions that venerate icons, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, or employ statuary devotionally, as in Roman Catholicism, it is often argued that the incarnation of Christ fundamentally altered the theological landscape by making the invisible God visible (cf. John 1:14; Col 1:15). Yet, from a Protestant and especially Reformed perspective, this move is not seen as warranting a reversal of the Old Testament’s theological stance on images. Rather, the prohibition is viewed as grounded in immutable truths about the nature of God’s self-revelation and the dangers of conflating human artistry with divine presence.

The Reformers, particularly John Calvin, emphasized that the prohibition of images was not merely cultural or temporary but theological and moral, rooted in the Creator–creature distinction and the sufficiency of the Word (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.11.1–16). Visual representations, even of Christ, risk domesticating the divine and substituting mediated forms for the immediacy of faith that comes by hearing (Rom 10:17). Moreover, both Scripture and history attest to the enduring propensity of the human heart toward idolatry (Exod 32; Judg 2:11–13; 2 Kgs 17:7–17; Rom 1:21–23), confirming Calvin’s observation that the mind of man is a “perpetual forge of idols” ("mens humana perpetua idolorum fabrica est," Calvin, Institutes, 1.11.8) and thereby reinforcing the theological wisdom of maintaining a principled iconoclasm.

Thus, the Old Testament’s prohibition of images serves not merely as a relic of Israel’s theocratic past but as a theological witness with contemporary import. It challenges the church to reflect seriously on the regulative principles of worship, the sufficiency of Scripture for divine revelation, and the ways in which material representations displace, however subtly, the invisible glory of the triune God.

Source

Curtis, Edward M. “The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28.3 (1985): 277–287.

For Further Study 

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation. Vol. 2. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

– His treatment of the second commandment engages with image prohibition from a systematic theological standpoint.

Beale, G. K. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008.

– A thorough biblical-theological study integrating Old and New Testament perspectives on idolatry.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book 1, Chapter 11.

– Especially §§1–16. Calvin offers a classic Protestant theological critique of images in worship, grounding his arguments in Scripture and the Creator-creature distinction.