The Theological Missteps of John of Damascus on the Use of Images in Worship

J. Neil Daniels

The veneration of religious images has long been a point of contention in Christian theology, particularly during the iconoclastic controversies of the early church. John of Damascus (675/76–749), a prominent defender of the use of icons, articulates his position in Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images. He contends that the Old Testament prohibitions against images, particularly in Deuteronomy 4, are no longer applicable in light of the incarnation, which, he argues, provides a visible human form of God suitable for depiction in worship. This brief essay critically evaluates John’s argument, asserting that both of his foundational premises are flawed. First, John misinterprets the Mosaic prohibition in Deuteronomy 4, conflating distinct warnings and overlooking broader theological objections to idolatry. Second, his claim that the incarnation legitimizes images misunderstands the nature of Christ’s divine and human natures. Drawing on biblical texts and theological reasoning, this analysis contends that the use of images in worship remains theologically problematic at best, even after the incarnation.

John of Damascus’s Argument and Its Scriptural Foundation

John of Damascus constructs his defense by addressing Old Testament prohibitions, particularly those in Deuteronomy 4:15–20 and Exodus 20:4–5. He cites his adversaries who appeal to the divine command: “You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in the heavens above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Ex 20:4). He responds by accusing them of misunderstanding Scripture: “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life—not finding in the letter the hidden meaning.” John suggests that the prohibition is rooted in God’s formlessness, as stated in Deuteronomy 4:12: “Then Yahweh spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form—only a voice.” He continues with Deuteronomy 4:15–18:

“So keep your souls very carefully, since you did not see any form on the day Yahweh spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure—the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky.”

According to John, the key concern is misdirected worship: “The one thing to be aimed at is not to adore a created thing more than the Creator, nor to give the worship of latreia except to Him alone.” He argues that the prohibition on images was instituted to prevent idolatry, but that the incarnation changes this. He writes: “It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form.” He then exhorts the faithful to depict Christ’s life: His birth, baptism, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension—“Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.”

His argument rests on two main premises: (1) that Deuteronomy 4 implies images would be permissible if God were to assume a visible form, and (2) that the incarnation provides such a form. Therefore, according to John, images of Christ’s human form are permissible in worship. This essay contends that both premises are flawed and fail to account for the broader biblical theology of idolatry.

Misinterpreting Deuteronomy 4: The First Premise

John’s first premise depends on Deuteronomy 4:15–20, where Moses exhorts Israel to avoid idolatry as they prepare to enter the land. He quotes the passage that underscores the formlessness of God’s self-revelation at Horeb. John interprets this as a functional safeguard: “He forbids image-making on account of idolatry, and that it is impossible to make an image of the immeasurable, uncircumscribed, invisible God.”

However, John conflates two distinct warnings in Deuteronomy 4:

(A) “So keep your souls very carefully... lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure…” (Deu 4:15–18).

(B) “And beware, lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars... and be drawn away and worship them...” (Deu 4:19).

Though both concern idolatry, they address distinct practices. Section (A) prohibits attempts to image God based on the fact that the Israelites saw no form. Section (B) forbids celestial worship, a practice common among Israel’s pagan neighbors. Genesis 1:14–19 frames the heavenly bodies as mere creations, not deities. The larger context of Deuteronomy 4 stresses God’s unique relationship with Israel, in contrast to the nations who serve created things (cf. Deu 4:6–8, 20).

Moses’s logic in section (A) is deductive: “You saw no form, therefore do not make images.” John reverses this: “If you do see a form, then you may make images.” This is a logical fallacy, specifically denying the antecedent. The text gives no warrant for concluding that the appearance of form nullifies the principle of formless worship. The formlessness of God is only one aspect of the biblical opposition to images. Other concerns include human craftsmanship (Jer 10:3–5), lifelessness (Hab 2:18–19), and deviation from God’s appointed means of worship (Deu 12:4). Even John acknowledges that idols are “gods of wood and stone, the work of human hands” (Deu 4:28), but he fails to show how depicting Christ avoids the same problem.

The Incarnation and the Form of God: The Second Premise

John’s second premise holds that the incarnation permits images of Christ because He assumed a visible human form. He reasons: “When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit... takes upon Himself the form of a servant... then you may draw His likeness.” This reasoning implies that the divine nature has now become depictable. Yet orthodox Christology affirms that the incarnation does not alter the divine nature; the Son remains fully God, even in His full humanity.

Moses’s statement that the people “saw no form” (Deu 4:12) refers to the essence of God, not merely His manifestation. God did appear in visible ways—fire, cloud, angelic form—but these were accommodations, not representations of His nature. Likewise, Christ’s humanity veils rather than reveals the essence of deity in visual terms. Worship is directed to the divine nature, which remains invisible and infinite.

The New Testament affirms this. John 1:18 (LSB) states, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Jesus reveals the Father, not through visible appearance, but through His words and deeds. When Philip asks, “Show us the Father,” Jesus replies, “Have I been with you all so long and have you not come to know Me? He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Yet He immediately explains that His words and works are the real revelation (John 14:10).

Paul’s sermon at the Areopagus further undermines John’s reasoning. Paul declares: “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the craft and thought of man” (Acts 17:29). He does not suggest that images of Christ are now permissible, but instead calls people to repent and believe in the resurrected Lord who will judge the world (Acts 17:30–31).

The Irrelevance of Veneration versus Adoration

John distinguishes between latreia (adoration) and dulia (veneration), asserting that only the former is reserved for God. However, Scripture never legitimizes dulia toward images. The biblical concern is not simply the intent of the worshiper, but the use of images as vehicles of divine association. God repeatedly forbids using any physical object to represent Him, regardless of the attitude behind it (Deu 12:1–5; Hab 2:18–20). The problem is not only misdirected worship but misrepresentation of the divine. The very act of associating God with human-made images contradicts the very essence of biblical worship.

Conclusion

John of Damascus’s defense of religious images misinterprets Deuteronomy 4 and misconstrues the implications of the incarnation. His claim that Moses’s prohibition allows for images if God assumes a form is logically and theologically unfounded. The Bible consistently rejects images in worship, not merely because of God’s invisibility, but because such representations are contrary to divine revelation, substitute human invention for divine command, and diminish the transcendent holiness of God. The incarnation reveals God in human flesh, but not in a manner that justifies figural representation in worship. John’s own admissions about God’s invisibility and transcendence conflict with his permissive stance. Scripture continues to direct worship toward the unseen God, known through His Word and Spirit, not through human-crafted icons.

Bibliography and Further Study

Baynes, Norman H. “The Icons before Iconoclasm.” Harvard Theological Review 44.2 (April 1951): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000031096 

Damascene, John. On the Divine Images: Three Treatises Against Those Who Attack the Holy Images. Translated by David Anderson. Popular Patristics Series, no. 3. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1980. 

Fortounatto, Mariamna, Mary B. Cunningham, and Elizabeth Theokritoff. “Theology of the Icon.” In The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, edited by Mary B. Cunningham, 136–49. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521864848.010

Habershon, Ada R. The Bible and the Pictures: Or, The Use and Abuse of Art in Worship. London: Morgan & Scott, 1910.

Hart, Aidan. “Theology of the Icon.” St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology, October 2023. Online. Accessed June 12, 2025. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/TheologyoftheIcon 

Jensen, Robin M. Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

Mackenzie, Iain. God, Art and Architecture: A Theological Aesthetic. London: Routledge, 2002.

Maring, Norman W. “The Theology of Icons: A Critique.” Review and Expositor 74.2 (1977): 239–247.

Oxford Research Encyclopedias. “Iconophobia and Iconophilia.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Religion (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-915 

Wilken, Robert Louis. The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God. New Haven: Yale University, 2003.