DESTIGTER 1

Introduction

Many scholars have been perplexed by the rigid iconoclasm of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The strongly worded indictments of idols strike many as surprising given the widespread

iconography of deities in the ancient Near East. Because of this, scholars such as Karel van der

Toorn have concluded that Israelite aniconism was a product of Deuteronomistic reform and

political agenda. In connection with this, Michael Dick, through the mis pi ritual, has cited the

polemics against idols as the culmination of this misleading Deuteronomistic reform. Essentially,

they reduce aniconic theology to socio-political influences. Much of this rests on an

understanding of Deuteronomistic reform, which sees the aniconism evident in Deuteronomy-2

Kings as a theology arising out of Josiah’s political agenda seen in 2 Kings 22.

Although there seems to be an evolution of Israelite aniconic thought, it is clear that the

seeds of aniconic theology lie deep within Israel’s history. I will show this by identifying the

methodological issues within van der Toorn and Dick’s arguments. In the end, I will argue that

the aniconism seen in Josiah’s reforms organically flows out of a pre-existing tradition seen in

the Exodus Decalogue, rather than a radical reversal of the biblical text as Deuteronomistic

Reform claims.

Israelite Aniconism and Deuteronomistic Reform

In the last 50 years, there has been an increased interest in the aniconistic theology of the

Bible. Many look to Deuteronomy 5:8-9 as a prime example of the blatant rejection of icons:

“you shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the

earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the

Lord your God, am a jealous God” (ESV). This passage raises some key questions: Was Israelite
 DESTIGTER 2

teaching always aniconic, or were these teachings a product of later developments? What is the

cause of these developments: socio-political manipulation or theological sophistication?

To answer these questions, scholars have looked at the possibility of biblical redaction

and the extrabiblical record as explanations for this unmistakable aniconism. Both of these

aspects will be investigated below. Before discussing the explanations of biblical redaction, it is

important to look at the texts in question. According to 2 Kings 22, the high priest found the

book of the law, and reported it to Josiah who heard the words of the law and “tore his robes” (v.

10). After this discover, the priests inquire of the prophetess Huldah who proclaims, “because

they [Israel] have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and aroused my anger by all the

idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.”

This text seems to suggest that Josiah had rediscovered an essential aspect of true Israelite

religion, that of aniconism and monotheism. According to this reading of the text, monotheism

and aniconism were theological truths evident in the Torah, but were abandoned to follow the

ways of other nations.

However straightforward this reading may seem, many scholars have found this

understanding to be quite problematic. As John Laughlin makes clear, “the impression that

Israelite religion was both imageless and monotheistic is now generally recognized to be the

result of the late editing of biblical traditions by the so-called Deuteronomic reformers.”1 This

reading of Deuteronomy and other aniconic texts is typical of redaction criticism, which looks

for elements of editing within a text. Some go all the way to claim that it is “clear that [Josiah’s]

1 John Laughlin, “Idols and Idolatry” In The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,edited by Abingdon

Press, 5 vols., 3. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006, 12.

 DESTIGTER 3

‘reforms’ represent modernizing novelties without roots in the society as a whole.”2 Tryggve

Mettinger also speaks to the subject of Israelite aniconism. He argues that Israel had initially

been “fairly tolerant” of the use of idols.3 Continually, Karel van der Toorn emphatically

proclaims, “the Israelite cult, until the Deuteronomic reform, was not aniconic... [and] does not

precede the late 7th century”4 It appears that he has reversed the causal order that the texts

suggest, opting for a reading that sees Josiah as the originator of the aniconistic texts, rather than

the respondent. This push for aniconic religious practice was Josiah’s attempt to stabilize his

dominion “over his inhomogeneous territories.”5

Polemics against Idols and their Relationship to Israelite Aniconism

There is another layer to the discussion of Israelite aniconism, and it is the issue of the

polemics against idols. Many scholars recognize these polemics as evidence of an aniconic

agenda of Israelite prophets. This is due, in large part, to the context of idol making in the ancient

Near East. The main passage in question is Isaiah 44:9 and 16: “all who make idols are

nothing...he takes [wood] and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also

fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it.” This passage scathingly

mocks those who construct idols for worship, showing it to be a practice based in foolishness.

Isaiah brackets this passage in chapter 40 verse 18 when he says, “With whom, then, will you

compare God? To what image will you liken him?” (ESV).

! 2 Jan C. Gertz, T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and

History of the Old Testament. London, England: T&T Clark, 2012, 172.
3 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No graven image?: Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context.

Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995, 136.

4 Karel
van der Toorn. “Israelite Figurines: A View from the Texts.” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place:
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by Barry Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002, 48.
! 5 Gertz, T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament, 173.
 DESTIGTER 4

When looking at the Ancient Near Eastern context of idol-making, these idol passages are

somewhat misleading. Isaiah seems to look at idol making in a kind of reductionistic way, in

order to delegitimize their use. In actuality, idols were seen as incredibly sacred objects in which

the divine was thought to dwell (e.g. Genesis 31 when Laban pursues Jacob over stolen

household gods). The statue was not seen as “coterminous with the deity” (as the Isaiah passage

would suggest), but the divine was still significantly present in the statue.6 This is particularly

evident in the Mesopotamian ritual known as the mis pi. This two day ritual

had the purpose of enlivening and sensitizing the god, and enabling it to eat food and

smell incense, while ‘mouth washing’, done with water enhanced with numerous

purifying agents and collected in a special vessel, was aimed at achieving total purity and

permitting the god to assume his position in the company of the other gods7

Thus, the mis pi was a way of making that which was born in heaven to be made on earth. This

ritual illuminates the Ancient Near Eastern view that idols and images were not a “copy in the

sense of mimetic resemblance; rather, it is a repetition, another way that the person or entity

could be encountered.”8

This understanding adds some complexity to the passages about idols. In his article,

“Worshipping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know”, Michael Dick uses the example of the mis pi to

show that the “Assyrian worshipers were aware of the theological issues raised by Isaiah.”9 The

! 6 Michael Brennan Dick, “The Mesopotamian Cult Statue: A Sacramental Encounter with Divinity” in Cult

image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Walls, Neal H. Boston, MA: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 2005, 53.
7 Victor Hurowitz, "The Mesopotamian god image, from womb to tomb," Journal Of The American

Oriental Society 123, no. 1 (2003), 147.

8 Zainab Bahrani, The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia, Pa.:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

9 Michael Brennan Dick, “Worshiping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know,” Bible Review 18, no 2 (2002), 30.
 DESTIGTER 5

mis pi was a ritual to transform that which is merely material to that which is inhabited by the

divine. Because of this, Dick concludes that the polemics against idols are misrepresentative and

misguided when it comes to worshiping idols in the Ancient Near East. To offer a modern

analogy, It would be like critiquing the Lord’s Supper by saying, “with one half of the bread they

‘commune’ with Jesus, and the other half they eat for lunch.” Many Christians would probably

find this quite an unfair appraisal of the Eucharist. It seems as if these Old Testament texts are

doing a similar thing when it comes to idol worship.

It is important that one not use such polemical texts as one’s only source for how idols

functioned in the ANE. As Thorklid Jacobsen insightfully points out, “to the prophets, the

Mesopotamian idols constituted a potential religious threat. And so they spoke as they had to

speak-out of polemical zeal for the truth.”10 Isaiah is pushing Israel to realize Yahweh’s

necessary aniconic existence: he cannot be contained in an image. Thus, these passages are the

culmination of the Israelite aniconic tradition. However, their misleading nature, as discussed

above, leads Michael Dick to conclude that these passages are a “conscious distortion” of a a

politically motivated deuteronomic reformer.11 In sum, the polemics against idols are seen as the

peak of aniconic rhetoric instituted by Josiah’s reforms.

Identifying some Problems

To review some of the conclusions discussed thus far:

1. Israelite aniconism is first made explicit in the Deuteronomistic reform of Josiah in the

7th century (van der Toorn).

10 Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Graven Image.” Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore

Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1987, 28.
11 Michael Brennan Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient

Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999, 45.

 DESTIGTER 6

2. Before the 7th century, religious iconography was permitted amongst Israelite religious

practice (Mettinger).

3. The polemics against idols are unrepresentative of ANE idol worship, as well as the

culmination of aniconic theology brought about by the Deuteronomic reformers

(Dick).

Looking at van der Toorn’s main premise, that of aniconistic fluidity, Jack Sasson

identifies some major flaws. He asks the question: “even if we grant [this] premise, must we

nevertheless assume that the most effective application of a legal formulation necessarily

coincided with its fullest or most decisive codification? Especially in the case of Israel, when we

have no extrabiblical materials, I think it behooves us to be wary.”12 With such little extrabiblical

materials regarding the nature of Josiah’s reforms, why would we think his reforms started a

‘new’ belief in aniconism that never really existed before? This assumption is quite problematic,

and van der Toorn’s strong conclusions do not align with the evidence he brings to the table. In

regards to Mettinger’s conclusions, Theodore Lewis criticizes him for overstating his

conclusions and “its relevance for the aniconism of ancient Israel.”13 Lewis finds fault in how

Mettinger freely interprets archaeological findings of cult images because there are so many

possible conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence Mettinger investigates. The

problems with Dick’s conclusion are similar in that he leaps to far with his conclusions. Although

the polemics against idols may not be representative accounts of ancient idol worship, they can

still represent a genuine theological outgrowth for Israel. He unnecessarily characterizes Isaiah’s

‘misunderstanding’ about idols as a sign of a political agenda.

12 Jack M. Sasson, “On the Usage of Images in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” in Sacred Time, Sacred

Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by Barry Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002, 64.
13 Theodore J. Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel.” JAOS 118/1 (1998), 40.
 DESTIGTER 7

There is an even greater problem within Mettinger, van der Toorn,

and Dick’s conclusions. All of them assume a methodological naturalism, leaving no room for

genuine theological and spiritual influences. In reversing the causal story of Josiah’s reforms,

they read 2 Kings 22 ‘against the grain’, and force their explanation. However, for the Christian

scholar the presuppositions of a cultural materialism are untenable with biblical faith. We must

recognize the legitimate power of God in the life and thought of his people, always leaving room

open for him to use any means he might choose (natural or not). This point is significant because

it evens the playing field of scholarship. Or in other words, their presuppositions hold no merit

over our own. Rather, their modern assumptions guide their readings of the text more than they

give credence to, and this leaves their conclusions particularly unpersuasive for those who take

issue with their assumptions.

Exodus, Deuteronomy, and an Organically developed Aniconism

Having recognized the methodological discrepancies of the Deuternomonic history, the

question becomes: what is the story of Israelite aniconism? I would like to argue that Israelite

aniconism has its roots in Mosaic law, and was progressively realized throughout Israelite

history. Much of the debate comes down to the nature of the second commandment, and its role

in the biblical text. The second commandment can be seen in Deuteronomy 5 as well as Exodus

20. However, most scholars only recognize Deuteronomy for it’s aniconic theology. Some of this

contrast is because “Exodus 20:4 is more ambiguous than the version of the law in Deut. 5:8...

[leading many to] detect a development in the history of Israelite religion form the more narrow

command against idols in Deuteronomy to a broader command against all plastic art in
 DESTIGTER 8

Exodus.”14 Some scholars note the stronger language of Deuteronomy as evidence of a

revisionist history. However, one finds Exodus to be almost as forceful in it’s aniconic

commitments as Deuteronomy. Although there are differences between the commandments, there

is a deep literary link between the two books. 15 Thus, to find Deuteronomy (and its subsequent

history) unique in its aniconic theology is a blatant disservice to this connection. Because of this,

Mettinger concludes that, “Israelite aniconism is as old as Israel itself and not a late innovation.

The express prohibition of images is just the logical conclusion of a very long development.”16

If one is going to endorse the ‘Deuteronomic reform’ thesis, they will have to wrestle

with the entire biblical record not just texts within the Deuteronomistic strand. There is simply

no single textual tradition that can make sense of this development As Thomas Dozeman

recognizes, “the prohibition [of idols] is distributed widely, appearing in the law code of

covenant renewal (Exod 34:17), Deuteronomy (4:16, 23, 25), and the P legislation (Lev 26:1).

The law may have deep roots in ancient Israelite tradition.”17 Thus, the biblical reader is left to

see the seeds of aniconism early in Israelite history. These seeds are best understood as growing

organically throughout Israelite history, and were fully realized in Josiah’s reforms and the

polemics against idols. On top of this, the polemics against idols are trying to connect the reader

to the theological richness of Israel’s historic aniconism in order that they might worship Yahweh

the way he desires to be worshiped. As von Rad points out about the polemics against idols,

“polemic[s] of the wisdom teachers against any worship of images [was] simply a continuation

14 Thomas B. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2009,
484.
15 J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy. Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002, 29.
16 Mettinger, No graven image? ,195.
17 Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 483.
 DESTIGTER 9

of the [prohibition of images in the Decalogue].”18 The widespread prohibition of idols from the

second commandment to the exilic polemics of Jeremiah are far too numerous to be a product of

7th century reform. Rather, they flow naturally from the biblical text with a gradual progress of

adherence and rhetoric. This seems to be most evident when Paul ultimately declares in Acts

17:29-31,

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or

silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of

ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man

whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the

dead. (ESV)

Conclusion

Many Evangelicals are not comfortable with challenging Israelite aniconism. The

arguments discussed in this essay offer many critical remarks when it comes to the historicity

and motivation of Israel’s apparent restrictions on idol worship. However; they do not come

close when it comes to legitimately rejecting Israel’s aniconic origins. Weak archaeological

evidence and problematic presuppositions seem to plague many scholars. Therefore, the

contemporary Christian can confidently embrace the fullness of aniconic teaching from the Old

Testament. More importantly, we must look to challenge our idolatrous hearts with God’s

inspired word.

18 Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1972, 178.
DESTIGTER 10
 DESTIGTER 11

Bibliography

Bahrani, Zainab. The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia,
Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

Dick, Michael Brennan. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the
Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Dick, Michael Brennan, “The Mesopotamian Cult Statue: A Sacramental Encounter with
Divinity” Pages 45-67 in Cult image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near
East. Edited by Walls, Neal H. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research,
2005.

Dick, Michael Brennan. “Worshiping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know.” Bible Review 18, no 2
(2002), 30-37.

Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co,
2009.

Gertz, Jan C. T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature,
Religion and History of the Old Testament. London, England: T&T Clark, 2012.

Hurowitz, Victor. "The Mesopotamian god image, from womb to tomb." Journal Of The
American Oriental Society 123, no. 1 (2003): 147-157.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Graven Image.” Pages 15-32 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays
in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S.
Dean McBride. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1987.

Laughlin, John. “Idols and Idolatry” In The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, edited by
Abingdon Press, 5 vols., 3:8-14. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.

Lewis, Theodore J. “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel.” JAOS 118/1 (1998):
36-53.

Mettinger, Tryggve N. D.No graven image?: Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern
Context. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995.

Sasson, Jack M. “On the Usage of Images in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” Pages 63-70
in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by Barry
Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
 DESTIGTER 12

Van der Toorn, Karel. “Israelite Figurines: A View from the Texts” Pages 45-62 in Sacred
Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by Barry
Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Wisdom in Israel. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1972, 177-185.