Abstract

This white paper examines the commandment against graven images from a biblicist perspective, exploring the original Hebrew and Greek terms, their theological context, and their implications for the modern use of photography, sculpture, and visual media. It argues that the commandment is not merely a prohibition against artistry but a safeguard against misdirected worship. The paper concludes with a discussion on how biblically grounded believers can navigate art and media without violating the spirit or letter of the commandment.

1. Introduction: The Controversy of Image and Idolatry

The Second Commandment, found in Exodus 20:4–5 and Deuteronomy 5:8–9, has long stirred debate among theologians, artists, and worshippers. It reads:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them…” (Exodus 20:4–5, KJV)

This commandment raises pressing questions for modern believers: Are photographs or sculptures inherently idolatrous? Can art and media coexist with faithful obedience? What constitutes “graven” in the age of digital replication?

2. Lexical and Textual Study of “Graven Image”

The Hebrew term pesel (פֶּסֶל) denotes a carved or hewn image, specifically fashioned for worship. Its Greek equivalent in the Septuagint, eidolon (εἴδωλον), later came to mean “idol.” Both terms emphasize intentional representation for veneration rather than mere depiction.

Key observations:

Pesel derives from pasal — “to carve or engrave,” implying craftsmanship with religious purpose. The commandment prohibits not merely the creation of images but the making for oneself (lo ta‘aseh lekha) — indicating personal attachment or reverence. The following verse clarifies the intent: “Thou shalt not bow down nor serve them.” The sin lies in devotion, not depiction.

Thus, a biblicist reading distinguishes between representation as communication or memory and representation as a substitute for divine presence.

3. The Theological Context: The Invisible God

Throughout Scripture, God is portrayed as transcendent and invisible (Deuteronomy 4:12, John 4:24). The making of graven images directly contradicts this nature. When Israel demanded a visible deity, they fashioned the golden calf (Exodus 32:1–6)—not as a new god but as a visible representation of the LORD who brought them out of Egypt. The sin was not inventing another deity but reducing the true God to a visible form.

In contrast, God Himself commissioned artistic work for the Tabernacle—cherubim on the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18–20), embroidered curtains, and pomegranates on priestly garments. These artistic expressions were not objects of worship but symbols within divinely prescribed worship.

4. Historical Developments: From Iconoclasm to Image Culture

4.1. Ancient Israel and the Prophets

Prophets such as Isaiah (Isaiah 44:9–20) and Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:18–19) mocked idols as powerless, crafted from the same materials used for firewood. Their denunciations underscore the folly of trusting the work of human hands.

4.2. Early Christianity

Early Christians inherited Jewish caution toward imagery, particularly under persecution by an idolatrous empire. Yet the use of symbols such as the ichthys or chi-rho emerged as discreet confessions of faith—non-representational and non-devotional.

4.3. The Iconoclastic Controversies

In Byzantine and Reformation contexts, disputes over icons divided believers. Iconoclasts invoked the Second Commandment; iconodules appealed to the incarnation—arguing that because Christ took visible form, His image could be depicted. A biblicist stance remains cautious, recognizing the Incarnation as revelation, not license for visual devotion.

5. Application to Modern Art and Media

5.1. Photography and Representation

Photographs capture reality without creative carving, yet they can evoke the same temptations toward idolization—particularly of celebrity, beauty, or memory. When images become objects of obsession, veneration, or emotional dependency, they replicate the sin pattern of graven imagery.

5.2. Sculpture and Commemoration

Sculptures may honor historical figures or serve educational purposes. However, when placed in sanctuaries or used as focal points of prayer, they risk reintroducing material mediators between man and God.

5.3. Film, Animation, and Digital Media

Modern visual media can propagate false realities and manipulative imagery. The danger lies not in pixels but in persuasion—when media captivates the imagination to the point of moral or spiritual subjection. The biblicist must discern whether imagery serves truth or enslaves attention.

6. The Ethical and Devotional Boundary

From a biblicist perspective, three tests help determine whether an image violates the Second Commandment:

Intent Test: Was the image made for remembrance or reverence? Function Test: Is the image used to instruct, or is it used to mediate devotion? Effect Test: Does the image draw attention to God’s glory or to human artistry and emotion?

An image may be innocent in craft yet corrupting in use. Even a cross or portrait can become idolatrous if it substitutes for the living presence of God.

7. Positive Theology of Creativity

The Bible affirms creativity as a reflection of divine image-bearing (Genesis 1:27). The skill of Bezalel and Aholiab (Exodus 31:1–6) shows that art can glorify God when inspired and directed by His Spirit. A biblicist framework encourages:

Art that teaches truth without substituting for revelation. Media that glorifies the Creator rather than creation. Imagery that illuminates Scripture rather than eclipses it.

8. Implications for Contemporary Church and Culture

Churches must evaluate visual practices: stained glass, illustrated Bibles, cinematic worship backgrounds, and social media imagery. The question is not whether these are permissible but whether they foster reverence or familiarity, truth or spectacle.

In broader culture, believers must resist the commodification of the image—what Scripture calls the lust of the eyes (1 John 2:16). The worship of image-based fame is the modern equivalent of ancient idol worship.

9. Conclusion: Faith without Form, Worship without Substitution

The commandment against graven images is not aesthetic prohibition but theological protection. It guards against reducing the infinite to the finite and substituting sensory comfort for spiritual communion. A biblicist ethic of art recognizes the danger of idolatry yet celebrates creativity as divine stewardship under God’s law.

To make an image is not necessarily to sin; to trust in it is.

The biblicist stands, therefore, between iconoclasm and indulgence—preserving the holiness of God’s invisibility while expressing His truth through disciplined and reverent creation.

Appendix A: Key Biblical References

Exodus 20:4–5; Deuteronomy 5:8–9 — The commandment itself Deuteronomy 4:12, 15–19 — The warning against depicting God Exodus 25:18–22; 31:1–6 — God’s sanction of artistic skill in worship Isaiah 44:9–20; Habakkuk 2:18–19 — Prophetic ridicule of idols John 4:24; 1 John 5:21 — Worship in spirit and truth