Definition of Transcendence
This chapter explores the concept of God as existing outside the monism of the universe. The term transcendence will be used here to denote God’s nature as distinct from the universe. Transcendent is derived from the Latin word for ἐπέκεινα, a Greek term meaning “beyond” or “on yonder side of.” The Oxford Dictionary defines transcendence as: “Of the Deity, the attribute of being above and independent of the universe, distinguished from immanence.”1
Transcendence is a comparative term, signifying that something "beyond" can be distinctively set apart. One thing transcends another when it surpasses or exceeds it. Originally, to transcend meant "to climb over" or "to cross," as when one transcended a mountain. Now, the word implies surpassing a limit.2 For transcendence to hold meaning, there must be discernible limits to the objects, ideas, or conditions that are surpassed; otherwise, transcendence is rendered meaningless.3 The monistic nature of the universe is thus a hidden presumption whose limits—its ontology—must be transcended if God is truly other than this monistic universe.
Models of Transcendence
Various models illustrate the transcendent relationship of God to the universe. However, some do not imply that God’s nature is distinct from that of the universe. In such cases, transcendence does not communicate the ontological separation necessary for God to exist outside the universe's monism. Common transcendence models include spatial and temporal concepts.
Spatial Models
Many religions associate deity with the heights of mountain tops or the sky. Greek religion’s Zeus and Confucianism’s Heaven exemplify this. The Tower of Babel, likewise, is often interpreted as an attempt to reach God’s transcendent height. Transcendence is also perceived in terms of depth; for example, man searches for the foundation of the world, seeking the undergirding essence uniting it. Plato spoke of a receptacle (ὑποδοχή), which provided forms or patterns for the world. Whitehead posited a primordial element in all processes, while Heidegger spoke of the Being of being (Sein des Seienden), and Tillich of the Ground of Being. Some modern scientists, too, search in atoms and energy for the Depth of existence. Thus, spatially, man encounters his own finitude yet gropes for a “God” beyond.4
Temporal Models
Temporal models also serve as metaphors for God’s transcendence over the world, as man searches for both a transcendent beginning and end. Aristotle’s First Mover represents one such attempt to comprehend the Beginning, while myths about the world’s origin reflect similar desires. The ongoing debate over classical “proofs” of God’s existence illustrates man’s disconnection from the Beginning.5 At the other temporal pole is the elusive End. What does the future hold? As life progresses toward the unknown, people hold various hopes—heaven, paradise, utopia, or new worlds—where mortality may be transcended by immortality.
Natural Limitations and Awareness of Transcendence
These spatial and temporal limitations highlight man’s awareness of his finiteness, which in turn nurtures the possibility that something or Someone transcends these boundaries, creating a perception of God. Such models—common to various religions and philosophies—illustrate how "natural man" senses the need for transcendence. Additional models include causality (related to the First Mover concept), a noetic model (where God’s knowledge surpasses man’s), a moral model (where God’s righteousness exceeds man’s), and an action-based ontological model (identifying God through actions).6
God Transcends Man in Many Ways
The Bible provides multiple examples of human attempts to bridge the gap between themselves and God:
Adam and Eve’s Fall: Adam and Eve’s attempt to become “like God” led to a catastrophic loss known as "the Fall," severing their fellowship with God and resulting in expulsion from Eden, guarded by angels with flaming swords.7
The Tower of Babel: Humanity’s ambition to transcend their earthly bounds through the Tower of Babel ultimately failed to unite mankind or reach heaven, instead ending in confusion and dispersion.8
Pharaoh’s Defiance: Pharaoh tried to transcend God’s power using his magicians and army, but his magicians conceded defeat, and his army was destroyed in the Red Sea.9
Korah’s Presumption: Korah attempted to breach the divine-human boundary by offering unauthorized fire, presuming equality with Moses. Instead of transcending the gap, he and his followers were swallowed by the earth.10
Uzzah’s Error: Uzzah’s effort to steady the ark resulted in his immediate death. God demonstrated no need for human assistance.11
These biblical events underscore God's transcendence over human power and intelligence. He repeatedly displayed His superiority, as when He sent plagues on Egypt, parted the Red Sea, preserved Israel in the wilderness, and granted victory to Israel in the Promised Land. Leaders such as Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, and David demonstrated that God’s transcendent power alone sustained Israel, establishing an ideal of peace, prosperity, and righteousness.12 Israel's experience demonstrated to surrounding nations that God's power exceeded any worldly power.
Jesus, too, displayed God’s transcendent power in His miracles—turning water into wine, calming the sea, and raising the dead. In Revelation, He is shown as surpassing the armies of the world at Armageddon. Through these acts, God lifted His people's understanding to grasp His transcendent power, exceeding any force they knew. But beyond mere power, God’s transcendence is also seen in His holiness.
Footnotes
Please let me know if further sections are ready for formatting, or if any revisions are needed for clarity or accuracy.
Footnotes
David Cairns, God Up There? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), p. 25. ↩
Ray Sherman Anderson, Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 13. ↩
Thomas D. Parker, “How Can We Think of God? Another Look at Transcendence,” McCormick Quarterly, Volume XX, No. 2 (January, 1967), p. 85. ↩
Edward Farley, The Transcendence of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958), p. 194f. ↩
Ibid., p. 202. ↩
Anderson, p. 151. (See also Ingmar Bergman: "Step by step we go into the night—the movement itself is the only truth. It is not the outcome of actions that is crucial but rather the style of the behavior itself...") ↩
Genesis 3. ↩
Genesis 11. ↩
Exodus 7-14. ↩
Numbers 16. ↩
II Samuel 6. ↩
This summary reflects various biblical accounts from Exodus through Kings, illustrating Israel’s reliance on God’s transcendent power in conquest and governance. ↩
God’s Transcendence Revealed by His Holiness
Definition of Holiness
Both the Hebrew and Greek words for holy and holiness indicate a separation or setting apart, a sanctity involving a fundamental distinction.1 This theme appears consistently in both scholarly and popular definitions of the term. The Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver, and Briggs defines the root kadhash (קָדַשׁ) as meaning "to be set apart, consecrated."2 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) further explains:
Holy is derived from the verb form kadhash, whose root meaning is uncertain but likely means "to be separated," which evolved to imply exaltation, leading to a divine conception.3
ISBE’s article on "Holiness" states that the Semitic root KDSH may originate from an Assyrian word signifying purity or clearness. However, “most modern scholars incline to the view that the primary idea is that of cutting off or separation.”4 Initially, holiness denoted only ceremonial separation from common use. In biblical usage, holiness became associated with the invisible Jehovah and subsequently with visible objects, places, seasons, and people only insofar as they were connected with Him.5
Thus, ceremonial holiness preceded ethical holiness; only after becoming aware of holiness as separateness did people begin to understand its ethical implications.
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament provides further insight into the etymology and development of the word holy:
The root קָדַשׁ is likely not originally Hebrew but Canaanite, adopted from an external religious context. The native Hebrew ḥrm (חרם) acquires the sense of "what is banned" and becomes predominantly negative. Fleischer “has rightly pointed to the basic idea of to divide,” which suggests what is marked off from the secular.6
The concept of separateness is emphasized by examining the antonym for holy. According to Kittel:
The antithetical term is ḥol (חֹל), or “profane” (1 Sam. 21:5f; Ez. 22:26; 42:20; 44:23), i.e., that which is not under the ban of holiness. In contrast to kadhash, ḥol pertains to ordinary life, coming to mean "common" (κοινόν) as distinct from the sacred.7
Kittel adds that “the relatively infrequent qal form denotes exclusively cultic holiness with no moral element.”8 In contrast, the niph'al form, in which God alone is the subject, signifies the self-manifestation of His holiness. The holiness of God’s name “contrasts with everything creaturely.”9
God’s name, word, and Spirit—core aspects of His self-revelation—are characterized by holiness, standing in opposition to all that is creaturely. God’s holiness expresses His perfection of being, transcending all created things.
Biblical Examples of God’s Holiness
At Mount Sinai, where God disclosed His holy name to Israel, they began to learn that they, too, were to be holy because they belonged to the holy God. Israel was commanded to avoid the religions and rituals of other nations, worshiping Jehovah as their only God. Only God is intrinsically holy, but His presence sanctifies what He chooses. For instance, the place of His manifested presence became holy (Ex. 3:5). The tabernacle (and later the temple), where His glory was revealed, was holy (Ex. 28:29; 2 Chr. 35:5). This extended to its sacrifices (Ex. 29:33), ceremonial items (Ex. 30:25), and utensils (1 Kings 8:4). The Sabbath was also considered holy because it was the Sabbath of the Lord (Ex. 20:8-11).
Human holiness depended on God’s sanctifying action. Priests and Levites were holy because God had set them apart and consecrated them to Himself (Ex. 29:1; Lev. 8:12, 30). Similarly, Israel, despite her sins and failures, was holy because God had separated her from other nations for His divine purposes (Ex. 19:6; Lev. 20:24).10 Through being set apart, Israel gradually understood the ethical and moral dimensions of God’s holiness, though the initial step was separation unto Him.
Footnotes
Let me know if you would like the next section processed, or if any adjustments are needed!
Footnotes
The New Combined Bible Dictionary and Concordance (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), pp. 227-228. ↩
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 872. ↩
Y. Mullins, “Holy Spirit,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume III (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co., 1915), p. 1408. ↩
J. C. Lambert, “Holiness,” ISBE, Volume III, p. 1403. ↩
Ibid., p. 1403. ↩
Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume I, trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 89. ↩
Ibid., p. 89. ↩
Ibid., p. 90. ↩
Bromiley, p. 91. ↩
Lambert, ISBE, Volume III, p. 90. ↩
God's Holiness Taught by System of Comparisons and Separations
God's holiness, transcending beyond any limits man can go, remains unfathomable. Degrees of holiness do exist, but God’s holiness is superlative as He is the source of all holiness. The Levitical system used many comparisons to teach Israel about holiness and its association with God. At Sinai, the Israelites were largely unfamiliar with Jehovah's attributes and were surrounded by religions worshiping unholy gods. One writer, James B. Walker, suggests that God established the Levitical system to accommodate human learning, allowing man to grasp the holiness of God.1 Without such a system of comparisons, no material object could convey the holiness of God to human understanding. Since all practical knowledge reaches the mind through physical senses, physical means were necessary to teach God’s holiness.
Some things were always profane and unholy in this system and were to be avoided or destroyed, such as idols. Other items could be cleansed and made holy through a system of purification. This concept expanded significantly for the apostle Peter, who heard a voice from heaven instructing him not to call unclean what God had cleansed. Peter understood that holiness and cleansing ultimately come from God.
The Levitical comparisons divided animals into two categories: clean and unclean. This distinction taught Israel to regard one class as superior. Then, from the clean category, the best animal was selected as an offering to God—it had to be spotless, without blemish, and the purest of its class. Worshipers learned that they were unworthy to offer the sacrifice themselves; they were to give it to a priest whom God had set apart. Before the priest could sacrifice the animal, it had to be washed with clean water, and in some cases, the priest had to wash and officiate barefoot. Even the place of the sacrifice was uniquely set apart. Thus, Israel learned about God’s holiness through comparisons involving a perfect sacrifice, a designated priest, and a sacred location.2
In addition to sacrifices, Israel’s ceremonies and rituals involved various comparisons teaching holiness. The camp was purified, the people were purified; everything was purified and re-purified until the concept of purity formed in their minds and was, by comparison, attributed to God. Through this, they learned that God was “of too pure eyes to behold iniquity.”3 By such comparisons, Israel began to separate their concept of Jehovah from the world.
Separation in Worship: The Tabernacle and Temple
The designated place of worship also taught Israel that God’s transcendence was not to be identified with the monism of the world. Worship was strictly localized: they were to destroy all places of pagan worship entirely. They were commanded, “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods,”4 so that they could not associate God with other deities worshipped in those places. They were also forbidden from worshipping Jehovah in those locations. Furthermore, Israel was not at liberty to choose the place of worship; God alone would select it. Deuteronomy 12 emphasizes that God would choose the place, ultimately establishing the temple in Jerusalem as the chosen site where He would put His name. Solomon prayed during the temple dedication that God’s eyes “be open toward this house night and day.”5 God confirmed this by telling Solomon in a dream that He had chosen “this place” as His house of sacrifice.6 Jerusalem, and specifically Mount Zion, became known as the exclusive location for God’s worship.
This limitation on worship location may seem to confine Jehovah; however, it actually underscored that Jehovah was not Baal, Dagon, or any other heathen god. Limiting worship prevented the conflation of Jehovah with other deities, preparing Israel to see Him as entirely separate.
The tabernacle provided a further illustration of God’s separation. The formal worship of Israel was confined to the tabernacle location (and later the temple, based on the tabernacle’s plan). Worship forms revealed by God were the only valid ones; no other forms were permitted. The shape and arrangement of the tabernacle were specifically revealed to Moses on the mountain and were to be followed precisely.7 Approaching the tabernacle, one encountered a single entrance. Just inside was a large basin for cleansing and an altar for burning sacrifices. Beyond these was the tabernacle proper, which only chosen priests could enter to perform specific rites.
Within the tabernacle was a progression of sacred spaces. The first room was dimly lit by candles, while beyond it lay the inmost room, the Holy of Holies, shrouded by a heavy veil. Only the High Priest could enter, once a year, and only with a blood offering. God localized His presence in the space above the mercy-seat, atop the Ark of the Covenant, symbolized by two cherubim with outspread wings. This unapproachable presence illustrated that God existed in a realm beyond human sight and access.8
Prescribed Worship Methods
A further lesson in God’s transcendence was taught through prescribed worship methods, where certain forms were strictly required, and others were forbidden. Israel was forbidden from adopting the worship practices of surrounding Gentile nations. Deuteronomy 12 warned, “Take heed…that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God.”9 The death penalty was decreed for anyone enticing others to worship foreign gods, which served as a psychological deterrent against deviation from prescribed worship. Completely excluding other gods also meant excluding their methods of worship.
There was no allowance for creativity in worship methods. Deuteronomy warned against doing “what seemed right” in one’s own eyes, a theme the Book of Judges illustrates with consequences when people turned from lawful worship to self-devised practices.10 When Israel did what was “right in their own eyes,” it often led to evil in God’s eyes. God’s holiness did not affirm all things; rather, it excluded some things entirely.
Summary
In revealing His transcendence to Israel, God showed Himself as mightier than any power in heaven or earth. He demonstrated His separateness from all creation while revealing Himself to humanity. Israel learned about His holiness through systematic comparisons, realizing that they could not reach God geographically, by self-devised worship, or by their own nature. God’s holiness did not affirm everything; it explicitly excluded many things.
Footnotes
Let me know if further adjustments are needed, or if you would like to proceed with the next section.
Footnotes
James B. Walker, The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation (Cincinnati: Cranston and Curts; New York: Hunt and Eaton, [n.d.]), p. 81. ↩
Ibid., p. 81. ↩
Ibid., p. 81. ↩
Deuteronomy 12:2. ↩
1 Kings 8:29. ↩
2 Chronicles 7:12. ↩
Exodus 25:40; also see Exodus 31:1-11, where the Spirit of God and His special wisdom are given to specific artisans for constructing the tabernacle. ↩
Hebrews 8 recognizes this Old Testament pattern, teaching that the way into the Holiest was closed while the tabernacle stood, illustrating God’s separateness and the limited means of approach. ↩
Deuteronomy 12:30. ↩
Judges contrasts "Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord" (Judges 2:11; 3:7; 3:12; 4:1, etc.) with "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6; 21:25), highlighting the consequences of self-devised worship. ↩
GOD'S TRANSCENDENCE REVEALED THROUGH HIS REJECTION OF IMAGES MADE TO REPRESENT HIM
The Imageless God Reveals He is Other Than the Universe
God’s command against creating images highlights His transcendence, asserting that He exists entirely apart from the physical universe. The prohibition against images illustrates that God is not bound by the limitations of creation. This principle can be expressed logically as follows:
God is other than an image (i.e., He is not like an image).
An image is like the universe (it belongs to the limited monism that constitutes the universe).
Therefore, God is other than the universe.
This biblical theme against images is supported by a range of authorities in Scripture, including God's own words, the Law, the Prophets, and New Testament writers, as well as insights from scholars and historians. The following sections provide quotations from these sources to underscore that God is not to be likened to any image.
God’s Own Words on His Imageless Nature
God Himself declares, “I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:9b)atement reinforces that no image can accurately represent Him, as He transcends all created things, including images, other gods, and even human rulers.
In Isaiah 42:8, God states that His praise will not be shared with images, and His name will not be given to anything else, especially graven images . Furtheakkuk 2:18-20 describes images as "lies" about God . In these versesunicates that those who worship Him through images are deceiving themselves and misrepresenting His true nature. Isaiah 45:15-16 adds that idol-makers are destined for confusion and shame because they are unable to grasp the true nature of God and mistakenly equate Him with earthly images.
When some Israelites tried to honor God through worship of Baal, God responded, “You will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal’” (Hosea 2:16) . Martin Luther explains tommand from God rejects the Baal worship that had pervaded Israel, emphasizing that even sincere intentions cannot justify idolatry .
The Law’s Prohibition
The Second Commandment forbids the creation of images or “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4) . This commandment explicitly prohibits visuntations of God, highlighting His transcendence. This prohibition led to interpretations ranging from banning all forms of imagery to the view that only images of God are prohibited while representations of creation itself may be permitted if they are not objects of worship.
The law’s opposition to idolatry is reinforced by scholars. The Pulpit Commentary notes that “the first commandment asserts the unity of God, and is a protest against polytheism, while the second asserts his spirituality, and is a protest against idolatry and materialism” . G. A. Chadwick of The Expositor’s Bible explains ommandment forbids “any attempt to help out worship by representing the object of adoration to the senses” . This interpretation aligns with the understanding that God's nature cannot be represented by anything within the universe.
John Calvin also reflects on this in his Commentaries, stating that any effort to craft an image of God is an attempt to “figure [God] to be other than He is” and that such attempts are “impious” as they corrupt His majesty .
The Prophets on God’s Rejection of Images
The prophets, niah and Jeremiah, consistently condemn the use of images to represent God. Isaiah asks, “To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare to him?” (Isaiah 40:18) . Calvin remarks that true knowledge of God comes through His Word rather than tan-crafted images, which distort the truth and mislead worshippers. He also emphasizes that images are “vanity and falsehood,” a view Jeremiah echoes, saying that such images are “the instruction of vanities” (Jeremiah 10:8) .
In Jeremiah 10:14-16, the prophet describes those who use images to depict God as “bru“confounded,” illustrating that such images are “falsehood,” “vanity,” and “the work of errors” . Keil adds that the "portion of Jacob" refers to the true God, who is vastly different from those represented by idols . This consistent theme in prophetic literature serves as a reminder of God’s transcendence over all created His rejection of physical representations.
Summary
Through His rejection of images, God reveals His transcendence, making clear that He is wholly separate from creation and cannot be depicted by any earthly likeness. This command underscores His holiness, His spiritual nature, and the fact that any attempt to visualize Him misrepresents and diminishes His essence.
The New Testament says that God is not like an image
The Explanation Given by Jesus
In the New Testament, both Jesus and the apostles emphasize that God is not like an image. A foundational verse is Jesus’ statement to the Samaritan woman: “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit…” (John 4:24). Here, “Spirit” is used to describe God’s nature, setting His worship apart from any physical form. Jesus deliberately makes this declaration in Samaria—a region where, centuries before, worship of God had been corrupted by images of calves under Jeroboam’s leadership. His statement firmly establishes that God’s nature is spiritual, not physical.
Paul's Words
Paul reinforces this point clearly in his message to the Athenians: “…we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man” (Acts 17:29). Thomas Walker, a missionary to India, notes that Paul’s message implies that it is “insulting to the majesty of the true God, who transcends all things, to represent His being by man-made images.”1 Conybeare and Howson reflect on Paul’s speech in relation to Greek monistic pantheism, observing that Paul's idea of a "personal God" stood in stark contrast to the Greek concept of a universal, impersonal force.2
In his letter to the Romans, Paul warns of the foolishness of representing God with an image. He writes, “…they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man…” (Romans 1:22-23). Calvin, in his commentary on this passage, condemns the making of any image of God, calling it a "corruption" of His glory.3 Charles Hodge observes that attempting to worship God through images is idolatry, pointing out the folly in thinking one could distinguish between the image and the God it represents. He concludes that all who bow to images are ultimately worshipping "gods which their own hands had made.”4 F. F. Bruce sees in Paul’s language a reflection of the biblical account of humanity’s fall, using the same terms of “glory,” “image,” and “likeness” as in Genesis 1.5
The Pulpit Commentary, in its notes on Romans 1, argues that the human desire to see a physical representation of God is natural but leads to moral degradation. The commentary asserts that true spirituality in worship is preserved through the commandment against images and the ascension of Christ, which removed any physical presence of God from human sight.6
John's Words
The apostle John addresses the issue of image worship both in his letters and in the Book of Revelation. In Revelation, he prophesies that the end of the age will be marked by widespread idol worship, stating that even when one-third of humanity is destroyed, the survivors “repent not of the works of their hands…nor of their idols of gold” (Revelation 9:20). The prominence of image worship in the end times includes a demand to worship the “image of the beast” (Revelation 13:15).
John concludes his first epistle with a stark warning: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). The previous verse identifies the “true God,” suggesting that John’s warning encompasses not only images of false gods but also any misrepresentation of the true God.
In his Gospel and first epistle, John reinforces God’s invisibility, asserting that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). This theme of an invisible, imageless God aligns with his admonitions against idolatry, stressing that any physical representation of God diminishes His transcendent nature.
Historical and Scholarly Perspectives on God's Imageless Nature
Tacitus, the first-century Roman historian, observed that the Jews refused to depict their God with any image, considering it profane to create such representations.7 He notes that the Jews believed their God was “indestructible and unchangeable,” unlike any earthly form.8
Celsus, a second-century critic of Christianity, also noted the early Christians’ staunch opposition to images, saying they "could not tolerate either temples, altars, or images.”9 This comment reflects the early Christians' adherence to the Old Testament understanding of God's transcendent, imageless nature.
Footnotes
This format provides a thorough integration of the referenced material with properly detailed footnotes for easy reference. Let me know if you need further refinement.
Footnotes
Thomas Walker, The Acts of the Apostles (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), notes on Acts 17. ↩
W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of Saint Paul (Hartford, Conn.: The S. S. Scranton Co., 1908), p. 330. ↩
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, II, trans. Charles William Bingham (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), p. 121. ↩
Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1886), reproduction of rev. ed. ↩
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), p. 85. ↩
S. R. Aldridge, Romans, The Pulpit Commentary, XLIV (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, [n.d.]), p. 42. ↩
Thomas A. Brady, "Tacitus," The World Book Encyclopedia, XIX, 1977, p. 6. ↩
Edmund Wilson, "The Dead Sea Scrolls," The New Yorker, April 5, 1969, p. 46. See also The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, V, p. 452. ↩
H. G. G. Herklots, The Ten Commandments and Modern Man (London: Ernest Benn, Ltd., 1958), p. 41. ↩
The Quotations of Early Church Fathers Against Using Images to Represent God
The early church fathers consistently rejected the use of images to represent God, a stance that often offended critics like Celsus but provided opportunities for Christians to witness to the pagan world.
Theophilus
Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter to a pagan named Autolucus explaining that God’s nature made it inappropriate to represent Him with images. Theophilus wrote, "But if you say, 'Show me thy God,' I would reply, 'Show me yourself, and I will show you my God.' Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing... God is seen by those who are able to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened."1 He further explained, “The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh.”2
Another Bishop of Antioch
Another bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, reportedly suffered martyrdom after telling Emperor Trajan that he did not need images since Christ, the King of Heaven, dwelled within him and destroyed the devices of evil spirits.3
Letter of an Unknown Christian
A letter from an unknown Christian to a pagan, written around 130 A.D., stated that serving the true God through images was a "greatly errant" practice.4
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr, a second-century apologist, considered images a deception by evil spirits to lead people into false worship. In his discourse on the "Folly of Idol Worship," Justin wrote, “Christians do not honor with sacrifices or garlands such deities as men have formed and set in shrines... [They] make what they call a god; which we consider... to be even insulting to God, who, having ineffable glory and form, thus gets His name attached to things that are corruptible.”5
Peter (?) in Recognitions of Clement
A statement attributed to the apostle Peter in the Recognitions of Clement, an early Christian text, labels the principle of using images to worship the invisible God as a deception of Satan: “We adore visible images in honor of the invisible God. Now this is most certainly false.”6 This view is noteworthy as it was later contradicted by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., which endorsed image worship in the church.
Council of Elvira
The Council of Elvira, convened around 305 A.D. in Spain, decreed, “It is ordained that pictures are not to be in churches, so that that which is worshipped and adored shall not be painted on walls.”7 This ruling reflects the early church’s strong stance against images, rooted in the belief that God was fundamentally different from anything in creation.8
Roman Catholic Authority
Even Roman Catholic sources acknowledge the Bible's stance against images. The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966) states, “...images of Yahweh were prohibited by the Mosaic Law (Ex. 20:4-5; Dt. 5:8-9; Lev. 26:1).”9 Some Catholic theologians, however, argue that this prohibition was temporary, intended to help overcome idolatry—a practice defined as attaching the names of other gods to images.10
W. F. Albright, Archaeologist
W. F. Albright, a prominent archaeologist, concluded that the Mosaic religion was aniconic, meaning it prohibited images. He explained, “Mosaic religion was distinctly aniconic... vital to Mosaic religion was the aniconic character of Yahweh, who could not be represented in any visible or tangible form.” Albright argued that attempts to find images of Yahweh in early Israel were based on “subjective arguments” and that excavations showed no evidence of such images.1112
G. Ernest Wright
Archaeologist G. Ernest Wright contrasted Israel’s knowledge of God, which was not derived from nature, with polytheistic religions that knew their gods through natural metaphors. Wright emphasized, “The duality of male and female is to be found only in the created world; it is not a part of the Godhead, which is essentially sexless.”13 He noted that Israel’s God was not known through images, with no images ever found in Patriarchal worship, the Tabernacle, or Solomon’s Temple, and he explained, “The prohibition against images of Yahweh was so deeply fixed in early Israel, that even the unenlightened and the tolerant understood that Yahweh was simply not to be honored in this way.”1415
Footnotes
This format preserves a clear structure while properly citing sources. Let me know if you need further clarification or adjustments.
Footnotes
The Writings of Tatian and Theophilus; and the Clementine Recognitions, trans. B. P. Pratten, Marcus Dods, and Thomas Smith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), pp. 53-54. ↩
The Writings of Tatian and Theophilus; and the Clementine Recognitions, pp. 53-54. ↩
"The Martyrdom of Ignatius," The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, I, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), p. 129. ↩
"The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus," The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, p. 28. ↩
Justin Martyr, "Folly of Idol Worship," Ch. IX, "The First Apology of Justin," Vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 165. ↩
The Writings of Tatian and Theophilus; and the Clementine Recognitions, p. 317. ↩
Adrian Fortescue, "Veneration of Images," The Catholic Encyclopedia, VII (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1910), p. 699. ↩
See Tertullian, "On Idolatry," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, III (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1903), p. 62. ↩
New Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, p. 361. ↩
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), pp. 300-301. ↩
William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), from the back cover. ↩
Albright, pp. 265-266. ↩
G. Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment (London: SCM Press, 1950), p. 22. ↩
Wright, p. 22. ↩
Wright, p. 22. ↩
Reformed Creeds and Catechisms Teach that God Is Not Like an Image
The creeds and catechisms from the Reformation era uphold the teaching that God is not to be represented by images, mirroring the theology of key reformers.
Geneva Catechism
The Catechism of the Church of Geneva addresses the second commandment’s prohibition on images with this exchange:
Master: Does (the second commandment; Ex. 20:4-6) entirely prohibit us from sculpturing or painting any resemblance?
Student: No, it only forbids us to make any resemblance for the sake of representing or worshiping God.
Master: Why is it unlawful to represent God by a visible shape?
Student: Because there is no resemblance between him who is an eternal Spirit and incomprehensible, and a corporeal, corruptible, and lifeless figure (Deut. 4:15; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:23).1
Second Helvetic Confession
The Second Helvetic Confession provides this declaration:
As God is a spirit he cannot be represented by any image (John 4:24; Isa. 40:18; 44:9, 10; Jer. 16:9; Acts 17:29, etc.). Although Christ assumed man's nature, he did so not to provide a model for sculptors and painters. He instituted for the instruction of the people the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments, but not images.2
Westminster Catechism
The Westminster Catechism states: "The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in His Word."3
Reformation Leaders on Avoiding Images of God
Key Reformation leaders expressed clear opposition to creating images of God.
Martin Luther
In his "Preface to the Prophets," Martin Luther notes that Jeroboam did not intend his golden calves as idols but as representations of the God of Israel. Jeroboam’s actions demonstrate that misguided forms of worship arise when God’s Word is disregarded. Luther warned that “Intentions and thoughts do not count,” since even those who martyred apostles believed they served God. Thus, any attempt to worship God through unauthorized forms is idolatry.45678
John Calvin
John Calvin’s Institutes devotes an entire chapter to condemning images as attempts to visualize God. Calvin argues that whenever an image is created for God, it reduces His glory by promoting a false representation. This prohibition applies to any form or symbol, with Calvin emphasizing that God, as Spirit, cannot be confined to material shapes. Calvin also criticizes the Roman Catholic distinction between dulia (veneration) and latria (worship), calling it an invalid excuse for using images in worship.910111213
James Arminius
James Arminius, though divergent from Calvin on predestination, agreed that images serve Satan’s purpose by promoting false worship. He warned that using images to represent God would ultimately direct worship toward a creation of one’s imagination, leading away from the true God.14
William Tyndale
William Tyndale argued that idolatry extends to any false conception of God, including mental images. Tyndale stated that worshiping God based on any unauthorized image—physical or mental—was idolatry.1516
John Wesley
John Wesley criticized Catholics for creating images of the Trinity, arguing that Scripture expressly forbids representing God with images. Wesley noted that such practices could lead believers to mistake the image for the divine presence itself, reducing God to something tangible and compromising true worship.17181920
Two Questions About God’s Transcendence
If God’s transcendence is ontological, meaning His essence is wholly distinct from created objects, two questions arise:
Do the anthropomorphisms in the Bible imply that God has a physical form?
Does humanity’s creation in God’s image suggest He has a bodily form similar to that of man?
These questions will be explored to determine if they allow for a transcendent understanding of God.
Footnotes
Let me know if this meets your expectations or if you need any further adjustments.
Footnotes
John Calvin, Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Tracts and Treatises on the Doctrines and Worship of the Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), p. 58. ↩
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, I (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1877, 1919), p. 393. ↩
Schaff, III, p. 687. ↩
Martin Luther, "Preface to the Prophets," Works of Martin Luther, VI (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 41. ↩
Luther, p. 403. ↩
Luther, p. 403. ↩
Luther, p. 403. ↩
Luther, p. 403. ↩
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 90. ↩
Calvin, 1964, p. 91. ↩
Calvin, 1964, p. 92. ↩
Calvin, 1964, p. 94. ↩
Calvin, 1964, p. 95. ↩
James Arminius, "On Idolatry," The Writings of James Arminius, Vol. I, trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 637. ↩
William Tyndale, "The Exposition of the Fyrste Epistle of Seynt John," English Reformers, Vol. XXVI (Westminster: The Library of Christian Classics, 1966), pp. 100-144. ↩
Tyndale, pp. 100-144. ↩
John Wesley, "Popery Calmly Considered," The Works of John Wesley, X (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, [n.d.]), p. 148. ↩
Wesley, p. 155. ↩
John Wesley, "A Roman Catechism, Faithfully Drawn Our of the Church of Rome; With a Reply Thereto," The Works of John Wesley, X, pp. 109-112. ↩
Wesley, pp. 109-112. ↩
Anthropomorphisms
The Bible’s use of anthropomorphisms—human characteristics attributed to God—is so frequent and natural that one could mistakenly conclude that God is simply a larger or more powerful man. Taking these anthropomorphisms seriously is essential, especially if we consider Scripture as inspired. Their consistent usage points to their importance. If we gauge importance by frequency, then anthropomorphic references to God are undeniably significant.
Below are examples of anthropomorphic descriptions of God found in Scripture, organized by analogy to human body parts, emotions, and actions. These references are representative, not exhaustive, and are compiled from material provided by Herman Bavinck in The Doctrine of God1.
Body Parts: God is described as having a face (Ex. 33:20, 23; Ps. 16:11), eyes (Ps. 32:8; Heb. 4:13), hands (Nu. 11:23; Ex. 15:12), a mouth (Dt. 8:3), and even a foot (Is. 66:1).
Emotions: The Bible attributes emotions to God, such as joy (Is. 62:5), love (many references), anger (Jer. 7:18-19), jealousy (Ex. 20:5), and wrath (Ps. 2:5).
Actions: God’s actions include knowing (Gen. 18:21), speaking (Rom. 4:17), resting (Gen. 2:2), and even chastening (Dt. 8:5) and healing (Dt. 32:39).
While the Bible does not mention God having a physical body, except in the person of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:14), these anthropomorphisms facilitate understanding of His attributes and actions. Scripture uses terms that suggest professions or relational roles for God, such as bridegroom (Is. 61:10), shepherd (Ps. 23:1), and physician (Ex. 15:26), illustrating His nature in human terms that readers can relate to.
God is also compared to objects and elements within creation, like rock (Dt. 32:4), shield (Ps. 84:11), and light (Ps. 27:1), which help convey aspects of His character to people.
These anthropomorphisms serve a divine purpose, allowing us to understand God’s actions and character through human concepts. However, God forbids us from making physical representations based on these anthropomorphisms (Ex. 20:4). This balance of anthropomorphic language without permitting images preserves both God’s transcendence and the accessibility of His revelation.
What is the Image of God?
An occasional objection to prohibitions against images representing God is rooted in the belief that God must have a physical image since man was created in His image. This witticism suggests that "God made man in His own image, and so man returned the compliment by making God in man’s own image." Yet, the biblical teaching on God's image as reflected in man is remarkably nuanced and cannot be simplified as a physical resemblance.
Scripture does not clearly define the "image of God" in physical terms. Instead, the New Testament describes it as righteousness and holiness, which are spiritual qualities rather than physical attributes (Eph. 4:24). Wesley emphasized this spiritual image when he said, "Hast thou secured the one thing needful? Hast thou recovered the image of God, even righteousness and true holiness?"2 In this light, the Bible’s prohibition against images aligns with the understanding that God’s image is not tied to physical form but to moral and spiritual attributes3.
Summary
This chapter highlights that God’s existence and nature are transcendent, wholly separate from the created universe. This ontological transcendence is expressed in two major biblical themes:
God’s Holiness: Taught through a series of comparisons and separations, God’s holiness is unique and not shared by any other being.
Prohibition of Images: By forbidding physical representations, God reinforces His distinct and uncontainable nature, allowing His people to conceive of Him as vastly different from anything in creation.
This transcendent understanding of God enables believers to evaluate and view the monistic universe through a distinct, dualistic lens. For those who know the transcendent God, there is a broader frame of reference for theology, salvation, and ethics, offering a foundation that extends beyond the physical and limited universe.
Footnotes
Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [n.d.]), p. 14ff. ↩
John Wesley, "Awake Thou that Sleepest," The Works of John Wesley, Sermon No. 3 in Vol. V, p. 30. ↩
See discussions of the nature of the image of God in: L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1941), p. 202f; Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Christian Life (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), p. 112f; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1940), p. 961. ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment