Jill Middlemas argues that God does not have a definite image using various religious texts and claims that it is diverse, encompassing human and non-human elements, so creating an idol is impossible. She begins the article by highlighting the most known passages from Genesis, which some take literally, believing that God’s and a human’s forms are equivalent, but then cites inconsistencies with the prophetic texts (321-322). Middlemas explains that those sources reject YHWH’s stabilized image but concedes that prophets were not against non-fixed symbols, which challenges Genesis’s imago Dei, the idea that humans have a divine form (323-325). After introducing the issue, she focuses on linguistic and stylistic features, such as metaphor, of the relevant texts to demonstrate anti-idolatry sentiments through a variety of God’s images (325-338). Then, Middlemas summarizes the used strategies in two groups (specificity and diversity) and argues that even those texts that liken God to a human use two genders, which strengthens the aniconic interpretation (338-340). Thus, she concludes that the linguistic diversity in divine descriptions implies that God’s form is destabilized, dissuading idol creation.
While introducing the debate, Middlemas appeals to the passages from Genesis known to any believer. She claims that they are subject to interpretation and attract much discussion relating to God’s appearance, humanity’s relationship with the divine, and imago Dei’s intertextuality (321-322). Middlemas states that such prophetic texts as Isaiah and Ezekiel are compatible with Genesis in that regard, while Second Isaiah treats iconography differently, and even the previous two have some discrepancies (322). Altogether, she establishes the problem by showing that the Image of God is nuanced and prone to various interpretations.
Middlemas then details how prophetic texts treat the idea of God’s forms. She says that stabilized images are rejected, for example, the Bull Calf or a southern king, which are state cult elements, although non-fixed symbols, including the menorah and the cherubim, are acceptable (323-324). Middlemas claims that prophetic texts generally promote worship that does not fixate on an image, although some passages may relate to a human being (325). Ultimately, Middlemas wishes to analyze each text individually to determine the employed aniconic strategies.
In her analysis, the author focuses on the language and the stylistic devices relevant to the divine image. For instance, Middlemas discovers that Isaiah uses incomparable expressions (declarations and rhetorical questions) in relation to God, which suggests the existence of something potentially imitating the deity and idolatry’s inappropriateness (326-328). Then, she reveals the paradox of those texts capturing God’s image through similes that function as metaphors, influencing one’s cognitive level (328-330). Middlemas provides examples from Isaiah that compare God to men of different occupations and a woman, emphasizing the deity’s activity and gender ambiguity (330-331). Afterward, she analyzes Ezekiel, which contains images of a human, fire, and a rainbow, exemplifying the divine form’s diversity and supporting the anti-iconic sentiment that God cannot be represented by a single image (331-334). Middlemas proceeds to focus on Hosea, which is drastically different from the rest because not a single simile involves humans, which implies that believers cannot relate to the deity and that abstract thinking actually ensures sanctity (334-337). The author concludes that the variety of images does not only dissuades idolatry but encourages new ways of thinking about God.
Lastly, Middlemas summarizes the images and returns to the issue of imago Dei. She finds that the prophetic texts employ two strategies (specificity and diversity) and suggest that God may have a form based on the Old Testament, but it is not necessarily of a man (338). However, Middlemas underlines that other sources contradict the idea, creating tension (339). Ultimately, she surmises that diversification is present in all texts, even when God is liked solely to humans, but one should recognize the deity as a distinct being and embrace a destabilized form supported by the biblical language.
Throughout the article, Middlemas is concerned with the issue of God’s image and idolatry. She analyzes various sacred texts and realizes that a single representation does not exist, which supports her point of view (325-339). Middlemas points that if the deity is human, the being’s gender cannot be clearly defined (340). She supposes that the findings may serve as a means to dissuade believers from engaging in idolatry, but they also help reconstruct how one can view God to strengthen spirituality.
Bibliography
Middlemas, Jill Anne. “The Prophets, the Priesthood, and the Image of God (Gen 1, 26-27).” Biblica 97 (2016): 321–41.