Biblical Views on Portraiture in Art
The Hebrew Bible contains no explicit prohibition of portraiture as such, but the second commandment's ban on graven images (Exodus 20:4) has shaped Jewish and Christian attitudes toward visual representation across centuries. The commandment forbids making "any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath," a prohibition that Charles Hodge identifies as resting on two principles: that Jehovah alone is to be worshiped, and that God, being spirit, "is incapable of being conceived of or represented under a visible form" [7]. This does not mean the Bible condemns all visual art—the tabernacle and temple featured extensive carving and engraving of cherubim, pomegranates, and other decorative forms [2]—but it does establish a boundary against idolatrous representation.
The Rabbinic Tradition on Human Likeness
Rabbinic interpretation sharpened the question of human portraiture specifically. The Babylonian Talmud records a teaching that reads Exodus 20:20 ("You shall not make with Me") as "You shall not make Me," concluding that because humanity was created in God's image, fashioning a human face is prohibited, while images of other creatures are permitted [10]. Yet the Midrash Rabbah offers a more nuanced analogy: a king with a fine visage asks a servant to create his portrait, and when the servant protests his inability to capture the king's true appearance, the king replies, "You with your paints and I with my glory"—suggesting that even inadequate representation can serve a purpose when undertaken with proper humility [6]. This rabbinic ambivalence reflects tension between the imago Dei and the prohibition on graven images.
Patristic Interpretation
Early Christian writers extended the commandment's logic beyond idolatry to any attempt at representing the divine. Athanasius uses portraiture as a metaphor for the incarnation: "when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to enable the portrait to be renewed" [3]. The analogy assumes the legitimacy of portraiture as a concept while applying it to theological anthropology. Tertullian and other patristic authors, however, insisted that the commandment forbids not only worship of images but their creation for religious purposes [8]. Cyprian applies this principle even to cosmetics, arguing that altering one's face with paint is "laying hands on God" by attempting to "re-form that which He formed" [9].
Reformed Resistance to Religious Images
Calvin's exegesis of Isaiah emphasizes that God's infinite power and incorporeal nature make any visual representation inherently false: "it is inconsistent with the nature of God to be represented by painting or by any kind of likeness" [4]. In the Institutes, he extends this to a general critique of idolatry, warning that "the corruption of nature hurries away all mankind collectively and individually into this madness" of seeking aid from "dead and senseless objects" [5]. The Reformed tradition thus distinguished sharply between decorative art (which the temple precedent permits) and religious images intended to aid worship (which the commandment forbids).
The Absence of Moveable Pictures
Smith's Bible Dictionary notes that "moveable pictures, in the modern sense, were doubtless unknown to the Jews," and that biblical references to "pictures" typically denote either idolatrous reliefs or architectural ornamentation [1]. The "pictures of silver" in Proverbs 25:11 likely refer to carved surfaces or cornices, not framed portraits [1]. This historical context suggests that the biblical authors addressed sculpture and relief carving rather than the painted portraiture that would dominate later Christian art.
The biblical witness thus establishes a principle—God's transcendence of visual form—without legislating every application. Where representation serves idolatry or claims to capture the divine, Scripture condemns it. Where it serves memory, beauty, or instruction without usurping worship, the tradition has found room for accommodation, though not without ongoing debate about where the boundary lies.
Sources
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Picture — In two of the three passages in which "picture" is used in the Authorized Version it denotes idolatrous representations, either independent images or more usually stones "portrayed," i.e. sculptured in low relief, or engraved and colored. (Ezekiel 23:14) Layard, Nin. and Rob. ii. 306, 308. Moveable pictures, in the modern sense, were doubtless unknown to the Jews. The "pictures of silver" of (Proverbs 25:11) were probably well surfaces or cornices with carvings.”
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Carving — The arts of carving and engraving were much in request in the construction of both the tabernacle and the temple. (Exodus 31:5; 35:33; 1 Kings 6:18,35; Psalms 74:6) as well as in the ornamentation of the priestly dresses. (Exodus 28:9-36; 2 Chronicles 2:7,14; Zechariah 3:9)”
- CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 111: §14. A portrait once effaced must be restored from the original. Thus the Son of the Father came to seek, save, and regenerate. No other way was possible. Blinded himself, man could not see to heal. The witness of creation had failed to preserve him, and could not bring him back. The Word alone could do so. But how? Only by revealing Himself as Man. For as, when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to enable the portrait to be renewed on the sam”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. 3, section 8.30: in guarding the Jews against distrust, at the same time condemns the superstitions of the Gentiles, and declares that it is inconsistent with the nature of God to be represented by painting or by any kind of likeness. This shews clearly that Paul’s doctrine fully agrees with it; for the Prophet, after having shewn that the power of God is infinite, since he holds all things in his fist, at length concludes, “To whom then will ye liken me? for no image that is formed will have any likeness or resemblance to me.” Or, what resemblance will you a”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 27: devised by man are detestable. The infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by the Psalmist ( Psalm 115:8 ), when he shows how aid is implored from dead and senseless objects, by beings who have been endued with intelligence for the very purpose of enabling them to know that the whole universe is governed by Divine energy alone. But as the corruption of nature hurries away all mankind collectively and individually into this madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth a dreadful imprecation, “They that make them are like unt”
- Midrash Rabbah (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Midrash Rabbah, Shemot Rabbah 35:6: Another matter, “You shall craft the boards for the Tabernacle.” Rabbi Avin said: This is analogous to a king who had a fine visage. He said to a member of his household: ‘Create me [a portrait] like it.’ He said to him: ‘My lord king, I cannot create one like it.’ 19 I cannot make a portrait that will truly capture your fine appearance. He said to him: ‘You with your paints and I with my glory.’ 20 Do what you can with the materials you have available, even if it does not match my true beauty. So too, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: “See and craft”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 44: § 6. The Second Commandment. The two fundamental principles of the religion of the Bible are first, that there is one only the living and true God, the maker of heaven and earth, who has revealed Himself under the name Jehovah; secondly, that this God is a Spirit, and, therefore, incapable of being conceived of or represented under a visible form. The first commandment, therefore, forbids the worship of any other being than Jehovah; and the second, the worship of any visible object whatever. This includes the prohibition, not only of inwa”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 3: Tertullian — ELUCIDATIONS (part 1): I (The Second Commandment, p. 64.) TERTULLIAN'S teaching agrees with that of Clement of Alexandria(4) and with all the Primitive Fathers. But compare the Trent Catechism, (chapter it., quest. 17.)--"Nor let any one suppose that this commandment prohibits the arts of painting, modelling or sculpture, for, in the Scriptures we are informed that God himself commanded images of cherubim, and also of the brazen serpent, to be made, etc." So far, the comparison is important, because while our author limits any inference from this instance as an exceptio”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 5: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian — ON THE DRESS OF VIRGINS. (part 11): all of the sex alike, should be admonished, that the work of God and His fashioning and formation ought in no manner to be adulterated, either with the application of yellow colour, or with black dust or rouge, or with any kind of medicament which can corrupt the native lineaments. God says, "Let us make man in our image and likeness; and does any one dare to alter and to change what God has made? They are laying hands on God when they try to re-form that which He formed, and to transfigure it, not knowing th”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 43b.3: Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I heard in a lecture of Rabbi Yehoshua that there is a different reason why one may not fashion a figure of a human face; the verse states: “You shall not make with Me [ iti ]” (Exodus 20:20). This can be read as: You shall not make Me [ oti ]. Since the human being was created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:27), it is prohibited to fashion an image of a human being. But fashioning figures of other attendants of God is permitted.”