Idolatry

← Encyclopedia

Idolatry is the worship of an image, an object, or a created thing as though it were divine — and, more sharply, the name a tradition gives to the worship it judges false. The word comes from the Greek eidōlon, an image or phantom, joined to latreia, service or worship: literally, the service of images. It is rarely a charge anyone has claimed for themselves. From the start it has been something said about other people’s gods. No one builds a shrine to a false god; the falseness is supplied by the one who stands outside the shrine and names it. This asymmetry is built into the concept. To speak of idolatry at all is already to take a position on which worship reaches its object and which strikes empty air — and the word carries that judgment wherever it goes.

The graven image in Israel

The concept is native to the Hebrew Bible, where the demand that Israel worship one God alone carries with it a prohibition on the rest. Among the Ten Commandments given at Sinai and borne by the Torah stands the demand that allows no other gods before this one, and beside it the prohibition of the graven image: the made thing, carved or cast, that is bowed to and served. The two are not quite the same demand. One forbids the wrong god; the other forbids the wrong way of approaching the right one. The texts do not always hold them apart, and much of the later quarrel turns on whether a given image is a rival deity or a forbidden window onto the true God — an ambiguity present at the source.

Its founding breach has a name. The golden calf, cast at the foot of the mountain while Moses is still on it receiving the law, fixes the timing the tradition never forgot: the covenant is being given above at the very moment it is broken below, and the people’s demand for a god they can see and handle arrives almost in the same breath as the commandment against making one. The calf became the type-image of apostasy, the wound that every later defection reopened.

The prophets returned to the theme relentlessly, and with contempt. They mocked the idol as a thing of the workshop: the same craftsman who carves a god from a log burns the offcut to warm his hands and bake his bread, then bows down to the remainder and prays to it for deliverance. The polemic is not metaphysical but material — it points at the wood, the gold, the kiln. And it names the foreign gods directly rather than abstractly. Baal, the storm-god of Canaan whose rains made the land live, is the standing rival across the historical books; the gods of Babylon, carried in procession on the backs of beasts, are jeered at as burdens their own worshippers must haul about, Marduk among them, the city-god whose name the prophets twist into a figure of helplessness. What the texts condemn shifts with the passage: sometimes the worship of other gods outright, sometimes the worship of Israel’s own God through a forbidden form. The single word covers both, and the tradition that inherited it would spend centuries sorting the difference.

The inward turn in Christianity

Christianity inherited the prohibition and then complicated it past recognition. The early church read the public sacrifices of the Roman order as idolatry plain and simple, and refused them at the cost of life; the pinch of incense before the emperor’s image was, to the martyr, not a civic courtesy but the cardinal sin, and the refusal of it is much of what made a martyr. Tertullian of Carthage, writing in Latin around the turn of the third century, made the case its widest: in his treatise on the subject, idolatry is not one sin among many but the principal crime of the human race, the genus under which fraud, lust, and murder fall as species, so that the craftsman’s chisel, the schoolmaster’s pagan curriculum, and the official’s sacrificial duties are all entangled in it. The Christian, on this reading, lived inside a society soaked in cult and had to step carefully through it.

Yet as Christian art developed, the question turned inward, and the sharpest fight over idolatry took place not between the church and the pagans but inside the church itself. The Byzantine iconoclastic controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries, under the Byzantine Empire, split the Eastern church over whether painted icons of Christ and the saints were holy aids to devotion or graven images forbidden by the same commandment that condemned the calf. Emperors ordered the images taken down and destroyed; monks who defended them were imprisoned, exiled, and in some cases killed; mosaics were plastered over and panels burned. The defenders held that the image of Christ was possible and even necessary precisely because God had taken visible flesh — that to deny the image was, in the end, to deny the incarnation. Their position was affirmed at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the seventh of the councils the Greek and Latin churches count as ecumenical, which restored the icons and condemned those who had broken them.

Out of that settlement came a distinction that has carried weight ever since: the council separated the latreia owed to God alone — full adoration, the worship that may go to nothing made — from the lesser honor that may pass through an image to the one it depicts. The veneration, the council held, does not rest on the wood and pigment but travels through them to the prototype; the honor given the image is referred to its original, and so the icon is no idol. The same logic would later be extended to the honor paid the saints and their relics, and, in a still higher register reserved to the mother of Jesus, a veneration distinguished by name from the worship due God — the architecture of the distinction mattering more than the graded vocabulary built upon it. To the iconoclasts, and later to others, the distinction looked like a door left ajar; to its defenders it was the whole hinge on which the question turned.

The Reformation reopened the wound in the Latin West eight centuries later. Reformers held that the medieval cult of images, relics, and shrines had crossed precisely the line Nicaea claimed to hold, that the honor meant for the prototype had in practice settled onto the object, and that the plain sense of the commandment forbade religious images altogether. Crowds stripped and smashed the images of churches across northern Europe — whitewashed walls, broke statues, melted plate — in the name of the same Sinai law the calf had broken, so that the charge of idolatry, which had begun as one faith’s word for another’s gods, now ran between Christians and through the middle of a single Western church.

Shirk and the cleansing of the Kaaba

Islam took the firmest line of the three. The central sin in the Qur’anic vocabulary is shirk — the association of partners with God, the setting of any other beside the one who has no partner — and it is the one sin the text marks as unforgivable while all others remain within reach of pardon. Against it stands the affirmation of God’s absolute unity, the doctrine from which the whole edifice rises. Where the Hebrew prophets attacked images and the Byzantine fight turned on icons, the Qur’anic charge is pitched at the level of the divine unity itself: the idolater is not merely one who bows to wood but one who divides what cannot be divided.

The charge had a concrete setting in the religious world of pre-Islamic Arabia. The sanctuary at Mecca, the Kaaba, stood at the center of a cult that the later Arabic tradition remembered as crowded with idols. The literary sources describe the figure of Hubal, an image of red carnelian with a golden hand, set within the sanctuary, and before it the divination arrows cast to settle questions of paternity, marriage, blood-money, and travel; ranged around the precinct stood other idols, and the three goddesses named in the Qur’an — al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat — were honored at their own shrines in the surrounding country and addressed, in the idiom of the time, as daughters of the high god and as intercessors whose favor might be sought. The cleansing of the sanctuary of these images stands at the origin of the Muslim community as the tradition tells it: the idols cast out, the precinct returned to the worship of God alone. Modern scholarship, working from the contemporary inscriptions of the peninsula against the much later literary record, has grown cautious about the details of that remembered pantheon — the inscriptions secure only a few of the named gods, and the age of ignorance the sources describe is shaped in part by the polemic that overcame it. But the trajectory it set is not in doubt. The resulting aniconism — the turning of religious art away from the image of God and, in large measure, from the human figure in sacred space — shaped the visual world of a whole civilization, which poured its devotion into calligraphy, geometry, and the patterned line rather than the depicted face.

The boundary-marking reading

Scholarship has grown wary of the word as a neutral description of anything in the world. On a now-common reading, set out at length in Idolatry by Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit (1992), idolatry is less a thing some people do than a category one religion builds to mark the boundary of its own — so that the history of the charge is also a history of how monotheism imagined, and required, its rivals. The sin is defined relationally, by exclusion: to know what counts as idolatry is to know where the line of true worship has been drawn, and the worshipper on the far side of it has usually drawn the line differently or not at all. The historian G. R. Hawting carried the same suspicion into the Arabian material, arguing that the Qur’an’s polemic against those who associate partners with God is aimed less at literal statue-worshippers than at rival monotheists cast, in an old prophetic manner, as idolaters — the charge inheriting a polemical shape long before it found its Arabian object.

The traditions that leveled the charge understood it otherwise, and understand it so still: not as a boundary-marker but as the plainest of errors, the mistaking of the made thing for its maker, the gift of ultimate allegiance to what cannot sustain it. Between those two descriptions — idolatry as a category monotheism needs and idolatry as a fact monotheism sees — the philosophical defense of the cult image mounted by the late Platonists, who held that the rightly made and consecrated statue could draw down the presence of the god it figured, forms a third position older than either; that case belongs to pagan Platonic theology and is argued there. The disagreement is old, and it has carried weight far beyond the temple and the synagogue: a charge of idolatry could mean exile from a community, the verdict of heresy, the sentence of excommunication. It turns, in the end, on a question none of the parties treats as small — what, exactly, is owed to God, and what is stolen from him when it is given to anything else.

Texts and scholarship

The fullest early Christian statement is Tertullian’s treatise, surviving in the nineteenth-century translation by S. Thelwall in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series and freely available, with the critical edition of the Latin text cataloged alongside it; the standard modern critical text, translation, and commentary is that of J. H. Waszink and J. C. M. van Winden, Tertullian’s De Idololatria (Leiden: Brill, 1987). For the decisive Eastern settlement, the proceedings of the council that restored the icons are now available in full in Richard Price’s translation, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 2 vols. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018), the first complete English rendering in over a century. The governing modern study of the concept itself is Halbertal and Margalit’s Idolatry (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992, trans. Naomi Goldblum), which traces the term from its biblical core through its philosophical afterlife; the boundary-against-rivals reading of the Arabian charge is developed in G. R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). The cultic world the charge first answered in Arabia is reconstructed, against the later literary tradition, in Robert Hoyland’s Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam (London: Routledge, 2001). The unique medieval Arabic catalog of the idols, Ibn al-Kalbi’s Kitab al-Asnam, survives as the literary tradition’s own inventory of what the cleansing of the sanctuary swept away.

→ Related: Heresy · Excommunication · Baal · Marduk · Jehovah · Golden Calf · Ten Commandments · Torah · Canaan · Babylon · Christianity · Islam · Tertullian · Byzantine Empire · The Reformation · Kaaba · Pagan Platonic Theology · Deity