1 This belief in God's invisibility is largely a result of classical theism, which arose during the Middle Ages and represented a shift from more embodied ways of envisioning God. See Hamori, E. J., ‘When Gods Were Men’: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) 35–64Google Scholar; Markschies, C., Gottes Körper: Jüdische, christliche und pagane Gottesvorstellungen in der Antike (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 While examples in the scholarly literature are too numerous to list, see the following two classics on Christian aniconism: Finney, P. C., The Invisible God: The Earliest Christians on Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Besançon, A., The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm (trans. Todd, J. M.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

3 See e.g. Boyarin, D., ‘The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic’, Critical Inquiry 16 (1990) 532–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 532–3.

4 Sommer, B. D., The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamori, ‘When Gods Were Men’; idem, ‘Divine Embodiment in the Hebrew Bible and Some Implications for Jewish and Christian Incarnational Theologies’, Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible (ed. Kamionkowski, S. T. and Kim, W.; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010) 161–83Google Scholar; Smith, M. S., Where the Gods Are: Spatial Dimensions of Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

5 Notable exceptions include Bultmann, R., ‘Untersuchungen zum Johannesevangelium’, ZNW 29 (1930) 169–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Malone, A., ‘The Invisibility of God: A Survey of a Misunderstood Phenomenon’, EvQ 79 (2007) 311–29Google Scholar.

6 See also 1 Tim 1.17; Heb 11.27; cf. John 1.18; 5.37–8; 6.46; Rom 1.20; 1 Tim 6.16; 1 John 4.12, 20; 3 John 11; Bultmann, ‘Untersuchungen’, 182–90; Malone, ‘Invisibility of God’, 318–25.

7 For a discussion of Stoicism in the New Testament and early Christianity, see Rasimus, T., Engberg-Pedersen, T. and Dunderberg, I., eds., Stoicism in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010)Google Scholar. For a discussion of God in Stoicism, see Salles, R., ‘Introduction: God and Cosmos in Stoicism’, God and Cosmos in Stoicism (ed. Salles, R.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Although the term ‘idolatry’ itself is a rather broad, flexible concept, I primarily contain my discussion of ‘idolatry’ in Acts to Luke's account of divine images. Note, though, that Luke incorporates ‘idolatry’ rhetoric in Acts 14.8–20 when Paul and Barnabas are mistaken for gods. Luke also mentions the topic of ‘idol meat’ on three separate occasions (Acts 15.20, 29; 21.25), and he critiques magicians and magical practices (Acts 8.9–24; 13.4–12; 19.18–19), which were often associated with idolatry in Jewish circles.

9 Note, however, that our English term ‘idol’ comes from the Greek εἴδωλον. In Hebrew, there are a number of different terms denoting ‘idols’, but the LXX tends to translate these words with εἴδωλον. See J. C. H. Laughlin, ‘Idol’, NIDB iii.8–11, at iii.8–9; Hayward, R., ‘Observations on Idols in Septuagint Pentateuch’, Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. Barton, S. C.; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 40–57Google Scholar, esp. 42. See also the discussion below.

10 On where the second commandment, or ‘word’, begins and ends, and the translation of these verses, see R. P. Bonfiglio, ‘Idols and Idolatry’, OEBT i.506–16, at i.509–10.

11 Tatum, W. B., ‘The LXX Version of the Second Commandment (Ex. 20,3–6 = Deut. 5,7–10): A Polemic against Idols, Not Images’, JSJ 17 (1986) 177–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 181. See also, though, Hayward's response (‘Observations on Idols’, 53–4).

12 See especially Levtow, N. B., Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (BJSUCSD 11; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008) 5–12Google Scholar.

13 As D. B. Martin explains, the ancients themselves would not have bifurcated the mind from the body or the intellect from the senses to the degree that we often do today. Even the Platonic division between the body and the soul is not an ontological dualism in a Cartesian sense (The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 3–36).

14 Bultmann, ‘Untersuchungen’, 177–8.

15 On the development of the Greek terms ‘incorporeality’ (ἀσώματος) and ‘immateriality’ (ἄϋλος) and their Platonic origins, see Renehan, R., ‘On the Greek Origins of the Concepts Incorporeality and Immateriality’, GRBS 21 (1980) 105–38Google Scholar.

16 On the term ἀόρατος in the LXX, see Gen 1.2 (‘the earth was formless/invisible (ἀόρατος)’); Isa 45.3 (‘I will open to you hidden invisible things (ἀοράτους)’) (cf. its absence in A); 2 Macc 9.5 (‘the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invisible (ἀοράτῳ) blow’). Note, though, that the terms ἀόρατος and ἀσώματος become more frequent during the Second Temple period and beyond (e.g. T.Reu. 6.12; T.Levi 4.1; T.Ab. 3.6). Indeed, in true Platonic fashion, Philo himself uses the term ἀόρατος over a hundred times, and he also identifies God as ‘invisible’ (e.g. Mos. 2.65; Opif. 69–71; Spec. 1.18, 20, 46; 2.165). See W. Michaelis, ‘ὁρατός, ἀόρατος’, TDNT v.368–70.

17 Bonfiglio, ‘Idols and Idolatry’, i.510–11. See also Korada, M. K., The Rationale for Aniconism in the Old Testament: A Study of Select Texts (Leuven: Peeters, 2017)Google Scholar.

18 See, for example, Levtow's discussion of ‘icon parodies’ (Images of Others, esp. 166).

19 Hayward, ‘Observations on Idols’, 40–57; F. Büchsel, ‘εἴδωλον’, TDNT ii.375–8; Griffith, T., ‘ΕΙΔΩΛΟΝ as “Idol” in Non-Jewish and Non-Christian Greek’, JTS 53 (2002) 95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 28–57.

20 E. Lohse, ‘χειροποίητος’, TDNT ix.436.

21 Note, for example, that Luke's lexicon includes both the terms εἴδωλον (and cognates) (Acts 7.41; 15.20, 29; 17.16; 21.25) and χειροποίητος (Acts 7.48; 17.24; cf. 7.41).

22 For a discussion of these texts and other instances of aniconic rhetoric during the Second Temple period, see Bergmann, C. D., ‘Idol Worship in Bel and the Dragon and Other Jewish Literature from the Second Temple Period’, Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang, K. and Wooden, R. G.; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 207–23Google Scholar.

23 On Josephus and images, see Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Snarling Sweetly: Josephus on Images and Idolatry’, Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. Barton, S. C.; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 73–87Google Scholar; von Ehrenkrook, J., Sculpting Idolatry in Flavian Rome: (An)Iconic Rhetoric in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (EJL 33; Atlanta: SBL, 2011)Google Scholar. On Philo and images, see Sandelin, K.-G., ‘The Danger of Idolatry according to Philo of Alexandria’, Temenos 27 (1991) 109–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pearce, S., ‘Philo of Alexandria on the Second Commandment’, The Image and its Prohibition in Jewish Antiquity (ed. Pearce, S.; Oxford: JJS, 2013) 49–76Google Scholar.

24 For a discussion of images and visuality in the Greco-Roman world, see Elsner, J., Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Jensen, R. M., ‘Visuality’, The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Mediterranean Religions (ed. Spaeth, B. S.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 309–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 E.g. Dio Chrysostom, Dei cogn. 12.59–62; Lucian, Gall. 24; Jupp. trag. 7–12.

26 On how the ancients both encouraged and discouraged epiphanic modes of viewing representational objects, see Gordon, R. L., ‘The Real and the Imaginary: Production and Religion in the Graeco-Roman World’, Image and Value in the Graeco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and Religious Art (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1996) 5–34Google Scholar; Platt, V., Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 77–123Google Scholar.

27 Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York: Pantheon Books, 1953–68)Google Scholar; Fine, S., Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

28 See e.g. Philo, Decal. 66–76; Ebr. 108–10; Spec. 2.164–7; Sib. Or. 3.8–45; 4.4–23; Origen, Cels. 4.31; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 4.54–5; Strom. 5.5. See also Jensen, R. M., Face to Face: Picturing the Divine in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 9–19Google Scholar, 69–130.

29 Instead, New Testament authors more frequently link idolatry with sexuality. See Rom 1.22–7; 1 Cor 6.9–11; 10.7–8; Gal 5.19; Eph 5.5; Col 3.5; 1 Pet 4.3; Rev 2.14, 20; 21.8; 22.15; S. C. Barton, ‘Food Rules, Sex Rules and the Prohibition of Idolatry: What's the Connection?’, Idolatry, 141–62.

30 See 1 Cor 10.14; 12.2; Gal 5.19–21; Col 3.5; 1 Peter 4.3; 1 John 5.21; Rev 2.20; 9.20. On Paul's discussion of ‘idol meat’, see Achtemeier, P. J., ‘Gods Made with Hands: The New Testament and the Problem of Idolatry’, Ex auditu 15 (1999) 43–61Google Scholar; Fotopoulos, J., Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 (WUNT ii/151; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003)Google Scholar.

31 For a discussion of Romans 1 in relation to Paul's visual piety and visuality more broadly, see Heath, J., Paul's Visual Piety: The Metamorphosis of the Beholder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 150–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Compare this, though, to Josephus, J.W. 5.219; 7.346. Even here, however, Josephus does not necessarily suggest that God is ontologically invisible; God is instead invisible to human eyes. See Malone, ‘Invisibility of God’, 316.

33 Although Luke relegates his idol polemic to Acts, note that the word εἰκών appears in his gospel (as well as the Gospels of Matthew and Mark) in reference to an image of Caesar that appears on a coin (Luke 20.24; cf. Matt 22.20; Mark 12.16). In each respective account of this story, however, Caesar's image does not seem to be treated as an idol or improper image. See H. K. Bond, ‘Standards, Shields and Coins: Jewish Reactions to Aspects of the Roman Cult in the Time of Pilate’, Idolatry, 88–106, esp. 102–6.

34 D. W. Pao argues that Luke's critique of idols reflects in particular the Isaianic idol parodies. According to Pao, Luke's emphasis on idols is one of four principal ‘New Exodus’ themes that Luke draws from Isaiah 40–55 and weaves throughout his second volume. Pao, D. W., Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000)Google Scholar.

35 On the association of idolatry with gentiles elsewhere in the New Testament, see 1 Cor 12.2; 1 Pet 4.3; cf. Rom 2.22.

36 For classic treatments of Paul's Areopagus speech in relation to Greek philosophy, see Dibelius, M., ‘Paul on the Areopagus’, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Greeven, H., trans. Ling, M.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1956) 26–77Google Scholar; Balch, D. L., ‘The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans’, Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. Balch, D. L. et al. ; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 52–79Google Scholar.

37 Since χαράγματι (‘image’) stands in apposition to the four dative nouns that precede it, which are complements of ὅμοιον (‘like’), we should read ‘like’ (ὅμοιον) before ‘image’ (χαράγματι) as well. See Parsons, M. C. and Culy, M. M., Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2003) 332, 340–1Google Scholar.

38 Given that Paul's Areopagus speech reflects mainly Stoic (rather than Platonic) ideas, this absence should perhaps not be surprising. H. Hommel tries to trace the speech's line ‘in him we live and move and have our being’ (17.28) to Platonic influences, but this connection is loose at best (‘Platonisches bei Lukas: Zu Acts 17.28a (Leben-Bewegung-Sein)’, ZNW 48 (1957) 193–200).

39 To be clear, the idea of God's paternity was also well known in philosophical circles, even among philosophers who advocated for God's invisibility.

40 On the origin and proverbial status of this saying, see Pervo, R. I., Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009) 439Google Scholar.

41 BDAG s.v. ‘γένος’.

42 Pervo identifies Luke's reticence here as an instance of enthymeme (Acts, 439). Cf. Gen 1.26–7; 1 Cor 11.7; 15.49; 2 Cor 3.18; 4.4; Col 1.15; 3.10.

43 See e.g. Homer, Od. 9.415–19; Plato, Phaed. 99b; Gen 27.12 (LXX); Isa 59.10 (LXX).

44 εἴδωλον is related to the word εἶδος (‘visible form’; ‘sight’) and, as mentioned above, conveys a range of meanings including ‘mental image’ and ‘likeness’. Büchsel, TDNT ii.375–8; Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, 28–32.

45 See e.g. Jer 8.2; cf. Jer 7.18 (LXX); 19.13; Zeph 1.5.

46 BDAG s.v. ‘τύπος’.

47 E.g. Euripides, Iph. taur. 85–92; Pausanias, Descr. 1.26.6–7; cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. 16.213–16.

48 In Acts 13, Luke describes an incident when the blind Bar-Jesus is ‘groping for someone to lead him by the hand’ (NRSV), or more accurately, ‘seeking for someone to lead [him] by the hand’ (ἐζήτει χειραγωγούς) (13.11). With this language, Luke connects Bar-Jesus’ divinely inflicted blindness with Paul's (Saul's) divinely inflicted blindness on the Damascus road (see χειραγωγοῦντες in 9.8; cf. 22.11). Yet while Luke clearly links these two episodes, the parallels between Bar-Jesus’ blinded state in 13.11 and Paul's statement in 17.27 are not nearly so apparent.

49 It is striking, for example, that Philo and Josephus refrain from using the term εἴδωλον in their apologetic on divine images, especially since Philo exploits the full range of visual connotations of the term elsewhere in his writings (see Tatum, ‘LXX Version’, 188–93; Pearce, ‘Philo of Alexandria’, 61).

50 Of course, ‘the host of heaven’ may still connote stars since Luke specifically mentions Rephan's star. The phrase itself, however, has more military connotations, and its one other occurrence in Luke's narrative specifically refers to angels (Luke 2.13). In the LXX, the phrase can refer to astral bodies (e.g. Jer 8.2) and to angels (e.g. 1 Kgs 22.19; 2 Esd 19.6). Note, however, that some references to ‘the host of heaven’ which are clearly astral use different Greek terminology (e.g. Deut 4.19; 17.3; 2 Kgs 23.5).

51 E.g. Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 367Google Scholar; Parsons, M. C., Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 276Google Scholar; Holladay, C. R., Acts: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2016) 385Google Scholar; cf. Pervo, Acts, 498.

52 C. K. Rothschild makes a similar point (Paul in Athens: The Popular Religious Context of Acts 17 (WUNT 341; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 73–5, 80). Note, though, that Paul selects an ‘altar’ (βωμός) with an inscription to make his segue; he does not choose an anthropomorphic image.

53 And note that Paul does not identify God as ‘unknowable’; instead he reveals that ‘an unknown god’ whom the Athenians ‘unknowingly’ worship (or worship ‘in ignorance’) (ἀγνοοῦντες) is the God of Israel (cf. 17.30).

54 In Acts 7, Stephen uses the golden calf incident to transition to his discussion of the temple: his mention of the ‘tent’ (σκηνή) of Rephan and the ‘images’ (τύποι) the Israelites worship (7.43) leads to his discussion of the ‘tent’ (σκηνή) of testimony that Moses made according to a ‘pattern’ (τύπος) (7.44–5), which then leads to his discussion of God's ‘house’ (οἶκος) (7.46–50).

55 In this respect, the God of Acts looks very different from the God of Stoicism. For a more comprehensive articulation of the different ways in which Christians and Stoics depict God, see Rowe, C. K., One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), esp. 27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 44–9, 71–4, 87–91, 124–9.

56 Other texts – including Jewish texts – contain this theme of seeking God, but they do not use this sensuous verb (e.g. Deut 4.29; Wis 13.6–7; Philo, Spec. 1.36). Ironically, Paul's statement about potentially touching God finds affinities with Dio Chrysostom's observation that people have a longing to touch (ἁπτομένους) images of the gods (Or. 12.60–1) (Pervo, Acts, 437).

57 Parsons and Culy observe that the use of εἰ with two optative verbs forms a fourth class condition, which is normally used to express something that has only a remote possibility of happening in the future (Acts, 339). The use of ἄρα and γε further emphasises the sense of uncertainty (cf. 8.22) (Acts, 339). My point, however, is that Paul identifies ‘grasping’ God as a possibility, remote though it might be.

58 On the anthropomorphic metaphor of God's ‘hand’, see Knafl, A. K., Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), esp. 257–8Google Scholar.

59 Smith, Where the Gods Are, 21–4. Isa 66.1, for example, is echoed in 1 En. 84.2; Aristob. 4.5; Matt 5.34; Sib. Or. 1.139.

60 See T. Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy’, Stoicism in Early Christianity, 1–14.

61 I thank Michal Beth Dinkler and Jennie Grillo, who read earlier versions of this article, as well as my research assistants Susan Benton and Mark Jeong.