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 divi