Sub-Creation or Idolatry?

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.  (Exodus 20:4)

The true intent of the Second Commandment goes beyond the literal prohibition of images. Images in themselves are not fundamentally forbidden (otherwise, all of Christendom would have been nations without visual art -  despite earlier assumptions about Jewish aniconism, which has now been proved inaccurate); rather, what is strictly prohibited is for a man-made image to substitute for God and become the object of worship - that is, idolatry. Christianity as a monotheistic religion, affirms Yahweh the one and only true God. In either political or theological pan, idolatry carries a sense of infidelity: it is the defection into polytheistic paganism and the fabrication of false gods. Either way, idolatry is an intolerable transgression within Christian doctrine. 

As a devout Catholic, Tolkien could not have been well unaware of the Second Commandment - how, then, did he understand and put it into practice himself?

In Letter 131, Tolkien clearly expressed his deep passion for myth and his grief that his own country had no stories that bound up with its own language and soil. In his envision,“myth” is supposed to be something relatively self-standing and independent from “religion” (specifically Christianity in this context). For this reason, he did not approve the Arthurian legend as an English mythology, for its explicit involvement in Christian religion.

To remedy, Tolkien set out to “create” a native English mythology (apologize for using the word “create”. Tolkien might not like it; for Tolkien, Middle-earth is less an invention than a kind of recollection of a lost world—Númenor, after all, is truly real). The opening chapter of The Silmarillion, the Ainulindalë, recounts how Eru, the One—also known as Ilúvatar—brought the cosmos (Eä) into being through the Great Music. Within the corpus of Middle-earth writings, this chapter holds a position roughly analogous to that of Genesis within the Biblical tradition. It appears almost as a self-contained cosmology, a kind of parallel universe that stands alongside, and at times seemingly apart from, the Christian world.

Ilúvatar—isn’t he a “false god” openly forged by Tolkien? He appropriates the title of “the One,” seemingly displacing God as Creator, even echoing biblical language—“Let these things Be!”alongside “Let there be light”. One might argue that no one would really believe in Ilúvatar in the same way they believe in God; yet historically, those who venerated icons at the altar did not think of themselves as worshipping idols either. To a certain extent, strictly speaking, Tolkien’s very act of writing appears to carry the risk of transgressing the Second Commandment—of substituting a man-made figure in place of the divine.

Nevertheless, it is clear that Tolkien himself believed that God permits and even encourages His people, while remaining faithful to Him, to create and cherish other mythic figures; legend-makers are not necessarily idolatros. This point can be further illustrated through a detail in the Ainulindalë: 

“Now the Valar took to themselves shape and hue; and because they were drawn into the World by love of the Children of Ilúvatar, for whom they hoped, they took shape after that manner which they had beheld in the Vision of Ilúvatar, save only in majesty and splendour. (Tolkien, The Silmarillion, “Ainulindalë”)

This excerpt forms an antithesis to Genesis 1:27—“God created mankind in his own image” (personally, I take it as a parallel device Tolkien employed in purpose). In Genesis, Man is the mirror-image of God, the self-portrait of the Creator; whereas in Ainulindalë, the formless Valar were incarnated in the manner of Man: the divine, in turn, becomes the mirror-image of Man.

Although the text does not explicitly state whether mankind was created in Ilúvatar’s own image, it nonetheless implies a more complex dynamic: Man is not merely a passive bearer of divine likeness, but also an active participant in shaping how the divine is perceived through visible forms. The relationship between Creator and Creation is therefore far more intricate than it first appears, and far more worthy of reflection than a unilateral model of resemblance.

The metaphor of “self-portrait” I used above is quite dubious upon closer examination. When we describe Man as God’s self-portrait, we are in fact reducing ourselves - animate beings - to inanimate objects. The fundamental difference between God the Creator and human craftsman lies precisely in the fact that the Creator can bring forth life, while man-made idols are nothing more than lifeless, immovable wood and gold, “having eyes but cannot see, having ears but cannot hear.” Regarding ourselves as merely an inanimate artwork of God is therefore a profanation of His creative power. 

When the Creator’s Creation is not a lifeless object but a multitude of living beings, the relationship between the two can no longer be taken as a simple hierarchy of subordination. On the one hand, the Creator gives form and life to his Creation; on the other, the Creator also relies on his Creation’s recognition and faith to establish his image and authority. It is not only Man that relies on faith in God, but God also, in a sense, depends on Man’s faith. Created in the image of God, Man is given the divine responsibility for completing Creation. 

Tolkien approached this divine duty through what he called “sub-creation.” According to him, the truly faithful shall not merely “worship the great Artifact,” but rather realize his or her potential as a “sub-creator”, a “legend-maker” (Mythopoeia). Beyond obedience and reverence lies a higher state of devotion, “sub-creation.” It entails an active engagement with, reflection upon, and even questioning of the Truth (when needed) that God represents. 

Tolkien’s Ainulindalë was by no means composed to replace Genesis—how, then, could Eru Ilúvatar be an man-made idol who challenge, or even displace God? Rather, Ainulindalë serves as a likeness of Genesis - a likeness of Truth that channels the terrestrial with the divine, guiding Man toward the Truth. 

It’s worth noting that this is not an original interpretation and practice of the Second Commandment unique to Tolkien. Both waves of Byzantine Iconoclasm ended in the victory of the iconophiles. In their defense of icons, John of Damascus argues that “since our analogies are not capable of raising us immediately to intellectual contemplation, we need familiar and natural points of reference.” (26) God’s revelation would not spontaneously descend from above to those who wait passively, but must be acquired through active engagement in a dialogue with the divine. The image—as a likeness of the archetype—is a reflection of the divine and a vessel of God’s revelation.

The “image,” in a narrow sense, refers to the icons placed in churches (the icon of Christ). Yet in a broader sense, it encompasses any form of interaction between the faithful and God: Job’s questioning of God when confronting unexplained suffering, or Tolkien’s own act of writing as a form of “retrospection” of the Creation in Genesis. The image does not lead the believer astray from faith, as the iconoclasts feared; rather, it grounds a more genuine understanding of, and more intimate relationship with, God. After all, how could true faith possibly fear the believer’s reflection upon it?

-YC

Work Cited:

Tolkien, J. R. R. The Silmarillion. Edited by Christopher Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin, 2001. ISBN 978-0-544-33801-2.

Tolkien, J. R. R. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: A Selection. Edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin, 1981.

Tolkien, J. R. R. The Silmarillion. Edited by Christopher Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin, 2001. ISBN 978-0-544-33801-2.

The Holy Bible: Genesis. New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 1989.

The Holy Bible: Exodus. New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Tolkien, J. R. R. “Mythopoeia.” In Tree and Leaf, HarperCollins, 2001.

John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images. Translated by Andrew Louth, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003.