Origen of Alexandria : The intention of the law was that in everything they should look toward what is real. They should not make up things which are different from reality or misrepresent what is truly male or what is really female, or the nature of beasts or the species of birds or creeping things, or fishes. — AGAINST CELSUS 4.31 Augustine of Hippo : Do not commit an iniquity, making for yourselves a sculpted likeness, any image. Often wonder what difference there is between similarity and image. But here I do not see what difference there may be between them, unless the same thing is indicated by those two words or it is called resemblance to a statue or simulacrum that has the human figure, but without expressing the human features, as painters do or sculptors when they contemplate those who paint or sculpt. No one would hesitate to say that this is an image. According to this distinction, every image is also similarity, but not all similarity is also image. Therefore, if the twins are similar to each other, the similarity of any one in another can be called similarity, not image. And if the son is similar to the father, it is correctly said that it is also his image, so that the father is the prototype of where that expressed image appears. As for the images, some are of the same substance, as the son. Others do not, like painting. Therefore, the words of Genesis: God made man in the image of God, (Genesis 1, 27) does not mean naturally that the image was made out of the same divine substance. Because if it were of the same substance, then it would not be said that it was made, but that it was generated. But the fact that it has not been added: and similarity, when in Genesis it was said: Let us make man in our image and likeness, (Genesis 1,26) has given rise to some to affirm that the similarity is something more than the image, which would be reserved later to reform man by the grace of Christ. It strikes me, if you have not wanted to remember only the image afterwards, precisely because where there is an image, there is automatically a resemblance there too. Hence it follows that Moses here also prohibits similarities and images from being made, perhaps for the reason we have said. In the Decalogue, however, it is said in a general way that no resemblance should be made (Cf Exodus 20,4), but the image is not mentioned. Naturally, when no resemblance is made, it is evident that no image is made either, because if an image is made, a similarity is also made. On the other hand, if a similarity is made, it does not necessarily make an image. Now, if there is no similarity, it follows that there is no image. Finally, when resemblance and image were forbidden, the text wanted to refer to that of man, where a resemblance can be made, not of this one or of that one, but of any man, and an image of this or that man. . When referring, on the other hand, to cattle and irrational animals, only similarity has been mentioned (Cf Deuteronomy 4,17). Because what animal can there be that does a dog or something similar to itself, seeing whoever paints or represents its image? And this is totally normal, when it comes to men. — QUESTIONS ON DEUTERONOMY, Q. 4 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)