God told Moses that the altar must be made of unhewn stones:

And if you make for Me an altar of stones, do not build it of hewn stones; for by wielding your tool upon them you have profaned them.—Exodus 20:22 (NJPS)

Deuteronomy 27:5 includes a similar command. The word for indicates that there is a connection between cutting a stone and making it unfit for being included in the altar. Lacking the proper historical context, I don't understand what makes an altar of stones different from the acacia wood and bronze altar God commands to be built (presumably with tools) in Exodus 27, for instance.

How does using tools profane the stone?

  • I note that the Masoretic text referenced in my answer combines your verse 2 and 3, hence my referencing 20:21.
    – Double AA
    Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 22:08

7 Answers 7


The word in Exodus 20:21 which you translate as 'tool' is the Hebrew חרב which most literaly means 'sword'. Rashi there explains that a sword is designed to shorten life, while an altar is designed to lengthen life by being used to achieve atonement. It makes sense, therefore, that one should not be used in the formation of the other.

  • 4
    Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! That's fascinating. I see that the word is overwhelmingly translated with warlike imagery in the NET translation. So, of course, it would be contrary to the purpose of an altar to use such a tool to create it. Even so, it's odd to think of using a weapon to dress stone. So it's a case of now I know the answer to my question, but a whole new one takes its place. ;-) Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 23:59
  • @JonEricson You should know that the 'parallel' verse in Deuteronomy is used in Jewish law to forbid all metal implements in hewing the stones for the altar. They can be hewn with anything except metal for this reason.
    – Double AA
    Commented Apr 26, 2012 at 0:19
  • 5
    Although of course an altar shortens the life of that which is sacrificed... Commented Apr 26, 2012 at 5:45

(This answer is from a Christian perspective.)

Since this question deals with the significance of the imagery, it is helpful to look at other places in Scripture that use similar imagery.

1) 1 Kings 18:30-32 recounts a time when Elijah rebuilt one of these altars after it had been torn down:

Then Elijah said to all the people, “Now come to me.” So they gathered around him, and Elijah rebuilt the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. He took twelve stones, one stone for each of the twelve tribes, the number of Jacob’s sons. (The Lord changed Jacob’s name to Israel.) Elijah used these stones to rebuild the altar in honor of the Lord. Then he dug a ditch around the altar that was big enough to hold about thirteen quarts of seed.

Apparently the stones of the altar had some relation to the people of Israel.

2) 1 Peter 2:4-5 describes Christ and the Church as "living stones" that are being built up for the purpose of offering spiritual sacrifices:

And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

It is hard to miss the similarity... the people of God are being built up together like "stones" for the purpose of "offering sacrifices."

3) In Daniel God gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream which also used the imagery of a "stone cut without hands." A few verses later it is explained: God was using a "stone cut without hands" to represent a Kingdom which would be set up by God (as opposed to man).


I believe Exodus 20:22 has similar significance...

  • Why should the altar be made of stones? An alter is a place where sacrifices and offerings are presented. Not all sacrifices and offerings are acceptable to God, but only those given at the right altar -- that is, by the right people, in the right Kingdom. Thus, the altar should represent the Kingdom of God, and should be made of stones, which represent the people of God.

  • Why uncut stones? God is the Master Builder of the Kingdom. Sacrifices and offerings are only acceptable because of what He has done. The stones in the altar should represent the work of God, and thus, should be unhewn (like the "stone cut without hands" in Daniel.) If the stones were to be hewn by human hands, it would profane the imagery.

  • 2
    The law is an aspect of Holiness. The Kingdom will be a Holy kingdom as will the church. "Be ye therefore Holy". There is one stone that was broken by the rod of God, from which came living water.
    – Bob Jones
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 12:24

Calvin, Gill citing Maimonides, and Mathew Henry all give the reason as the prevention of idolatry. Drawn from them:

  • Such an altar is easily thrown down to prevent idolatry associated with it.
  • This would remove the temptation of making it into a sort of graven image.
  • The other nations cut stones for their altars
    • Many holiness laws have them not do things that are nations did which may otherwise have been morally neutral)
    • The removal of this association may have helped keep them separate from idolaters
  • "The beauty of holiness needs no paint."—Henry

(Calvin criticizes those who try to find an allegorical meaning in this.)

Additional thoughts from my own reading of Scripture:

  • Because such an altar is easily thrown down, this command is probably related to the prohibition against "high places" and the eventual selection of one place of worship in Deuteronomy 12 and 16:5-7 (symbolic of Jesus Christ as the one way to God). In Solomon's temple, hewn stone was used, and also in the ideal temple of Ezekiel that was never realized (e.g. the tables).
  • 3
    This would make sense of Daniel 2 where a stone cut without hands is the instrument that brings about the idols destruction. Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 15:09

Even though allegorical methods are criticized they should not be excised from the conversation.

Acceptable worship of God is done God's way. The stone is the way God created it. It requires no work of the hands of men to be acceptable to Him.

An idol is a creation of man where he worships his own effort. We might paraphrase the words of Nebuchadnezzar "Isn't this great [whatever] that I have built..." just before he started eating grass. [1]

The imagery of the sword as the word says that the Word of God should not be used to make an idol of God's altar, as Satan perverted the word to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. He was hacking at Christ (the Stone) with the sword/word in order to destroy the altar of God and engender worship of himself.

Recognizing the stone as the Word of God expressing the law/Holiness, having intact stones is the equivalent of "not a jot or tittle" being lost before the law is fulfilled.

This method of interpretation is 'authorized' by the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose de Galili; called Mashal, or parable. The whole of the OT scripture is considered a prophetic parable of Jesus.

[1] Da 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

  • Bob, thanks for persisting in providing allegorical solutions to our questions. This answer in particular is very helpful to me. It's a valuable addition to the site. Commented Jun 6, 2012 at 1:04
  • 1
    Thanks Jon. I would hope that my allegorical solutions are self consistent and that those answers which appear to be out in left field only appear to be because of my failure to explain them well. Perhaps some well placed questions on them will help me to clarify them.
    – Bob Jones
    Commented Jun 6, 2012 at 1:31
  • I love your picture. The stone is the way God created it. It requires no work of the hands of men to be acceptable to Him. I feel similar in that I want to look good to other people. But he’s thrilled with me just the way he made me. “The obviously well kept secret of the ‘ordinary’ is that it is made to be a receptacle of the divine, a place where the life of God flows.” ~Dallas Willard
    – Praesagus
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 20:13

An altar made of unhewn stones is an Adam drawn from the ground, assembled but not yet "filled" with fire (breath) from heaven.

The Temple's "dressed" stones are bridal. The sound of the chisel could not be heard.

One is earthy, one is heavenly. We see the same difference in the Bronze Altar (death - outside the tent) and the Incense Altar (fragrant spices - resurrection).

So an unhewn altar is raw Adam, not yet filled, and not yet "cut" (without hands) to begin construction of the bride.

There are counterfeits to this, grabs for glory before God's time - the "bricks" of Babel and Pharaoh. Babel is always built quickly, using slavery and robbery, but God's cities take longer to build because they are constructed in righteousness.

Another like symbol is the names of the tribes on the High Priest's shoulders. They all look alike - like children. They are Adamic in a sense. But the "fiery" gemstones on the breastplate are the "mature" bridal versions. They are cut stones, filled with fire. Each has its own glory.

So, "uncut" is earthy, outside the tent (like Adam and Cain and Esau) and "cut" is heavenly, or bridal. God's people are cut off from the world, tested, qualified and re-enter the world to serve him. Those who remain "natural" are not cut off from the world, but eventually are cut out of history.

The knife and fire at the Garden gate are sacrificial, transformative. Every man is to be an altar, a miniature Sinai - hence the flames on the heads at Pentecost. Then we see those same altar-men glorified with "Tabernacle metals" for their apostolic witness in Revelation 9. Like the new Israel that took Jericho, the firstfruits saints are mustered to "circumcise" Herodian Jerusalem and put her under the ban. Pentecost makes every man a Tabernacle, a gate, a minister of knife and fire. But it begins with an unhewn stone outside the camp.

The statue in Daniel 2 is a "Gentile tabernacle." At its foot are the Herods (Edomites) as red clay, attempting to "intermarry" (as a harlot) with the statism of Rome (the beast), but, like Cain, without a priestly mediator before God. Jesus came as an altar stone, like the one under Jacob's head at the foot of his "ziggurat," a true foundation for glory.

One more point: the stones picked up to execute the death sentence are the ground itself taking vengeance, gnashing upon flesh with its teeth in a sense. If blood was not avenged or atoned for eventually the Land would vomit the Covenant people out, which Jesus refers to in Revelation 3:16. He is the new Land. We are buried in Him, resurrected and dressed as bridal stones.

  • Welcome to our Biblical Hermeneutics site and thanks for the answer! I gather you've published some books exploring the structure of the Bible, so it's especially exciting to get your insight into my question. For those of us who would like to read more, which of your books would be the best place to start? Commented Feb 14, 2013 at 21:59
  • Hi Jon Thanks for the welcome. Best place to start is Bible Matrix, which traces the pattern laid down in Genesis 1 thoughout the Bible, mainly through corresponding the festal calendar, the Covenant pattern and the Tabernacle furniture with the process of dominion. The Bible is a fractal, similar to the pattern we see in nature. amazon.com/Bible-Matrix-Michael-Bull/dp/1449702635 I have some introductory videos here: bullartistry.com.au/wp/videos Blessings, Mike
    – Mike Bull
    Commented Feb 15, 2013 at 3:07

Jacobs ladder and the stone pillow

There is a definite contrast between the altars of idolaters and the altar of the lord. Not only were the stones of the altar to be 'unhewn' but there were to be no steps up to the altar as we read in Exodus 20:26

26‘And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.’

Many of the temples that have survived the ravages of history are seen to have as their main theme 'many steps' all leading up to the sacrificial point. Mesopotamian temples are particularly shown to emphasize steps in their sacrificial structures.(1)

It is possible that the Tower of babel in Genesis chapter 11 was of this type of construction, and the idea that the construction was such as led up to God, in the heavens, is quite obvious from the context of Genesis chapter 11.

4 "They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."(emphasis mine)

It was and is a false conception that man can reach to the heavens and to God by physical means or his own works. Ephesian 2:8 gives a clear statement of the nature of the entrance to the Kingdom of heaven. It is the work of The father in sacrificing His Only Begotten Son on the alter of love/mercy and the ministration of the Holy Spirit that brings the sons of Adam into the Kingdom of God. Jacobs ladder appears to represent Gods making of the entrance to Heaven.

Genesis 28:10-17

Then Jacob departed from Beersheba and went toward Haran. He came to a certain place and spent the night there, because the sun had set; and he took one of the stones of the place and put it under his head, and lay down in that place. He had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants “Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. “Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” He was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” (emphasis mine)

A far cry, are the steps to heaven, represented here in Jacobs dream, from the steps of the Ziggurats and the tower of Babel, that lead only into the natural heavens.

The sacrificial foreshadowings of the Old testament contrast dramatically with the means and methods man attempts, in his fallen state, to reach heaven.

The outcast and wanderer Jacob sees the gate of heaven while the men of Babel seek to establish a city and a tower and the glorification of their own name.

The architect and builder of the city that has foundations is God, and He is able to raise from these stones..Mathew 3:9

and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

The nakedness that would be exposed by building steps to the alter was the nakedness of association with the temples of false religion and idolatry and sacrifice outside of the ordinance of God as defined in the law. Adams nakedness (genesis 3) was exposed due to his disobedience and in like manner if the israelites disobeyed Gods instructions for the building of altars they would by such actions sin against God, exposing their nakedness.

(1) Ziggurats

Etemenanki (Wikipedia)

Ziggurat: a multi-storied temple tower from ancient Mesopotamia.

Ancient Babylonia - The Ziggurats

Definition of ziggurat


By the very definition of the stone age, pre-stone-age altars were made from unhewn stone. When the stone age came along, the technology for "hewing stone" was available for the first time. It would naturally seem unnatural to build an altar using the "newfangled" technology. Similar horror was expressed by religious people when the radio came along, and even when writing came along. The radio was "the Devil's tool." Writing would weaken the capability of educated people to remember things.

Even after such technology is well-established, the cultural memory of the "better quality" of the pre-technological times remains. Thus Baroque acapella singing seems more "holy" than singing accompanied by musical instruments. A speech that is read from a transcript seems less "real" than a speech given without the speaker having to refer to written notes. A children's Christmas pageant is more enjoyable if one is there than if it is heard over a radio, even if one is blind.

So, uncut stone seemed more "holy" to the peoples of 3-4 Ka B.C. Hewn stone did not seem to be "real stone." It had been "changed" and hence "profaned" by the "hewing" process. Even today any religious "change" seems to be "profane" to many religious people. Consider, for example, the uproar that can result after a pastor moves an organ from the front to the back of the church.

  • Welcome to BH-SE! I encourage you to fill out your profile page so folks can get to know you. Your user name automatically posts at the bottom of your questions/answers and links to your profile page. Please also read through the pages of the "help" drop down box on the top right of this page. This will assist you in acclimating to the unique characteristics of the forum. Also, to assist you, there is a "?" icon to the right of answer boxes, a help link at the bottom right of the comment boxes. Finally, on the "Ask a Question" page, there is an help box to the right. Again, welcome!
    – user2027
    Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 21:59
  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange! Be sure to take our site tour to learn more about us. We're a little different from other sites. Do you have any sources for these claims? What scholars share these thoughts? We care far more how you know things than what you know here. Unsourced material may be edited or removed.
    – Dan
    Commented Feb 16, 2014 at 3:56
  • 3
    For instance, most scholars think the stone age had been ongoing for over 3 million years by the time this passage in Exodus was written, hardly new technology, so your argument is pretty weak. I'd like to know if it is original to you or if any reputable scholar actually thinks this (and how they date Exodus and the Stone Age).
    – Dan
    Commented Feb 16, 2014 at 4:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.