“It is Christ’s Godhead, united to His manhood that makes Him to be Christ; therefore to picture His manhood, when we cannot picture His Godhead, is a sin, because we make Him to be but half Christ,—we separate what God hath joined,—we leave out that which is the chief thing, which makes Him to be Christ.” (Thomas Watson)

X, formerly known as Twitter, can be a whirlwind. In recent days, a discussion has arisen regarding stated differences, mainly concerning the use of images of Christ for artistic or pedagogical purposes. This discussion has occurred before, and there are many good resources that I believe support the Reformed/Westminsterian position.

One of the best short articulations of the argument that images of Christ strike at the vitals of religion can be found in the Confessional Presbyterian, by Dr. Harrison Perkins, “Images of Christ and the Vitals of the Reformed System.” Dr. Perkins briefly touches on the argument in this article. Many arguments can be made for the prohibitions of images of the Second Person of the Trinity (Eg, Faith No Fancy, R. Erskine). This article is not exhaustive, nor is it the sole reason why candidates and ordained men should reconsider their stated differences.

Before I begin, I believe the Westminster Standards do not go too far in their exposition of the Ten Commandments. I believe they are applying the interpretive method of ‘good and necessary consequence’ (WCF 1.6). I also believe they are consistent with their principles of interpretation as set out in WLC 99. When reading the commandments in isolation, this narrows our interpretation and application of them. I understand that people state their differences with the Westminster Standards concerning the second commandment. Although they might appear rational arguments in their minds, I believe they are inconsistent in their theological definitions, severing Christology from the application of the commandment. I pray my article might provoke thought in all of us, leading us to see the beauty of the incarnation, to know the Person, Jesus Christ, and to worship him.

In this article, I hope to be able to show that images of Christ are hostile to the system of doctrine because they treat the person of the Son as capable of being contained in a man-made image, whereas orthodox Christology insists that His person subsists in the inseparable union of the divine and human natures, and therefore cannot be represented without distorting the unity of His person.

Gregory of Nyssa rightly explains in his writing ‘Not Three Gods’ that, “In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment.”¹ Wrapping our finite minds around the infinite true and living God is impossible. There is no small question when speaking about God, and even the smallest of questions, if not correctly handled, can fall into heresy and blasphemy. As Gregory of Nyssa states, the harm from insufficient treatment is no small matter. We therefore need to consider the implications of these truths before stating our differences, and be willing to defend them.

Francis Turretin said, “In the Christian religion there are two questions above all others which are difficult. The first concerns the unity of the three persons in the one essence in the Trinity; the other concerns the union of the two natures in the one person in the incarnation.”² It is great comfort to us that great minds like these and many others explain the difficulty of seeking to understand the Triune God revealed to us in His Holy Word. We also need to be reminded that God has not left us without his word, by which he reveals himself to us, so that we may know him and worship him. Therefore, both our knowledge of God and any claim to represent Him must be governed by His Word, not by the inventions of our imagination.

Definitions

Nature is what something is, its set of essential properties. When we speak of the Godhead, we use the term essence, the essence of the divine. Turretin defines it this way, “First, here occurs the word ousias or “essence” and “nature” which denotes the whatness (quidditatem) of a thing and is often met with in Scripture, not only in the concrete when God is called ho ōn (Ex. 3:14; Rev. 1:4), but also in the abstract when deity (theotēs, Col. 2:9), nature (physis, Gal. 4:8), divine nature (theia physis, 2 Pet. 1:4) is attributed to God.”³

Person is who someone is, a subsisting subject who acts. Turretin explains it this way, “The word “person” is properly concrete and not abstract. Besides the form (which is personality), it also marks the subject with the form from which it is denominated.”⁴

The Hypostatic Union is God the Son, second person of the Trinity, subsisting of the divine nature, taking on flesh, the human nature in the fullness of time. Stemming from the Greek word, ‘ὑπόστασις’ literally means, “ that which stands under.” When we speak in Christological terms, we refer to a distinct personal subsistence; yet the human nature of Christ is not a distinct personal subsistence, but subsists in the person of the Son.⁵ This is why it is important to understand the Triune God, as the essence of God does not take on the nature of man, in that the Trinity becomes incarnate, but the Person of the Son, who is of the same substance as the Father and the Spirit, takes on his human nature. The Person is united to the Nature, not the Essence united to the nature.

Anhypostasia (ἀνυποστασία) teaches that the human nature of Christ has no independent personal subsistence of its own; it was never, even for a moment, a human person standing alone. This guards against Nestorianism, which wrongly posited two persons in Christ loosely conjoined.

Enhypostasia (ἐνυποστασία) is the positive complement; the human nature, though lacking its own independent hypostasis, is not therefore impersonal or deficient, because it truly and fully subsists in the person of the eternal Son. This guards against Apollinarianism, which wrongly taught that the Logos displaced or replaced a component of the human nature, leaving it incomplete.⁶

Together, these doctrines establish that Christ’s human nature is neither a separate subject nor an abstract component, but truly exists only in the person of the Son. Therefore, it cannot be isolated, conceived, or represented independently without distorting the unity of His person.

The Westminster Confession states the Biblical Doctrine of hypostatic union,

“The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man” (WCF 8.2).

Turretin says,

Read More