Acceptable Nestorianism and Theological Inconsistency or ‘Are pictures of Jesus in my children’s story Bible okay?’

At the last meeting of Covenant Presbytery we examined a man from another presbytery who had accepted a call within our bounds and was transferring to our care. During the course of his presbytery exam he was asked the standard question about exceptions to the Westminster Standards. He replied that he took exception to Larger Catechism 109, which reads,

Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.”

His exception stated that he did not consider images of the incarnate Christ for the purposes of Christian instruction to violate the second commandment. It was argued by another presbyter that LC109 could not mean that such images were forbidden. LC109, he said, only prohibits the making of images of the divine essence or nature, which no one has seen or can see. Furthermore it was argued that LC109 must not be taken to exclude images of Jesus’ humanity for use in non liturgical contexts, since (mental) images of Christ’s humanity would have been unavoidable during the time of his earthly ministry. The incarnation itself, in other words, would have forced men to break God’s law as soon as they looked at Christ, and any time they remembered what they saw of Christ.

I have been reflecting on, and debating this issue ever since, and in my view the arguments offered above fall foul of a form of Nestorianism.

They are Nestorian in that they so divide the two nature of Christ as to do violence to the one person of Christ. When it is argued that LC109 only prohibits the making of images of the divine nature and not the human nature of Christ, violence is done to the hypostatic union. The humanity of Jesus is a constituent nature comprising the one person. It is not possible to depict the nature without depicting the person. To suggest that it is, that one might draw an image of Jesus for a Bible illustration say, and argue that such an image is not an image of his person is to violate catholic Christology and would require a number of additional exceptions to be declared that would render any candidate unacceptable to say the least.

WCF VIII. II 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 fullness 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 he 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.

and WCF VIII. VII

VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

As well as to SC 21, and LC 36

My point is that the language of LC109 forbids “the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever”. It forbids the making of an image of any of the divine persons. The second person of the Trinity has two natures. To say that it is possible to depict the human nature of Jesus without depicting the Person is to divide the natures unacceptably. As WCF VIII.VII reminds us, in the language of the catholic doctrine of communicatio idomatum, because of the utter union of the natures, though not their confusion, the properties of the one nature are attributed to the person, sometimes denominated by the other nature. Thus scripture can talk about ‘the blood of God’ (Acts 20:28) without suggesting that God has a vascular system. The union of the two natures is so complete that it renders the idea of separating one nature from the other, to allow for the depiction of that nature while avoiding the depiction of the person utterly Nestorian.

The brother who took exception to LC109 was quite right to do so. In my view, and in the interests of theological consistency, those who hold the same exception ought also to take exception to WCF VIII.II, VII; SC21 and LC36.

I bless God that such consistency is unknown in the PCA, otherwise we’d be flooded with Nestorians!