There seems to be an expectation that one can create an image of Christ and not worship such an image. On the one hand, if the image is a true representation of Christ, then worship ought to be expected – how can we see an image of God in the flesh and not worship? On the other hand, if the image isn’t a true representation of Christ, it is false and ought not be created in the first place.

We live in an image-obsessed culture – everything we do is captured in images: photographs, drawings, videos, and TikToks. Images and images and images and images. They help us think. They help us learn. They help us better understand ideas and concepts. ‘I’m just a visual person,’ some will suggest, ‘so I need to see things in pictures – and if I don’t, I’ll just imagine those images in my mind anyways.’
Given those cultural norms, the reasons for a proliferation of images of Christ might seem obvious as they increasingly appear in TV shows and movies, on book covers and in illustrations for kids books (and story Bibles), or hanging in museums and dining rooms and in churches. We assume these images of Christ aren’t a problem, since Jesus assumed a human nature – ‘these images are simply a representation of the incarnate Christ,’ we reason.
Yet are these images right? Are these images good? Are these images useful? The Reformed and Presbyterian doctrinal standards speak in unison to tell us that any image, of any of the persons of the Godhead, is sinful. Every attempt at making an image of Christ in His humanity falls short of truly representing Christ, and thereby every attempt at making an image of Christ in His humanity is a means of lying (a ninth commandment violation) and making false gods (a first commandment violation), in addition to violating the second commandment.
In Exodus 20, amidst the nine other commandment, the second one reads:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments (Ex. 20:4-6).
Notice that this commandment has two aspects to it: first, it calls us not to create images; second, it calls us not to worship images. Some have suggested that what is meant in this text is merely a prohibition against worshiping images of Christ, but the prohibition is more restrictive than that: don’t even create the image to begin with. The specific command not to worship an image is tagged onto a more general prohibition against images. As these first commandments are all pertaining to the glory and supremacy of God, the danger in creating images is that we will end up creating things that take our attention away from God. Whether they become ‘gods’ to us, or merely idols which keep us away from our Father in heaven, they are a hindrance to our faith and condemned by God. Notice the reason included with this commandment (and the fourth commandment, but no others): God is jealous, and false gods and false images will provoke His anger; yet those who keep His commandments will be recipients of His great love.
Related to this, the Westminster Larger Catechism asks:
WLC 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…
Read More
Related Posts:

Typology in the Biblical canon ALMOST always points to a (i) need for fulfillment, (ii) lack of fulfillment from God in the historical moment, (iii) One who will come and provide “yes and amen” (2 Cor 1:20) to all the needs, and lacks in prior shadows. Unlike an analogy or illustration (which always breaks down) – biblical typology, when rightly understood, is a mine of precious treasures to be delved into and kept close to the heart. If the typology begins to break down at a certain point, we need to be careful and watchful lest we tread into heretical waters tempting apostasy.

Question: Is Elijah (and also therefore accompanying disciple Elisha) a type or foreshadowing of Christ?
“It seems that in some ways Elijah was a type of Christ. In 1 Kings 17, he multiplied food and raised from the dead the son of a widow. Jesus feeds the five thousand and raises the son of a widow in Luke 7, which to me seems to be too specific to not be a coincidence. And then they both ascend to heaven, rather than die. Are there any other parallels, or possibly scripture that talks about this relationship more explicitly than Hebrews teaching on the types and shadows? And then do you have any resources that teach on the topic of Elijah being a type of Christ?”
Answer: Absolutely!
When we are engaging with a passage that we think there may be typological foreshadowing (or typological fulfillment) there are a couple of helpful frameworks to keep in mind:
1. The Object Casting the “Shadow”
Typology inherently involves identifying potential patterns or connections between multiple biblical passages. There are many differences between typology and other aspects of interpretation and biblical fulfillment (such as biblical prophecy, eschatology, inerrancy, and Christology). One distinctive typology is rooted in the distinct authorial intent of the inspired Biblical writer to draw a line between one person, place, or thing (like an event) and another person, place, or thing. In this way, one of the most helpful illustrations of biblical typology is that of casting a “shadow”. In order for something biblical to be typological of something else, it must have a prior referent (the darkness that is the shadow). Conversely, the thing typified must also have something coming after (object casting the shadow). We need to identify when doing typology both the shadow, and the thing potentially casting the shadow.
2. Looking for Clues
When we are asking questions of typology we’ve got to ascertain a level of biblical overlap expressed in the potential typological passage (using the historical-grammatical method, looking for words, references, illustrations, allusions, or explicit typological connections). Oftentimes the clues that are left will be genre-specific. The major and minor prophets often speak typologically about many things through heavenly comparisons. The historical books give narratives that can be sequenced or parsed to similar or near exact replication in future related typological passages. Phrases or words are repeated and used in a wide variety of genres including wisdom literature that are then picked up by NT authors in typological application or fashion (such as the New Covenant, Christ, or a host of other objects). We need to break apart (identify) the various clues that are leading us to consider a passage as typological.
3. Finding Fulfillment
Once we have identified the shadow and thing causing the shadow (#1) and considered the various clues leading us towards a typological possibility (#2), we’ve then got to consider the consequences in the potential fulfillment or inter-related relationship between the biblical passages (truths) typified. There are gross heresies that have spread about (paedocommunion being one of them, baptismal regeneration, and Nestorianism to name a few) due to their failure to recognize this third aspect of typology. If our typology leads to a fulfillment that is contrary to the rest of the scripture, we need to quickly be willing to admit our own faults, failures, and lack of understanding, and go back to the drawing board. Typology in the Biblical canon ALMOST always points to a (i) need for fulfillment, (ii) lack of fulfillment from God in the historical moment, (iii) One who will come and provide “yes and amen” (2 Cor 1:20) to all the needs, and lacks in prior shadows.
Read More
Related Posts:

Although Moses had a more immediate and intimate relationship with God than any other human on the planet, he still could not see the fullness of God’s glory and goodness and still live. Again, even though God spoke to Moses face to face and even though it was God’s face that would go with him and the people of Israel, those are metaphorical ways of speaking. Like all other sinful men (which is all of us), Moses could not behold the unfiltered glory of God and attempting to do so would be deadly. Therefore, Yahweh would hide Moses under the shelter of a rock.

C. S. Lewis once wrote:
If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
I think Lewis is absolutely right. We do not wander into sin because our desires are too strong but because they are too weak towards the One who is altogether desirable. It was Israel’s weak desire that led to their creating the golden calf, for they were willing to abandon their worship of the Almighty Creator for a dumb image of an animal that they themselves had made.
Thus far, although God has relented from destroying Israel altogether, the people are still waiting for their great sin to be resolved. In our previous passage, Yahweh ordered Moses to lead the people into Canaan, yet He refused to go with them. This set before them a perilous but necessary decision: did they want God Himself or only the gifts that He could give them? Thankfully, Israel seemed to somewhat understand how disastrous the thought of being abandoned by God is.
In our present text, we sit in on a dialogue between Yahweh and Moses, and we discover by Moses was the great mediator of the Old Testament and a shadow and type of Christ our Lord. Our text can be divided into two general parts. Verses 12-17 show Moses’ renewed intercession on Israel’s behalf, and verses 18-23 describe Moses’ personal request from the LORD.
Do Not Bring Us Up from Here // Verses 12-17
In describing how Moses established a temporary tent of meeting outside of Israel’s camp, our previous text ended by describing Moses’ relationship with Yahweh as such: “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” In this second half of chapter 33, we are invited to listen in on one of Moses’ conversations with the LORD.
Moses said to the LORD, “See, you say to me, ‘Bring up this people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”
In verses 12-13, Moses establishes his first request. He begins by addressing the most recent command that God had given him back in verse 1. The LORD had commanded him leave Sinai and take the Israelites into Canaan, the land of milk and honey that God had promised to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To this command, Moses lays out his first concern: but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Of course, Yahweh had said that He would not go with them but would only send one of His angels before them. Moses was now drawing on that ambiguity and asking for clarification. As we will see, he is ultimately leading up to pleading for Yahweh Himself to go with them, but he begins with this question of who precisely God’s messenger was going to be.
Next, Moses draws the LORD’s attention to what He had previously said of Moses, that He knew the prophet by name and had favor toward him. While God will affirm this in verse 17, we can rightly assume that God previously told Moses this during one of their previous conversations. But regarding this favor towards Moses, Ryken explains:
This means much more than simply that God knew who Moses was. That would be true of anyone, because in that sense God knows everyone by name. But here the Bible is speaking of a special knowledge that is full of love and favor. According to John Mackay, for God to “know someone by name” is to embrace that person in “a relationship of acceptance and friendship.” Moses was an object of covenant grace. God knew him in a loving, saving, and electing way. God knows all his children like this. He knew us in our mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13–16). He knew us even before the foundation of the world. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3a). Anyone who is friends with God through faith in Jesus Christ is known and loved by the God who rules the universe.
Then in verse 13 Moses seeks to leverage that favor. If he had truly found favor in God’s sight, then he begged to know God’s ways, in order to know God and find further favor in His sight. By this Moses was asking “to comprehend God’s essential personality, the attributes that guide His actions in His dealings with humankind, the norms by which He operates in His governance of the world.” The LORD will do this very thing in the next chapter, where He will proclaim to Moses His name and character. Indeed, Psalm 103:7-8 explicitly ties these two passages together, saying:
            He made known his ways to Moses,his acts to the people of Israel.The LORD is merciful and gracious,slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
Thus, while God’s ways to us are certainly mysterious, they are nevertheless clear and plain. Douglas Stuart rightly notes that:
There is little room for mysticism in biblical religion; we do not know God by having some sort of inexplicable ethereal communion with him, in which are feelings are used as the evidence for our closeness to him. We know him by learning his ways (i.e., his revealed standards, revealed methods, and revealed benefits)—in other words by objective, rather than subjective, emotional, means. (701)
Notice also the last statement that Moses throws in at the end: Consider too that this nation is your people. After so heavily emphasizing his own relationship with God, he reminds the LORD again that He has adopted and covenanted Himself to Israel as His own people.
In verse 14, Yahweh answers Moses, saying, My presence with go with you, and I will give you rest. On the surface, this is the exact answer that Moses was hoping for. Although far more glorious than we are, Moses was not content to be led into the Promised Land by an angel; He wanted to the presence of the living God to go with Him. As we said of the bread of the Presence, God is literally saying that His face would go with him. Furthermore, God would give Moses rest. Just as Moses rested in the might of Yahweh throughout the destruction of Egypt, so would he continue to rest in God’s powerful hand as he continued to lead the people.
As wonderful as this promise is, Moses finds fault with it. You see, it is for him alone, not for the people of Israel. Thus, Moses presses on further in his task as mediator, saying in verse 15: If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. Notice how Moses begins by speaking only of himself but ends by tying himself to Israel.
Read More
Related Posts: