The portion of WLC 109 that is usually at issue is the phrase about making a representation of God in the following statement of things prohibited:
“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; …”
There are at least two possible ways to interpret the “making” phrase in the above statement of things prohibited. One way interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase, and the other way interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase. If one interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase, then WLC 109 is teaching that all visual and mental representations of deity are sinful idols even if they are not made or used for worship. If one interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase, then visual and mental representations of deity are not necessarily sinful idols if they are not made or used for worship.
Here are two examples of visual representations of the second person of the Godhead: 1) the credible generic lamb and 2) the credible generic male human identified as a visual representation of Jesus by a role in a gospel scene. A generic lamb is not a credible visual representation if, for example, it is blemished or is missing a leg. A generic male human visual representation is not a credible visible representation if, for example, it has tattoos or has superhuman physical attributes, as in some Roman Catholic counter-reformation art. A credible generic male human representation of Jesus in His humanity is one that does not contradict what we know about Jesus’ human appearance. It is not an exact depiction like a photograph.
An example of a credible generic male human identified by a role in a gospel scene is the baby in “The Adoration of the Shepherds,” painted by a pupil of Rembrandt in 1646, a year before the Westminster Assembly approved the Westminster Confession of Faith. The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase condemns this as an idol. The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase does not condemn this as an idol as long as it was not made or used for worship.
An example of a credible generic lamb is the one found on the cover page of the 1599 Geneva Bible; it is right below the heart outline in the center of the page. The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase does not condemn this as an idol as long as it was not made or used for worship. The understanding, however, of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase does condemn this as an idol if it is applied consistently. Yet some who use WLC 109 to condemn as an idol the generic male human visual representation do not regard the generic lamb visual representation as necessarily idolatrous. In my view, this is inconsistent.
An argument against interpreting the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase is that it proves too much unless one is willing consistently to condemn as idols every possible visual and mental representation of deity. Such possible visual and mental representations of deity are the triangle, the lamb, the bridge, the dove, the IHS monogram, the chi-rho, the alpha omega, the printed word “God,” the sacraments and others.
The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase conjunctively teaches the same truth that is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (WCF 21.1)
The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase independently adds significantly to the prohibition beyond what is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith on the topic.
Grover Gunn's Blog 