This is a significant topic for me because of the drama that it has caused in my own life. Issues surrounding the second commandment as it pertains to images of Jesus are a significant part of the reason why I am as avidly confessional as I am now.
My own backstory is that this issue was "within view" in my childhood, meaning that I don't remember any specific teaching on it but I had a distinct awareness that according to Reformed Christianity, images of Jesus were not quite right. Clearly it was taught by body language, gesture, and implication at the very least. When I came to faith as an adult, it wasn't something I really thought about much except as one of many quirks Christians argue over, right up there along with red-letter Bibles, chapter divisions, and arcane debates about eternal submission. As I began to study the confessional standards more seriously, and to peruse threads on the topic here, it became more plain to me that the standard Reformed view on this issue does indeed reflect the sense of Scripture.* But it has taken some time to steer my family in that direction and to acquire acceptance from some others in close enough proximity to us to where it has come up as an issue.
That process has done a lot to convince me of the extraordinary intolerance and intransigence of "latitudinarianism" on this and many other topics, and has left me with a much more skeptical reaction when I hear talk of "being winsome" and "finding a third way". It dealt a mortal blow for me to the trope of conversatives and confessionalists as intolerant and narrow-minded. As regards the issue of images of Jesus, I can vouch for the fact that many of those who hold to a non-confessional view on this topic do NOT view such images as a matter of indifference. Start articulating a confessional view on the topic and you may quickly find that you have touched on a sacred cow, and that these images are not merely tolerated but cherished with great fervor.
The irony is that I have for some years seen the 2nd Commandment as being about much more than merely the question of whether a family should have a Jesus Storybook Bible in their house, and I would have been content to not dwell on that particular sidepoint at length. But the animosity raised by this issue has brought it front and center in discussions regarding the Second Commandment.
You didn't really ask for my life story, so I'm sorry for rambling on at such length. My point is this: it definitely takes some time, and some practice reading Scripture through a certain (/Reformed/confessional) lens, but I strongly believe that there is excellent Scriptural warrant for a clear prohibition against any and all visual representations - statues, paintings, carvings - of any of the persons of the Godhood, including the Son in his incarnate state. There are many many excellent threads on this board; I recommend that you search through the archives and read some of them. I would also recommend
this sermon on the Second Commandment, which does a good job of showing Scriptural warrant for the Westminster view on the topic. I've recommended this sermon to people who think that "Sola Scriptura" gives them license to have an allergic reaction to the Westminster standards.
Additionally, in your study of Refomed sources on the topic, I would recommend that you study the Scripture prooftexts of the WLC and HC where they address this issue. I would also recommend Chapter 4 of the 2nd Helvetic Confession as a truly excellent exposition of this issue. Lastly, I would direct you to Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 20, and to the portion of Calvin's Institutes where he exposits the Ten Commandments. Most of these sources are more or less saying the same thing, but to me, the slightly varied repetition helped me to better grasp that 1) this is a very logical reading of Scripture and 2) this really was, across the board,
the standard Reformed view, and for good reason.
As a rather tangential aside, my own pastor has taught an explicitly non-confessional view of the 2nd commandment from the pulpit. In the PCA, to varying degrees depending on the presbytery, my sense is that this exception is standard enough that actually holding to the confessional view may be seen as something of an exception.
*I remember my first application for membership here, some years back, being rejected with that issue being one of the reasons, and I had to clarify that I wasn't explicitly opposed to the confessional view: I simply didn't yet understand it very well.
