David VanDrunen has written a couple of articles on pictures of Christ. He opposes pictures of Christ. However, as a preliminary exercise in setting forth his own case, he evaluates the pros and cons of the issue. In sifting the arguments, he undercuts some of the traditional objections to pictures of Christ:
[Quote] To set the stage for my argument, I ﬁrst consider brieﬂy the sorts of rationales that have traditionally animated Reformed expositions of the second commandment in regard to images of the Deity. In general, a rather straightforward deontological claim has served as foundation for the Reformed position: scripture prohibits making and using images of God, and thus Christians ought to avoid them, including representations of Jesus Christ, since he is himself true and eternal God. However, Reformed theologians were not always agreed on the conclusive value of a simple appeal to the Decalogue,6and thus have searched for rationales to explain why God would impose such a duty and why such a duty still remains. There are ﬁve distinct – though certainly related – lines of argument that I identify. I ﬁnd these rationales of various degrees of persuasiveness, and I cannot address each one speciﬁcally. Here I focus on the ﬁfth, however, which has proven especially important and yet, at the same time, rather vulnerable to objection from the perspective of Catholic Christianity.
6 Some scholars have noted that Luther’s early colleague and later opponent, Andreas Karlstadt, based his opposition to images on appeals to the Old Law to a much greater degree than did Swiss Reformers Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. For example, see Sergiusz Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe(New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 54; and Steinmetz, ‘The Reformation’, pp. 258–60. On Calvin’s analysis of the second commandment, see Michalski, The Reformation, pp. 65–6.
"As an ontological argument-namely, that visual representations of a person have to convey attributes that are inherently invisible, or else be false-it seems quite weak...Defenders of pictures of Christ object to traditional arguments that their position is inherently Nestorian (insofar as pictures are unable to communicate Jesus' deity and hence they separate his human and divine natures). I suggested above that if the traditional argument is understood in an ontological sense it is not very effective. Scripture indicates that there was nothing distinctive about Jesus' outward appearance. No one could have picked him out of a police lineup as the eternal Son of God. He could have been photographed or drawn and the product would have naturally and necessarily portrayed ordinary human features."
David VanDrunen, "Pictures of Jesus," The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009), 218,225.