How are the bread and wine explained by those who forbid images of Jesus?

This question is directed at those who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, particularly Westminster Larger Catechism 109, which reads: > The sins forbidden in the second commandment are [...] 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 ([Westminster Larger Catechism, Answer 109](http://opc.org/lc.html)) This language is usually understood to forbid any artwork that attempts to represent Jesus, even simple drawings or sculptures. But it seems as though the language of the catechism should be applied even more strictly. Couldn't the bread and wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper be considered a "representation of God," particularly given the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.5? > The outward elements in this sacrament [...] [represent] the body and blood of Christ. ([WCF 29](https://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_29)) One counterargument is that the elements only represent Christ's *human body*, not his *human-divine person*. But the same could be said of a stone in a manger scene or a line drawing in a children's book, and these are seen as forbidden by WLC 109. How do those who strictly hold to WLC 109 deal with the apparent conflict or tension with use of bread and wine in the observance of communion? ---- For general argumentation in defense of the principles found in WLC 109, see [Why do some Christians object to images of Jesus?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/45469/21576)