QUESTION: "Are there any ancient or modern-day laws that can be used as illustrative analogies to the substitutionary atonement?"
Looking only for direct analogies. Please, no brainstorming or spitballing.
In basketball, player #5 is 'substituted' for player #12 while player #12 sits on the bench doing nothing because player #5 is on the court doing it 'all' for him. From such an idea do faith onlyists get the idea the Jesus did it "all" therefore man has nothing to do in his own salvation.
But there is no Biblical basis for the idea that man is a sinner and deserves punishment before he can be forgiven. Therefore Christ steps in as a 'substitute' whereby man's sins, along with guilt and penalty of those sins, are imputed or transferred to Christ therefore Christ essentially becomes a sinner Himself. Therefore God takes His wrath out upon Christ rather than man.
Problems with this "substitution theory" that I see are:
(1) it seems to make God a slave to His own anger and wrath, that is, God is unable to forgive unless He takes His wrath out upon someone first. But God is able to forgive without having to first take out His wrath just as Christians are able to forgive one another without having to first take wrath out upon one another.
Man's sins are not transferred to Christ, where by Christ essentially becomes a sinner in place of man and God takes His wrath out upon Christ whereby man can be forgiven. Truth is God's wrath is upon sinful man but man is unable to do anything about his sins. So Christ stepped in on behalf, not as a substitute, but on behalf of man shedding his blood that takes away the sins of man. With sins taken away, man is no longer the obeject of God's wrath.
Christ paid a ransom for man, He did not become a "substitute sinner" on man's behalf with God taking His wrath out upon Christ.
(2) sin nor righteousness are not transferrable. No such thing as original sin. "Sinner" or "righteous" are not labels unconditionally hung upon men at random separate and apart from the actions men take, separate and apart from how a man lives. Man is not a sinner until he first conditionally transgresses God's law (1 John 3:4). A man is not righteous until he first works God's righteousness, (Acts of the Apostles 10:35).
(3) the Bible teaches man has a role in his own salvation, man is not passive and does not sit idle on the bench. Man's role in salvation is that man must obey Christ to be saved (Hebrews 5:9) and those who obey in that sense "save yourselves" (Acts of the Apostles 2:40) "cleanse ourselves" (2 Corinthinas 7:1) 'you purified your souls' (1 Peter 1:22).
(4) if sin and the guilt and penalty of sin are transferred from man to Christ then man has no sin, he has no consequence, no penalty to pay therefore he is OSAS. Yet the Bible teaches there is a consequence, penalty for sinning. Galatians 5:19-21 anyone, no exceptions, who commits such sins face the penalty, consequence of not entering the kingdom of heaven.
Physical death is a consequence/penalty of sin. Yet if all of man's sins and penalty of those sins have been imputed/transferred to Christ, then why do men still die physically? So Jesus does not take man's place in physical death. Jesus never died spiritually so He does not take man's place in spiritual death either. Suffering is a penalty of sin, yet men still suffer so Christ did not take this penalty of sin away on the cross. I have not been appointed to go to a cross, so how can Christ be a substitute going to the cross for me? Christ did not take away God's wrath from man for God's wrath will still be upon any and all who impenitently sin.
