Concerning the bread without leavening, and all the offerings (because a sacrifice is an offering) and penal substitution… The question is, how can it be that Christ was offering up in the place of all men? This implies that all men deserved to be offered up. If the response is that if we were offered up and the penalty for sins is infinite and we could never pay it, how could a diseased or polluted offering ever have been considered “offerable”??? Diseased lambs and bread containing leavening were prohibited and if they were offered up. WRATH was the response from God. So how could that which was always forbidden to be offered “have a place” in order for another offering to be offered “in its place”? Something cannot be offered “in the place” of something which never had a place to begin with. That which is acceptable is not offered up “in the place” of that which is not acceptable. For that which is unacceptable was never considered “offerable” at all. That which is lawful isn’t in the place of that which is unlawful. The only thing acceptable was that which was lawful. It is a simple logic problem and a logical line of reasoning problem. A man with a ticket to the show cannot go “in the place of” a man who never had a ticket to the show to begin with. The offerings and the qualifications for offerings were purity and to be without spot or defilement…those are the qualifiers. We never qualified therefore never had “a place” to be filled by another offering. When a priest examined a lamb and found disease, the priest would reject the lamb and state that it is not qualified to be an offering. The examination of lambs and such is to see if they qualify to become an offering. Diseased lambs, with spots, injuries and so forth are not “offerings”. They are animals people put forth to be examined and considered whether they can become offerings…but the people presenting them for examination did not make them offerings at that time. An offering is not an offering until the priest examines it and then declares it fit to be an offering. Therefore, “Christ dying in the place of sinners” is not possible…anymore than a spotless lamb being offered in the place of a diseased one…diseased lambs never had a place, never qualified, were never declared to be offerings or “offerable”. There is “no place” to be “in the place of”. To insist that there was an “original place”, implies a change of law and change of qualifiers. The the standard of law and offerings would be first, demanding that only diseased lambs be offered. Then a change of law, of regulations and standards…is there a verse for that? Oh its all “interpretation” and eisegesis! (or in other words, because of what you believe FIRST, you then “interpret” the bible to fit your beliefs). If you will notice…no penal substitutionists have ever talked about a change in the law of offerings, or a change in the regulations and standards for offerings…but they will “wing it” and pretend that they had this doctrine for years and decades. Uhuh, yeah, sure.
How can one start a criminal case with one system and standard of law…in mid trial…change the law and its requirements entirely…then conclude a criminal case using an entirely different law then the defendants were charged with and brought to court on? Christ said heaven and earth will pass away, but not 1 letter of the law(and its standards) will pass away. So where is the pre-law found in the bible..the law that existed before the Mosaic standard of jurist prudence? For Christ and the offerings and those standards and qualifiers were made under that system of law…not another. So where is the chapter and verse on the pre-Mosaic law, law? Romans uses a phrase “before the law”, and that is not to be interpreted as “another system of law existing before the law”. For a change in law, the original law has to pass away, FOR IT HAD ITS PLACE. What is also interesting is the suggestion that there was “another change” that we are no longer subject to law, and grace is posed as a replacement. Those who misinterpret those particular verses tend to bring up such views when the subject of “sin” is brought up, as if the Mosaic standard of law were done away with…when the very offerings and those standards and qualifiers for the sacrifice of Christ are found under the Mosaic law! The standard of offerings did not change from the spotless lambs, to the spotless Lamb Himself being offered up. And with the subject of sin and the claimed change of law or doing away with law, Christ was sacrificed under the law and his sacrifice was according to that very law. So where is chapter and verse where sinners were required or asked for to be offered up and that was the standard for offerings? For a change in offerings and the standards and qualifications for offerings, there must by necessity be a change of law. So, chapter and verse on that? Again, if one states that God never planned to have sinners offered up, then there was never any place for sinners to have, in order to be filled by another. There is a reason why “sinners being offered up in the most Holy of Holies”…sounds like utter blasphemy and a total violation of law and all that is sacred and would be doing a very detestable and profane thing in the presence of God. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE, THAT’S WHY.