Atonement for sins in Blood is a pattern that is enshrined in the traditional practice of the Israelites and fulfilled in the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. This theme is an undercurrent from the very beginnings of the Christian story with the Sacrifice of Abraham through the Passover sacrifices of the desert years, as we will see.

Leviticus 16: Yom Kippur – the “Day of Atonement“

What is Yom Kippur?:

Yom Kippur is a day set aside to atone for the sins of the past year (Rosh Hoshannah, the Jewish new year is 10 days prior), and is probably the most important festival of the Jewish calendar. Where is it in the Bible?: (10th day of Tishri- instituted in Leviticus 16:29-30, and repeated in Leviticus 23:26-32, Numbers 29:7-11) (It gets referenced in the Books of Acts: “because…the Fast had already gone by, Paul advised them…” (27:9)- “the Fast” is how Yom Kippur is referred to in the Talmud)

In the innermost chamber of the Temple called the Holy of Holies, was kept a single item, the Ark of the Covenant. We are told that it contained three items: Tablets of the Law of Moses, a jar of Manna, and the miraculous staff of Aaron. Christians would today see this as a beautiful representation of Jesus’ his three roles in his interaction with them: Word of God, Bread of Life and High Priest respectively.

Leviticus 16 is essentially describing Yom Kippur

Yom Kippur is the only day in the year that the Holy of Holies can be entered, and that too only by the High Priest of the Israelites, with the blood of the prescribed sacrifice. This blood is sprinkled upon the “mercy seat” in atonement for the sins of the people. We can see this because at the beginning Aaron is told that he cannot enter into the sanctuary (הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ- hakodesh, the Holy Place) “at any time”, and I think this seems to imply that it is only at one time in the year, which is at the festival, as specified at the end of the chapter (vv.29-34).

Atonement Ritual for Personal Sins

The sequence of the Lev.16 is best read backwards, since the instructions are summarized at the end. The atonement rituals are for everything, the sanctuary, the priest and his house and for the sins of the people:

“This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves, and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord. It is a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall deny yourselves; it is a statute forever. The priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the linen vestments, the holy vestments. He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the people of Israel once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him.” (Lev.16:29-34)

The first account tells us how the lots are cast for the goats. The term “Azazel is confusing (“of uncertain derivation and traditionally rendered as “scapegoat”…”- NRSV footnote), and the second account does not use it:

“and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel” (Lev.16:9,10)

The blood from the first goat is sprinkled upon the sanctuary:

“He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat.” (v.15)

Atonement for the Sanctuary is also for Personal Uncleanness

Even when the sanctuary is being “atoned for”, the reason this is required is clearly the “uncleanness of the people”, and this is stated without any reference as to this uncleanness of the result of sins that are intentional or not:

“Thus he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all their sins; and so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which remains with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. No one shall be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the sanctuary until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel. Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement on its behalf, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on each of the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel. (vv.16-19)”

Next the specific issue of the sins of the people is dealt with. Clearly at this point the priest has “finished” atoning for the sanctuary.

Robert Alter writes in his footnote to v.16 in his Bible Commentary:

“he shall atone over the sacred zone. This clause is the conceptual heart of the entire atonement ritual. During the year, the accumulated sins and transgressions and physical pathologies and inadvertencies of the Israelites have built up a kind of smog of pollution that threatens the sanctity of the Tent of Meeting and the Holy of Holies within it—by implication for later times, the sanctity of the Temple. This elaborate rite of purgation scrubs everything clean of impurity, making the sacred zone cultically viable for another year.”

The Vicarious Atonement for Sin

Now we get a clear connotation of vicarious atonement for sin:

“When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness. (20-22)”

Thus in this practise we begin to see the roots of the “vicarious atonement” in the the goat “bears the people’s iniquities and is then “sent away”. These rituals foreshadow future events, rather than literally signifying the goats “carrying away sins”, which of course, can only be forgiven by God. But the Israelites are required to follow this ritual in preparation for the coming of Christ.

To Meet us, and Cover our Lives with the Blood of Atonement

“Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, “See the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Ex.24:8-11) 

And here we get a clear connotation of atonement in blood:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.” Leviticus (17:11)

As we have already seen, “Atonement” is Chapar, which is the same root word as “cover” which is how its used elsewhere like Gen.6:14. So v.11 is akin to saying “I will cover over your lives (napesh נֶ֣פֶשׁ) with my Blood”. God will cover over our entire lives with his Blood. “The life …is in the blood; and I have given it to you (my-Jesus’ Blood) to cover over your lives”. Jesus gives his life, for our lives.

The gold-plated covering of the Ark is called is in Hebrew “kippuret /kaffarot”, which means “covering(s)” (hence Yom Kippur-“day of the Covering of the Ark”) (כַּפֹּרֶת- kapporet, from כִּפֶּר -to cover).  This has been translated as “mercy seat” in English Bibles. (eg. NRSV in Lev. Ch.16 & footnote).

The correlation of meanings is really titillating, even though the etymology can be difficult. Robert Alter, states in his magisterial Jewish commentary in the footnotes with regards to the kapporet (v.3):

“The cover (:) The exact nature of this item is not entirely certain, though it appears to have been some sort of carved lid to the Ark. Whatever the actual etymology of the Hebrew term kaporet, this chapter surely exploits a punning connection with kipur, “atonement” or “purgation.”

And with regards to atone (v.6):

“The verb kiper, as Jacob Milgrom explains, seems to derive from a concrete notion of rubbing clean. In the cultic lexicon, it has the more abstract—indeed, theological—sense of effecting atonement or expiation. When it is applied to persons, it is followed by either the preposition beʿad (“for”) or ʿal (literally “on,” “over”). When it is applied to things (see verse 33), it is followed by the noun as direct object, which has led some interpreters to render it as “purge” in such cases.”

In the beginning of Lev.16 (2) this is iterated:

“The Lord said to Moses: Tell your brother Aaron not to come just at any time into the sanctuary inside the curtain before the mercy seat t/hat is upon the ark, or he will die; for I appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.” Exodus 25:22 (rep. 29:42-46): ^“There I will meet with you” (“…and from above the mercy seat from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will deliver to you all my commands for the Israelites.)  (it is noteworthy that in the Genesis account when God expelled the first humans from Paradise after their sinful rebellion, He stationed two cherubim at the gateway to prevent them from ever returning). It was only in the place of mercy covered by the blood of the sacrifice that God would meet with His people.

Indeed the Ark is called the covenant in one passage in Lev. 16:

“and put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the covenant, or he will die.”

On this altar blood was spattered and a life was offered in substitution for the sinner. In the very place that sin is revealed by the Law (for the Ark contained the tablets of the Law with penalties for sin), sin was then “covered over” or “atoned for” by the blood of the sacrifice. The “Ark of the Covenant” is that whereby God makes a covenant by means of which his people, separated from him by sin, will be re-united to Him, “atoned”.

Daily Sacrifices, Money-Changers, Jesus the Day of Atonement for us

“…The Temple sacrifices: The daily sacrifice offered on the Temple altar consisted in offering a lamb morning and evening on the altar together with a cereal and drink offering (Ex 29:38–42). It was a sacrifice to please God and to make atonement. It is given various names, the burnt offering (Ex 29:18), or the burnt sacrifice (Ps 20:3). It is also called the whole burnt offering (Deut 33:10; Ps 51:19) be[1]cause it was the only sacrifice wholly or completely burnt on the altar. In Ex 29:42 and Num 28:6 it is called the continual burnt offering. Because it was to be offered “continually”—in Hebrew, WƗPvG (תמיד—(this sacrifice is called Tamid in rabbinic documents.

The money changers were the collectors of the half-shekel Temple tax paid by all Israelites during the month Adar to pay for the Tamid or daily whole offerings during the year ahead. The Tosefta, which is a little later than the Mishnah, regards the half-shekel Temple tax as atonement for sin and the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner believes that must have also been the case at the time of Christ based on Ex 30:16, “And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves.” Consequently according to Neusner, payment of the half-shekel Temple tax allowed people to participate in the daily whole offering in atonement for sin. Neusner agrees with the common interpretation that Jesus’ overturning the tables signifies the destruction of the Temple…

Unlike the whole burnt offering sacrificed on the altar every morning and evening, the tôdâ (ודה ( or “thanksgiving” sacrifice was one of the peace offerings on feast days and is described in Lev 7:11–15. Sometimes the tôdâ is called a communion sacrifice. It involved offering both unleavened and leavened bread (7:12). These offerings were made in thanksgiving after salvation from death, illness, or threats to one’s life (…) foresaw a time when all sacrifices would cease except this thanksgiving sacrifice. Neusner, in a text critical study of Leviticus Rabbah 9:7, translates the relevant text: “In time to come all offerings will come to an end, but the thanksgiving offering will not come to an end. All forms of prayer will come to an end, but the thanksgiving prayer will not come to an end.” For a Jew, the tôdâ would have been the appropriate Jewish way to give thanks to God for Jesus’ resurrection. Ratzinger accepts that the Eucharist is the Christian transposition of the tôdâ; in the tôdâ the one who had been saved sacrificed an animal and gave thanks…” (JTT p.22)

Jn 17 allows us to listen in on Jesus praying to his Father during the Last Supper. The prayer is known as the High Priestly Prayer, a title first given it by David Chyträus, a Lutheran theologian of the sixteenth century, and it has been so called since then by both Protestant and Catholic theologians (…) In The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers André Feuillet proposes that Jn 17 has the same structure as the high priest’s prayers on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. On Yom Kippur, in Lev 16:6–11, 15–16, the high priest offered the sacrifices in atonement for: 1. himself (Lev 16:6); 2. his “house” i.e. fellow priests (Lev 16:6); 3. all people (Lev 16:15–16). In Jn 17 Jesus prays: 1. for himself (17:1–5), asking the Father to enable him to continue glorifying the Father; 2. for his disciples (17:6–19); 3. for those who will believe through his disciples that they may be united (17:20–26). Feuillet deduces that the “threefold prayer of Christ in Jn 17 shows that Christ is the high priest of the New Covenant.”

Apart from similarity in structure, there are other resemblances between Christ’s prayer in Jn 17 and the Day of Atonement liturgy. The Day of Atonement was the only day in the year during which the high priest could utter the divine name YHWH, and then only inside the Holy of Holies. Accordingly Feuillet finds Jesus’ declaration that he has manifested the Father’s name to the disciples (Jn 17:6, 26) amplifying the connection between Jn 17 and the Day of Atonement liturgy. Two other mentions of the Father’s name also amplify the parallel; Jesus kept the disciples in the Father’s name (17:12), and prays that Father keep them safe in his name (17:11). Ratzinger believes Feuillet has given us the key to a correct understanding of Jn 17.20 16 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: Part Two: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, trans. Philip J. Whitmore (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011)  (JTT 23,4)

According to Jewish tradition, on the day of Yom Kippur, “There was a crimson thread tied to the door of the sanctuary. When the goat had reached the wilderness, the thread would turn white” (m. Yoma 6:8 E). According to the Babylonian Talmud (b. Yoma 4:1, II.5.B–C), this phenomenon ceased forty years before the destruction of the Temple, and also the menorah lamps went out each night which were supposed to be constantly lighting reminding them of the pillar of fire at night in the desert (symbolizing God’s presence), and the doors of the Temple opened mysteriously every nig Lisieux from whom I have learnt the most in the spiritual life. Pray for us! ht.25 The Jerusalem Talmud also reports the same phenomena (y. Yoma 6:3, I.4). (JTT p26,7)

To summarize Fr. Lane’s thesis in the article, he sees the turning of the money-changers’ tables as symbolic of the end of the old sacrificial system of the Jews, since the money changing was effectively an integral to that same system. This meant that he would replace it with the sacrifice of his own body, to which multiple strong allusions are made in the Gospels. This is not his own interpretation, but that of the famous Jewish Rabbi Jacob Neusner, reading into the Christian texts and in fact going so far in his writings to state that the replacement is none other than the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ as practised by the apostolic Churches in the East and West. The whole theme is summed up for us rather nicely in Malachi where it is said that following the sending of the Messenger to prepare the way for him (3:1) “the Lord will come suddenly to his Temple and purify and refine the Levites so that they will offer a pure sacrifice pleasing to the Lord (Mal 3:3–4), again Malachi has already stated that everywhere, from East to West a pure sacrifice will be offered to God (1:11). Further, in Isa 56:6–7 is its prediction that foreigners will come to minister in the Temple because the word used for minister/serve in 56:6, (sarat), typically refers to liturgical service. Finally he links this all to the Prologue of the Gospel of John which states that the Word of God “dwelt with us”, where the Greek literally would mean “pitched his tent” with us, since that is the derivation of the Greek “skene”, just as God swelt with the Israelites in the desert in the Tabernacle which too was a tent, or Tent of Meeting” (JTT p.19,20)

JTT– The Jewish Temple is Transfigured in Christ and the Temple Liturgies are Transfigured in the Sacraments, Thomas Lane, Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal, Volume 19, Number 1,
2015, pp. 14-28

Effectively, this passage from Leviticus 16 is Good Friday for us:
“And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.” (Lev.16:29-31)

In Ezekiel there is the following passage:

“that you may remember (your covenant) and be ashamed, and never again open your mouth because of your disgrace, when I provide atonement (בְּכַפְּרִי־) for all you have done—oracle of the Lord God.”

The literal translation is certainly “provide an atonement” from the Hebrew kaphar, 104 occ. with this meaning. The NIV, NETBible, NKJV all use “atone for”, while NRSV, NASB and NABRE choose “forgive”.

Jesus Replaces the Old Covenant with His Blood

Barber, Gorman and Pitre write in describe the coming of the New Covenant:

“The promise of a new covenant is predicated in some way on the notion that the former one was in some sense broken. This broken covenant is, in the text of Jeremiah’s prophecy, closely associated with the notion of sin (…) Ancient covenants were typically ratified by sacrifice (…) “God says the people “made a covenant with me by sacrifice!” (Ps 50:5) (…) sacrifices offered were understood as symbolizing the consequences of breaking the covenant oath; the death of the animal indicated the mortal consequences of covenant infidelity. The two parties would then often symbolize their newly established covenant-bond by sharing together in a meal in which the sacrificial victims were consumed. Finally, since sacrifice was related to the establishment of a covenant, it was also linked to the concept of covenant renewal; one renewed the covenant by repeating the cultic act that first ratified it (…)

“…I can make atonement for your sin.” So Moses returned to the LORD and said, “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written.”(Exod 32:30–34) (…) Within the narrative setting, “sin” means one thing in particular: covenant infraction. Moreover, the penalty for this is described as death. When Moses seeks to make “atonement” (MT: kapar; LXX: exilaskomai), the meaning is unambiguous. In this context, atonement entails addressing the consequence of the people’s sin. Specifically, then, Moses asks the Lord to “forgive” (nāśā’) them. In essence, by doing this he petitions God “not to execute the penalty which their sin deserved.” (…) atonement stands in opposition to death. Here, as in other places, sin is either atoned for and forgiven or the sinner “bears” his own sin…”

“…First, the Hebrew term “to make atonement,” kipper, involves “purification”/“cleansing” (e.g., Lev 12:8; 14:52; 16:30), a point stressed by Jacob Milgrom, perhaps the world’s foremost expert on Leviticus. Second, “atonement” is also connected to forgiveness (…) it is undeniably present in Leviticus 4, where the one who offers the atoning sacrifice is said to be “forgiven” (Lev 4:26, 31, 35; 5:5, 10, 13, 16). Since “sin” is understood in the torah as an impurity (e.g., adultery in Num 5:19), these first two meanings appear closely related. Finally, the language of atonement had a third connotation: “ransom.” This is evident, for example, in the case of the census money (Exod 30:16; cf. Num 31:50) and the homicide law (Num 35:31–33):” (…)

“In these biblical texts, making an “atonement” (MT: kapar; LXX: exilaskomai) for the lives of the people and paying a “ransom” (MT: kōper; LXX: lytra) for the life of the condemned are almost two ways of saying the same thing (Exod 30:12, 16; Num 35:31, cf. 33). In such cases, making an “atonement” refers to delivering the guilty from death. Considering such evidence, there is no reason to set up a false choice between either forgiveness or ransom. As Jay Sklar has convincingly argued, atoning sacrifices appear to do both of these things simultaneously. Atonement would therefore seem to have connotations of purity, forgiveness, and ransom…” (…)

“in Jewish sources sin is not only portrayed as impurity but also understood in economic terms; sin is a “debt.” The best-known expression of this tradition is found in the Lord’s Prayer: “And forgive us our debts [ta opheilēmata hēmōn], as we also have forgiven our debtors [tois opheiletais hēmōn]” (Matt 6:12). As Gary Anderson and Nathan Eubank have demonstrated, this “economic” perspective permeates the texts of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. It was also uniquely Semitic. Anderson writes, “In contemporary Greek the words ‘remit’ (aphiemi) and ‘debt’ (opheilema) did not have the secondary meaning of ‘forgive’ and ‘sin.’ Matthew’s version of the Our Father makes sense only if we assume that the wording reflects an underlying Semitic idiom.”

“The English words “redemption” and “ransom” are two ways of translating the same Greek term, lytron. Some have asserted that lytron can be used with no associations of payment, carrying the generic sense of “deliverance.” Nevertheless, as Nathan Eubank points out, there is no support for such claims in the standard Greek lexicons: “Lytron [“ransom”] is never used in the LXX, Josephus, Philo . . . to mean simply ‘rescue’ or ‘deliver.’ . . . It always refers to some price or exchange (…)
““The LORD has ransomed [elytrōsato] Jacob, and has redeemed [exeilato] him from hands too strong for him” (Jer 31:11; LXX Jer 38:11) (…)

“Interpreters have long debated how to render the Greek term that the NRSV renders as “a sacrifice of atonement [hilastērion]” (Rom 3:25). The debate is reflected in the different English Bible translations. Some think the language is best understood in terms of “expiation” (RSV, NABRE), which emphasizes the notion of “cleansing” or “purification” of sin. Others find here the notion of “propitiation” (ESV), a sacrifice that averts divine judgment. Either way, Paul’s language evokes Israel’s sacrificial cult (cf. NRSV: “sacrifice of atonement”). Whatever associations the language conjures up, one cannot ignore the fact that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Israel’s scriptures—which dominates Paul’s thinking—primarily uses hilastērion in reference to the ark of the covenant, the “mercy seat,” the object at the center of the Day of Atonement liturgy (…)

“4 Maccabees 17:21–22, where the death of the righteous is said to be a hilastērion.”

(from “Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology” by Michael Patrick Barber, Michael J. Gorman, Kindle version)

NT on the Atonement in Blood

Following his description of the Old Covenant in blood the author of Hebrews goes on to say of the New Covenant that it “will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt…” (8:9). Jesus proclaims in the Gospels: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood…for the forgiveness of sins…” Luke 22:19, Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22. The covenantal words are the same as in the words of Exodus: “blood…poured out…for the forgiveness of sins…”. Jesus first identifies the Last Supper as the Passover Meal (Luke 22:15a), then changes it from the old into the new: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Lk. 22:20). ”This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:28) Jesus is the author of both these words so he is completely aware of any comparisons here. It is now Jesus’ own Blood that is shed upon the altar of God.

St. Paul in Romans 3:25 speaks of this manner of our redemption from sins “the redemption in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood”. “Sacrifice of atonement” is more accurately “place of atonement” (footnote NRSV) which is the Greek “ἱλαστήριον” (hilasterion), in turn the translation of the “kafforet” or “covering”, “gold face-plate” over the Ark of the Covenant. (fn. The Latin Vulgate uses “propitiatorium”- the place where God shows His grace/favour from which we get “propitiatory”). Thus St. Paul is saying that God “put Jesus forward as a place of atonement”, the new “Seat of Mercy” to replace the old mercy seat. (at+ one= atone, an invented word in the English translation, indicating that through this offering, man and God are reconciled therefore once more “at one”) (“put forward= Gk. “προέθετο”: “to place before, to exhibit, to propose”. “ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον”)

“Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,  make you complete…”(Hebrews 13:20)

In the NT, the author of the letter to the Hebrews describes the Old Covenant most succinctly:

“This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”(Ex. 24:8-11). In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (9:18-22) This is to be a “statute forever” for the Israelites (Lev.16:29, 16:31)

“They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure (n. ἔξοδος, ἡ- “exodus”), which he was about to accomplish (v. πληρόω- to accomplish) at Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:31)

Why did Jesus do it?

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains, what by this point we should be able to guess ourselves: that the blood of goats and bulls can only be symbolic, not really sanctifying or salvific in and of themselves:

“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4) “…gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right.” (9:9,10)

Heb. 9:11,12 “ But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption,”

Indeed therefore the New Covenant is to be in Christ’s flesh:

“And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us…saying, this is the covenant that I will make with them…”Heb 10:15,16 “He abolishes the first in order to establish the second” (10:9b) “the new and living way that that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh)” (Heb 10:20).

The author of Hebrews, quoting directly from Psalm 40 (6,7) states:

“… consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘See, God, I have come to do your will, O God’ (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)”…” (10:5-10).

Psalm 40 has a slight variation in that “a body you have prepared for me” is given in the MSS as “you have given me an open ear”. The author of Hebrews is using the Septuagintal Greek translation of the OT (circa 300BC).

Sin is the shedding of blood, and redemption is the giving up of it. And although not all sin involves the literal shedding of blood, but consider that every sin against an individual takes away from that person some part of his life or life by force. That it why we use the expression “blood and toil”.

The Archetype is Temporary

Already in the Psalms there is the notion that the sacrifice of bulls in not sufficient for the forgiveness of sins

Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.  Then I said, “Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.” (Psalm 40:6-8)

“For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (Psalm 51:16-17)

“Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me.
I will not accept a bull from your house, or goats from your folds.  For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills (…)If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High” (Psalm 50:9,14)

A Fulfilment for Judaism

Jews of today obviously do not agree with this view, or they would not be Jews. We will see some of the reasons here and replies to these. What form has Judaism taken in the absence of the all the pillars of the old religion: Prophecy, Temple and Messiah?

Absence of a Temple

The Jews no more have atoning sacrifices, since the Temple is non-operational, and there is nowhere else but in Jerusalem where those sacrifices might be made. In fact it is quite obvious that Judaism in its OT form could not possibly be a religion for the whole world, for the whole world could not possibly be expected to sacrifice at a single temple on a single day or even a week. Muslims travel to Mecca throughout the month of Ramadan, but even that is only a small proportion of Muslims that make it there each year, most do not go (nor are they expected to) However the Tanakh contains no practical instructions on how to deal with the contingency of global spread.

Given this, it would seem that for a Jew to object to the fulfilment of the Temple is like objecting to someone throwing stones at your house which has been swept away by the rain on the previous day.

By the time we get to Deuteronomy Ch. 14-16, we hear the constant refrain “in the place that we (the LORD you God) will choose as a dwelling for his Name” (14:23; 16:2,6,11) as the place wherein the offerings and sacrifices must be made and where the Passover (16:2) is to be celebrated. We are immediately drawn to consider that these commands, have never been rescinded, for the Jews, revelation ended and prophecy abruptly ceased following the return from Babylon. It would be  completely unsatisfactory situation if not for the Advent of Jesus for fulfils these commands. He is himself the place wherein “God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell” (Col.1:19)

OT concept of Sin is legalistic, it cannot be final

It is very obvious that the whole economy of repentance, forgiveness and eternal salvation is not yet operational in the OT, if only the manner in which capital punishments and violent retributions are meted out by the will of God. There are communal examples like the Flood narratives and Israel’s “herem warfare”, as well as individual examples of this, like the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, and the man who retained some objects “devoted to destruction” (Joshua 7). In neither case is repentance sought and both receive the punishment of death by stoning. In a sense Israel are living in a “prefigurement of Heaven” in that they are actually in the visible Presence of God. In such a situation disobedience does not, just as it was in the case of the angels, have the option of repentance. I mean that as a spiritual, not literal interpretation of the narrative.

An excellent article on repentance and salvation in the OT is to be found here https://bible.org/seriespage/2-doctrine-repentance-old-testament. The article shows how the concept of “repentance” in the sense of actually feeling sorry for one’s sins is not developed in the OT, rather it is a question of either following or not following God’s laws and commandments.

Eschatological Incompleteness of Judaism

The other problem for Judaism is that their religion is not really complete. The Hebrew Tanakh (Bible minus NT) does not really focus on Salvation and going to Heaven, rather there are very veiled allusions to life after death, and as to what form that life will take, who will participate in it, and so forth. The shadowy “Sheol” still figures as a possible repository for all the dead. King David arrives somewhere midway through the narrative and seems to indicate that he expects to be in the Lord’s Temple eventually and forever, however the lines between the figurative and literal and often hard to discern with any confidence here. Further he does not state that this will be the hope of all the Israelites, rather he speaks of his personal hope in the main.

With the pre, through to the post-exilic prophets, the language might be figurative again, however, it seems like the hope is placed in God dwelling with his people forever in a restored Jerusalem. It is not said that the people themselves will live forever, rather only that God will live forever with them. The famous “dry bones” account of Ezekiel alludes to the dead rising ” I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land” (v.14). Is this rising from the dead a figurative rising from one’s sin and one’s difficulties? This is why there is hot debate among the Pharisees and Saducees with regards to the question of whether there is a rising of the dead at all, which is alluded to twice in the NT and in the second account in Acts, the two groups come to fisticuffs over it. Compare that the Christianity and even Islam, there are no groups among all the several denominations that hold to the absence of a life after death.

For example King David says:

“O Lord, you brought up my soul from Sheol, restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit” (Psalm 30:3) but the footnote in the NRSV states “Or that I should not go down to the Pit“. Sefaria translates it in line with the NRSV main text. The Hebrew seems (to me) to have a difficult translation. The word for “those who go down into the pit” is repeated (given in brackets) and not translated. It seems as though to mean “save me from going down from those who are going down”, but I’m not good enough to tell for certain:

יְֽהֹוָ֗ה הֶעֱלִ֣יתָ מִן־שְׁא֣וֹל נַפְשִׁ֑י חִ֝יִּיתַ֗נִי (מיורדי) [מִיׇּֽרְדִי־]בֽוֹר׃

Robert Alter’s commentary states on this: “

The Masoretic Text uses a form that does not correspond to biblical grammar, miyordi, which would mean “from my going down.” Several ancient versions, however, show miyordey, “from those gone down,” which not only is grammatical but highlights the idea that the speaker felt he had gone down to death, yet of all who go down
there, he alone was raised up”

Absent Messiah

Perhaps most importantly, the prophesied Messiah is apparently nowhere in sight for them and prophecy seems to have definitively ceased in the past 2000 years, very strangely to coincide with the arrival of Christ! I have written about Jewish messianic expectations here Messianic Expectation in Second Temple Judaism

Absent Prophecy

Prophecy simply ceased with the Advent of Christ. Were we really living in a Jewish age, we should have an Isaiah preaching to the people today, or at least one in the past 2 millennia. The sheer duration of silence of Jewish prophecy in the Christian era is greater than the duration of the entire history of Israel from Abraham! It is hard not to see that this might be because prophecy was indeed fulfilled in Christ.

Absent Deity?

The Judaic Deity was associated with the Temple. This is not to say that God is somehow restricted to a Temple, but rather this is the idealized form of Judaism, their idealized form of worship. and the promise given to King Solomon at the dedication of the First Temple (1 Kings 9:3, 2 Chron. 7:16, 33:7 etc.)

The Absence of Judgement Day

“Judgement Day” in the sense of general judgement of all peoples of history before God with a view to the determination of eternal life and damnation is a thoroughly Christian concept. It is missing altogether from the Hebrew Bible, and the term “Judgement Day” when introduced into the Tanakh seems to imply temporal reward and punishment rather than eternal, which is in keeping with the theme of the Old Testament.

Addressing Jewish counter-arguments

“Exilic Atonement now applies”

Some rabbis would respond saying that God assured the Jews that even in exile, were they to turn to the Temple and pray then their sins would be forgiven. This is seen in Solomon’s dedication prayer (Chron.6:38,39) wherein the Israelites are told to “pray toward the land” should such a situation arise. The problem here is that this option is put forward in his prayer as a disaster contingency rather than the ideal. This is stated quite clearly in 2 Chron.7 (19-22):
“But if you turn aside and forsake my statutes and my commandments that I have set before you and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will pluck you up from the land that I have given you, and this house, which I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And regarding this house, now exalted, everyone passing by will be astonished and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this house?’ Then they will say, ‘Because they abandoned the Lord the God of their ancestors who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and they embraced other gods and worshiped them and served them; therefore he has brought all this calamity upon them.’

“Atonement only for Unintentional Sins and the Sanctuary”

A final objection I have heard made is that the atoning sacrifices were “only for the unintentional sins” of the Israelites and again. It is true that some of the sacrifices were indeed prescribed for unintentional sins, however as we have seen in the section on the Atonement ritual, there are plenty of clear statements that the sins being atoned for are personal sins.

Leviticus 16:17 speaks of “atonement for the sanctuary” and this is repeated in v.33, where one can clearly see that the sanctuary is not all that is being atoned for. It is assumed that these sacrifices are to atone for some sin of ritual impurity.:

“³³ He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. ³⁴ This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins.” 

Again, Exodus 29:36,37 has “atonement for the altar”. This is at the time of the initial setting up of the Tent of Meeting in the Israelites’ desert wanderings when the altar is being consecrated, a a bull is to be offered daily for seven days for the purpose. Earlier in the passage also, prior to the ordination of the priests a bull is offered as a “sin offering” (v.14).

There are several verses that speak of the sacrifices “unintentional sins”, and these are for unintentionally failing to keep to any of the numerous stipulations of the Law. These and Leviticus 4:2,13,22,27; 5:15,18; 22:14 and Numbers 15:24,25,27,28; 35:23.

Conclusion: All of these are fulfilled in Jesus

Jesus fulfils these under all of the above headings, as we see here Temple, Tabernacle, God Dwelling with Us.

To conclude, I’ll add a couple of passages from Stephen P. Ahearne’s excellent commentary on Mark in the Jerome Biblical Commentary:
“”Ransom” (lytron)  in this context should not be understood as legitimating atonement theology’s of later times (including modern days) where Jesus’s death pays the debt to a bloodthirsty God holding humanity hostage for their sins or to Satan to free humans from Hell. Here, it means that the paradigm of Jesus’ self sacrifice offers a way for disciples to live according to God’s will within the corrupt Roman world without losing themselves to the corruption. The gift of his life “ransoms” the disciples to live according to God’s will, meaning they can have compassion on those in need (6:34), face down the injustices that cause oppression, feed the hungry, and heal those in pain, all the while having confidence that their acts align with God’s will for a just world. Suffering and death may come as a result of their actions, but the disciples can face them confident that their acts of justice supersede those acts of injustice meted out by imperial authorities and the rich.” (p.1269, parenthetic scriptural references omitted)