Christians insist that blood sacrifice is a necessary prerequisite for the atonement of sin. These Christians believe that this is an open teaching of the Jewish Scriptures. Although there is no verse which explicitly says: “without blood there is no atonement” Christians still believe that the overall testimony of the Jewish Scriptures would lead one to this conclusion.
Some Christians read Leviticus 17:11 as if it were to say that there is no atonement without blood. However; a closer reading reveals that the verse says no such thing. All it says is that the blood is the one part of the animal that achieves atonement. It does not say that there cannot be atonement without blood.
Christians point to the Yom Kippur offerings described in Leviticus 16. These offerings atoned for all of Israel’s sins. These Christians then jump to the conclusion that without the Yom Kippur offerings there cannot be any atonement for sin.
The Scriptures never state that without these offerings there cannot be atonement for sin. While we had a Temple God was gracious to us and provided us with this form of national atonement. We look forward to the day that we can once again bring these offerings and God promised us through His prophets that this day will yet come. But God never said that without these offerings we cannot get into a right relationship with Him. In fact God promised that when we repent He will restore us to the land and we will be able to bring those offerings once again.
Some Christians point to the fact that the Laws of the offerings are presented as laws for all times. These Christians conclude that since these laws are forever relevant this then means that without them we can have no forgiveness from sin.
This conclusion is also unwarranted. The laws of God never change. But the circumstances in which they apply do change. All of the laws of the offerings are relevant in the Temple alone (Leviticus 17:1-7). When the Temple will be rebuilt we will joyously bring all of the offerings proscribed by the Law of Moses. Until that time we will obey the same law and refrain from blood sacrifices. We are confident in the assurance that God will accept our repentance and forgive our sins (Isaiah 55:7).
Many Christians point to the Passover offering in Egypt as an indication that blood is a necessary prerequisite for the salvation of our souls. After all; on that occasion God saw the blood of the lamb and saved the Israelites on the basis of that blood.
This conclusion too has no basis in the reality of Scripture. The blood of the lamb in Egypt was a human act achieved through Israel’s obedience to the explicit command of God. It was not an act of faith in the lamb. It was an act of faith in God and in His commandment. The obedience to God’s explicit commandment is ridiculed by these same Christians. The Christians taunt us as the Egyptians may have taunted our ancestors before us: “How can you please God through your flawed human actions?” Our response is that we have faith in God’s explicit word and we rejoice in the gift of obedience that He granted us. We will never put our trust in a lamb. We trust in the One Creator of heaven and earth and in no one else.
The Christian zeal for the laws of the blood offerings rings hollow with the Jew. Where is the Christian zeal for the signs of circumcision and Sabbath; both of which are designated by God as eternal signs (Genesis 17:1-14; Exodus 31:12-17)? If the blood offerings of Scripture are so important why don’t we find Christians yearning for their restoration as do the Jews?
The blood offerings described by Moses are indeed important. That is why they will be restored in the Messianic age. But nowhere does it say that we cannot achieve atonement without those offerings. And all of these offerings are only important in the context of obedience to the explicit commandments of God (1Samuel 15:22).
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
Thats very simple. All believers, Jews and gentiles have been freed from the burden of the Law. The Law was fulfilled by Jeshua so we dont have to.
Even you dont keep the Law. Only One Man ever did. You cant keep the Law. The sabbath was given to Jews not gentiles. Whats the point of keeping the Law, when all you have to do is repent anyway?
How do you keep the sabbath as a Jew?
Paul says: “Thats very simple. All believers, Jews and gentiles have been freed from the burden of the Law. The Law was fulfilled by Jeshua so we dont have to.Even you dont keep the Law. Only One Man ever did. You cant keep the Law. The sabbath was given to Jews not gentiles. Whats the point of keeping the Law, when all you have to do is repent anyway?How do you keep the sabbath as a Jew”
Paul who informed you that Jews have been freed from the burden of the law. Who informed you that the law was filled by this guy jeshua. Who is even you?(Even you dont keep the Law). Excuse me Paul which man are you talking about that ever did keep the law and how do you know? Yes I agree with you christian idol worshipers claim they don’t have to keep the law and they don’t even have to repent they claim their man god died for them and he repented for them.
Xander says: “I am missing something here. Why is the blood sacrifice important if it is not required? I mean, if you can accomplish the same process of forgiveness of “sin” through repenting and doing good works, why would anyone need to use blood for atonement?”
Xander you are right sacrifice is not needed for forgiveness. However the reason it was instituted to keep one for committing sins. Imagine every time you sinned you had to purchase an animal and than spend time to go bring it to the Temple. This is a major cost and time consumption. You think a person would think twice about committing a sin.? Xander so you know what Pauls pagan god did he abolished these animal sacrifices to make it easier for his followers to sin. This is what they call he came as a mercy to mankind.
That is why chrisitians have been the most evil people on the face of this earth.
1000 Years of Carnage & Barbarity in the name of Christ
The Christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly, has made the world evil and ugly.’
– Friedrich Nietzsche
Your question “whats the point of keeping the Law” reveals the weakness of your position – we keep the Law because we love God and because we recognize that He is our father and King
In any case repentance means returning to God and to obedience of His laws – Deuteronomy 30:2
What you call “the Law the ” is called God’s Word, God’s plan for Humanity, God’s Commandments. I see you did capitalize Law, so you must think it is Divine &/or Eternal? But, yet you sound like an anarchist or a hoodlum who sees the law, that protects the innocent from “outlaws”, prevents you from your lawlessness. What was given as a Blessing by God, the Master, you consider a “burden”. Did God make a mistake or was God stupid or naive or perhaps have you been influenced by the Serpent who enticed Eve & many others to throw off the “unnecessary burden” of obedience? Since no one can keep “all the Law God gave”, we are free from the “burden” of not killing, not stealing, worship no idols for nothing people want to do is restricted, because it is “just too hard” (Sounds like some kids & rebellious teen-agers I know; “oh Dad, I can’t take out the garbage”, it is too much of a burden).
Paul, I feel we could make up many different solutions like that… but unless it comes from God and Israel knows it’s a commandment from Him, it doesn’t mean anything in the context of Torah.
I understand that you were making the point that Christianity at least works, even without the Temple, while Judaism doesn’t allow Jews to fully turn back to God unless the place for those offerings is standing. But that’s why Rabbi Yisroel mentioned Deuteronomy 30: “When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations [away from the Temple], and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today [the commandments recorded in Torah, as much as possible in exile], then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.”
No one can keep the Torah perfectly, just like Christians know that no one can be a ‘perfect Christian’. But the Torah contains grace, repentance, restoration, and growth… all as part of the original covenant.
Also, the question of why it is taking so long for that restoration to happen could have many answers, some beyond our understanding, and is separate from the question of whether Jews must and can take seriously the claims about Jesus.
Concerning the Law & “Jeshua” and “what is the point of keeping the Law” is addressed in the Gospels. The most obvious is Matthew 5:17-18 (all the Law until the “end” & then more Law). But we also read Luke 11:28 “Blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God & obey it (nothing about he meant only that particular audience or Jews or that he was speaking nonsense because you can’t “do ALL the Law”. In Matthew Chap 7, how does one identify the “evil doers” without some people keeping the Law, although not ALL or only perhaps the “least burdensome”. What is the “narrow gate” in Matt 7: or the “narrow door” in Luke? Will ALL, or even many, very dedicated & miracle-working followers of Jeshua be “known by Jeshua”? Why not, and if those ultra-believers fail at obeying Jeshua & their salvation is a self-deception, who are those very, very few Christians who do qualify to be known as both “hearers & DOERS of the Law”? What does Matthew 28:20-21 mean when Jeshua says “…teach them to OBEY EVERYTHING I have COMMANDED you”? Obey “the Law” and not only some but ALL.
I am missing something here. Why is the blood sacrifice important if it is not required? I mean, if you can accomplish the same process of forgiveness of “sin” through repenting and doing good works, why would anyone need to use blood for atonement?
Specifically, why did Jews need to offer blood (or give God a gift at all) when they repented for an unintentional sin? God didn’t command Gentiles to do that when we repent, so it seems to be specific to Torah.
In the end, we aren’t told that specifically. What does the blood ‘do’… both in sin-offerings, and in other offerings? Is it important as a ritual offering, or is the existence some sort of sacrifice actually important to God in forgiving the sins of the world?
Various theories could be put forward about that. All we really know is what God told us (either Jews or Gentiles) to do. He didn’t say that the temporary inability of Jews to offer animals while in exile was a barrier to anyone’s ability to come to Him. He never said that some ‘ultimate sacrifice’ was actually needed to allow Him to forgive, above and beyond animal offerings.
It’s a matter of trust in Him that we follow His instructions with the best of what He’s put in our hand on any day… not trying to figure out the exact things needed for forgiveness, but accepting the Torah He gave as an adequate Law and instruction for obedience, in every generation.
He did say that those who sin where cut off though.
Even if a person knowingly sins in a way that means they are given the death penalty, I believe that if they repent then their relationship with God and their righteousness before Him can be fully restored.
In all other cases as well, when someone sins, their relationship with God can be completely healed through repentance. Jonah prophesied that Ninevah would be turned over in forty days, but when they turned to God He let them come to Him and be ‘changed’ in righteousness rather than ‘destroyed’. You can see His mercy for Gentiles and for Jonah in this book.
In Isaiah 1 you see the same mercy for Jews:
“When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.
“’Come now, let us settle the matter,’
says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
Another small thought… the fact that animals are given to God for unintentional sins, not for intentional ones, could give us a small glimpse into why Jews need to sacrifice for sins. Wouldn’t an intentional sin, which involves rebellion, be worse? But individuals don’t bring anything except repentance to atone for that. So why bring someone to God when you accidentally break the Law?
Maybe it’s partly to help people understand the deep significance of the covenant, and of practical commandments that the nation follows together… far beyond the morality that God expects from all humans, and sometimes with laws we can’t understand… because they belong to Him in a unique way. So animal sacrifices are a reminder to Jews that the Torah is something to know more and more deeply as a treasure of their relationship with Him. It’s this consciousness that means, in a time where the offerings can’t be given, that Orthodox Jewish communities place fences of respect and carefulness around the Torah laws… so they don’t begin to be complacent about transgressing.
It’s also this consciousness of God’s commandments that keeps them focused on what God taught them to be careful about… trusting Him that He has already given a path of forgiveness, and keeping a very high wall around their worship so it is given with 100% certainty (nothing less) in the direction of Hashem alone.
*bring something (not ‘someone’) – i.e. an offering.
You are on the right track. A hand full of grain was as good, for one who could not afford an animal.
Without the Temple, as during our captivitiers, what then? Prayer, with a contrat heart, after you do what you can do to clean up the mess you made.
No one is expected to do the impossible; like about all the peoples who do not even know of our culture? Would the G-d you see send them to Hell for not knowing about im or His way, or accept their way to deal with what they have?
One needs to look at the Bible in context of the times and the place of the particular writings, instead of seeing the bible as a static whole, as if it were for one time & one place & one people. History is dynamic and revelation is less so, but the collection of writings grew shaped by the dynamics and yet most of it was persistent or meant to be or became to be eternal. Some things or principles remain the same, especially when one looks from a distance, but other things are specific and place-time centered. There are certain Truths of the “big picture” and other Truths that are more narrow in scope. The priestly laws of sacrifice in the Torah are complex and it is not a complete set of all laws or rituals that pertain to Israel or the Hebrew people or all of humanity from before Sinai or after there is a Temple. Other nations or cultures had their gods and their rules of worship and of sacrifice and Torah along with the Tanach is one subset of that whole. “Gentiles” in the Hebrew Bible. So often we err in our analysis, such as, for instance, when we compare Cain’s sacrifice to Abel’s, or both of their sacrifices to Noah’s, or any of their’s to that in the desert tabernacle or the 1st Temple or after the destruction of established Temples.
By definition there is a difference between what is “important” (value) and what is “required” (absolute or very high degree of importance”) and what is desirable or acceptable and what is optional (such as a personal offering or gift). All hinges upon how the community sees God and how they see God’s relationship to them and their relationship to God. How does one appease or please God? If what we do takes no thought or effort (no sacrifice) on our part, what do we expect in return? We always (?) expect something from God, but at what point is it a “this for a that”? If we are not sincere, do we sincerely believe that that is not noticed (either by God or other people)?
The Bible is “our” or “our community’s” history or it was something given to us, & we grew up with it & were formed by it, or we chose it as our guide. Our perspective shapes what we value, or what is important to us, and what we assume is required. Those who “grew up” with or those who “chose” Jesus work with a whole different set of “Truths” or assumptions than those from the “Jewish community”. Both do not have “Biblical” Temples & both explain in their own terms why that is or is not important to their relationship to or with God. Jews can’t offer Biblical sacrifices and some Christians see that as a big theological problem, but Christians also claim the same basic guidebook and can’t offer blood sacrifices, however there is no theological problem if one goes outside of the rulebook and says “one non-Biblical “sacrifice” (from God, not to God) was all that was absolutely required all that time. Their sacrifices given were ineffective & temporary (because we say so), but the new model we chose only had to be done once and it was permanently effective (because we say so or because we say that the word of one man, one rabbi, was true, IF you believe it was true). But, those assumptions don’t answer or even address several theological problems nor the conflicts of the theory with the old established rulebook. Blood is required to atone, but it is no longer required (the requirements expired, as per decree by a new written rulebook). Never mind that the community that lived at that time who held the rulebooks were not given a voice from heaven louder than the one believed that was heard at Sinai, nor did they rewrite, nor accept a rewrite of their holy books since the they had was always value & still was even to today.
If one person “bore the cross for all”, why did it not apply to all, and why was it still necessary for each to “bear their own cross”? If the least person on earth was now the greatest in heaven, then perhaps one named “Judas” was greater than any other person who had walked the earth and it is to him that worship should be directed, because he did not chose, he was chosen and without him all else was for naught? He made the ultimate sacrifice for those who believe a blood sacrifice was required.
Its not repenting and doing “good works” – its repenting – repentance means obedience to God – when He commands us to bring a blood offering we obey just as when He commands us to keep the Sabbath – we just try to obey God because that is the greatest joy of life
Our friends have missed two essential points; In Tanach, “Repentance” is T’Shuva, which means to return, or to turn. “If you turn to Me, I shall turn to you.”
#2 point is this; I do not accept the Gospel, period. I do not, because I am a believer-a believer in what G-d told us, so I obey Him. Believers obey the One they believe in, or there is no purpose to their belief.
My belief could include more than what I do, but a large part of a believers’ obedience is to also take it upon her or himself to know and to do-whither to accept or reject-to be a part of His way, or go along with every John, Dick and Paul.
I get the obedience aspect and I agree with you there, but when you can’t bring the blood offering, you are unable to fully obey. Even though it is beyond your control, since there is no place to take the offering, you can not fully obey. It seems like there are those who are trying to dismiss this fact by saying since you are unable to take a sacrfice then it must not be required.
What kind of a personality doew the G-d you recognize have? Mine says “You do the best you can, I shall take care of the rest.” Not it does not matter. All matters to Him, and to us, but for one who understand the Torah, it is as Hilel said to that Pagan; “That which you find objectionable to have done to you, do not do to others. The rest is commentary; go forth and learn.”
So, X, go forth and learn and GBY.
So you do not follow the G-d of Moses then?
This is what G-d told us all. One example is the requirements for an offering. Asked for is the big one; a cow. But,if all you can do is a hand full of grain, OK.
Now, what was your question?
You are mistaking the Lev 4-7 (personal) sacrifices with Yom Kippur of Leviticus 16. Personal sacrifices were never meant to atone for all sin, though they did provide a way for people to publicly recognize they had erred.
Leviticus 16, on the other hand, was for all sin and was to be “for all time”; in addition, no person could sacrifice these blood sacrifices on his or her own behalf; it had to be done by the high priest, and it HAD to be a blood sacrifice. No grain substitutes here.
And G-d clearly established this throughout Scripture, from the beginning of time.
Cain and Abel: whose sacrifice did G-d accept? Yes, the blood sacrifice. Had G-d preferred grain, He could have indicated that at this very first of all recorded sacrifices.
Abraham: here G-d asked a most unusual thing – that Abraham sacrifice his own son. Then G-d Himself provided a ram to die in Isaac’s place.
The Passover: Did G-d ask the Israelites to spread grain on their doorposts? He did not. Instead He showed that it took death to prevent death (i.e., those who did not kill a lamb and put its blood on the doorpost would have had their firstborn die).
Job: When Job’s three friends angered G-d and HE said what sacrifice to bring, what did He require? Grain? No, they had to kill animals.
Finally, it is important to note that the Israelites ALREADY had the Law at the time that G-d required Yom Kippur, every single year, to atone for ALL sin and to be “for all time” (Lev. 16:33-34). Three things we see from this:
1. G-d knew they were unable to fully keep the Law. Had they ever had the possibility of keeping it completely, He could have easily added a qualifier to His commands in Leviticus 16 — such as, “This is to be done every year EXCEPT when they do not sin…” Instead He obviously knew they would continue to sin, regardless of having the Law.
2. Their ATTEMPTS to keep the Law were not enough. Had they been enough, there would have been no need to require these blood sacrifices, year after year, to atone for their sin. And that is the terminology G-d used, too. They were to cleanse the altar with blood and offer the sacrifice for ALL sin, and this sacrifice was to atone for the people’s sin for one year. The next year, they had to repeat this process.
2. Sin required death. That is the atonement G-d required, not man. And again, this was something the people were completely unable to do on their own behalf; G-d required that the high priest perform this for them.
Good points. Name one instance where a human was reqired.
Oh,yes, you would bring up Abram and his son, Issaiac. The request was not to sacrifice, but to offer.
Read agin what G-d did, when Abram had his knife ready to kill Issaiac.
It has to be Kosher. You Goyiim try hard to hide this, as we did before the first captivity. Learn from us, or suffer as we did.
1. There is Kosher and Triff perceptioins.
2. A handfull of grain is as good as a bull.
3. I shall stay with the Kosher formula, good luck on the Triff formula you seem to use.
I agree that G-d did not call for a human sacrifice, but it appears that you are trying to invalidate Freedom’s points by jumping straight to the human sacrifice issue.
You told me that your G-d says to “do the best you can, I shall take care of the rest.” Since Freedom brought up Leviticus 16, let us look at it for a second. Aaron was instructed on how to dress and how to approach the altar. If he deviated in this in the least, he would die. Now, let us go back to your comment that G-d says just do the best you can do. According to G-d’s own words, this is not true.
Also, Is a handful of grain a valid offering for willful sins?
OK; dress may be a problem? If the style of the Pagans was used, showing acceptance of Idols, would this be a problem? I have seen art work where the Pagan High priest showed gods and goddesses, and one where a human sacrifice was shown. Yup, my high priest does this, off with his head!
The grain? G-d as we received His word is compasionate. There were times when few could afford a cow, so to keep the concept before the people, grain had to do, or there would be many who would have just given up. Xander, you do have compassion, so you can see how this would fet in.
Then, your statement that I jumped…
Maybe if your people canciled missionary work, and just obet G-d, we would not have to worry about this.
I read that Jews have had it hard with all peoples. Just to show you how far-fetch stories can be; Hindu and Jewish leaders in India and Israel signed statements where they agree to age-old respect and cooperation shall coninue. We have similar interaction with people from all religions except Christianity and Islam. Christianity, somewhere all the time. Islam, not as much a problem, until we returned home.
I ask all Christians, can you be as Christian in your relationship with Jesus’ people as the Hindus?
When the Temple is rebuilt we will bring every offering taht we need to – but nowhere does Scripture say that until we bring them there is no forgiveness from sin – in fact Scripture tells us that when we repent – outside the land without a Temple – we will be brought back to the land – and God will favor us – Deuteronomy 30:2
Even if blood would be important, as some indicate, it has to come from a Kosher Animal.
A human offering is not Kosher. End of story.
“God’s” message to Abraham was; Do not offer your son, I hate human sacrifices. – And then “God” sacrifices his only begotten son despite he had always spoken otherwise. Please understand that “Jesus” had mystically been made a “lamb of God” – this way he would be somehow kosher – mystically. But, tell me, what in Christianity is n o t mysticism?
I think the idea is not that Jesus was a Temple sacrifice, but instead that Jesus’ death was the only real sacrifice for sin and the Temple sacrifices pointed towards it.
OK. Pointed to it. But, for whom? You see, what you all advocate is contrary to G-d, as He told us.
So did He point to where you Gentiless would have a way to him, by compromising on your cultural ideas? That is how the Gospel reads, so you may be right, but for the wrong reasons.
O’boy! I have to jump on that goof!
G-d said to offer, not sacrifice. Why? A test. and Abraham failed it. Why G-d stopped taliking directly to him.
On the other, Jesus (you god-man) mystically turned into something else? Well, if against nature, a woman can have a spontainiously born male child, without the male chromosones, why not wave His hand, and He, or His son(????) turn into an animal?
Believe what you want, I have no problem with that, anymore than the similar beliefs of Hindus and Jains.
I am Jewish, and I go by what G-d told us. One of the things is that He never acts outside of nature!
Yes, turn and twist some verses around, just more to show how far off base you are.
Or, accept G-d and what He said.
how does one offer their child as a burnt offering but not end up sacrificing that child in the process?
I offer you a car for whatever, you choose if to accept or not.I give you a car, you may not want to make a choice.
G-d said to offer his son, as a test, to see if Abram would have the intestinal fortitude to say “Say what!” Abram failed the test. and G-d answered your question; He refused to let Abrm “sacrifice” his son.
You going to ask next how do I know this? Read the chapters where G-d and Abram interscted. Before the request to offer his son, Abram was talking directly to HaShem. After that test, G-d only spoke to Abram through an intermery. He was still G-d’s favorite, buthe came down a knotch or two.
Now, I recommend you google Jewish sites, and do some study.
So in Gen 16 and 17, Abram encountered G-d directly and not an intermediary?
You asked; “hyechiel how does one offer their child as a burnt offering but not end up sacrificing that child in the process?”
Easy, G-d says no.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
1Mo 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
With this reference, Christians pretend that “God” prefered Abel’s offering because it had something to do with blood, because blood was shed. Secondly “Jesus” was the lamb of God, as they say, who according to the statement of the Roman Catholic hallow St. John the Baptist (or was he the Jewish priest Yochanan?) beared the sins of the world. In this case “Jesus” was the perfect atonement lamb and “God” had killed a sinless Jew in order to redeem the pagans from their sins. It is taught that the atonement only covered the sins while “Jesus” sacrifice on the cross (crucifix) definitely took away the sins. For half a century I believed this nonsense, too but when an Evangelical e. g. does not believe this he must be afraid of the eternal furness – so was I.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I always get the sensation that there is so much conflict historically speaking in Christianity, because of the human sacrifice. G-d only allows kosher sacrifice, and this in the Temple-which was still standing.
So either they advocate cannibalism, or they do not care what G-d commanded? I do not think modern Christians think this way, but they are still saddled by their history and traditions, as what Marci-on introduced.
He was declared a hypocrite, but many of his ideas were remained, even in the Protestant sects. They would do everyone a favor to accept that we are two different, but equally saved communities, and go on to do what He wants us to do.
How do you explain that you see a pattern in Scripture where blood sacrifice is a necessity while ignoring the many Scriptures that indicate the opposite?
Let me explain my position as it relates to the Yom Kippur offering – (you will find more information on my position in Contra Brown – but briefly- ) While we had a Temple – we needed the Yom Kippur offerings because not to do them would be equivalent to rebellion – it would be disobedience to God – this would be true even if they did the entire service and just missed the incense – not only if they missed the blood – so it is not a matter of blood – it is a matter of obedience
I also believe that because we don’t have a Temple – we have the same method of atonement that we had when we did have a Temple – and that is obedience – it happens to be that when we don’t have a Temple God commands us not to bring Him blood offerings – He did promise us that when we repent on a national level – we will be restored to the land and the Temple will be rebuilt where we will once again be able to do the Yom Kippur service
Meanwhile we yearn to be able to obey all of God’s commandments and that is why we study the laws of the offerings so we can reinstate them when God rebuilds His Temple in our midst
On a personal level God promised us through Ezekiel that He forgets our sins when we repent (which basically means obedience)
Now nowhere does the Torah say that the obedience has to be perfect or else none of it counts – in fact God points to David as an example for obedience even though he sinned
I see all of this as being clear and explicit in Scripture as I explained in Contra Brown
Paul, Freedom, & interested others: A few personal observations from some Christians and some churches that I’ve attended, about forgiveness. Although there is the idea of a sacrifice for ALL in the NT, it doesn’t mean all. And the idea of once “saved” always saved is not a doctrine all churches hold. In reality, I’ve seen quite a large number of people having to be “saved for real” a number of times because the “effects of atonement of the blood” might either be ineffective or only temporary. Before one is saved (“for real” since in some Christian denominations they do not consider other believers “real believers”, even some within their own church), one confesses sins (usually blanket wise and despite the nature or degree of sin) & they must say they are a “sinner”, they ask forgiveness (all sins equally), and give an oath of obedience to Jesus as their “lord” and “savior”. As sincere as that repentance and promise may have been, there is no guarantee that person will ever go to a church again in their life. Nor will being a believer for decades prevent you from one day rejecting Jesus.
More on the concept of forgiveness, I received these partial notes from someone from a Christian sermon recently (there may be some influence from Jewish studies in it). Forgiveness does not: minimize the seriousness of the offense; it is not an instant restoration of trust and it may require restitution & rebuilding; the relationships cannot resume without changes; and there is no forgetting (never forget & teach your children, Never again).
How do you get the “freedom of forgiveness”? Relinquish your “right to get even”, recognize that we are all imperfect, respond to “evil” with good, and refocus on God’s plan & purpose for your life. If you claim a Master, keep his Law, or you have rejected your lawgiver, your “only savior”. Merciful God doesn’t expect you to carry a “burden” more you can carry. In the Torah, even animals are protected by the law from being abused and overburdened (only a fool rejects the law, which hurts himself, not just the animal). Sabbath is peace & rest from for both Man & animals. Much of Torah is not “law”, and also remember Israel was a Kingdom of God, a theocracy, not a democracy, or a kingdom of men who acted as dictators or despots (except those corrupt human kings who “were burdened by God’s Law” and wanted to run the nation their way).