My contention is there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement in Mosaic law.
Yes, and the verses above where something makes atonement "for you" in Lev. 23:27-28 and Lev. 16:29:30 demonstrates a substitutionary atonement. If I pay your bill "for you," I am paying your debt on your behalf. You owed it but I paid for you. I paid it as your substitute. That is what is happening in animal sacrifices.
The substitutionary sacrifice for sin is the heart of the sacrificial system. Even in Isaiah 53:5, it says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities..." That is substitution. There is no way around that. When I stand in someone else's place and doing what they should have done, I am a substitute.
Jesus died in OUR place and he died for OUR sins. Paul tells us in Col. 2:14 that Jesus paid for our sins by taking away the "handwriting" that was against us. Our sins were nailed to Jesus' cross and
There is a big difference between atonement and substitutionary atonement.
That is a false dichotomy. The only times when atonement was not substitutionary is when atonement was made for inanimate objects, like the altar or the tent of meeting, etc.
Atonement for sin was ALWAYS substitutionary.
Since there is no indication in the OT of substitutionary atonement and since God forgave the Isrealites numerous times without requiring a sacrifice and since animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, the concept of Jesus having to substitute for us or taking the punishment we deserve is on shaky ground.
There is plenty of evidence of substitutionary atonement. You are simply not being honest about the text. As for unintentional sins.... You are forgetting something. There were two kinds of "sin offerings" one is the sin offering. But there was also the guilt offering, the asham.
The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering is that the sin offering was for the root cause of sin. The guilt offering deals with the fruit of sin and covers intentional sins and unintentional sins. Isaiah 5310 says that Jesus, the suffering servant is our guilt offering thus his sacrifice of himself deals with both our unintentional sins and our intentional sins.
The New Testament tells us over and over that Jesus died in our place and paid the sin debt that we owed. To say that Jesus didn't do that or to claim that such claim is not made about Jesus is nothing short of intellectual suicide in the presence of overwhelming biblical witnesses in the New Testament.
Whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. Why should his commentary trump the Torah?
Actually he was. Only a Torah observant person would know that the golden altar of incense was behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement. That little detail would escape someone else.
He offered his interpretation as the the meaning of Jesus's death. I don't see Hebrews 10:10-14 making any definitive statement that Jesus's death was substitutionary. He could have meant to say whatever you think separates you from God, Jesus removed it. Just a possibility.
Whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. Why should his commentary trump the Torah? He offered his interpretation as the the meaning of Jesus's death. I don't see Hebrews 10:10-14 making any definitive statement that Jesus's death was substitutionary. He could have meant to say whatever you think separates you from God, Jesus removed it. Just a possibility.
Here is how someone attains forgiveness for the sin of stealing someone's camel:
2) Have remorse
3) Give the victim 5 animals for every animal stolen
4) Ask forgiveness from the victim.
No animal sacrifice was necessary.
Actually when one stole something from another person, the Torah requires a guilt offering after you have made peace and restored what was stolen to the other person. Even Jesus taught that. So you are also wrong about that.
The guilt and sin offerings took care of both the sin you committed either intentionally or unintentionally and the results of the sins you committed as well. So you are basically wrong.
You know the first goat on Yom Kippur was released into the wilderness. He was only killed if he came back(the villagers didn't want the goat to bring the sins back to the village)
That was the Azazel. The other goat was killed on behalf of all of the people. It made atonement on their behalf for all of their sins. Jesus was typified in both goats. The goat that was slain and the goat that bore the sins of the people away.
One of the best pictures of a substitutionary sacrifice is in the story of the binding of Isaac and how God spared Isaac and allowed Abraham to sacrifice a ram in Isaac's place. (Gen. 21)