In regard to your statement above. I think that you are accurate except for the added part at the end. There is no explicit nor implicit verse that tells us that the High Priest sacrifice (the Jewish sacrifice) made once a year called the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur is for "the elect".
Isaiah 45:4 KJV
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name:
Now, I'm not discounting at this point that it is not a "representation" or "shadow" of what Christ did for the elect. Just pointing out and being strict with biblical accuracy that The Day of Atonement (Lev 16:21-22, Heb 9:7), also known as Yom Kippur gives no mention of "the elect" and no mention of only being for 'some Jews'.
The Day of Atonement has meaning only in context of the whole law. Under that economy, every circumcised Jew, faithful or not, was the elect of God, and the high priest stood before God confessing his sin.
The biblical text explicitly says... "confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins"... (upon the sacrificial goat). It was for the "peoples sins committed in ignorance" (Heb 9:7).
Yes and no. There was provision for wilfull sin in the law. But not where one knowingly and wilfully sinned against the Temple or the other holy things, either the rites or artifacts. Those things touched on the very Person and Spirit of Christ.
When Paul spoke to the Hebrews of 'falling away', and 'no more sacrifice for sin', he wasn't speaking of the common lapses into things like drunkenness or adultery or swearing, etc. One is not in a hopeless state, even if he, knowing better, gives in to those sins. Neither are they hopeless who in fear give in to the temptation to momentarily deny Christ, as did Peter, or as did the martyr, Thomas Cranmer. They both found repentance.
But there was no provision for brazen sacrilege. Certainly none for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
Paul was speaking of forsaking the Gospel to return to the shadows of the law. Now that the reality had come, a return to the mere pattern would be tantamount to approving the Jewish accusation and sentence of death on Christ, and repeating it...an apostasy from which there is no promised return.
The law itself said the high priest confessed the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, of the people, encompassing wilful, knowing, and habitual sins. Paul summarized the law with the generalization of 'shorcomings.'
It would seem that if one was going to bring an argument that this sacrifice was only of the "elect" then one would focus on the phrase "children of Israel" in Lev 16.
Israel is there on the breastplate. And Israel is the elect of God.
The only problem is that if one studies Jewish tradition one clearly understands that the Day of Atonement was for 'every Jew' not just some.
Every circumcised Jew. The elect.
We agree that the sacrifice did not include Egypt or anyone outside of the Jewish people.
Then we agree the sacrifice was for God's elect.
We agree that the individual sacrifices were shadows of Christ dying for the individual (i.e., elect). Where we would seem to disagree, or I'm just not clear, is your statement that the Day of Atonement was Christ dying for "the nation".
The elect nation. The holy nation. The royal priesthood.
In the individual sacrifices, one can see Christ dying for
him, and him alone. On the day of atonement, one sees Christ dying for all the redeemed of the earth. Christ made only one sacrifice.
Within the biblical text, the sacrifice that was given once a year was for 'people',
THE people...
their sins and transgressions of ignorance (not a nation but the people within the nation).
You seem to be confusing a modern, geo-political understanding of the word nation for the biblical understanding of family or covenant. The house of Israel (not to be confused with the modern artificial state in the Middle East) was a family that stood in a covenant relationship with God. The sign of that covenant was circumcision.
And here is the rub, Paul tells us that not all the circumcised Jews were children of the promise (i.e., elect). Maybe even most were not Jews of the promise but only Jews of the seed.
While the temple stood, and the way into the Holiest not yet made manifest, according to the
Pattern, all outwardly circumcised were elect. We're talking about the pattern...about the blueprints...not about the actual structure.
Now we understand the reality. The children of Abraham are those who are children by faith, and that circumcision is of the heart. Now we understand that all those who are of faith are the elect, and are those for whom atonement was made. Those for whom atonement was not made, will never come to faith. They are not of the house of Israel.
In other words, the Priests are giving sacrifices for all Jews, yes all symbolically are circumcised, but not all of them were children of the promise.
You are wanting to make a distinction in the law where there is none. The law itself was the symbol, the pattern, the copy of the original. Under the law, circumcision is no mere symbol. It's the deal. The distinciton between the faithful Israelite vs the unfaithful Israelite, does not exist under the pattern. The faithful are those who know Him as Jehovah, the Lord. The unfaithful are those who only know Him as the Most High God, or El Elyon. They are not circumcised. They are not obligated to keep the 613 commandments given in the Torah.
What we see now is the true priesthood, the true offering, and the true tabernacle, and we see the true elect from every nation. The pattern is teaching us that the sacrifice was made for the true elect, those who are circumcised in heart.
The individual sacrifices are not an application of the sacrifices made on the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement and the individual sacrifices are the One sacrifice from different vantage points.