Hogeterp argues that Romans 3:25 should not be interpreted as referring to the Jewish sacrifices, whether the 'mercy seat' or atoning blood. His logic is this, Paul's gospel is about there being no distinctions (Rom 3:22), thus defying levitical notions of purity (lev 10:10), therefore his use of hilasterion is most likely not one governed by Law, and hence in terms apart from the Jewish cult.
This seems to short circuit the argument of grafting and fulfilling by saying that the only way for there to be no distinction is to see Israels way (and language and symbolic world) left behind.
But in fact Hogeterp goes the other way, quoting W S Campbell, Paul's gospel " is universal not in opposition to Jewish particularism, as has often been mistakenly beleived, but precisely on the basis of that Jewish particularism which, through the fulfillment in Christ of the promises to Israel, is now opened up to gentiles also"
WS Campbell in 'The Romans Debate'
quoted in Hogeterp 280

I don't understand how Hogeterp can make this move, without imprisoning the cultic terms of Israel only for Jews.