Doesn't 1Ki 8 clarify Ecc.7:20 to show that although man sins, he can be forgiven without sacrifice?

Question

To parahprase, Ecc. says that every man sins.
It is said that the only way to earn atonement for these sins is through sacrifice. It is said that today we have no sacrifices, so the only way to earn atonement is through the sacrifice of Jesus.
Now 1 kings 8:46-50 (to paraphrase) says that every man sins and there will be a time when they will be far away (and unable to bring sacrifices to earn atonement), and that in this circumstance if they pray & repent G-d will forgive them.
Both Kings and Ecclesiastes use almost the same exact phrase and are stated by the same author (as Solomon said this spech in Kings, and Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes). Kings is expanding on Ecclesiastes, and describes the exact circumstance that we find ourselves in today (sacrificeless). Kings offers the solution to the problem of sin w/o sacrifice - prayer and repentance.
Why draw another conclusion (the need for Jesus) from Solomon's statement in Ecc., when he himself clarifies his intent in Kings?

Answer 1

In other words without the Crucifixion there is no forgiveness?
That is why the story of Jesus, he was the perfect sacrafice because (not sure which book, verse) God desires, mercy, justice and love not blood sacrafice and that antichrist would set up abomination of blood sacrafice in God's holy temple again at the time of the end.

Jesus died for your forgiveness. He is the Lamb of God, the perfect one in all rightousness, guilty of nothing more than love.

Answer 2

Thank you for reposting this very good question. As I explained, I contacted my mentor, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries (www.ariel.org). He offers this response:

*******

"To answer your question, two principles should be kept in mind.

First, what actually saved people in the Old Testament was not the act of bringing a sacrifice per se; it was their faith. As evidence of their faith, they would obey the commandments (including bringing sacrifices) -- but what actually saved the person was not the sacrifice itself but the faith in what God had revealed up until that point; that is when the believer was regenerated and Born Again. Once that took place, he would live by the commandments given which would include sacrificing at certain points and intervals.

The second issue is that sacrifices could not be offered just anywhere under Mosaic Law, but they had to be offered in a specific place: either the Tabernacle or Temple. As long as they were free and living in Israel, they could bring sacrifices to Jerusalem; but if they were out of the country and/or in captivity, believers would not be able to bring a blood sacrifice themselves; however, it would be their faith and turning to the Lord that would save them to begin with. In the context here, as verse 46 shows, we are dealing with Jews taken into captivity and who simply do not have the option of going back into Jerusalem for the purpose of offering up a sacrifice, and they would actually be disobeying the Law if they offered the sacrifice somewhere else other than Jerusalem. Their inability to offer sacrifice would not keep them from getting saved, since it was their turning to the Lord and their belief in Him that provided the salvation.

A third thing to note is that even for those that were not able to provide their own blood sacrifice for one reason or another, there would still be a blood offering available to them yearly on the Day of Atonement. As Leviticus 16 shows, on that day one goat was offered up on behalf of the whole nation. On the Day of Atonement, blood was offered up on behalf of the whole nation, though it was applied only individually to those who “afflicted their souls,” meaning those who truly believed. So even with the Jew in the captivity, the yearly sacrifice would be sufficient to cover his sin if he truly believed and in this case, as the text shows, we are dealing with people in captivity who did turn to the Lord.

A fourth thing to observe is the New Testament also teaches that God was always saving people on the basis of Messiah’s blood -- whether they were looking forward to Messiah’s death or looking back to Messiah’s death. Therefore, when Yeshua died, He not only died for the sins right after His death, He also died for all of the sins committed before His death (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15). The individual person may not know the basis of why God was saving people, but from the divine perspective that was always true. So, for example, in the period of time when there was no Temple, such as the seventy years of captivity, those who truly believed and those who were truly repentant were still being saved on the basis of what the blood of Messiah would do in the future. Therefore, for the Old Testament saint’s sins to be removed, Yeshua would have to die for that reason as well (among others). If the Messiah was never to die, there would be no atonement available for anyone, because, from a divine perspective, the plan was for the Messiah to die. Even those like Daniel and his three friends and Ezekiel who could not offer sacrifices during the 70 years of captivity because there was not a sacrifice on the Day of Atonement for 70 years, had their sins forgiven in the sense their sins were temporarily covered; when Messiah died, their sins were taken away.

Therefore, the passage in I Kings 8:46-50 does not exempt the need for Messiah’s death for sin, on the contrary, it demanded it even more.

Yours for the salvation of Israel,

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum,
Director"

*******
I hope Dr. Fruchtenbaum's answer helps. I must admit, when I read it, I had to scold myself for not figuring it out on my own!

Answer 3

I can see that both are talking about the atonement of Christ...Jim

Answer 4

You need to study a bit more. You're twisting things around.