THANKFULNESS AND DEPRESSION

Thankfulness is great for body and soul and even for depression. According to author Lauren Aaronson, “Feeling thankful and expressing that thanks makes you happier and heartier…Just jot down things that make you thankful…Call it corny, but gratitude just may be the glue that holds society together.”¹

Her advice, in other words, is “Just do it!” (be thankful). Thankfulness may help or work emotionally, and make psychological sense, but without God and an assurance of heaven, it can be irrational and delusional. Consider someone who is terminally ill, has lost family and friends, and has nothing tangible to look forward to but death: besides being insensitive, advising her to be thankful is asking her to deny the most significant aspects of her life.

There also remains the awkward question, “Thankful to whom?” but Aaronson avoids this obvious question. It’s like throwing a party without inviting the host—not a very thankful act at that!

Thankfulness demands that we notice that there must be a hidden subject whom we should acknowledge. This comes naturally and comfortably for the Christian, who does not make believe that the Host does not exist. The Christian recognizes that the Host is the lynchpin who ties life neatly together, making sense out of seemingly thankless situations. Asaph, the Psalmist, writes, “My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Ps. 73:26 NIV). Practicing biblical thankfulness does not require the depressed to deny the painful realities of their lives.

HOPE AND DEPRESSION

Depressed people need hope more than anything else. They have been fighting a foe that is greater than they and have despaired of their own efforts. Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl had observed many people struggle and finally acquiesce to the verdict of the death camps. In Man’s Search for Meaning, he writes, “The prisoner who had lost his faith in the future—his future—was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and become subject to mental and physical decay.”²

Frankl understood that the best elixir for despair was hope. The Bible concurs: “A man’s spirit sustains him in sickness, but a crushed spirit who can bear?” (Prov. 18:14 NIV). In The Noonday Demon, termed by one reviewer as “the definitive book on depression,”³ Andrew Solomon, himself a long-time sufferer of depression, describes how in his view one can obtain hope: “Since depression is highly demotivating, it takes a certain survivor impulse to keep going through the depression, not to cave into it. A sense of humor is the best indicator that you will recover; it is often the best indicator that people will love you. Sustain that and you have hope.”⁴

A sense of humor is a great gift. Some have a natural endowment of it, whereas others have to learn it. It is more than a skill, however; it is a vision of life. One who has a sense of humor can laugh at oneself and one’s foibles, because they are insignificant when compared to eternity (Rom. 8:18–19), and because they are not the actual substance of life. Solomon understands the difficulty of laughter in the context of his experience:

Of course it can be hard to sustain a sense of humor during an experience that is really not so funny. It is urgently necessary to do so….Whatever time is eaten by a depression is gone forever. The minutes that are ticking by as you experience the illness are minutes that you will not know again. No matter how bad you feel you have to do everything you can to keep living, even if all you can do for the moment is breathe. Wait it out and occupy the time of waiting as fully as you can. That’s my big piece of advice to depressed people.⁵

In short, his advice is, “Just wait—it will get easier. In the meantime, try harder!” That’s not very hopeful—especially not for those who really need hope. We often do need to wait, but we as Christians also need to know that, when we are at our weakest and lowest, we are actually at our highest (2 Cor. 12:9–10)! We need the assurance that even in the midst of depression, our dear Lord is drawn to us in our pain (Isa. 57:15; 66:1–2; Ps. 34:17–18), is suffering along with us (Heb. 4:15; Isa. 63:7–11), and is working even our defeats and failures towards a blessed and eternal conclusion (Rom. 8:28; Phil. 1:6; John 6:37–40)!

In reflecting on his journey from Zen Buddhism to Christianity, psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled, writes how he repeatedly had observed that his Christian clients would improve, no matter how serious their psychiatric condition. He concludes, “The quickest way to change your attitude toward pain is to accept the fact that everything that happens to us has been designed for our spiritual growth….We cannot lose once we realize that everything that happens to us has been designed to teach us holiness….We are guaranteed winners!”⁶

If our hope is in ourselves rather than in our omnipotent and all-loving God, we have no guarantees except death and decay. Solomon also appreciates the power of faith: “Frankly, I think that the best treatment for depression is belief, which is in itself far more essential than what you believe in. If you really truly believe that you can relieve your depression by standing on your head and spitting nickels for an hour every afternoon, it is likely that this incommodious activity will do you tremendous good.”⁷

It is a well-demonstrated fact that the placebo effect is powerful. If we believe in something, anything, it will make a difference, at least for the short-run. Unless a faith accords with reality (our experiences and observations) and is nurtured by compelling evidences, however, it will subside, and so too its positive influences.

God has not left His suffering people destitute of compelling reasons to hope. He has not been slack in providing authenticating miracles (Matt. 11:5–6; John 5:31–36; 10:37; 20:25–31; Acts 1:3; Heb. 2:4) and fulfilled prophecy (Luke 24:25–27, 44–45; John 14:28–29; 16:1–4, 32–33; Acts 17:2–4; 18:4; 28:23) to reassure our fretful minds.

The alternative to trusting in God is trusting in oneself. Our experiences constantly attack and indict this notion of trust. We are not worthy of self-trust; consequently, we can maintain self-trust only through a most repressive form of denial. We nonetheless yearn to trust, but trust can only flourish when finally married to its intended Husband.

AUTHENTICITY, SELF-ACCEPTANCE, AND DEPRESSION

We have to be authentic and at peace with our true selves, but this is difficult. When we lack authenticity and transparency, we are in disharmony and conflict, obsessively trying to maintain an image, a lie. Author Karen Wright writes, “Authenticity is correlated with many aspects of psychological well-being, including vitality, self-esteem, and coping skills. Acting in accordance with one’s core self—a trait called self-determination—is ranked by some experts as one of the three basic psychological needs.”⁸

Here are some of Wright’s recommendations for achieving authenticity: read novels, meditate, cultivate solitude, and play hard. Her advice basically suggests that all we need to do is to spend some quality time with ourselves. She also maintains that we should “be willing to lose,” and cites Thomas Moore’s rationale for that: “Feelings of inauthenticity are heightened by a lack of a philosophy that allows failure to be part of life. If you’re leading a full life, you are going to fail some every day.”⁹

Moore is correct. Failure is a part of life, and we need to learn to accept it graciously rather than to be inauthentic and deny our failures. Finding that supportive philosophy, however, is not easy. Secularism can’t provide it. If you believe that you only go around once and that there is no afterlife, then failure assumes monumental importance. There is no mercy for those who stumble or fail to achieve. Secularism thus puts an even greater burden on our shoulders to succeed in our limited time.

Buddhism is more compassionate and accepting of failure, but at a great price. It diminishes the significance of failure because failure is illusion, but so too is the rest of life! Life in this temporal world of illusion must be transcended through enlightenment. “Enlightenment,” however, is a matter of “recognizing” that everything we’ve valued (friends, family, vocation, and so forth) is also illusion. Buddhism therefore represents a denial not just of failure, but of everything. It’s like cutting off a head because of a toothache.

Authenticity and self-acceptance are rare commodities. Psychologist Shelley E. Taylor sums up the clinical evidence: “People are positively biased in their assessments of themselves and of their ability to control what goes on around them, as well as in their views of the future. The widespread existence of these biases and the ease with which they can be documented suggests that they are normal.”¹⁰

Mainstream secular counseling, ironically, panders to our insatiable appetite for even more “positive” illusions through the building of self-esteem. That, however, is something diametrically opposed to authenticity and self-acceptance—a refusal to accept the truth about ourselves.

We need to be converted from self-esteem to self-acceptance. God sends trials to reveal to us our true character and true need and to wean us from self-trust (2 Cor. 1:8–9; 4:7–18; 12:9–10; 1 Pet. 1:6–7; Eccl. 3:18). It is only through the promises of His unchanging love and forgiveness, however, that we can tolerate such a revelation. Accordingly, Elyse M. Fitzpatrick, director of Women Helping Women Ministries, writes,

The counter-intuitive truth that the depressed person needs to hear isn’t “you’re really a wonderful person,” but rather, “you’re more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe”….Bathing our soul in the Gospel message will powerfully transform….It’s true that I’m more sinful and flawed than I ever dared believe, and that truth frees me from the delusion that I’ll ever be able to approve of myself; but I’m also more loved and welcomed than I ever dared hope, and that truth comforts and encourages me when my heart condemns me and my darling desires are all withheld. It assures me that although I struggle with accepting myself, the Holy King has declared me righteous.¹¹

It is only through God’s acceptance that we can begin to accept the painful truth about ourselves and to live authentically; ironically, there is great freedom in this. If we can learn to rejoice in the pit, then enjoying the mountaintop isn’t problematic. If we can accept the unflattering portraits of ourselves, we can cease the obsessive and strenuous occupation of trying to prove ourselves. If we can accept ourselves, then the opinions of others lose their bite. Criticism would no longer constitute a threat because it can tell us no new dirt about ourselves.

Self-acceptance is a precondition for authenticity. Modern­ity’s answer is self-esteem, but self-esteem turns out to be the antithesis of self-acceptance—the refusal to accept ourselves as we truly are.

EUDAIMONIA AND DEPRESSION

Mental health professionals recognize that living in accordance with our moral convictions is an important factor for mental health. Accordingly, Karen Wright wrote, “Eudaimonia refers to a state of well-being and full functioning that derives from a sense of living in accordance with one’s deeply held values.”¹² This is so obvious, it makes even atheists intent on living moral lives. They ascribe their moral programming, however, to evolution. For example, Richard Dawkins writes, “Natural selection, in ancestral times when we lived in small stable bands like baboons, programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on.”¹³

Dawkins believes that altruism, consequently, has nothing to do with truth or right and wrong, but with chance processes. If chance processes programmed these altruistic urges, however, why should we follow them? Appealing to our genetic programming is inadequate. Should we be xenophobic (fearful of foreigners) merely because we have been “programmed” to have this reaction? Of course not! Why then should we be altruistic? For the atheist, the only possible answer is pragmatic: altruistic behavior works; it benefits the doer with good feelings. It is solely a matter of cost/benefit analysis.

Atheist, humanist, and author of the Humanist Manifesto II, Paul Kurtz affirms that pragmatism is the “only” possible justification for morality: “How are these principles [of equality, freedom, etc.] to be justified? They are not derived from a divine or natural law nor do they have a special metaphysical [beyond the material world] status. They are rules offered to govern how we shall behave. They can be justified only by reference to their results.”¹⁴

Pragmatism, however, is inadequate. Sometimes it isn’t pragmatic to be moral. Hiding Jews from the Nazis wouldn’t pass the cost/benefit analysis. The price of a bullet in the head of the entire family is just too high! Nontheists thus cannot live in harmony with both their pragmatic rationale and the law of God written on their conscience (Rom. 2:14–15). Either they hide Jews and violate their pragmatic rationale or they don’t hide Jews and violate their conscience. Heart and mind (in pragmatism) are divided and in conflict. In either case, their mental wellbeing will suffer, because they are unable to live “in accordance with [their] deeply held values.”

More fundamentally, one who denies God and therefore denies the moral absolutes of the conscience will fail to derive the benefits of eudaimonia. There is little satisfaction in living in accordance with the dictates of the conscience if we understand those dictates to be no more than tyrannical electro-chemical reactions that demand us to make sacrifices that go against our desires and then punish us with guilt feelings. To derive the benefits of eudaimonia, this view advises, one should just take a conscience-numbing drug!

In contrast, for the Christian, the conscience and the Word (heart and mind) represent the will of God, which is the source of all truth, joy, peace, and love. We have every reason to regard it as a tremendous privilege to follow Him, since living according to His will is a delight (Ps. 1:1–3; John 4:34).

MEANING, PURPOSE, AND DEPRESSION

We are psychologically constituted to seek to understand our place in the world and to comprehend our purpose and meaning within it. Jewish philosopher and theologian Abraham Heschel asserted this very idea: “It’s not enough for me to be able to say ‘I am’; I want to know who I am and in relation to whom I live. It is not enough for me to ask questions; I want to know how to answer the one question that seems to encompass everything I face: What am I here for?”¹⁵

Not just any understanding of our significance in the world will do the trick. We have to understand that we are more than just an accident, a mere product of nature and nurture. Maverick psychologist James Hillman concurs:

We dull our lives by the way we conceive them….By accepting the idea that I am the effect of…hereditary and social forces, I reduce myself to a result. The more my life is accounted for by what already occurred in my chromosomes, by what my parents did or didn’t do, and by my early years now long past, the more my biography is the story of a victim. I am living a plot written by my genetic code, ancestral heredity, traumatic occasions, parental unconsciousness, societal accidents.¹⁶

If we fail to see ourselves as part of a higher narrative, we are in great danger of falling into depression. When we recognize that our lives have meaning, we can endure our trials and frustrations. Even atheist and Christian-despiser Frederick Nietzsche wrote that “He who has a ‘why’ to live for can bear almost any ‘how!’”

From where, however, does this “why” or rationale come? Not from secular materialism, which denies all spiritual realities! In this regard, psychologist Arthur Deikman writes, “Human beings need meaning. Without it they suffer….Western Psychotherapy is hard put to meet human beings’ need for meaning, for it attempts to understand clinical phenomena in a framework based on scientific materialism in which meaning is arbitrary and purpose nonexistent.”¹⁷

This leaves us with one possibility: a self-created existential meaning. The brilliant atheist mathematician Bertrand Russell was confident that he could create this very thing for himself. In Why I Am Not a Christian, he wrote that what mankind has to do is “to cherish…the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of [those who are] slave[s] of fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; [and] undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from…tyranny.”¹⁸

A self-constructed meaning, as Russell advises, is not sufficient, however. To suggest that one can dream up his own purpose is like telling him that instead of getting married, he can merely dream up his own wife and children for company. Instead of constructing our own meaning, we need to know that we are somehow connected to someone greater. Russell’s self-created meaning failed to hold back the “coward terrors.” Later, regarding his own gospel, he wrote, “I wrote with passion and force because I really thought I had a gospel. Now I am cynical about the gospel because it won’t stand the test of life.”¹⁹

None other but the Christian gospel can stand the test of life. That is because we were made to participate in a glorious drama (Jer. 29:11), and only acting on this exalted stage truly can ennoble and fortify us against depression (2 Cor. 5:20–21).

GUILT, SHAME, AND DEPRESSION

Depression often results from the unresolved, crippling feelings of guilt, shame, and inadequacy. Motivational speaker, John Bradshaw, warns about the depressing effect of these feelings, especially shame, which he defines as “the internalized feeling of being flawed and defective as a human being…shame, which should be a healthy signal of limits, becomes an overwhelming state of being, an identity if you will. Once toxically shamed, a person loses contact with his authentic self. What follows is a chronic mourning for the lost self.”²⁰ Bradshaw then explains how shame, the “master emotion,” tragically begins to numb the rest of the emotions through denial, repression, and dissociation.

Bradshaw believes that this life-controlling shame is a product of not being loved unconditionally. If this is the problem, then the answer, he advises, is a matter of providing unconditional love. One way to achieve this, according to Bradshaw, is through loving affirmations: “Repeated positive messages are emotional nutrients…Here are the loving words you can say to your inner infant: ‘Welcome to the world, I’ve been waiting for you. I’m glad you are here. I’ve prepared a special place for you to live. I like you just the way you are. I will not leave you, no matter what.’”²¹

Here are some of the problems with Bradshaw’s approach:

Bradshaw unjustifiably assumes that toxic shame is the result of a lack of love. Love indeed may decrease our sensitivity to guilt, but an increased sensitivity to guilt is not necessarily pathological. It instead may be beneficial. It is better to live with uncomfortable inhibitions than to go “wilding” with friends, whose association decreases these inhibitions.

Guilt and shame demand self-examination. If we have transgressed, the appropriate action is confession and repentance (1 John 1:8–9), not soothing self-talk! If sin is the problem, then Bradshaw’s suggestion is merely a professional form of denial.

Bradshaw’s affirmations are neither factual nor believable. If positive affirmations are going to work, they must be believed, but they should only be believed if they are in harmony with reality! It is difficult, however, to take seriously Bradshaw’s proposed affirmations, “I’ve prepared a special place for you to live. I like you just the way you are….”

Believing something silly can provide only minimal and temporary relief.

On the other hand, if Bradshaw’s affirmations can work to alleviate depression, how much more can God’s affirmations! If it helps me to assure myself that “I will not leave you,” how much more will God’s assurance that He will never leave me (Rom. 8:38–39; Heb. 13:5)! If I am reassured by the statement, “I like you just the way you are,” I will find God’s statement that He loves me with a love that surpasses anything I can understand (Eph. 3:17–20) even more reassuring! I may be able to forgive myself, but God’s forgiveness (Heb. 8:12) will penetrate much more intimately and persuasively, and eventually will secure my self-forgiveness.

Bradshaw’s self-affirmations are to God’s affirmations as masturbation is to true relationship—a substitute for the real thing. Even worse, self-affirmations must be believed if they are to have any impact, but Bradshaw promotes them apart from any consideration of their truth-content. The mind and reality are thus compromised for the sake of emotional relief. If we stoop to unreality, we will pay a hefty price further down the road.

In contrast to this, the Bible doesn’t admonish us to believe that Christ died for our sins simply because we will derive a sense of relief from that, but primarily because it is true, as many reliable witnesses have attested. God’s solution never requires us to compromise our intellectual integrity or reality.

MORAL LIVING, BLESSING, AND DEPRESSION

Lastly, moral living translates into blessing (John 13:17) for all, including those who are depressed. Nottingham University psychologist David Small, author of Taking Care, writes,

Psychological distress occurs for reasons which make it incurable by therapy but which are certainly not beyond the powers of human beings to influence. We suffer pain because we do damage to each other, and we shall continue to suffer pain as long as we continue to do damage. The way to alleviate and mitigate distresses is for us to take care of the world and the other people in it, not to treat them.²² (emphasis in original)

The relationship between obedience to God and blessing is no more clearly observed than in the context of marriage, where we find that we best meet our own needs when we best address the needs of our spouse (Eph. 5:28; 1 Pet. 3:7). In this regard, it is interesting to see how the leading names in marriage counseling are counseling couples according to the very principles found in Scripture. Whereas psychotherapists had been jumping on the communication-techniques bandwagon as the primary means to address marital conflict, now they are returning to the concepts of love and respect. John M. Gottman, professor of psychology and cofounder of The Gottman Institute writes, “The typical conflict-resolution advice won’t help. Instead, you need to understand the bottom-line difference that is causing the conflict between you—and learn how to live with it by honoring and respecting each other.”²³

Marriage guru Harville Hendrix similarly writes, “Feel more loving toward each other simply by engaging in more loving behaviors….The husbands and wives are to grant each other a certain number of these caring behaviors a day, no matter how they feel about each other.”²⁴

The type of “other-centeredness” that Gottman and Hendrix advocate can certainly jump-start a languishing relationship. In the long run, however, relationships need more. If we just give in order to get, eventually the getting will dry up along with the giving; our mate will perceive our behavior as manipulation, like a thinly concealed business transaction. It requires quite an effort, driven by deeply held convictions, to keep giving. Each of us must rest our focus on our spouse’s needs. We need to learn how to do this even when our own needs go unmet.

Larry Crabb explains that this “humanistic foundation” for focusing on others’ needs sets us up for failure by placing the emphasis on meeting our own needs.25 Instead, if each of us is going to continue to act lovingly toward our mate, we will need a true other-centeredness based on the conviction that it’s right to do so even if we aren’t getting what we want from the relationship. If we are going to be able to continue with this type of sacrifice, we will need to be assured that God is taking care of us, providing seed to the sower (2 Cor. 8:10).

What can lift people out of self-serving “altruism?” The conviction that our Lord addresses their psychological needs (for forgiveness, contentment, joy, accomplishment, validation, and so forth) according to His wisdom (so they have no need to seek counterfeits), but also that their mission is far loftier than the immediate fulfillment of their needs—that they are ambassadors (2 Cor. 2:15; 5:20) of the God of all truth, wisdom, healing, and love, and that they belong to Him (1 Cor. 6:19–20). They, consequently, will no longer be helpless depressives, but servants of glory (Gal. 2:20).

The Bible contains wisdom that teaches that God meets each of our needs. Numerous other books contain counterfeits that claim that we can meet our own needs. These provide some relief in the short-run, but as we have seen, their recommendations have hidden costs, and their advice ultimately fails.

Daniel Mann has taught at the New York School of the Bible since 1992 and has authored several manuscripts, one of which is published as Embracing the Darkness: How a Jewish, Sixties, Berkeley Radical Learned to Live with Depression God’s Way (Xulon Press, 2004).

notes

1 Lauren Aaronson, “Make a Gratitude Adjustment,” Psychology Today, March/April 2006.

2 Os Guinness, The Journey: Our Quest for Faith and Meaning (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 38.

3 Andrew Solomon, The Noonday Demon (New York: Scribner, 2001), book jacket.

4 Andrew Solomon, The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression (New York: Scribner, 2001), 430.

5 Ibid.

6 M. Scott Peck, Further along the Road Less Traveled (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 24.

7 Solomon, 137.

8 Karen Wright, “Dare to Be Yourself,” Psychology Today, May/June 2008, 72.

9 Ibid., 75.

10 Shelley E. Taylor, Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1989), 46.

11 Elyse M Fitzpatrick, “The Gospel Cure,” Tabletalk, March 2008, 15–16.

12 Wright, 76.

13 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 221.

14 David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, abridged ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Association of Christian Schools International, 1995), 237.

15 Guinness, 39.

16 James Hillman, The Soul’s Code (New York: Random House, 1996), 5–6.

17 Arthur J. Deikman, The Observing Self: Mysticism and Psychotherapy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982), 4–5.

18 Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Why I Am Not a Christian, quoted in Guinness, 105.

19 Ibid., 106.

20 John Bradshaw, Homecoming: Reclaiming and Championing Your Inner Child (New York: Bantam House, 1990), 67.

21 Ibid., 93.

22 David Small, Taking Care: An Alternative to Therapy (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1987), quoted in Dorothy Rowe, “Introduction,” in Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Against Therapy (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1994), 21–22.

23 John M. Gottman, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999), 24. Gottman claims that a year after the average couple graduates from a standard course of conflict resolution training, only eighteen percent retain any benefit from it (10). This represents a far smaller percentage than those marriages that improve spontaneously.

24 Harville Hendrix, Getting the Love You Want: A Guide for Couples (New York: HarperPerennial, 1990), 119.

25 Larry Crabb, The Marriage Builder (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 12.

If animal sacrifice is necessary, and the temple no longer exists, then the Christian claim that Messiah has fulfilled and replaced them becomes embarrassingly compelling. This represents a threat to Judaism. If, however, animal sacrifice wasn’t necessary, why then had God commanded it? For its symbolic value! Rosen writes:

Our ancient sages affirm that…“sincere repentance and works of lovingkindness (charity) are the real intercessors before God’s throne” (TB Shabbat 32A) and that “sincere repentance is the equivalent to the rebuilding of the Temple, the restoration of the altar and the offering of all the sacrifices” (TB Sanhedrin 43B). In terms of Jewish understanding of the sacrificial rites in the temple, while the blood of the sacrifice did indeed represent life, it was seen precisely in a representational role symbolizing “the complete yielding up of the worshipper’s life to God” (Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs).²

While the New Testament understands the sacrificial system as a foreshadowing of the once-and-for-all substitutionary offering of God’s Son, much of Rabbinic Judaism maintains that it represents the yielded life.³ The Orthodox Jewish columnist, David Klinghoffer, also argues in favor of divine forgiveness without blood: “The idea that penitence was not enough would have come as a surprise to the large majority of first-century Jews, who lived in the Diaspora and therefore had no regular access to the Temple rites. In not availing themselves of these rites at all times, they were relying on scripture, which taught that forgiveness could be secured without sacrifice.”⁴ Klinghoffer supports this claim by citing Solomon’s prayer at the consecration of the temple as proof:

And when they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land which You gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen and the temple which I have built for Your name: then hear in heaven Your dwelling place their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You; and grant them compassion before those who took them captive, that they may have compassion on them (1 Kings 8:48–50).⁵

For Klinghoffer, this constitutes proof that a sacrificial offering isn’t necessary. This is odd. How could Solomon, on the one hand, bless the inauguration of his costly, God-ordained temple, while, at the same time, preach that the temple wasn’t necessary? There are, instead, other ways to explain the fact that God would forgive the Israelites without an immediate temple sacrifice. Simply because blood wasn’t required at that time doesn’t mean it wasn’t required! A bank will grant a loan, without a present outlay of money, if repayment is guaranteed. The loan doesn’t represent a free ride, but a postponement of payment. Similarly, God could postpone payment of the debt in view of the Messianic guarantor (Gen. 15:8–21; Heb. 9:26), even for the sins that had formerly been committed during the first covenant (Heb. 9:15).⁶

Even though the sacrificial system was symbolic, the shedding of blood was also a requirement (Lev. 16:34) through which God passed over Israel’s sins (Rom. 3:25). Thus, it could-n’t simply be set aside or lose its potency, but had to be fulfilled by a once-and-for-all bloody atonement (Heb. 10:14), through which God Himself would make atonement (Deut. 32:43).

AN UNNECESSARY SYSTEM IS A WASTEFUL SYSTEM

The expenditures underlying the temple system were tremendous. Add to this the cost of maintaining the priesthood and the lives of multitudes of animals. It seems unreasonable that God would require this merely as a symbol that Israel should live in submission to God.

SACRIFICES WERE A REQUIREMENT

The sacrificial system had been so central to God’s workings with Israel that Moses and Aaron informed Pharaoh, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please, let us go three days’ journey into the desert and sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest He fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword” (Exod. 5:3).

Either Israel would sacrifice animals or they would be sacrificed. Christian apologist Michael Brown correctly concludes, “The very reason God gave for calling his people out of Egypt was to offer sacrifices to him.”⁷ He adds, “A careful study of the Five Books of Moses indicates that more chapters are devoted to the subject of sacrifices and offerings than to the subjects of Sabbath observance, high holy days, idolatry, adultery, murder, and theft combined.”⁸ Indeed, Moses explicitly states that the blood offering was necessary to cover or atone for sins (Lev. 17:11). Sacrifice was never optional. When the Angel of Death destroyed the firstborn from the land of Egypt, he passed over and spared those Israelite homes that had the blood of the offering on them (Exod. 12:23). Any firstborn without the blood on his doorposts would have been killed. Blood was also required to cover all the sins of Israel (Lev. 16:21–22) in accordance with the New Testament (Heb. 9:22).

Anti-Missionary Rabbi Tovia Singer also asserts that animal sacrifice was unnecessary: “The prophets loudly declared to the Jewish people that the contrite prayer of the penitent sinner replaces the sacrificial system.”⁹ He assumes that since Israel no longer had its temple, prayer and repentance would now suffice. He cites Hosea 14:2–3 to prove that the sacrificial system had been replaced by “words”: “Take words with you, and return to the Lord. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity; Receive us graciously, for we will offer the sacrifices [‘bulls’ in Hebrew] of our lips.’”

Singer is correct in pointing out that Hosea foresees “words” replacing the offering of “bulls.” This change, however, is associated only with the culmination of the old system, starting with the Cross, as illustrated by God’s declaration that “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from him” (Hos. 14:4¹⁰). Therefore, it wasn’t a matter of blood sacrifices being unnecessary, but rather being fulfilled!

SACRIFICES COULD NOT BE SET ASIDE UNDER MOSES’ LAW

There is nothing in the Mosaic covenant that suggests that sacrifices were an option or that they would be abrogated apart from the Messianic atonement of Jesus.¹¹ Even so, there are a number of verses that communicate God’s displeasure with the offerings (Psalm 50:8–15; Prov. 15:8; 21:3; Isa. 1:11–17; Jer. 7:23; Amos 5:21–27; Hos. 6:6). Such passages, however, in no way indicate that God was doing away with offerings and leaving no substitutionary blood offering in their place. Instead, these verses can be explained in either of two other ways.

First, God’s displeasure didn’t reflect a problem with the offerings themselves, but the hypocrisy of the offerers. Psalm 51:16–19 illustrates this: “For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart—these, O God, You will not despise.…Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your altar” (emphasis added). God was “pleased…with burnt offerings” when they were offered with a broken and repentant heart. When they were offered hypocritically, however, God refused to hear the prayers of Israel (Isa. 1:15). In this regard, the esteemed Jewish thinker, Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote, “Of course, the prophets did not condemn the practice of sacrifice in itself; otherwise we should have to conclude that Isaiah intended to discourage the practice of prayer.…Men may not drown out the cries of the oppressed with the noise of hymns, nor buy off the Lord with increased offerings. The prophets disparaged the cult [of animal sacrifice] when it became a substitute for righteousness.”¹²

Second, the other verses that assert that God didn’t desire the blood of animals (even though He commanded it) are explained by understanding that animal blood was merely a symbol of the ultimate Messianic offering. Israel had a dim under standing that something had to take the place of the Mosaic system and that the repeated offering of the same sacrifices gave Israel only a temporary reprieve (Heb. 10:1–4). They also had been graphically instructed by the temple and offerings that intimacy with God was not yet a reality. They could not enter into God’s presence (nor did they dare to!), and yet, they had been promised betrothal to their God (Hos. 2:18–19). Furthermore, they had been promised a “New Covenant” through which their sins would truly and permanently be forgiven (Jer. 31:31–34). Consistent with this understanding, Psalm 40:6–8 declares that Israel’s God was preparing a sacrifice that would put an end to all other sacrifices: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—in the volume of the book it is written of Me—to do Your will, O God’” (Heb. 10:5–7 quoting Ps. 40:6–8, emphasis added).¹³

After the two times where Psalm 40 dismisses animal sacrifice, it then presents a human body, suggesting that the latter sacrifice will take the place of the former. This shouldn’t have been foreign to Israelite ears. They often had been promised, starting with Moses (Deut. 32:43), that God Himself would atone in the end for Israel’s sins. NEVER A MATTER OF EITHER BLOOD OR REPENTANCE

Although Job had never been short on animal sacrifices, Elihu counseled him that a special ransom was required in addition to repentance (Job 33:24–28).¹⁴ Tovia Singer claims, however, that there are three types of atonement (sacrificial, repentance, alms), and that any one will suffice! This is contradicted, however, by the fact that any one of them by itself was incapable of bringing forgiveness: “Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord, and that person is guilty, then he shall [1] confess the sin which he has committed. He shall [2] make restitution for his trespass in full…in addition to the [3] ram of the atonement with which atonement is made for him’” (Num. 5:6–8, emphasis added; see also Lev. 5:5–6).

Similarly, Gerald Sigal writes, “It is clear from the Scriptures that sin is removed through genuine remorse and sincere repentance.” In support, he cites Micah 6:8, stating that the Lord requires justice and mercy.¹⁵ However, this also falls short of proving that sacrifice isn’t part of the equation.

Blood atonement, without confession and repentance, never accomplished anything (Amos 5:21–24). Nevertheless, it was still mandatory. There is no biblical evidence that it was or could be simply set aside apart from the Messiah’s coming. After surveying the rabbinic literature, Michael Brown concludes, “It was only after the Temple was destroyed [in AD 70] that the Talmudic rabbis came up with the concept that God had provided other forms of atonement aside from blood.”¹⁶

PROPHECY: A RANSOM AND REDEEMER

There Had to Be The Payment of a Ransom. Even in the midst of God’s earliest response to humankind’s sin, a ransom was cryptically provided when He replaced the first couple’s inadequate fig leaves with animal skins (Gen. 3:21), foreshadowing His Messianic endgame (Isa. 61:10). A ransom is inseparably and necessarily connected to Israel’s return to God (Isa. 35:10; 48:20; 51:10–11). “‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’ For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he” (Jer. 31:10–11).

God Himself Would Have to Pay the Ransom. The Israelite couldn’t afford it (Ps. 49:7–9)! So God Himself would pay the price (49:15): “I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, and like a cloud, your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you” (Isa. 44:22).

Without God’s ransom, Israel couldn’t return to God (Ps. 65:3–5; 78:38; 130:7–8; Deut. 32:43; Isa. 54:5–8; Hos. 13:12–14). Although repentance is necessary, it isn’t sufficient (Isa. 59:16–20). Psalm 24 offers a graphic, if perhaps cryptic, demonstration of this principle. It asks the question, “Who may stand in His holy place!” The answer is discouraging—only those who are perfect (Ps. 15)! Because of this dismal response, even the gates are hanging their heads in despair, until the mysterious appearance of the “King of Glory” entering through the temple gate into God’s presence to make intercession!

Messiah Would Pay with His Own Blood. Singer asserts, “Nor does Scripture ever tell us that an innocent man can die as an atonement for the sins of the wicked.”¹⁷ However, according to the Zohar, the most highly esteemed Jewish mystical book, in its commentary on Isaiah 53:5, “The children of the world are members of one another, and when the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, He smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest.”¹⁸ Israel’s salvation depended on Messiah’s substitutionary atoning death and not on the Israelites sufficiently yielding themselves: “Break forth into joy, sing together…For the Lord has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has made bare His holy arm” (Isa. 52:9–10; cf. 59:16; 63:5). His “holy arm,” the Son (53:1), will pay the price: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:5–7, emphases added; see also Ps. 40:6–8; Dan. 9:24–27; Zech. 12:10–13:1, 7; Ps. 22; 69).

Singer maintains that God’s provision of a ram in the place of Isaac (Gen. 22) proved that He would never accept a human sacrifice: “When Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, the Almighty admonished him that He did not want the human sacrifice…The Almighty’s directive—that He only wanted animal sacrifices rather than human sacrifices—was immediately understood. This teaching has never departed from the mind and soul of the faithful children of Israel.”19 This, however, wasn’t the lesson that Israel learned, but rather it was that God would provide: “And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, ‘In the Mount of The Lord it shall be provided’” (Gen. 22:14). Additionally, it was more than just a matter of God’s faithfulness. It was also prophetic of Messiah’s atonement. The mountain wasn’t named “The Lord-has-provided,” but that He will provide! Nor was the promise that God would provide in general! Instead, God would provide a greater offering (overshadowing what He had already provided) “in the mount of the Lord,” a phrase that “referred to the Temple mount in Jerusalem”!²⁰ This became the very place that God did provide for our sins on the Cross at Calvary.

Rather than symbolizing our yielded lives, the animal sacrifices symbolized the very opposite—our unyielded, condemnation-worthy lives. That’s why every Israelite had to confesshis sins on the head of the sacrificial animal, which paid the price for his unyieldedness. In this way, the Israelite was taught that his hope couldn’t be in his own righteousness or virtue (Deut. 27:26), but in a perfect substitution.

Blood has a lot to say about grace. It speaks eloquently about God’s ultimate ransom. After I debated Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi at Temple Gabriel, Queens, New York, an Orthodox Jew from his congregation called me. When I mentioned God’s grace toward King David, he protested, “You don’t understand. The Talmud explains that Bathsheba’s husband Uriah was an evil man who deserved to die. Besides, Bathsheba had already been divorced from him. And so David had done righteously by killing Uriah and marrying Bath sheba!” Fortunately, David didn’t see things according to the Talmud. He confessed his sins (2 Sam. 12:13) and acknowledged the blessedness of God’s grace (Ps. 32:1–2) and His willingness to receive blood offerings from the sin-broken repentant heart (Ps. 51:16–19).

The Talmud likewise rationalizes away the sin of all the patriarchs and therefore fails to recognize our profound need for grace. No wonder blood atonement can also be put away with such ease.

Daniel Mann has taught at the New York School of the Bible since 1992 and gives seminars. He has authored Embracing the Darkness: How a Jewish, Sixties, Berkeley Radical Learned to Live with Depression, God’s Way (KnowingScripture.com).

notes

1 R. T. Kendall and David Rosen, The Christian and the Pharisee (New York: Faith Words, 2006), 109–10.

2 Ibid., 109.

3 However, this latter view is hard to maintain in light of Mosaic revelation. Unblemished animals, representing sinlessness, were substituted for Israel’s sins. That’s why the Israelite had to place his hands on the sacrificial offering (Lev. 1:4; 4:4, 15, 29, 33), confessing and conferring his sins on it (Lev. 16:21).

4 David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 111.

5 All Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version except where otherwise noted.

6 This same reasoning can also reconcile other verses that seem to suggest that a covering (“kipper”) could be obtained by means other than blood. In any event, these verses can’t be used to overturn the many explicit verses requiring blood sacrifice.

7 Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 73. This book contains a very extensive rebuttal of rabbinic arguments.

8 Ibid.

9 Tovia Singer, “Could Jesus’ Death Alone for Any Kind of Sin?” online at www.outreachjudaism.org/ jesusdeath.html.

10 This conclusion follows from Hosea 14:4 because God’s healing of Israel’s backsliding is only accomplished at the end (Jer. 32:37–41; Ezek. 36:25–27).

11 Although the poor could offer grain as a sin offering, this was only because this offering was laid alongside a blood offering (Lev. 5:12).

12 Brown, 86.

13 Hebrews quotes the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In this instance, the text differs from its competitor, the Masoretic text. Although the Masoretic doesn’t read, “A body you have prepared for me,” both texts read, “Behold, I have come to do thy will!” This “coming” seems to suggest a replacement of the sacrificial system.

14 It might be objected that citing Elihu is not persuasive. However, in context Elihu’s words are just as authoritative as those that follow. Notice how his words blend thematically, without break or interruption by Job, into God’s beginning in 38:1.

15 Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1981), 16.

16 Brown, 111.

17 Singer.

18 Brown, 157.

19 Singer.

20 The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 38.