Jewish Theology

by W. John Walsh

Topic 1: Suffering in the World: A Breach of the Covenant by God?
Topic 2: The Afterlife: Attitudes and Views in Jewish Theology
Topic 3: What Happened at Sinai?
Topic 4: Who is a Jew?
Topic 5: Teshuvah: Return to the Path of God
End Notes


Topic 1: Suffering in the World: A Breach of the Covenant by God?

"Where is the God of justice?" (1)

The most important covenant in the Bible "is that between God and Israel." (2) "According to the terms of the covenant, the Jews are obligated to be loyal to God and to love him…" (3) Some people have suggested that this devotion to God is a call to seek "spiritual perfection." (4) In return for fulfilling their portion of the covenant, "God is to reward the love and obedience of the Jews with continued existence through [numerous] progeny (5)…ownership of the land of Israel, material well-being, ….and a special relationship to God."(6) It is argued by some that God has violated his portion of the covenantal agreement due to the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

Certainly, "[t]he most persistent challenge to faith in God comes from the cluster of issues that we call ‘the problem of evil,’"(7) Over the millennia, Jewish thinkers have created a number of responses to address this recurring issue, but the Holocaust (8) has caused many Jews to throw out the old postures of theodicy (9) as "no longer obviously valid."(10) The wounds caused by the Holocaust are "cut so deeply that it is a question whether the [Jewish] community can recover from it."(11) Many Jews refuse even the attempt of comprehending what happened "as at a desecration of the memory of the innocents who perished." (12)

It seems that this one event could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back and cause the Jewish people to reject "the God of [their] fathers."(13) The undeniable facts surrounding the Holocaust seem to compel the children of Israel "into holding a Jewish ‘Death of God’ theology,"(14) which arises from "an essential uneasiness with or even contempt for the world…" (15) due to the presence of evil. (16)

Yet, have we truly reached the point in human experience that we can no longer accept the God of the Bible as true and living? If so, then Sinai been relegated from the place where "God revealed his unambiguous will for the Jewish people" (17) to simply myth or illusion. Has the pervasive and all-encompassing nature of evil in the world, as supremely expressed in the Holocaust, finally forced us to adopt atheism? Do we even have an alternative? Some people have suggested agnosticism is the correct way. They accept that a covenant once existed between God and Israel, but the Holocaust proves that the "covenant is not still valuable" (18) from Israel’s standpoint and ought to be discarded along with Israel’s God. Since it would be trite for us to pretend there are easy formula answers to such difficult questions, "[l]et us labor under no illusions. There are no easy solutions for problems that are at the same time intensely personal and universal, urgent and external." (19)

While the Holocaust was filled with atrocities on an "unprecedented"(20) scale, the atrocities committed do not pose any substantially increased theological challenge. The horror of the Holocaust "… is not necessarily more problematic than the death of one innocent child," (21) especially to that one innocent child’s mother. Furthermore, let us not forget that "[e]ven in the gas chambers…, [some] Jews went to their deaths singing their hope that the Messiah soon will come."(22) It does seem strange that those who directly faced the ultimate evil maintained a sense of hope that many of the survivors and their descendants cannot espouse. So, in reverent memory of those who did not survive, let us examine what may have been the source of their hope.

Both believers and non-believers alike have perceived the problem of evil to be an issue of internal consistency between the following suppositions: "‘God is all-loving,’ ‘God is all-powerful,’ and ‘Evil in a world created by such a God.’"(23) For if God is omnipotent and loves mankind, then why does he allow evil to exist? Either God is not all-powerful, or he doesn’t really love mankind, or evil must not be real. However, these apparent inconsistencies are resolved by carefully defining concepts into realistic terms, which may explain the hope of the Holocaust martyrs.

Since evil is real and prevalent in the world, as demonstrated by the Holocaust, it "… must be fitted somehow within the design of the Creator as it is realized in the course of human history." (24) In other words, a loving God (25), tolerates evil for an overall, greater good. For example, a young child may complain to a parent that he dislikes learning to read. But a loving parent, understanding that reading is a crucial skill in the modern world, insists the child continues with the lessons. Does this mean the parent could not allow the child to forego learning to read? Does this mean that the parent does not love the child? Does this mean the child does not suffer discomfort during his difficult studies? The answer to all of these questions is obviously no. In reality, the parent’s requirement that the child continue his studies is actually an expression of great love, despite any temporary unpleasantness experienced by the child during the learning experience.

Likewise, dwelling outside of time and space, God is able to plan for our eternal welfare by carefully crafting the lessons life offers us. At times, the lessons will be sweet and pleasing and at other times the lessons will be harsh and difficult. God has repeatedly reminded us that because we lack his eternal perspective, we must trust in his judgment and mercy. The scriptures teach: "For My plans are not your plans, Nor are My ways your ways -- declares the Lord. But as the heavens are high above the earth, So are My ways high above your ways and My plans above your plans." (26)

However, should not an omnipotent God arrange the world’s affairs such that we are instantly granted the knowledge and experiences deemed necessary, but without the accompanying strife? In the example above, we can easily see that a parent can require his child to continue his reading lessons and still be considered a loving parent because it is understood that the parent does not have the omnipotence to bless the child with reading ability by divine grace. The critic may well argue that an all-loving God cannot be omnipotent since he requires us to suffer through the pains and affiliations of mortality to gain our required knowledge.

While the Torah does teach that God is all-powerful (27), is this an absolute or relative omnipotence? A philosopher once asked: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" The philosopher then suggested that regardless of the answer God cannot be omnipotent. For if there were something that God could not create then he could not be omnipotent. Likewise, if there were something in the universe that God could not act upon, then he also could not be omnipotent.

What is the answer to this puzzle? God is omnipotent, but not in an absolute Greek philosophical sense. (28) As the scriptures testify, God is indeed all-powerful, but he still cannot do anything incongruent with his own holy nature. He limits the exercise of his divine power to those things which are consistent with his divine attributes. Using a scriptural understanding of God, we can deduce that there must be something in the divine nature which requires mortals to pass through pain and suffering in the world. In other words, the laws of eternity must state that God cannot bestow these needed qualities upon us by fiat or divine grace. Therefore, we must suffer the presence of evil in mortality.

At this point, it may be worth noting that this perspective is only valid if one accepts the existence of an afterlife where an omnipotent "God will mete out final justice" (29) and all rights will be rewarded and all wrongs redressed, at least on an individual basis. For it is certain that not all deserved rewards and punishments are received in this life. If one rejects such an afterlife, then the presence of evil would seem to indicate that an omnipotent and all-loving God has failed in his covenantal responsibilities.

At times the pervasive evil in the world may make us question either the existence or justice of God. However, while "[i]t is not in our power to explain either the suffering of the righteous or the prospering of the wicked" (30), we cannot lose hope and must remember that mortality is just one small piece of eternity and God has a plan which will eventually make all things right. We should also "never forget that some of the basic theological presuppositions of Judaism cannot be justified in terms of human reason." (31)


 Topic 2: The Afterlife: Attitudes and Views in Jewish Theology

"If a man dies, can he live again?" (32)

In the twentieth century, "both Jews and non-Jews have come to believe that Judaism does not have any conception of a life after death." (33) The denial of an afterlife includes a small number of proponents even among Jewish "religious thinkers as well." (34)  This lack of eschatological perspective, which is especially common among American Jews (35), is an unintentional result of some modern Jewish theologians promulgating Judaism as a "‘here and now’ religion" (36) focused exclusively on mortal life and also the "absence of any kind of definitive information [on the afterlife] in the Bible,"  (37) which serves as the ultimate source of authority "because it is believed to be divinely revealed."  (38) After all, if the Torah does not teach it, then what is there for us to know?

However, the doctrine of an afterlife "is a basic principle of the Jewish faith." (39) In fact, "Judaism takes eschatology [so] seriously"  (40) that "no significant movement in the course of Jewish history lacked an [eschatological viewpoint]."  (41) While Judaism indeed has always espoused a belief of continued existence following mortality, "the forms which this belief has assumed and the modes in which it has been expressed have varied greatly and differed from period to period."  (42) In other words, there is no one authoritative view of the afterlife accepted by all Jews. Instead, Jewish theological perspectives on the afterlife have covered diverse and sometimes irreconcilable viewpoints such as a spiritual utopia of constant and never-ending prayer and Torah studying, a physical body resurrection, a disembodied afterlife with no physical resurrection, transmigration of the soul (or reincarnation), and a number of other concepts.

Regarding the spiritual utopia or heaven concept "[a]nthropologists have observed that a culture projects its highest spiritual value as its perception of life after death. For Jews, that value is study of the Torah."  (43) In the eyes of some, heaven is "the final resting place of the righteous and the elect."  (44) Opposite heaven, "[t] the doctrine of Hell, that the wicked are punished for their sins after death, is, of course, known to Judaism."  (45) However, there is considerable disagreement about its nature and length.

As far as a physical body resurrection, "there is very strong theological foundation for that teaching in the central doctrines of biblical religion."  (46) While "[t]he earliest mention of a future resurrection is found in the Apocrypha,"  (47) it is also "enjoined as an article of faith in the Mishnah (Sanh. 10:l), and included as the second benediction of the Amidah and as the last of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith."  (48) It has been suggested that belief in resurrection became established "during the Maccabean period when many good men were dying for their faith and the older view of reward and punishment in this life became untenable." (49) "Some explanation had to be offered for the deaths of the pious Hasmoneans at the hands of the atheistic Syrians." (50) Others have suggested the doctrine of a physical resurrection was previously held.

Following the precepts of Greek philosophy, many Jews believe in a disembodied afterlife with no physical resurrection. "On the whole Jewish modernists have preferred the doctrine of the immortality of the soul to that of the resurrection…" (51) It should be noted that the dualistic view that every human is composed of a physical body and a non-material soul "is not to be found in the Bible." (52) However, "[m]any contemporary Orthodox Jews affirm the talmudic belief in the immortality of the soul combined with the resurrection of the body.…Most non-Orthodox Jews have by now deemphasized or rejected the belief in bodily resurrection and affirm instead the idea of the soul’s immortality."  (53)

While transmigration of the soul (or reincarnation) "is not found in talmudic literature, and though it was opposed by major medieval Jewish philosophers such as Saadia and Albo, and ignored by others such as Maimonides and Yehudah Halevi, it becomes omnipresent and of increasing importance in medieval kabbalistic literature and thereafter." (54) Its relatively broad acceptance within the popular religion has astonished many people who espouse theology based on classical Jewish texts. The doctrine probably infiltrated the popular culture from association with "Oriental religions or from early medieval versions of platonic teachings." (55)

Some Jewish theologians, such as Maimonides, have taught that while an afterlife of some kind exists, it is "a completely different dimension of existence than the one we now inhabit, [therefore] we are unable even to understand its nature." (56) Since God dwells outside of time of space, it is reasonable to assume that any afterlife in his presence would also be outside of time and space. This type of existence could very well be beyond our comprehension. Other Jewish thinkers have rejected a personal afterlife altogether and instead suggest that "we keep living on mostly by virtue of certain deeds we carry out as human beings." (57) Following this line of belief, some people have suggested that the only way we truly live on is through the continuation of our posterity.

To summarize, there is a great breath of variety in the often contradictory teachings regarding the hereafter in Jewish theological literature. Each Jewish theologian and teacher devised what they believed "would embody the best possible conditions for the individual, the community, and the world as a whole." (58)

Regardless to which afterlife viewpoint a particular Jew espouses, why has eschatology played such a major role in Judaism? The desire to fit human life "into a pattern of meaning is precisely the function of religion." (59) In other words, the purpose of religion is to explain "the purpose of life within the framework of three questions: (1) Whence did we come? (2) Why are we here? (3) What awaits us hereafter?" (60)

A person’s answers to these questions greatly influences his ethical and moral attitudes in mortality. What we believe will happen to us after we die, and why it will happen, directly affects how we lead our lives today. People who strongly believe in an afterlife begin to see the eternal world to come as the real world, instead of the transient mortal world as reality. They begin to see the mortal world as simply a temporary way station to prepare them for their eternal future. It is here on earth that people forge the soul which will comprise their identity for all eternity. An affirmative view of the afterlife forces a person to deal with the social consequences of his actions. Those who reject an afterlife filled with judgment, recompense, and repercussion for earthly deeds often fall into hedonistic lifestyles.

While there are many modern Jews who do not believe in an afterlife, Judaic teachings have always addressed some form of hereafter. Lacking an authoritative and clear explanation of the nature of the afterlife in the Bible, Jewish theologians and philosophers have created a large smorgasbord of eternal possibilities. 


Topic 3: What Happened at Sinai?

"…the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, manifested Himself to us." (61)

While some people may believe that the Jewish faith is a fabrication created in "response to a selfish need, the result of a craving for security and immortality, or the attempt to conquer fear" (62), it is really revelation that "creates Judaism as a religion." (63) It is an individual Jew’s concept of revelation that determines their process of decision-making in Jewish law. "Any discussion of revelation in the framework of Judaism requires us to concern ourselves …with revelation whose content is religious commandments, namely, a system of norms and laws."  (64)

The starting point for interpreting halakhah "must be a theological one." (65) "A sound theological approach … will acknowledge that there is a history of Jewish observances and that these did not drop down ready made from Heaven." (66) Certainly, no serious scholar "has ever been oblivious of the canonical scriptures’ inability to stand alone." (67) It is for this reason that halakhah developed. However, "a review of the relevant literature seems to indicate that two distinct theologies of revelation, characteristic of classical Jewish theology, have engendered two distinct philosophies of halakhah and two distinct correlative approaches to the process of halakhic decision making." (68)

While both approaches assume that "God is in search of man" (69) and Mount Sinai is "the place of divine revelation [and] theophany (70)…", (71) the first approach, called the monolithic or monologic view, assumes "revelation is a monologue of God; the Torah and its commandments are imposed on passive recipients [and] there is no human element either in revelation or in the products of revelation." (72) On the other hand, the second approach, called the dialogic view, assumes "revelation to be a dialogue between God and human beings. It assumes the presence of a human element both in the revelatory event and in the products of revelation—the Torah and its commandments." (73)

If a person holds the monolithic view, then the Torah is an act of God and cannot be changed. The prophet gives "the authentic disclosure of a message received word by word from God, a view referred to as ‘the doctrine of verbal inspiration’" (74) The prophet is simply a receptacle of the divine will, similar to the modern tape recorder. "The Torah, therefore, … must be immutable, static, and perfect since it came from God." (75) This view is somewhat similar to the Protestant Christian doctrine of inerrancy. (76)

Since revelation is an imposition by God, people do not have the choice of whether to accept or reject its message. Also, what is true for one Jew at one time is also true for all Jews for all time. This analytical perspective, which is held by many Orthodox Jews, means that "both halakhah and the codes are authoritative and binding." (77) Since the codes are simply explicit explanations of the implicit divine will given at Sinai, then they must be followed. The law cannot change or adapt to meet the evolving desires of the Children of Israel. The Torah is a finished and completed work. In fact, since the Torah is considered supernatural, many of those holding this view believe we should not even ask questions as to why a particular law or commandment is given. The true believer does not need a reason to obey the will of God and giving them explanations would simply tempt people to rationalize why a commandment may apply to other people, but not to them.

However, if a person holds the dialogic view, then "human and divine elements are intermingled in prophecy." (78) While a prophet receives true revelatory experience, he must take an active role and translate it into the vernacularism of his people. Furthermore, not only does the prophet inject his personal human element into the message (79), but the human response of the Children of Israel as a whole is as important a component to the revelatory event as the original divine initiative. In effect, as the people respond to the prophetic message, they become co-authors of the law. Furthermore, this means that "[t]he revelatory event is only complete when the Torah and its commandments are ratified by Israel." (80) Also, it means the election of Israel is not an imposition, but "the free act of God [and] also the free act of Israel." (81)

It also means "the Torah and its commandments, as we know them, are not objectively and absolutely true and static[.]" (82) And to claim that the Torah "is not static and immutable, allows for the reasoning that revelation is continuous." (83) In addition, it leaves open the possibility that "truth is not monolithic but manifest in a plurality of modes." (84) What may be true for Jews at one time may not be true for Jews at another time. What may be true for one group of Jews may not be true for a different group of Jews living at the same time.

This sociological perspective, which is held by many Conservative Jews, means that while Jewish law is binding, "the codes are not binding but represent precedents and guides to be used in halakhic decision making." (85) Therefore, the codes may not meet the current needs of the Children of Israel since they were given to a different people living under different circumstances. A new understanding of an old problem may need to be developed. The Torah and halakhah are simply raw materials to build the divine will of today. This approach encourages people to ask the reasons for a law or commandment, since it may have limited applicability due to changing circumstances.

In conclusion, within the context of classical Judaism, there are two main ways of integrating Jewish law: the monolithic view and the dialogic view. The view a person holds determines his approach to halakhic decision making and the relative authority of Jewish law.


Topic 4: Who is a Jew?

"Said he, ‘Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with beings divine and human, and have prevailed." (86)

The Jewish people "…have never stopped asking [themselves] the most fundamental question of [their] identity: Who is a Jew?" (87) As the answer to this question is complex, the discussions surrounding it tend to generate more proverbial heat than light.

While people have tried to define a Jew using a number of different non-scriptural methodologies, these are all inadequate. Some people have tried to define a Jew by their connection to the ancient land of Judah, which had been "donated" (88) by God, but "…for at least 2500 years the vast majority of Jews have not lived there, and even today the majority of the world’s Jews live elsewhere." (89) Other people have tried to define Jewish by ethnic variety alone. Yet, "[t]he languages Jews have spoken (90), the foods they have eaten and the clothes they have worn have been determined instead by the particular places in which they found themselves…" (91) Based on their descent from the Patriarchs, many Jews have regarded themselves strictly as a genealogical lineage, but membership in the Jewish civilization "has never been limited by birth." (92) While some people have suggested that the Jews are not a people at all, but a collection of individuals expressing a common religious viewpoint, "… there are many Jews who proudly affirm their religious identity but do not believe in the tenants of Judaism or its laws." (93) A few people have even suggested that a Jew can be defined by the negative, or said another way, a Jew is anyone hated by an Anti-Semite. However, "[t]hose holding anti-Semitic beliefs tend to hold other prejudiced, intolerant, or undemocratic views in general." (94) Most of the definitions of a Jew that have been proposed have been found to contain fatal fallacies when carefully scrutinized.

"The most enduring definition of Jewish identity has been that of the halakhah…" (95) "For almost two thousand years at least, one could correctly say that a Jew is someone who either (1) is born of a Jewish mother, or (2) has been properly converted to Judaism." (96) However, some people have "often marveled at the certainty and confidence with which Jewish legalism … [is] delineated in … theological manuals and histories of religion…" (97) Therefore, we must ask that while it may be the most enduring definition of a Jew, is it the correct one? It is interesting to note that King David, one of the greatest figures in Judaic tradition, (98) possibly had at least two non-Jewish mothers as ancestors. These ancestors lived after the time period in which the people of Israel were established as a people, and therefore, the laws should have been in effect.  (99) Moreover, David assumed the throne by "divine choice" (100) further weakening the argument that lineage was the only consideration of election in the eyes of God.

However, even were we to accept this Jewish legal definition and source as authoritative, it still leaves us with unanswered questions. While we may have established a particular person as a Jew by using this definition, we have not yet articulated the extremely important explanation of why he is a Jew. Furthermore, we could also ask if this definition was created arbitrarily in Jewish law or does the law interpret and elaborate upon a higher authority (101), such as the Torah, in which "God becomes known to us?" (102)

For us to truly understand what defines a Jew, we must abandon modern philosophical, political, and legal positions and go back to the beginning. Since "…the ultimate answer to any question of Jewish identity is theological…,"  (103)we must return to Sinai and the concepts of election and covenant.

God elected Israel to receive a special covenant. The relationship between God and Israel can be stated as follows: "(1) Israel is related to God because of God’s election of her; (2) Israel is related to God because of God’s revelation of the Torah to her; (3) Israel is disjunct from the nations of the world because of God’s election of her."  (104)

Why did God choose Israel? Some Jewish thinkers have suggested there is "a qualitative difference between Jews and other peoples", (105) but "the author of Deuteronomy, when speaking about election, is eager to add that it is not the virtue and strength of the nation that caused the election, but God’s love for the Patriarchs is the main reason for choosing their descendants…" (106) Other Jewish thinkers have stated that "the ‘choice’ of Israel is not for privilege but for service…" (107)  In other words, the descendants of Abraham were "singled out that [they] might do justice and righteousness…" (108)

How is this election defined? "It is the essence of the covenant, which signifies the fundamental relationship between God and Israel…" (109) "According to the terms of the covenant, the Jews are obligated to be loyal to God and to love him…" (110) "In return for such love and loyalty, God is to reward the love and obedience of the Jews with continues existence through [numerous] progeny…ownership of the land of Israel, material well-being, ….and a special relationship to God." (111)

In conclusion, it is the offer and receipt of the covenant which defines a person as one of the people of Israel. A person does not choose to become a Jew. God chooses a person as a Jew and he becomes one upon acceptance of God’s offer. In other words, the Jews are the elect who have accepted the covenant offered to them by God. While the above doctrine is true, its practical application is not easy. For having established the basis upon which one may claim the title of Jew, we may then argue as to what constitutes God’s offer and establishes a person’s acceptance. At this point, we can simply say "these things don’t have an answer, they’re part of a conversation."  (112)


Topic 5: Teshuvah: Return to the Path of God

"…Be your sins like crimson, They can turn snow-white…" (113)

From a theological perspective, "… sin is not only an act of wrongdoing but a state of alienation from God … It signifies the rupture of a personal relationship with God, a betrayal of the trust he places in us." (114) When a person sins, the sin taints him and "arouses in him a feeling of self-loathing."   (115) Judaism recognized both "sins (116) of commission and omission—in the rabbinic terminology, the transgression of negative precepts and the failure to perform positive precepts." (117) While this essay will deal with individual repentance, "the Torah and the prophets quite explicitly demand collective repentance as well." (118)

Some people believe "[m]an is naturally self-centered, and he is inclined to regard expediency as the supreme standard for what is right and wrong." (119) According to classical Jewish theology, "man was created with two opposing inclinations or tendencies, one impelling him toward the good and the other toward evil." (120) "Sin is caused by the evil inclination (yezer ha-ra), the force in man which drives him to gratify his instincts and ambitions." (121) As he gives in to these carnal desires, he sins and becomes estranged from God, who commanded: "You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy." (122) A person can sin against God, other people, and even himself. (123)

A person can find "atonement for his sins by repenting of them." (124) "What is repentance? It is that the sinner relinquishes his sin, removing it from his thoughts and resolving never to do it again…and he should feel remorse from his past misdeeds…" (125) However, true repentance is more just a feeling of remorse and regret for one’s evil deeds. "Broadly defined, teshuvah …is a spiritual awakening, a desire to strengthen the connection between oneself and the sacred." (126) In other words, a man who turns from sin because he fears punishment (or similar reasons) has not truly repented. A man who turns from sin because he agonizes over the estrangement between him and God and yearns for reconciliation with his Creator has truly repented.

There are five premises upon which the doctrine of repentance rests in Jewish theology:

1)  Man has free will (127) and is his own moral agent, and thus able to choose between good and evil for himself. The doctrine of repentance rejects the theories of determinism (128) not only as untrue, but because of their "effect of driving men to despair, of causing him to throw off or ignore his own responsibility and cast the blame for his misdeeds upon his surroundings (his parents, society, or country)." (129) Acceptance of personal responsibility is a trait of the truly penitent.

2)  Sin is inevitable, "for there is no man who does not sin…" (130) In addition, "[m]an is engaged in a constant struggle against the evil within him" (131) which is "never-ending in this life." (132)

3)  Repentance is necessary as a corrective action and attitude. (133)

4)  Repentance is available.

5)  God is gracious and desires our penitence so much that when "a man has a thought of repentance, it instantly reaches the throne of God." (134)

How does a person repent? The three steps to repentance are:

1)  Correction of thought. This is the most important of the three steps since our thoughts and the desires of our hearts eventually lead to our speech and actions. Therefore, purifying our thoughts will also prevent much correction of speech and action later on. A person’s remorse and resolve can be heightened by submitting himself to the Torah which is the "antidote to the poison of the yetzer ha-ra." (135)

2)  Correction of speech. One of the most important aspects of this step is that "[t]he penitent sinner must confess his sins" (136) which is "…tangible proof that his pride has been humbled and broken…" (137)

3)  Correction of action. A person should flee from evil lest he be overcome.

To summarize, sin is a chasm between man and God, which can be bridged by repentance. Repentance includes realigning thoughts, speech, and actions to the will of God. If a person successfully repents, then he or she experiences a rebirth or new beginning. "By returning to God, man rises above time and so becomes able to correct the wrongs of the past and see himself as though he were newly born." (138) He becomes a man who "exercises self-control and does not yield to temptation." (139) "A new personality emerges out of his struggle and distress—and this is a work of creation to parallel that of the cosmos." (140)

(See Interfaith Relations home page; Jewish Studies home page)


End Notes

1.  Malachi 2:17, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999. 2.  "Covenant." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. 3.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 265. True love is unconditional and "requires no motivation, demands no reward, and is devoid of pragmatic value." Sherwin, B. and Cohen, S., How to be a Jew. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1992, p. 29-39. Reprinted in Jewish Theology, Background Readings Volume 1. 4.  Fishbane, M., The Exegetical Imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 136.5.  "In ancient Israel, to have many children was a coveted honour…" de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel – Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1961, p. 41. 6.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 265.7.  Gillman, N., Sacred Fragments. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 187.8.  "Holocaust is the term most widely employed for the persecution of the Jewish people by Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, first in Germany itself and subsequently in Nazi-occupied Europe, culminating in the ‘exterminaiton’ camps and resulting in the murder of nearly six million Jews." Fackenheim, E., "Holocaust" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 3999.  "From Theos, ‘God,’ and dike, ‘justice’; a term used to refer to attempts to justify the ways of God to man." "Theodicy. " Elwell, W. ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1984, p. 1083. "Theodicy is the attempt to explain God's goodness and power and reconcile these with the evident evil in the created world." Cobb, J. and Madsen, T., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Theodicy" New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. 10.  "Holocaust, Jewish Faith After the: Four Approaches." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. The Holocaust was not the first modern assault on Jewish faith in God. "…Advances in science and technology [since the 19th century] were creating a new spirit of autonomy and independence which led some to declare their independence from God." Armstrong, K., a History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, p. 346.11.  Greenberg, I., "Cloud of Smoke, Pillar of Fire: Judaism, Christianity, and Modernity After the Holocaust" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 39612.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 131-2.13.  Exodus 3:15, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999.14.  "Holocaust, Jewish Faith After the: Four Approaches." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.15.  Weinberg, D., Commentary Magazine, ed., The Condition of Jewish Belief. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1989, 252.16. The death of god argument also arises from other philosophical arguments as well as modern scientific advances which will not be addressed in this article. See Armstrong, K., "The Death of God", A History of God, New York: Ballantine Books, 1993, Chapter 10.17. Gillman, N., Sacred Fragments. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 13.18. Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, p. 42.19. Heschel, A., God In Search of Man, New York: The Noon Day Press, 1955, p. 372.20. Fackenheim, E., "Holocaust" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 399.21. Gillman, N., Sacred Fragments. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 13.22. Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 162.23. "Problem of Evil." Elwell, W. ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1984, p. 386.24. "Good and Evil." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.25.  For Biblical references on the love nature of God, see Deut. 4:37, 5:10, 6:5, 7:8, 7:13, 10:15, 10:18, Ps. 31:23, Isa. 63:7, Jer. 31:3, Hosea 11:1, and Mal. 1:226.  Isa. 55:8-9. "The Rock – His deeds are perfect, Yea, all His ways are just; A faithful God, never false, True and upright is He." Deut. 32:427.  For Biblical references on the omnipotence of God, see Gen 17:1, 18:14, 28:3, 49:25, 1 Sam. 14:6, 17:37, 17:46; 2 Sam. 22:33; Jer. 32:17, 51:15; and Mal. 3:11.28.  Those who accepted Greek philosophy as a legitimate basis for understanding the divine "evolved a higher notion of God than the revealed God of scripture." Armstrong, K., A History of God, New York: Ballantine Books, 1993, p. 170.29.  Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 162.30.  Statement of the Talmudic Rabbis quoted in Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 97.31.  Heschel, A., Man’s Quest For God. New Mexico: Aurora Press, 1954, p. 104.32.  Job 14:1, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 199933.  Raphael, S., Jewish Views of the Afterlife. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1994, p. 13.34.  Sonsino, R. and Syme, D., What Happens After I Die? New York: UAHC Press, 1990, p. 8.35.  Sherwin, B., Jewish Views of the Afterlife. Chicago: Spertus College Press Audio Tape CE-127, 199436.  Raphael, S., Jewish Views of the Afterlife. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1994, p. 13.37.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 301. Also, "The idea of an afterlife where justice is ultimately done is not found explicitly in Hebrew scripture." (Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 162.) Why does the Bible fail to clearly teach the resurrection and afterlife? "Simply put, the answer is that the people of that age were not ready to accept that doctrine. They did not believe in miracles and in prophecy, only in the predictable course of nature. Teaching them about the miracle of resurrection would have led to its rejection and even to the rejection of revelation as a whole." Summary of Maimonides’ explanation as found in Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 162.38.  "The Bible: The Canon, Text, and Editions." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.39. Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 301.40.  Gillman, N., Sacred Fragments. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 248.41.  Quote attributed to Gerson Cohen, Chancellor of The Jewish Theological Seminary from 1972 to 1985. Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 12.42.  "Afterlife." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.43.  Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 163.44. Raphael, S., Jewish Views of the Afterlife. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1994, p. 92.45.  Jacobs, L., Principles of the Jewish Faith. New York: Basic Books, 1964, pp. 398-454. Reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 495.46.  Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 128.47.  Patai, R., The Messiah Texts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979, p. 197.48.  "Resurrection." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. There has been some debate whether Maimonides and other Jewish thinkers to whom belief in a physical body resurrection is attributed actually did believe in it. Some have suggested that Maimonides only reluctantly espoused the resurrection doctrine to keep from being branded heretical. Others have suggested that be believed in a resurrection of the soul, but not the physical body.49.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 306.50.  Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 163.51.  Jacobs, L., Principles of the Jewish Faith. New York: Basic Books, 1964, pp. 398-454. Reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 469.52.  Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 105.53.  Sonsino, R. and Syme, D., What Happens After I Die? New York: UAHC Press, 1990, p. 8.54.  Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 177.55.  Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 177. "Throughout history, Jews have been influenced by the surrounding religious cultures…" Raphael, S., Jewish Views of the Afterlife. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1994, p. 360.56.  Sherwin, B., Toward a Jewish Theology. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991, p. 163.57.  Sonsino, R. and Syme, D., What Happens After I Die? New York: UAHC Press, 1990, p. 55.58.  Gillman, N., Sacred Fragments. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 258.59.  Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 248.60.  "The Purpose of Life." Bell, J. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992.61.  Exodus 3:18, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 199962.  Heschel, A., Man Is Not Alone. New York: The Noonday Press, 1951, p. 231.63.  Gillman, N., Sacred Fragments. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 1.64.  Rosenberg, S., "Revelation" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 81565.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 293.66.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 224.67.  Halivani, D., Revelation Restored. Colorado: West View Press, 1997, p. 268.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 293.69.  Heschel, A., God In Search of Man, New York: The Noon Day Press, 1955, p. 136.70.  "Theophany. A theological term used to refer to either a visible or auditory manifestation of God." "Theophany." Elwell, W. ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1984, p. 1087.71.  "Mount Sinai." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.72.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 293.73.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 302.74.  "Prophets and Prophecy." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.75.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 304.76.  "Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all that it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences." "Bible, Inerrancy of." Elwell, W. ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1984, p. 142. It should be noted that some Protestants go further and claim that the current copies of their scriptural texts are the perfect, all-sufficient, and all-complete revelation of God to man.77.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 329.78.  "Prophets and Prophecy." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.79.  It should be noted that God has given a great "variety of prophetic vision." (Vawter, B., The Conscience of Israel. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961, p. 44.) Since God is immutable, it stands to reason that the different styles associated with each of the prophets can partly be explained by the interjection of their personal human element into the equation. 80.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 302.81.  Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, p. 12.82.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 303.83.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 304.84.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 306.85.  Sherwin, B., In Partnership with God, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990, reprinted in Jewish Theology Background Readings Volume 2, p. 329.86.  Genesis 32:29, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 199987.  Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, 1.88.  Lemche, N. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, p. 122.89.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 263.90.  "To the Greeks, the language was one of the most important elements that marked then out as a special ethnos." Lemche, N. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, p. 111. "… [U]ntil the establishment of the modern State of Israel, Hebrew has not been the language Jews spoke on a daily basis since First Temple times (c. 950-586 BCE)." Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 263.91.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 263.92.  Donin, H., To Be a Jew. USA: Basic Books, 1972, p. 8.93.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 263. Furthermore, it is certain that even in ancient history not all Israelites followed the Israelite religion. Why have laws against worshipping other gods unless someone were actually doing it? See Gen. 35:2, 1 Sam. 7:3, Ex. 12:12, 18:11, 20:3, 34:14, Deut. 4:28, 5:7, etc. These apostates were sometimes punished and even killed, but their Israelite identity were never denied. In fact, some classical sources suggest that once you are authoritatively recognized as a Jew, you can never lose your status as one. "The covenant has two entrances, birth and conversion, but no exit." Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, p. 189.94.  "Anti-Semitism." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. For example, many anti-Semites hate Christians as well and desire Christianity "to be extirpated as a Jewish disease." (Dimont, M. I., Jews, God, and History. New York: Penguin Books, 1962, p. 332.)95.  "Jewish Identity" Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.96.  Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, 2.97.  Schechter, S., Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993, p. 1.98.  "David figures in the liturgy both as the ‘sweet singer of Israel’ and as the founder of the dynasty which according to Jewish tradition is eternal and is therefore destined to be restored." "David." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.99. Ruth the Moabite was an ancestor of David, though she is considered by some to have formally converted to Judaism. (See Book of Ruth). In addition, some people have suggested that Tamar, another ancestor who was the daughter-in-law of Judah, was a Caananite (See "Book of Ruth." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.) However, other sources suggest that she was of the priestly lineage (See Gen. R. 85:11).100.  de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel – Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1961, p. 100. Also, "[t]he king is not responsible to the people and does not have to account for his actions—he is responsible only to God." "King, Kingship." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.101.  It is important to note that "[n]ot all canonical texts enjoy equal status. Legal tracts are meant to be obeyed but do not form a central part of the curriculum." (Halbertal, M., People of the Book. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997, 3.) The Halakhah theoretically only explains the implicit teachings already present in the Torah. However, not everyone agrees to that interpretation. It should be noted that "[t]he realization that the rabbis of the Talmud in their interpretation of the Bible occasionally deviated from the ‘simple’ literal meaning of the text provoked condemnation from those outside the rabbinic tradition and puzzled insiders." (Halivni, D., Peshat and Derash. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 3.) 102.  Neusner, J., Judaism’s Theological Voice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995, p. 21. 103.  Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, 5.104.  Novak, D. The Election of Israel. New York: Press Syndicate, 1995, 10.105.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 269.106.  Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy 1-11. New York: Doubleday Press, 1991, p. 61. See Deut. 7:7-8, 9:4-5.107.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 271.108.  Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy 1-11. New York: Doubleday Press, 1991, p. 60.109.  "Chosen People." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.110.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 265.111.  Dorff, E., "A Jewish Theology of Jewish Relations to Other Peoples" Dorff, E. and Newman L., ed. Contemporary Jewish Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 265.112.  Chief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks as quoted in Hyman, M., Who is a Jew?. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1998, p. 129. 113.  Isaiah 1:18, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999114.  "Sin", Elwell, W. ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1984, p. 1012.115.  Luz, E., "Repentance" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 788116.  "In biblical Hebrew there are about 20 different words which denote ‘sin.’ It may be inferred therefore, that the ancient Israelites had more concepts expressing various nuances of sin than Western thought and theology." "Sin." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.117.  "Sin." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.118.  Nussbaum, C., The Essence of Teshuvah. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1993, p. 85.119.  Heschel, A., Who is Man?, California: Stanford University Press, 1965, p. 85.120.  "Inclination, Good and Evil." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.121.  "Sin." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. Also, "[s]in is the result of allowing the yetzer ha-ra to gain the upper hand." Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 243.122.  Leviticus 19:15, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999123.  For example, Joseph considered a liaison with Potiphar’s wife to be a sin against his master as well as God. See Gen. 39:8-9.124.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 243.125.  Maimonides as quoted in Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 249.126.  Steinsaltz, A., Teshuvah. Jerusalem: The Domino Press, 1982, p. 3.127.  Free will is "a philosophic and theological notion referring initially to the observation that man is able to choose between a number of possible courses of action, becoming, through his choice, the cause of the action which he selects." "Free Will." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.128.  "Among philosophers some accepted this observation as the true account of how men act, while others held that though man appears to be free to choose, his actions are, in fact, compelled, either by God or by laws of nature." "Free Will." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. 129.  Luz, E., "Repentance" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 788130.  1 Kings 8:46, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999131.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 245.132.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 245.133.  "Repentance is a prerequisite for divine forgiveness: God will not pardon man unconditionally but waits for him to [return to the path of righteousness]. In repentance man must experience genuine remorse for the wrong he has committed and then convert his penitential energy into concrete acts." "Repentance." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.134.  Schechter, S., Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993, p. 31.135.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 245.136.  "Repentance." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997. Also, "[I]n the Bible, the confession of sin committed either individually or collectively is an essential prerequisite for expiation and atonement." "Confession of Sins." Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997.137.  Luz, E., "Repentance" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 789.138.  Luz, E., "Repentance" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 790.139.  Jacobs, L., A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: Behrman House, 1973, p. 246.

140.  Luz, E., "Repentance" Cohen A. and Mendes-Flohr, P, Ed., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 791.