Additional Note on Repentance in the Rabbinic Literature

The rabbis regarded the prophet Hosea as the great exponent of repentance in the Old Testament. Particularly the opening verses of Ch. 14 attracted their attention; it was this section (Hos. 14:2ff.) which provided the reading from the prophets for the Sabbath of repentance between Rosh Ha-Shanah (the New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). Here the rabbis found their full doctrine of repentance. Here, too, they found a Scriptural base for their view that prayer, confession, and repentance are God’s chosen substitutes for sacrifice and burnt-offering, a view that became central after the destruction of the Temple made sacrifice impossible. The first two texts selected to illustrate the approach of rabbinic teachers are portions of sermons actually preached in a synagogue in the second or third century A.D. Their source is a collection of homilies delivered on the high feast and fast days of the Jews, the Pesikta de Rab Kahana. The occasion of both of these sermons was the Sabbath between Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur, where the Haftarah reading began with Hos. 14:2.

Text 1: “Good and upright is the Lord. Therefore, he will instruct sinners in the way” (Ps. 25:8). Men went and asked Wisdom: What shall be the punishment of the sinner? She answered: “Evil pursues sinners” (Prov. 13:21). They asked the Prophets: What shall be the punishment of the sinner? They answered: “The soul that sins shall surely die” (Ezek. 18:4). They asked the Torah: What shall be the punishment of the sinner? It said: “Let him bring a sin offering and he shall be atoned, as it is written, ‘It shall be accepted for him to make a covering for him’ ” (Lev. 1:4). They asked God: What shall be the punishment of the sinner? He said: “Let him repent and he shall be atoned. For it is written: ‘Good and upright is the Lord. Therefore, he will teach sinners in the way’ (Ps. 25:8). My sons, what do I desire from you? ‘Seek me and live!’ ” (Amos 5:4). R. Phineas said: Why is he good when he is upright? Why is he upright when he is good? Because he will teach sinners in the way. Because he teaches to them the way, that they should repent. Therefore, Hosea warned Israel and said: “Turn (repent), O Israel” (Hos. 14:2).

“Parashoth Shubah,” Pesikta de Rab Kahana 158b

R. Phineas exegetes Ps. 25:8 in the light of the rabbinic understanding of the Biblical phrase, “good and upright,” qualities attributed to the Lord. These words may seem synonymous, but to the rabbis no expression in Scripture was superfluous or redundant; accordingly, they understood the expression, “good,” to signify God as he exercised the “measure of mercy.” The problem posed by Ps. 25:8 is to discern why God is described as “good” and “upright” at the same time. The answer is found in God’s urging the sinner to repent, a gracious expression of his mercy given peculiar urgency in the light of his judgment. There should be observed in the text the rabbinic understanding that to reason (Wisdom), moral law (the Prophets), the ritual requirement (the Torah), repentance makes no sense. Repentance makes sense only with God, who acts in grace, even in those contexts where one would expect sheer judgment.

Text 2: Israel said to God: Lord of the Worlds, if we repent, will you receive us? He said to them: I received the repentance of Cain, and will I not receive your repentance? God had decreed upon him a severe decree, as it is written: “When you till the ground it shall not any longer yield unto thee its strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt thou be in the earth” (Gen. 4:12). But when he repented, one half of the decree was removed from him. And how is it known that Cain repented? “And Cain said unto God: My affliction is greater than I can bear” (Gen. 4:13). And how is it known that one half of the decree was removed from him? “And Cain went from God and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden” (Gen. 4:16). Do not read “in the land, a fugitive and a wanderer” () but “in the land of Nod” ().

What is meant by the expression, “He went up from before the Lord?” R. Judah said in the name of R. Eibu: He went up as one who threw the words (which he had heard) over his shoulder and tried to fool God. R. Berachiah said in the name of R. Eleazar bar Simeon: He went out as one who desecrated and cast away his Creator. But R. Huna said in the name of R. Hananiah bar Papa: He went out as one who was joyous, as it is written: “Behold, he comes forth to meet thee, and when he sees thee he will be glad in his heart” (Ex. 4:14). When he went out Adam met him, and he said to him: What has happened with respect to your judgment? Cain answered: I have repented and I have been released. Then Adam began to strike upon his face in amazement, and said: How great is the strength of repentance, and I did not know it. Then he said: “It is good to give thanks to God” (Ps. 92:2). R. Levi said: This psalm is by Adam, for it says “A Psalm, A Song for the Seventh Day.”

Pesikta de Rab Kahana 160a–163b

This text is a small portion of a long sermon which celebrates the repentance of the great sinners of the Old Testament; if God accepted their repentance, surely he will accept the repentance of Israel. Cain is followed by Ahab (1 Kings 21:19 is compared with 1 Kings 21:27–29); by the men of Anathoth who sought to take Jeremiah’s life (Jer. 11:21–23 is compared with Ezra 2:23); by the men of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4, 6–8 is compared with Jonah 3:10). The midrash then exegetes Joel 2:13, “Rend your hearts and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God,” before returning to Manasseh, whose celebrated repentance called attention to itself (2 Chron. 33:10 is compared with 2 Chron. 33:13). The point made is that Manasseh’s repentance was conditional (“if you answer me, fine, but otherwise …”), and yet God accepted it. The last example is the repentance of Jeconiah (Jer. 22:24, 28, 30 are compared with Hag. 2:23; 1 Chron. 3:17). The homily concludes: “It happens in the world that if a man shoots an arrow, it may travel one field’s length or more. But great is the power of repentance for it reaches unto the Throne of Glory, as it is written: ‘Turn, O Israel, unto the Lord your God.’ ” Throughout the emphasis is that Israel has a gracious God who provides an opportunity for repentance.

In the exposition of Cain’s repentance the different interpretative strands should be noted. The first strand plays on the similarity in sound between nad, “a fugitive,” and nod, “Nod.” God removed that half of the decree which said Cain would be a “wanderer.” The next two rabbis address themselves to the question: Why was only half of the decree removed? Because Cain’s repentance was not really sincere. The last rabbi represents a wholly distinct point of view from the previous two: repentance is a great mystery, understandable only in terms of grace and mercy. When a man repents, God releases him from his debt.

In the rabbinic literature there is nowhere a complete and precise definition of repentance in the abstract, though the practical implications of repentance are discussed repeatedly. The rabbis speak of the value of repentance, of its effects, of great types and exponents of repentance, but they do not describe it in theological language. The verb, shub, occurs only rarely in rabbinical literature, but the noun, teshubah, occurs very frequently. When a verbal form is used, the rabbis prefer the expression, “do repentance,” to the verb, shub. This is in marked contrast to the Intertestamental literature, in which the noun, teshubah, occurs rarely. This indicates that the concept of teshubah has become crystallized and concretized to the point where it held a definite place in rabbinic thinking and was unmistakably clear to the common people. This process may be illustrated by the fifth of the “Eighteen Benedictions,” which were to be recited daily by every devout Jew, and which were employed by Palestinian Jews prior to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. The Palestinian recension represents the original form of the petition: its language is thoroughly biblical (compare Jer. 31:18; Lam. 5:21). The Babylonian recension is more developed and more concrete, reflecting an interpretation of the petition in keeping with rabbinic theology.

Text 3: Fifth Petition (Palestinian Recension): “Return us, O Lord, unto Thee, and we shall return. Renew our days as before. Blessed art Thou, Who hast pleasure in repentance.”

Fifth Petition (Babylonian Recension): “Bring us back, our Father, to Thy Torah, and draw us near, Our King, to Thy service, and cause us to repent with perfect repentance before Thee. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who hast pleasure in repentance.”

According to developed rabbinic thought, repentance (teshubah) was pre-existent to creation, being one of the seven great provisions made by the Lord before creation. Thus, long before man sinned, a remedy had been provided for that sin. Repentance is a healing gift (TB Yoma 86a), a shield against the punishment of God (Pirqe Aboth IV. 11). So great is its power, that the perfectly righteous cannot stand where the repentant sinner is able to stand (TB Berachoth 34b). So great is the power of repentance, and so universal is its need, that Enoch, Noah, Moses and all the prophets had as their greatest mission the preaching of repentance (Pesikta Rabbati 44). For the same reason, the rabbis represent the great sinners of the Old Testament as models of repentance, as in Text 2.

Paul Billerbeck writes on the rabbinic conception of teshubah: “The necessary components of repentance are (i) the recognition of the sin and an imploring of pardon with regret and remorse; (ii) the abandonment of the sin. When one of these elements is lacking, the repentance is not true, but deceitful; and if the man continues in this manner, finally the possibility of a genuine repentance will be withdrawn” (S-BK I [1922], p. 170). The accuracy of this statement may be seen from a baraitha (TB Yoma 86b) stating that God may forgive a second or third fall, but not a fourth; and from the principle that he who sins with the thought that he can always repent, inevitably loses out (M. Yoma VIII. 9). The element of deep contrition in repentance is brought out by the fact that the rabbis base their teaching on such poignant texts of grief as Jer. 8:5; 31:18; Ps. 51 and the book of Hosea.

In the rabbinical material there is frequent emphasis on the necessity for confession of sin. The efficacy of confession may be illustrated from a mishnaic text urging a criminal condemned to death to confess his sin.

Text 4: When he was about ten cubits from the place of stoning, they used to say to him: “Make your confession,” for such is the way of them that have been condemned to death to make confession, for everyone who makes confession has a share in the world to come. For so have we found it with Achan. Joshua said to him: “My son, give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession with him, and tell me now what thou hast done. Do not hide it from me, and Achan answered Joshua and said, Truly, I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done” (Josh. 7:19). And how do we know that his confession made atonement for him? It is written, “And Joshua said, Why have you troubled us? The Lord shall trouble you this day” (Josh. 7:25)—“this day” you shall be troubled, but in the world to come you shall not be troubled. M. Sanhedrin VI. 2.

The exegesis turns on the expression, “this day.” If Joshua had not meant to limit God’s punishment of Achan to a single experience he would not have specified “this day.” From this the rabbis reasoned that confession insures a place in the world to come. In a similar vein, all who were fatally ill were obliged to confess their sins (TB Shabbath 32a, baraitha). The Scriptural ground for such confession was found in Num. 5:6; Lev. 16:21; Ps. 51; 107:1; 1 Kings 8:47; Dan. 9:5; Prov. 28:13. Whether this confession had to be detailed and specific or general was a matter of dispute among the Tannaim of the second generation (TJ to Yoma VIII. 8).

One of the best sources for the rabbinic concept of repentance is the Mishnaic tractate Yoma and the liturgy it describes for the Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Most of the material in Yoma antedates the destruction of the Temple.

Yom Kippur was a day of mourning for sin. The preparation for it began with the blowing of the shofar on New Year’s Day, to warn the people to lift up their hearts and to return to God (Num. 29:1; Lev. 23:24). The prayers designated for use during the first ten days of the New Year are penitential in character, preparing the people for Yom Kippur. On the day itself, a man was forbidden to eat or drink, or to bathe and anoint himself. He could not wear sandals, nor enter into marriage (M. Yoma VIII. 1ff.). His disposition was to be one of profound sorrow for sin. The High Priest would read Lev. 3:16; 23:27–32 and recite by memory Num. 29:7–11, bringing before the people the history of the observance of the day, together with the exhortation to “afflict your souls” (Lev. 23:32).

Confession plays a central role in the liturgy of Yom Kippur. On this day the High Priest made three formal confessions. The first was made in his own name and in that of his family; after this confession, his family would concur in it by acknowledging the confession and blessing God’s name (M. Yoma III. 8). The second confession was made in his name, in that of his family and in the name of the sons of Aaron, all of whom would then acknowledge the confession and bless God’s name (M. Yoma IV. 2). Finally the High Priest made the great confession for all the people and the house of Israel (M. Yoma VI. 2). As soon as the people in the court heard the High Priest begin this confession, they bowed down, prostrating themselves, with their face to the courtyard, blessing God’s name, and acknowledging the confession and their desire for repentance. The Palestinian Gemara to Yoma adds that in addition to the three public confessions of the High Priest, individuals were required to make a private, personal confession. The nature and character of this private confession does not seem to have been clearly specified, however (TJ to Yoma VIII. 9).

The relationship of national repentance to the coming of the messianic deliverance was a matter of debate toward the end of the first century A.D. The most famous debate was that between the Shammaite, R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, and the Hillelite, R. Jehoshua ben Ḥananya. R. Eliezer contended that Messiah could not come and would not come until Israel repented as a nation. His reasoning was based on a popular expectation that Messiah would come at the conclusion of Daniel’s seventy week-years, which the rabbis calculated should fall on the ninth of Ab in the year A.D. 68. But instead of Messiah’s coming and deliverance, on this date Titus burned the Temple! The explanation for this reversal in expectation was found in the allegation that Israel had not repented. R. Eliezer’s reasoning was challenged by R. Jehoshua, who argued that when God’s appointed time came the messianic end will take place regardless of the repentance of Israel. R. Jehoshua worked with a different set of figures, basing his calculations on the sabbatical scheme of seven millennia. According to this scheme, Messiah would come in the year A.D. 240, a date sufficiently far off in the future to allow Jehoshua to dispute the reasoning of his colleague. The debate is recorded several times in the sources, but the briefest account occurs in Tanchuma B. to Lev. § 5 (ed. Buber, 56a).

Text 5: R. Eliezer said: If Israel will repent, it will be redeemed. If Israel will not repent, it will not be redeemed, as it is written: “In returning and rest you shall be saved” (Isa. 30:15). R. Jehoshua said, Whether they return or not, as soon as the End is come, so soon will they be redeemed, as it is written: “I am the Lord. In its time I will hasten it” (Isa. 60:22). R. Eliezer said: God places over them an evil man like Haman, and he afflicts them, and as a result they will do repentance, as it is written: “For he will come like a rushing stream which the wind of the Lord drives in that hour [underlined words not in M.T.] and he will come to Zion as Redeemer, even to those in Jacob who turn from transgression …” (Isa. 59:19–20).

In an expanded form the debate may be found in TJ Taʿanith I, i, 63a and TB Sanhedrin 97b (see S-BK I [1922], pp. 162ff.). The main difference in the accounts centers in the Biblical texts cited to support these two positions. Anonymous statements supporting R. Eliezer’s view that Israel would not experience the messianic redemption until the nation repented are found in TJ Taʿan. 1, 1, 64a; Pesikta Rabbati 33 (153a); Num. R. VII (148c). Not until the third century A.D. was the opinion presented that if Israel repented for a single day the messianic deliverance would come. It is first attributed to Amoraim of the 3rd generation, Tanchuma ben Chijja and R. Levi (TJ Taʿan. 1, 1, 64a; Pesikta 163b; Midrash Canticles 5, 2, 118a).

By way of conclusion, in the rabbinic literature a development in the concept of repentance may be noted in three areas:

(1) The teaching on repentance becomes increasingly practical. This is seen in the wide discussion of the ancient models of repentance, as illustrated in Text 2. In the early Intertestamental period there is little appeal to the great penitents of the past, but gradually the number of appeals increases until the Tannaim have a whole galaxy of them. The Tannaim constantly appeal to them to show what must be done in repentance, and to show that the rabbinic demand has been, and can be met.

(2) The teaching on repentance becomes more explicit, with attention being focused upon individual elements and requirements in true repentance, as seen in Texts 3 and 4. When these elements are assembled together they provide the raw materials for a fully developed theology of repentance.

(3) In this period there is a growing conviction that God himself will take a hand and force Israel to repent by bringing upon the people a period of “messianic woes.” These consist of catastrophic reversals which will cause the people to return to God, and so shall serve as the birth-pangs of the Messiah, for they shall be followed by the messianic deliverance once Israel has repented. It is this conviction which informs R. Eliezer’s viewpoint in Text 5.

Between Pharisaic teaching, and its consolidation in the rabbinic tradition, and the proclamation of first John the Baptist and then Jesus there is a difference in perspective which must be appreciated. The preaching of John and of Jesus belongs to the prophetic tradition in which there is a radical demand for a once-for-all commitment to God, a “turning” of one’s whole self to the fulfilment of his will. The urgency in the summons to repentance is drawn from the eschatological context in which this summons is conveyed: there is no time for delay. In the Pharisaic and later rabbinic tradition repentance is conceived in terms of legal observance, while provision for forgiveness is made through such repeated practices as prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The source of this conception is found more in the priestly and legal traditions of Judaism. What is stressed is the repeatable character of repentance and its applicability and availability to all Israel at all times. In the Pharisaic tradition repentance is feasible and relevant, but there is rarely heard the distinctive note sounded in the preaching of John and of Jesus, that it is urgent because God has acted in a sovereign manner to bring near the Kingdom. In such a context the former pattern of repeated sin, repentance and restoration is inadequate. The great ultimate teshubah is now at hand, to be followed by the Kingdom. This emphasis belongs to the heart of the gospel, not to the rabbinic tradition.