Exploring Forgiveness through Theologically Informed Education: Lessons from Judaism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I put the comments in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't have particular comment on the quality of English language. The authors may want to go through the article again to make sure there is no grammar/spelling errors.

Author Response

Reviewer no. 1:

Dear editor and anonymous reviewer,

Thank you very much for the thorough review and the opportunity to re-submit the revised paper. Thank you for your comments. We believe that the paper is now much improved. Below is a description of the changes we made.

1. The first comment that was on line 140 has been addressed and is now on line 156.
2. Regarding your comment on line 317, we have added a clarification that will highlight the differences between the approaches (now on line 354).
3. We thank you for your comment (line 342), in this article we are mainly concerned with forgiveness as an essence and forgiveness within educational processes. Therefore, we do not specifically deal with such and other therapeutic process models, but mainly refer to forgiveness and its principles as they appear in the literature.

Additional notes related to typos and editing have been corrected. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the article.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract, it said, "the aim is to generate insights regarding religion-sensitive forgiveness in general. As we demonstrate, the implications of this approach extend beyond the Jewish context, and our conclusions and recommendations are applicable to diverse cultures and religions worldwide." However, this article itself is contradictory with the aim and has potential bias. The focus is predominantly on Jewish theological perspectives. While this provides depth, it may limit the applicability of the findings to broader, non-Jewish contexts unless explicitly adapted. The article could benefit from a comparative analysis with other religious or cultural approaches to forgiveness to highlight universal versus unique aspects of the Jewish approach. Now such analysis is lacked.

Besides, there is little discussion on the methodologies of the studies cited, which makes it difficult to assess the robustness of the empirical evidence supporting the educational practices recommended.

While the article discusses the theoretical implications of forgiveness education, it could provide more insights into the practical challenges and obstacles in implementing such programs, especially in secular or multi-religious educational settings.

The complex theological concepts are well-explained but might be simplified for educational use, which could risk losing important nuances that are critical for the full understanding of forgiveness in a theological context.

Finally, the article could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the evaluation of forgiveness education outcomes to ascertain the effectiveness and impact of these interventions over time.

Author Response

Dear editor and anonymous reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and insightful comments. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns and made the necessary revisions to the article. Please find below a detailed response outlining the changes made:

1. Abstract and Scope:
• Lines 12-13: we have modified the abstract to clarify that while the article draws from Jewish theological perspectives, it aims to generate universal applications. In the conclusion we have highlight the universal applicability of the insights and recommendations (lines 715-722).
2. Methodological Discussion:
• We have included more about the methodologies employed in the cited studies throughout the paper (e.g. lines 72-74).
3. Practical Challenges and Implementation:
• Lines 636-646, 90-96 etc.: we have provided more insights for implementing forgiveness education programs, particularly in secular or multi-religious educational settings.
4. Simplification of Theological Concepts:
• We have simplified some of the complex theological concepts for educational use while ensuring that critical nuances essential for a full understanding of forgiveness in a theological context are preserved throughout the paper.
5. Evaluation of Forgiveness Education Outcomes:
• Line 660-672, 710-714: we have included a discussion on the evaluation of forgiveness education outcomes, highlighting methods to ascertain the effectiveness and long-term impact of these interventions.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the article.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author was clearly knowledgeable about forgiveness. They offered religiously sensitive tenets and ideas of forgiveness from Judaism (consequentialist and melioristic reasoning, Grace exceeding law, etc.)  to answer the “why forgive” and “how to forgive” questions. This essay could be improved by integrating information about forgiveness education into its practical examples and illustrations. At times, the article integrates information from forgiveness therapy, which is different than forgiveness education. Many of my comments center on how the content of each section could be used to deliver forgiveness education to children and adolescents. In sum, please include more practical and specific examples for classroom settings.   

Suggestions:

·       Clarify sentence lines 21-23. Do you mean culturally diverse populations? Do you mean interpersonal injuries?

·       Line 24. Consider “This is also the case for children and adolescents”, instead of “This is even more so the case for children.”

·       What is meant by primary and secondary damages or self-centered anger on lines 36-28? Please clarify as I’m not familiar with this framework.

·       Period after “widely” on line 40

·       Line 53 consider changing “sometimes” to “often”

·       Line 78- consider writing out “socio-economic status” or “from both affluent and disadvantaged schools” instead of the abbreviation “SES”

·      Line-79 “and with students in programs facilitated by teachers and programs facilitated by researchers.”

·        Line 103 space before parentheses

·        Line 112- “must be” or “would be greatly enhanced by being religiously sensitive” or “religiously and culturally embedded”

·       Line 145- “articleexamine” needs to be “This article examines how…”

·       Line 153 what is meant by “possible agentic attitude”

·       Line 159 are “interpersonal transgressions more severe than transgressions against God”? or is it that “steps to absolve interpersonal transgressions are more involved than steps to absolve transgressions against God”? For example, it appears that the transgressor can atone on Yom Kippur to be forgiven by God, but must wait to be forgiven by another person and on that person’s terms.

·       Lines 166-168 are so interesting! From a Jewish tradition, the question is about how you can be forgiven and not how you can forgive another person.

·       Line 181 space between “thatwe”

·       Lines 183-184. Forgiveness education is about how to forgive another person. It seems this portion of the essay is discussing how to earn forgiveness from another person, or how to restore a relationship after hurting someone. Line 194 is the start of forgiving another. Perhaps the earlier subsection should be “Seeking Forgiveness”.

·       Lines 201-204. How did Jonathan confront David lovingly? Could this be elaborated on further?

·       Line 211-212. This sentence is a great idea, but it needs more support. For example, in one study, students telling a bully how their behavior made the students feel wasn’t an ineffective strategy for making the bullying stop (Nixon et al., 2019). However, telling an adult about the bullying and using humor (i.e., telling a joke) were perceived as effective strategies, depending on the students’ ages.

·        Line 223- There are many studies that show how students fighting back can prolong bullying (Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000). Perhaps reference a study that demonstrates how seeking revenge can also be unhealthy for youths in order to better tie Jewish writings to empirical research.  

·       Line 274- I’m a bit confused whether exceeding just laws via the virtue of grace would be forgiving an offender, not retaliating against an offender, or both? It seems like both are being provided as examples of grace. I’d say forgiveness is grace, and that not retaliating is simply a part of the laws of justice.

·       Line 287- I think you might boldly argue that in a classroom setting, reconciliation (relational cooperation) after justice is important regardless of whether forgiveness has happened between the two students. In fact, in very few cases do any human forgive without restoring an interactive or harmonious relationship. Exceptions may be forgiving individuals who are strangers (i.e., a person who steals a car), who don’t have cognitive functioning to reconcile (i.e., individual with severe dementia), individuals who have since passed away, and individuals who are too dangerous to maintain a relationship with (i.e., abusive spouse). I do think that if a student continues to bully another student, physically separating the students or inhibiting reconciliation, is necessary-- similar to the dangerous relationship example.

·       Line 326-328. Can there also be an inclusion of Jewish text supporting why it’s important to strive to do as God does? For example, bringing about a Shalom that is a better world for all God’s creation. God created the child and knows what is healthiest for them to do. Obeying God even when it's difficult to do so brings joy and purpose and makes grace in the face of difficulty worthwhile, etc.

·        Line 341- remove extra parentheses

·       Line 368- I love this idea of self-mastery and being “strong” to forgive. This idea ties very well into forgiveness education which essentially allows students to practice forgiveness and self-mastery skills prior to experiencing a deep interpersonal conflict. Is it possible to tie in that controlling one’s self involves practice? “Hitting the forgiveness gym”,“building one’s forgiveness muscles” are metaphors from the Enright curriculum. In Judaism, learning how to forgive seems to be an “adult-level” skill that requires a growth mindset (no one is born able to perfectly forgive. It takes practice.). Growth mindset is a very important concept in many educational programs if you want to tie it into forgiveness education. As a practical example, a facilitator may tell students that several adults in the Bible work very, very hard to forgive—David to Saul, Jonah to the Ninevites, Isaac to Abraham, Joseph to his brothers, Hagar to Sarah and Abraham. They don’t forgive right away and for some it takes them a very long time, or they haven’t forgiven yet in the story.

·       Line 373- add space before “Jewish” and after “occur”

·       Line 387- humility is not one of the “ingredients of forgiveness” taught in Enright's forgiveness education. You could argue that this forgiveness education is missing this critical concept that could better support students understanding of forgiveness the other forgiveness ingredients in the Enright curriculum, such as empathy or compassion, and inherent worth.

·       Lines 418-19. Consider including an example relevant to students. “For example, students in a forgiveness education program might consider how they have teased or interrupted another person when considering why they should forgive a person for similar behaviors.”

·       Lines 438-470. I understand that this section is about understanding that we don’t have the best perspective on the purpose of suffering or injustice. The story of Job could be referenced here as an illustration for students. This principal seems to contrast with forgiveness therapy’s current idea which is to try to find meaning in suffering in order to forgive. Why is it important for Jewish tradition-informed forgiveness education to tell children "we’ll never truly know the meaning of suffering and what suffering might be or not be" versus "there is meaning in suffering"? Frankl was suffering but he found a higher purpose or goal for himself rather than solely focusing on the suffering.

·        Line 472- You might consider including that consequentialist arguments work better with younger students ages 5 to 9 who are in Kohlberg’s preconventional stage of moral development or Piaget’s heteronomous morality. These student might be forgiving because they want to avoid punishment, even divine punishment. Melioristic reasoning is higher level reasoning (more variables considered) that aligns with Kohlberg’s postconventional moral development stage (ages 10+).

·       Lines 589-598 could be moved to the conclusion or discussion. The theoretical and practical implications are woven into the entirety of the article, I’m not sure why they need a separate sub section.

·       The discussion could touch on how Jewish-sensitive forgiveness education programs in schools would reinforce messages that parents who are Jewish and rabbis are already imparting on children

Author Response

Dear editor and anonymous reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. We have carefully addressed each point raised in your review and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. Please find the details below:

1. The article has been enhanced with more practical and specific examples for classroom settings related to forgiveness education throughout the paper.
2. Lines 22-25 have been clarified to refer to the universal need for forgiveness across diverse cultural populations and for interpersonal injuries.
3. Line 26 has been revised as suggested: "This is also the case for children and adolescents."
4. The terms "primary and secondary damages" and "self-centered anger" on lines 39-40 have been clarified to better align with the forgiveness education framework.
5. A period has been added after "widely" on line 45.
6. On line 58, "sometimes" has been changed to "often."
7. On line 86, the abbreviation "SES" has been replaced with "both affluent and disadvantaged."
8. Line 86-88 has been revised as suggested: "and with students in programs facilitated by teachers and programs facilitated by researcher."
9. Line 127 has been revised to "would be greatly enhanced by being religiously sensitive."
10. On lines 161-162, the line has been revised to "this article examines and analyzes..."
11. The term "possible agentic attitude" on line 170-171 has been clarified.
12. Lines 177-179 have been revised to clarify the distinction between interpersonal transgressions and transgressions against God, and the respective processes for absolution.
13. The example of Jonathan confronting David lovingly on lines 224-226 has been deleted.
14. The sentence on lines 240-243 has been elaborated on and supported with relevant research citations and examples from forgiveness education.
15. We have added reference regarding expressing anger in a healthy way, lines 266-269 and we address the bullying issue 236-239.
16. The concepts of exceeding just laws through grace, forgiveness, and non-retaliation on lines 308-310 have been clarified.
17. The importance of reconciliation and relational cooperation in classroom settings has been emphasized on lines 333-334, 202-206.
18. Jewish texts supporting the importance of striving to emulate God's actions have been included, lines 365-372.
19. The concept of self-mastery in forgiveness education has been elaborated on lines 414-426.
20. We have emphasized humility as an important ingredient in forgiveness education, lines 459-463.
21. A relevant example for students has been added to lines 478-481.
22. The story of Job has been referenced on lines 512-514.
23. The appropriateness of consequentialist arguments for younger students has been addressed on lines 539-541.
24. The theoretical and practical implications headline (lines 589-598) has been deleted.
25. The discussion section has been expanded to include how Jewish-sensitive forgiveness education programs in schools would reinforce messages from Jewish parents and rabbis. lines 636-646.

Additional notes related to typos and editing have been corrected.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped strengthen the manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions well addressed my previous comments. My final comment for the authors is to go through the references one more time, especially checking if the DOIs are present because APA 7th ed. advises writers to include a DOI if available, even when using the print source. There is no need for me to see the further revised manuscript if there is nothing related to the content. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate you taking the time to review our work. Regarding your comment, we will carefully examine the list of sources cited and incorporate the DOIs for as many entries as possible. This will enhance the traceability and accessibility of the references for future readers.

Best regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much enjoyed the discussion of forgiveness education through the lenses of divine imperative, moral reform, meliorism, and grace. Thank you for considering my previous suggestions and including application examples for school personnel, parents, and other forgiveness educators.

This paper is very thoughtful and makes me want to meet the author(s).

I didn’t spot any distracting errors, but I did catch a few minor things:

Line 60- remove extra comma in (Pronk, et al., 2010)

Line 209- “Thou shalt nor avenge” should be “not”

Line 231- This is super nit-picky, but Nixon et al. (2019) should be 2020 because 2020 was the official printed issue which is referenced by volume/pages

Line 245- add space after grudge

Line 248- remove extra period after “course”

Lines 321-328- font seems to be gray instead of black

Line 397- I believe “Rabbi” should be capitalized

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Your thoughtful comments and appreciation for our work have touched us deeply. Your suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our paper, and we are grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work. 

We have addressed the minor errors and formatting issues you pointed out, including fixing the typos, adjusting the reference year, and ensuring consistent spacing and capitalization.

We look forward to the possibility of an engaging dialogue and hope to have the chance to express our gratitude in person.

Warmest regards,

Yitzhak Ben-Yair, Sarel Ohayon, Natti Ronel, Suzanne Freedman