How (Un)forgiving is God?

Harvey N. Bock

Categories:

A Puzzling Divine Declaration

After seeking forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf, Moses asks YHWH to show him YHWH’s way.^[1] YHWH instructs Moses to ascend the mountain, and YHWH descends to meet him and declares that YHWH is kind, patient, and forgiving:

‏^{שׁמות לד:ו} וַיַּעֲבֹר יְ־הוָה עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְ־הוָה יְ־הוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת. ^לד:ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה....

^{Exod 34:6} YHWH passed before him and proclaimed:^[2] “YHWH! YHWH! a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness, ^34:7a extending kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin....”

Then he continues, taking, as the verse is commonly understood, a self-contradictory turn:

‏^{שׁמות לד:ז} ...וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְעַל בְּנֵי בָנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים.

^{Exod 34:7b} “...yet he surely does not erase [punishment], visiting the iniquity of parents upon children and children’s children, upon the third and fourth generations.”

The key phrase, וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, consists of an infinitive absolute, נַקֵּה, followed by a negated finite verb from the same root, לֹא יְנַקֶּה. Although the grammatical object of the verbs is not specified, the common understanding is that it is “punishment” or, perhaps, “sin,” and that the sense of the phrase is that YHWH does not remit punishment.

To mitigate the phrase’s harshness, NJPS translates it, “He does not remit all punishment” (emphasis added). The words “completely” or “altogether” are also sometimes inserted in translations of the phrase, but they, too, have no counterpart in the Hebrew. These attempts to introduce an element of equivocation are unconvincing, however, because the grammatical structure here—an infinitive absolute followed by a corresponding finite verb—typically has precisely the opposite effect: adding assertiveness to a statement, often reflected in translations by the addition of the word “surely” or “indeed.”^[3]

So does God—or does God not—forgive sin? And if he does, what does it mean for him to surely not remit punishment?

Rabbinic Reconciliation: Splitting One Assertion into Two

To resolve the inconsistency, an interpretation in the Talmud breaks up the phrase and argues that each part represents a different situation:

^{בבלי יומא פו.} רבי אלעזר אומר אי אפשר לומר נקה שכבר נאמר לא ינקה, ואי אפשר לומר לא ינקה שכבר נאמר נקה. הא כיצד? מנקה הוא לשבין ואינו מנקה לשאינן שבין.

^{b. Yoma 86a} R. Elazar said: One cannot say “[he] erase[s]” [נַקֵּה], because it also says, “he does not erase” [לֹא יְנַקֶּה]; and one cannot say “he does not erase” [לֹא יְנַקֶּה], because it also says, “[he] erase[s]” [נַקֵּה]. How can this be? He erases for those who repent, and he does not erase for those who do not repent.^[4]

This interpretation of the text is found in Targum Onkelos’ translation (ca. 2^nd cent. C.E.):^[5]

^{תרגום אנקלוס שמות לד:ז} ...סָלַח לִדתָּיְבִין לְאוֹרָיתֵיהּ וְדִלָא תָּיְבִין לָא מְזַכֵּי....

^{Targ. Onk. Exod 34:7} ...he forgives those who return to his instruction, and those who do not he does not acquit....

It has been cited by many classic rabbinic commentators, including Rashi, although he notes that it is midrashic:

^{רש״י שמות לד:ז} לפי פשוטו משמע שאינו מוותר על העוון לגמרי אלא נפרע מעט מעט. ורבותינו דרשו מנקה הוא לשבין ולא ינקה לשאינן שבים.

^{Rashi Exod 34:7} According to its plain sense, this means that he does not completely waive sin but exacts punishment little by little. Our rabbis, however, explained that he erases for those who repent and does not erase for those who do not repent.

Liturgy’s Strategic Omission

The interpretation that divides the phrase in two is also reflected in Jewish liturgy. God’s self-description in Exodus 34 is known as the “Thirteen Attributes” (שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הַמִּדּוֹת) and has long been seen as a liturgical formula for invoking God’s mercy.^[6] When the proclamation is quoted liturgically, however, it is truncated after וְנַקֵּה, the word that, according to the dividing interpretation, is God’s assurance of generosity to those who repent.

The remainder, לֹא יְנַקֶּה, “he does not erase punishment,” and the verse’s immediately following extension of punishment to succeeding generations, are omitted, because לֹא יְנַקֶּה, understood as asserting punishment of those who do not repent, would be a negative distraction in an invocation of God’s compassion and forgiveness.

Breaking up the expression וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה does not make grammatical sense, however. When, as here, an infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same root, it does not constitute a separate clause; hence by concluding with וְנַקֵּה, the liturgical formula ends with a dangling syntactic fragment.

A Redaction?

Zev Farber has argued that the inconsistency that we now have among the attributes is simply the result of a redaction—that וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, together with the balance of verse 7, is a later addition to the text:

The redaction was added by a scribe who was uncomfortable with the idea of YHWH remitting sins, and was likely influenced by the later, Priestly theology that sins create permanent stains on a people or a land, and cannot simply be “forgiven” but must be atoned for through a ritual such as sacrifice, or a punishment.^[7]

A Misunderstanding

A more straightforward explanation is that the phrase has been misunderstood, and that the unspecified object of YHWH’s erasure is not punishment or sin. It is, rather, the sinner. In other words, וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה does not mean that YHWH does not remit punishment, but rather that, in a further manifestation of his generosity, he does not eradicate the sinner.^[8] וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה is thus not a jarring about-face from the recitation of YHWH’s forgiving attributes, but a continuation of that theme.

The core meaning of the verb לְנַקּוֹת, which appears twice in the phrase וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, is “to erase” or “to cleanse.” There is no question that it can refer to erasing, i.e., remitting, punishment. For example, the commandment not to invoke YHWH’s name for a falsehood states:

^{שמות כ:ז}לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְ־הוָה אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא אֶת שְׁמוֹ לַשָּׁוְא.

^{Exod 20:7} You shall not invoke the name YHWH your God for a falsehood; for YHWH will not erase [the punishment of]^[9] one who invokes his name for a falsehood.

But punishment is not the only object of erasure for which the verb לְנַקּוֹת is used.^[10] Indeed, it may also refer to the erasure of the sinner himself (more on this later). Precisely the same semantics can be seen in another verb, לִמְחוֹת. The verb can refer to wiping away things—including, specifically, sins:^[11]

^{ישעיהו מד:כב} מָחִיתִי כָעָב פְּשָׁעֶיךָ וְכֶעָנָן חַטֹּאותֶיךָ שׁוּבָה אֵלַי כִּי גְאַלְתִּיךָ.

^{Isa 44:22}I wipe away your sins like a cloud, your transgressions like mist—come back to me, for I redeem you.

Its predominant use, however, is with regard to wiping out people:

^{בראשית ו:ז}וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה עַד רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם כִּי נִחַמְתִּי כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם.

^{Gen 6:7} YHWH said, “I will wipe out from the face of the earth the men whom I created—men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.”

Already Jonah Ibn Janah (c. 990–c. 1055),^[12] the Andalusian rabbi, physician and, notably, pioneering grammarian proposed this understanding of לְנַקּוֹת; and it was subsequently taken up by Maimonides:

^{Guide to the Perplexed}^1:54 Nonetheless, it is desirable that acts of mercy, pardon, compassion and grace emanating from the leader of a state should exceed acts of punishment, because these Thirteen Attributes are all attributes of mercifulness other than one, which is “[he] visits the iniquity of parents upon children”; because the meaning of וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה is “he does not extirpate,”.... ^[13]

Parallels Elsewhere in the Bible

Two occurrences of the phrase וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, with minor variations,^[14] in Jeremiah support the reading that it refers to not wiping out the sinner.^[15]

^{ירמיהו ל:יא} כִּי אִתְּךָ אֲנִי נְאֻם יְ־הוָה לְהוֹשִׁיעֶךָ כִּי אֶעֱשֶׂה כָלָה בְּכׇל הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הֲפִצוֹתִיךָ שָּׁם אַךְ אֹתְךָ לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה כָלָה וְיִסַּרְתִּיךָ לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָּ.

^{Jer 30:11} For I am with you to deliver you—declares YHWH. I will make an end of all the nations among which I have dispersed you, but I will not make an end of you. I will chastise you justly, וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָּ.

^{ירמיהו מו:כח} אַתָּה אַל תִּירָא עַבְדִּי יַעֲקֹב נְאֻם יְ־הוָה כִּי אִתְּךָ אָנִי כִּי אֶעֱשֶׂה כָלָה בְּכׇל הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתִּיךָ שָּׁמָּה וְאֹתְךָ לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה כָלָה וְיִסַּרְתִּיךָ לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָ.

^{Jer 46:28} But you, have no fear, my servant Jacob—declares YHWH—for I am with you. I will make an end of all the nations among which I have banished you, but I will not make an end of you. I will chastise you justly, וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָ.

These passages are found in oracles against Israel’s enemies; YHWH says that he will make an end of them, but not of Israel. It would make little sense for the prophet to then throw cold water on his comforting words by gratuitously adding that YHWH will not leave Israel unpunished.^[16] It makes more sense for YHWH to reiterate that while he will chastise Israel, he will not eradicate her.

Evidently, the translators of NJPS sensed this difficulty, because they make a subtle but telling adjustment in translating the Jeremiah verses, reversing the order of the last two clauses. For example:

^{ירמיהו מו:כח} ...וְיִסַּרְתִּיךָ לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָ.

^{Jer 46:28} ...I will not leave you unpunished, but I will chastise you in measure.

This change significantly distorts the sense of the text: וְיִסַּרְתִּיךָ לַמִּשְׁפָּט, “I will chastise you in measure,” now qualifies וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָ, “I will not leave you unpunished.” But the actual order of the clauses is the reverse: it is וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָ that reassuringly qualifies the otherwise potentially ominous assertion that YHWH will punish Israel justly.^[17]

Indeed, in the case of these passages, many interpreters construe the phrase as referring to not erasing Israel rather than to remitting punishment. Targum Jonathan, for example translates the phrase as וְשֵׁיצָאָה לָא אֲשֵׁיצֵינָךְ, “and I will not destroy you.” Rashi cites Targum Jonathan on Jeremiah 46:28 approvingly and glosses וְנַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָּ in both Jeremiah verses as לשון טיאוט השמד, “meaning destructive sweeping.” Numerous other classic rabbinic commentators take the same approach.

The same reading of וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה is fitting in Exodus 34.^[18]

A Final Wrinkle?

If וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה means “he does not erase [the sinner],” how does the next and final part of the proclamation—פֹּקֵד עֲוֺן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְעַל בְּנֵי בָנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים, “[he] visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children’s children, upon the third and fourth generations”—relate to it?^[19]

The last clause can be read as an elaboration of וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, whose import is either that YHWH does not wipe out the sinner but, instead, dilutes punishment by spreading it over the following four generations; or that YHWH does not wipe out the sinner and leaves his line of descendants intact even if punishment is extended up to four more generations.^[20]

God Forgives and Will Not Wipe Out the Sinner

Interpreters have long grappled with the cognitive dissonance of an enumeration of YHWH’s merciful qualities that is seemingly undercut by a warning that YHWH does not completely forgive. A venerable and creative, but grammatically implausible, solution resolved the problem by interpreting the warning as directed only to a specific class of sinners while otherwise affirming God’s forgiveness. But an alternative understanding offered by, among others, Maimonides, and supported by other occurrences of the key phrase elsewhere in scripture, offers a simpler explanation: that God refrains not from forgiving but rather, consistent with his mercifulness, from extirpation of the sinner.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

Last Updated

August 26, 2025

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Before you continue...

Thank you to all our readers who offered their year-end support.
Please help TheTorah.com get off to a strong start in 2025.

Donate Today

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

Last Updated

August 26, 2025

[1] M. D. Goldman, “The Root ‘NQY,’” Australian Biblical Review 4 (1954): 49–56, offers some of the same arguments presented here.

[2] The subject of the verb וַיִּקְרָא, “he proclaimed,” is actually ambiguous: it could be either YHWH or Moses. The traditional understanding is that the proclamation is by YHWH.

[3] P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2^nd ed. (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2009), 391–393. Everett Fox, in his biblical translations, idiosyncratically mirrors the doubling of the verb; he translates וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, for example, as “yet not clearing, clearing (the guilty).” Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (New York: Random House, 1995), 455.

[4] In Sifre Zuta, the same view is attributed to Ben Azzai, preceded by a different interpretation, in the name of R. Akiva, which also treats the infinitive absolute וְנַקֵּה and the negated finite verb לֹא יְנַקֶּה as addressing different situations:

^{ספרי זוטא נשוא ו:כו} ר' עקיבא אומר כתוב אחד אומר ונקה וכתוב אחד אומר לא ינקה, וכי האיך אפשר לקיים שני כתובים הללו? אלא ונקה בדברים שבינך לבינו, לא ינקה בדברים שבינך לבין חבירך. מיכן היה בן עזאי אומר ונקה לא ינקה, מנקה הוא ואינו מנקה, מנקה לשבים ואינו מנקה למחזיקים.

^{Sifre Zuta}^{, Naso 6:26} R. Akiva says: One text says “[he] erase[s]” [וְנַקֵּה] and another says “he does not erase” [לֹא יְנַקֶּה]. How is it possible to uphold both texts? Rather, “[he] erase[s]” with regard to matters between you and him [i.e. God], and “he does not erase” with regard to matters between you and your fellow. From here Ben Azzai said: וְנַקִּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, “[he] erase[s]” and “he does not erase,” he erases for those who repent and he does not erase for those who hold fast.

[5] Editor’s note: For more on the composition and date of Targum Onkelos, see Michael Avioz, “Targum Onkelos and the Translation of Place Names,” TheTorah (2020).

[6] This practical use of the proclamation already appears in the Talmud:

^{בבלי ראש השנה יז:} ויעבר ה' על פניו ויקרא, אמר רבי יוחנן...מלמד שנתעטף הקדוש ברוך הוא כשליח צבור, והראה לו למשה סדר תפלה. אמר לו: כל זמן שישראל חוטאין, יעשו לפני כסדר הזה, ואני מוחל להם.

^{b. Rosh Hashanah 17b}Rabbi Yohanan said: ….[the passage in Exodus 34] teaches that the Holy One Blessed Be He wrapped himself [with a tallit] like a prayer leader and showed Moses a prayer service. He said to him: “Anytime the Israelites sin, let them perform this prayer service, and I will pardon them.”

[7] Zev Farber, “Does YHWH Remit Punishment?” TheTorah (2018).

[8] Simeon Chavel has recently suggested a related but different interpretation of the phrase: that וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה means that YHWH does not cleanse the toxicity arising from sinful behavior. Simeon Chavel, “Intergenerational Punishment: A New History,” in The Pentateuch and Its Readers, ed. Joel S. Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, FAT 170 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023), 285–306. But according to Chavel, too, “[s]uch cleansing and removal entails eradicating the toxic person” (idem, 293).

[9] Note that in this verse, too, the verb appears without a grammatical object, but the object of the erasure seems clearly to be “punishment” or “sin.”

[10] Other objects of erasure for which the verb לְנַקּוֹת is employed include oaths (Gen 24:41), curses (Num 5:19, 28) and blood (Joel 4:22). Goldman 1954 finds additional instances of the root נ.ק.ה/י. in the sense of, as he puts it, “smiting” or “annihilating,” in Amos 4:6 and Zech. 5:3.

[11] The verb לִמְחוֹת is also applied to mouths (Prov 30:20), tears (Isa 25:8), dishes (2 Kgs 21:13) and curses (Num 5:23).

[12] Ibn Janah viewed all instances of נקה as involving cutting off. See Sepher Haschoraschim, ed. A. Berliner Berlin: M’kize Nirdamim, 1896), s.v. נקה.

[13] Maimonides proceeds to cite the use of the same root (in a different stem) in Isaiah 3:26 as support for his understanding of the verb in Exodus 34:7. Maimonides also addresses the meaning of וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה in a responsum, in answer to a question as to how the attributes are counted. He notes both the view that the phrase comprises two attributes and the view that he espouses in the Guide, i.e., that they are a single attribute whose meaning is that the sinner will not be entirely uprooted, a view which he ascribes to “the Andalusians”; however, in the responsum he does not express a preference between them. See Isaac Shailat, Letters and Essays of Moses Maimonides [איגרות הרמב"ם] (Maaleh Adumim: Maaliyot Press, 2008), 2:404–406.

The French rabbi Menachem ben Solomon HaMeiri (1249–1315) cites this interpretation of phrase, i.e., as excluding the sinner’s extirpation, in the name of “the greatest of the authors” (גדולי המחברים), an epithet by which he referred to Maimonides. He remarks that in this light, the full phrase could have been included in liturgical contexts without truncation (Beit HaBeḥirah on b. RH 17a). Maimonides’ view was evidently not shared, however, by his son, Abraham, who comments on וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה:

מה שאני מבין מן פשטיה דקרא שתואר זה יוצא מכלל מה שקדם לו והוא הקדמה למה שבא אחריו.

What I understand from the plain sense of the text is that this attribute departs from what precedes it [i.e., the preceding merciful attributes] and introduces what follows [i.e., the visitation of parents’ iniquity upon their children].

[14] The finite verb in Exodus 34:7 is in the third person. In the two occurrences in Jeremiah, the finite verb is in the first person, and it is suffixed with a second-person pronominal object referring to the prophet’s addressee.

[15] There are two additional occurrences of the phrase, but they are less helpful. In the first, in the course of his intercession on behalf of the Israelites after the episode of the spies, Moses quotes the proclamation of God’s attributes in full (Num 14:18), leaving us with the same interpretive problem as in Exodus 34:7.

The second is in the book of Nahum:

‏^{נחום א:ב} אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם יְ־הוָה נֹקֵם יְ־הוָה וּבַעַל חֵמָה נֹקֵם יְ־הוָה לְצָרָיו וְנוֹטֵר הוּא לְאֹיְבָיו. ^א:ג יְ־הוָֹה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וּגְדוֹל [וּגְדָל] כֹּחַ וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְ־הוָה בְּסוּפָה וּבִשְׂעָרָה דַּרְכּוֹ וְעָנָן אֲבַק רַגְלָיו.

^{Nah 1:2} YHWH is a passionate, avenging God; YHWH is vengeful and fierce in wrath. YHWH takes vengeance on his enemies, he rages against his foes. ^1:3 YHWH is slow to anger and great in power, and YHWH נַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה. He travels in whirlwind and storm, and clouds are the dust on his feet.

The context—a prophecy against Nineveh, representing Israel’s archenemy, Assyria—suggests that here וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה may mean that God does not remit punishment. However, the verse in which the phrase appears is difficult to understand. It is unclear how the sequence of three attributes in the first half of verse 3—אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם (slow to anger), גְּדָל כֹּחַ (great in power) and וְנַקֵה לֹא יְנַקֶּה—is to be understood. Moreover, there is an abrupt change of topic from the first half of the verse to the second, from God’s vengeance to his power over nature, with the latter topic continuing in verses 4–6. This suggests the possibility that a continuation of the first half of verse 3 has been lost; if so, without it the import of the original verse, and the meaning of וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה in this context, is unavailable to us.

[16] Admittedly, the reference to chastising Israel is itself puzzling in these verses.

[17] Jack R. Lundbom’s translation preserves the clauses’ actual order and brings the issue to the fore: “Yes, I will correct you justly, but I will by no means leave you unpunished.” See Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 19.

[18] The Portuguese rabbi Isaac ben Judah Abarbanel (1437–1508), offers a unique interpretation of the phrase וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה in Exodus 34:7, employing both possible meanings of the verb לְנַקּוֹת: וְנַקֵּה, he says, refers to God’s remittance of punishment, while לֹא יְנַקֶּה means that God does not eradicate the sinner.

[19] Editor’s note: On intergenerational punishment, see Zev Farber, “Punishing Children for the Sins of Their Parents,” TheTorah (2015); and Chavel, “Intergenerational Punishment.”

[20] Reading the last clause this way, the limit on YHWH’s visitation of punishment is contrasted in the proclamation with the thousands (i.e., the endless number) of generations to which YHWH extends his kindness. The same contrast is drawn in the Decalogue:

^{שמות כ:ה} לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תׇעׇבְדֵם כִּי אָנֹכִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵל קַנָּא פֹּקֵד עֲוֺן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים לְשֹׂנְאָי. ^כ:ו וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד לַאֲלָפִים לְאֹהֲבַי וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֺתָי.

^{Exod 20:5}You shall not bow down to [any image or likeness] or serve them. For I YHWH am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject me, ^20:6 but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

And so read, the second part of Exodus 34:7 nicely parallels the second part of the shorter description of YHWH’s character found in Psalms:

^{תהלים קג:ז} רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן יְ־הוָה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חָסֶד. ^קג:ח לֹא לָנֶצַח יָרִיב וְלֹא לְעוֹלָם יִטּוֹר.

^{Ps 103:7} YHWH is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love. ^103:8He will not contend forever or nurse his anger for all time.