Bible-pedia.org

The different names for God in the Torah

A major Torah theme is the relationship between God, humanity in general, and the Jewish people in particular - as individuals and as nations. There are also differences in the nature of the relationship between God, the Jewish people and humanity, and this is expressed in the Torah by different names for God. 

The different names for God in the Torah have received little attention in the past, but this topic has come more to the fore in the modern era primarily because of its use by some to support biblical criticism. It is also becoming  apparent that the names of God are important for understanding the progression of the Biblical narrative. 

Three main names for God are found in the Torah. The two most common are Elohim and YHVH.  Another name found occasionally is El Shadai, although this name is not seen until the later chapters of Genesis and will be discussed in its place.  

In English translations of the Bible (and other languages too), these names for God are usually considered synonyms, and are translated simply as “God”.  This has logic, since the full implications of these names is not translatable as a single word. Nevertheless, these three names express different types of relationship with the Divine.

This notion, that the different names of God express different relationships, can sound odd to us moderns, since we are used to thinking of God in nothing but unitary terms. Nevertheless, that a name describes a relationship is not unusual even nowadays. For example, the children of the president of the United States doubtless refer to their father as “Dad,” while his wife may use his first name. His wife would not refer to her husband as “Mr. President” in a family setting, other than facetiously. However, it would be inappropriate for anyone other than family or a close friend to call the President by his first name. Despite his election to the highest office in the country, his relationship to his family is still as father-child/husband-wife, while his relationship with everyone else is as “Mr. President.”  A similar concept is in play for the names of God. 

The word El is a general term for “deity” in the Semitic language, and it was also the name of a Canaanite god. The name has the meaning of “a force within nature.” The Hebrew name Elohim is the plural form of El (and thus has the Hebrew plural ending “im”) since God created and controls all powers within nature. Nevertheless, when Elohim is used in a Jewish context the verb associated with it is invariably in the singular.  

Sometimes, the name El is used instead of Elohim. For example, when Abraham speaks to the King of Sodom, he refers to God as “El elyon”  in the verse “ …… I have raised my hand to YKVK, El elyon (God the Most High), Maker of heaven and earth”  (Genesis 14:22).  Hagar, the concubine of Abraham, calls God “El ro’i – “a God who sees everything” when saved by Him in the desert (Genesis 16: 13).  Jacob frequently uses the name “El”. When he has a vision of angels of Elohim  he calls the name of that place ,Beit El (Genesis 28:19).  The additional name he is given by God, Yisrael, also contains within it the name El (Genesis 32:29 and 35:10).

The name Elohim first appears in the first creation story at the very beginning of the Torah, and the concepts underlying this name are evident from this account. This passage describes how Elokim created an orderly and purposeful universe from the primordial chaos of the “tohu vevohu” (bewilderment and void), “darkness” (choshech) and “deep waters” (tehom), His making of divisions within this chaos, and His subsequent building of complexity within the physical and biological worlds.  In modern terms we might say that Elokim is the God who arranges the mathematical constants of the universe, controls the process of evolution, and brings the physical potential of the universe into actuality. 

Nevertheless, Elokim is far from being the Primary Cause of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, or the god of mathematical constants of the physicist, Who abandons the universe He has created and leaves it without input to eternity. To the contrary, Elohim is very much involved in the universe He created.  

Despite the fact that the Bible was a Jewish book written for Jews, it is clear from the Torah that the universe was not created for all humanity. Thus, Elohim will show concern for the general providence of all humanity throughout the book of Genesis. Jacob sees “angels of Elohim” on a ladder extending between earth and heaven, thereby demonstrating to him that Elohim provides providence to the entire world. In the Noah story, it is Elohim who decides to destroy the earth because of its corruption and unrighteousness and to repopulate it with new stock, namely Noah and his family. (Genesis 6:11) Elohim’s concern is not the religiosity of society, but its total breakdown.  

Despite His involvement with all of society, Elohim’s relationship with individuals will always be somewhat distant. This aspect of God is called His transcendence. One never finds in the Torah, for example, the expression “love of Elohim”.  Rather, man’s relationship with Elohim is to be based on fear and awe.

Elohim will make commitments to humanity and these are expressed in the Torah as covenants.  He makes a covenant with Noah and his family to never again destroy the world by a flood.  He also makes commitments to Abraham and his descendants through covenants. One might well ask what a covenant between Elohim and Abraham has to do with all humanity, and this question will be answered in subsequent chapters. Suffice to say for the moment, that Abraham is the initiator not only of a new religion and a new nation, but he also has a universal role.

The second creation story introduces another name for God, YHVH.  

The meaning of this name is explained in the book of Exodus when God appears to Moses at the Burning Bush. Throughout their sojourn in Egypt, the Israelites have recognized only the name Elohim (although their forebears Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were familiar with the name YHVH).  Joseph mentions only the name Elohim in his discussions with his family and with Egyptians. Moses at the Burning Bush requests that God reveal His name; in other words, that He explain His essence and His attributes. God complies with this request and reveals the name “YHVH”.  He also explains its meaning - namely - ‘I will be what I will be.” (Exodus 3:14). 

Rashbam suggests that this name means that YHVH is a God who functions into eternity. Nevertheless, this explanation does not explain the presence of the letter ה (he) in this name. More likely, therefore, is that YHVH is a combination of all tenses of the verb להיות “lihiyot” (to be): היה (haya) - he was,  הוה (hove) - he is, and יהיה (yihiye) - he will be.  It is as if God is saying: I have been with Abraham and his seed, I am now with the Jewish people, and I shall remain with the Jewish people into eternity.

In the second creation account describing the events prior to and within the Garden of Eden, we learn that YHVH is an immanent God who is close to individuals and who develops relationships with them based on their adhering to His directives.  He has a special relationship with Adam and Eve, although their closeness to Him becomes much diminished when they break His single command and eat of the Fruit of Good and Bad. We learn in the Torah of YHVH’s special relationship with Noah and then with Abraham. It is YHVH who will call on Abraham to leave his birthplace and travel to an unknown destination where he will become the progenitor of a new nation and a blessing to all of humanity (Genesis 12:13). At the time of the Egyptian slavery, YHVH will reveal Himself to Moses at the Burning Bush and becomes the God of the Jewish people.

The first modern scholar to fully study the names of God in the Pentateuch in a systematic way was Umberto Cassuto, and his monograph entitled  “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch” remains an important resource on this topic.¹ Cassuto was on the faculty at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, then a hotbed of Biblical criticism, and he was a leading critic of the notion that the Bible was a composite work of different authors. It was his work that led to my awareness of the importance of the names of God and my resolve to explore this subject further.

The main differences between these two names for God are summarized in the following table:

A comparison of the attributes of Elohim and YHVH

It is important to note that the attributes of God revealed by these two names and first introduced in the two Creation accounts would have been both novel and radical in the ancient world. No pagan god concerned him or herself with the whole world, let alone the universe. There were certainly gods of cities and gods of local areas, and even gods of countries, but no God of everywhere. Moreover, the notion of a personal god who was interested in and communicated with individuals would have been a transformative idea. The gods of the ancient world had specific functions within nature but they had no relationship with individuals, and certainly did not communicate with them directly.

Unusually, since it does not occur elsewhere in the Torah in this way, the two names for God, Elohim and YHVH, are combined together throughout most of the Garden of Eden story as in: 

“These are the generations (i.e. products) of the heaven and the earth when they were created, on the day that YHVH Elohim made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4)

Why these two names together in this way?

The simplest explanation is that this phrase means “YHVH who is Elohim.”²  This would be similar to the phase “YHVH Eloheinu, which means “YHVH who is our God”.  In other words, YVHV is being introduced to the reader, and the Bible is emphasizing that YHVH is the same one God as Elohim, the aspect of God previously introduced in chapter one.¹

Rashi also states elsewhere that the name Elohim relates to His attribute of justice, while YHVH is a God of mercy, and he explains that in the Garden of Eden these two aspects of the Divine were fused together. 

“Elohim created”[in Genesis chapter I]: It does not say YHVH’s creating [in Genesis chapter II] because at first it rose in thought [i.e. God considered so to speak] to create it with the attribute of strict judgment [using the name Elohim].  But He saw that the world could not last [if He did]. He [therefore] gave precedence to the attribute of mercy and joined it to the attribute of strict justice [in Genesis II]. That is the meaning of that which is written: “on the day of YHVH Elohim’s making of the earth and heavens” [in Genesis chapter II].³

Rashi is suggesting, and his explanation is based on a number if midrashim, that God originally intended creating the Garden of Eden with the attribute of strict justice, but saw that a world constructed in this way could not endure and He therefore joined His attribute of justice to that of mercy in the second creation story, although giving precedence to His attribute of mercy. 

This explanation, that the name Elohim encompasses justice whereas the name YHVH describes His attribute of justice, is well known among the Jewish people and is often regarded as sufficient to understand all aspects of the names of God. Given the authority of the midrashim from where this explanation comes, as well as the authority of Rashi, this has inhibited further thought on this topic for many centuries.

Nevertheless, while this explanation could be considered satisfactory for the first two creation accounts, it is quite inadequate for understanding the names of God in the rest of the Torah. For example, the name YHVH is used almost exclusively from the time the Jewish people leave Egypt until they reach the plain of Midian, as described in the book of Deuteronomy. Yet there are many occasions during which God manifests His attribute of justice during the 40 years in which the Israelites journey in the desert, and this almost exclusively with the name YHVH. Also, in the Noah account, the two names Elohim and YHVH are found throughout the story, and yet it is difficult to relate their appearance to manifestations of either His justice or His mercy. 

In sum, understanding the relationships expressed by the different names of God in the Torah provides a greater understanding of its stories. This is particularly the case for those in Genesis, since their construct is often based to a degree around the attributes of God manifested by these two names.  

The names of God and the documentary hypothesis

The names of God have additional relevance to us in this modern era in that they have been used to construct a theory that has been partially instrumental in destroying belief in the authenticity of the Torah for much of the Christian world, and to a degree for the Jewish world. 

It is difficult to avoid the observation that the two creation stories are different in their emphases and even their details. There are also contradictions in stories associated with the two names of God. For example, in the Noah story, Elohim arranges for two animals of each species to come to Noah’s ark of their own accord, while in verses associated with YHVH, God instructs Noah to bring seven of every pure species to the ark. It is even possible to prize apart those sentences that seem to belong to a YHVH account and all those that can be identified as belonging to an Elohim account to produce two closely related but not identical stories. There are also duplets of some stories in Genesis that seem to be related to the names of God. It must be, therefore, claim academics that these passages were written by different authors.

Biblical criticism as a serious branch of study began in the 1600’s.  Very active in this field was the French physician Jean Astruc (1684-1766) who suggested that although Moses was the author of the Pentateuch he included within his manuscript different textual sources that had been passed on to the Jewish people. He then used methods of textual criticism to investigate these sources, and this methodology was picked up by many German Protestant universities. 

Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) in the late 1800’s suggested that Moses was not the author of the Torah at all, but that the Pentateuch was composed of four primary sources composed at different historic periods. His Documentary Hypothesis identified a J (for Yahwist) source, E (for Elohist) source, D (for Deuteronomist) and P (for Priestly) source. These sources were skillfully (and in some instances not so skillfully) woven together by a Redactor who had respect for his sources and attempted to maintain them as true to their original form as possible even at the expense of obvious contradictions. In effect, Wellhausen had created a new author of the Torah, the Torah’s Redactor. What his approach also did was to eliminate the drama of the Torah’s narrative and deflect it to a new drama - why certain texts were written in certain historic periods.

The edifice constructed by Wellhausen has continued to grow and many now hold that the Pentateuch is based mainly on a E source for its central core, plus fragments of other sources.

There is irony to this situation in that the Torah was never written as a universal work. It was a book written for Jews whose aim was to firm the belief of the Israelites in the revelation at Sinai, as a means for them to appreciate the significance of their history, for providing a monotheistic view as to how God interacts with His world, and for providing an outline of Torah law. 

By contrast, Biblical criticism started off as a non-Jewish project, and its popularity was due in no small measure to its use by German Protestants as a means of breaking with religious dogma, and perhaps to continue the aims of the Protestant Reformation. 

There can be little doubt that Bible criticism has been instrumental in diminishing the authority of the Bible among Christians, especially in Europe, and attenuating their religious belief.  To this day, it is the predominant way of viewing the Pentateuch in scholarly and academic circles, and in Western Europe may well be the predominant way for explaining the Bible among non-fundamentalist Christians.

However, the methodology of Biblical  criticism is based on a failure of understanding of Biblical writing, and in particular the Torah’s use of the different names for God.  Bible criticism also failed to appreciate that many of the early stories in Genesis are allegoric, and that the same story may be told in different ways depending on the type of relationship being described between God and man.  This would explain the differences in the two creation accounts, for example. And The interweaving of Elohim and YHVH sentences in the Noah story. In this story, it is Elohim who is responsible for general providence of the world, but it is YHVH who has a special relationship with a righteous person called Noah who will repopulate the world.

In the stories about Abraham, the names of God are less mixed up than in the Noah account, but there are nevertheless separate YHVH and Elohim accounts. Sometimes, they relate to the same event, such as the miraculous birth of Isaac. The reason for this is that both Elohim and YHVH have a vested interested in Abraham -YHVH because Abraham will form a nation based on righteousness and justice, i.e. on ethical monotheism, and Elohim because God’s relationship with Abraham and his seed will result eventually in ethical monotheism being adopted by the rest of the world. 

By the time the children of Jacob appear on the scene, knowledge of YHVH seems to have been lost. Joseph is extremely aware of the presence of God in his and his family’s destiny, but he nevertheless speaks only in terms of Elohim.  It is not until the time of Moses and his receiving of a revelation of God at the Burning Bush that YHVH appears once again in Jewish history.  YHVH then becomes the national God of the Jewish people by the contract they forge with Him at Mount Sinai.

I will explore these issues in greater detail in the chapters that follow.

It might be thought that Biblical criticism would have the last word regarding the structure of the Torah. But this turns out not to be the case. Support for the unity of the Torah is now coming from a quite unexpected source, namely a form of textual analysis that has become extremely popular in orthodox Jewish circles and that has been much developed by scholars at the Herzog Institute in Israel.  Their work has nothing to do with Biblical criticism. In fact, Biblical criticism would be very distant from their minds.  But it so happens that their work has considerable relevance to this field of study.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Torah is unified in its textual structure, repetition of words and themes and by Biblical numerology in ways that are far more complex than earlier Biblical exegetes appreciated. YHVH and Elohim stories are also far more unified than was at first apparent.

Two examples. Abraham was given seven blessings by God. These are a mixture of Elohim and YHVH-derived blessings. The number seven is frequently used in the Torah as the signature of God. The Noah story is written as a complex chiastic structure that contains both Elohim and YHVH sentences.  

It is also apparent that the Torah is an esoteric text and that is replete with examples and hints as to how God not only related in the past to humanity in general and to the Jewish people in particular, but will also relate in the future. These “messages” are intertwined within its stories, particularly in the Book of Genesis.  Not surprisingly these messages also relate to the names of God.

We have much discovering to do together!

References

1. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p40, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006. 

2. Rashi to Genesis 2:5



3. Rashi to Genesis 1:1. See also Bereishis Rabba 12:15 and 14:1, Shemos Rabbah 30:13, and Pesikta Rabbasi 40.