The Names of God in the Torah
This essay explores the two names of God in the Torah, Elohim and YHWH, which represent different relationships between humanity and God. Elohim is the universal God who created the world, distant and transcendent, while YHWH is the immanent, personal God concerned with individual moral progress and Israel's destiny. This essay challenges the Documentary Hypothesis, which attributes the different names of God to distinct literary sources, supporting instead the idea that the names reflect varying attributes of God. Umberto Cassuto's rejection of the Documentary Hypothesis is highlighted, emphasizing his belief in divine authorship and the different ways God interacts with humanity. Ultimately, the two names express both the universal and personal aspects of God's relationship with the world, offering ancient people a revolutionary understanding of a singular, multifaceted deity.
Bible-lovers will love my latest book!
"The Struggle for Utopia - A History of Jewish, Christian and Islamic Messianism." Great reviews. Available on Amazon and at US bookstores. Check it out!
The two names for God in the Torah are an important focus of this book/website, in that they frame the early stories in Genesis. These names are found throughout the Torah and reflect two forms of relationship between man and God.
​
These two names first appear in the two creation stories. The name of God In the first creation account is Elohim. The God of the second creation story is a combination of the two names YHWH and Elohim — namely YHWH Elohim.
​
Two different names for God may sound strange, since we are so used to thinking about the oneness of God. Nevertheless, different names for the same person depending on the nature of a relationship is not remote to us. For example, the children of the president of the United States probably refer to their father as “Dad,” while his wife may use his first name. It would be strange for her to refer to him as “Mr. President” in a family setting other than in jest. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for anyone other than family or a close friend to call the President by his first name to his face.
The first modern scholar to examine the names of God in an academic way was Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951), and he summarized his conclusions in a monograph entitled “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch.”1
​
The names of God were a very relevant topic for Cassuto. He was Chief Rabbi of Florence for four years, and then took a position as professor of Hebrew and literature at the University of Florence and then the chair of Hebrew language at the University of Rome. However, he was forced from this position before the Second World War by antisemitic racial laws, and he accepted an offer to fill the chair of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Mandatory Palestine. This department was strongly vested in biblical criticism. In contrast to other members of his department, Cassuto was a leading critic of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Underlying this hypothesis is the notion that the Torah is an amalgam of different literary sources. Some of these sources characteristically use different names for God, although not necessarily consistently.
​
The Documentary Hypothesis
Since reference will be made to the Documentary Hypothesis in some of the chapters that follow, it is worthwhile reviewing this hypothesis in some detail.
The writing of Julius Wellhausen in the late nineteenth century is central to the development of biblical criticism. In his influential book "Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel" (1878), he synthesized earlier scholarship and proposed the existence of four main sources for the Torah composed in different periods, which he termed J, E, D and P. These sources were combined (redacted) by later editors or redactors into the Torah we know today.
These sources are as follows:
-
J Source (Yahwist). This source uses primarily the name YHWH or "Yahweh" for the name of God. It is characterized by vivid, anthropomorphic descriptions of God. The second creation account is considered to be a J source. It is proposed that the J source was written in the southern Kingdom of Judah in about 950 BCE.
2. E Source (Elohist). The E source is found in narratives that emphasize the name of God "Elohim" in preference to YHWH, such as in Genesis chapters 20 to 22 where Abraham interacts with God using this name. The Covenant between the Pieces in chapter 15 and the promise to Abraham of descendants is often attributed to an Elohist source, although the name of God used is YHWH. Similarly, sections that feature Moses' encounters with God at the burning bush and the revelation of the divine name YHWH in Exodus chapter 3 are often considered Elohist passages. The E source emphasizes divine majesty and focuses on prophecies, dreams, angels, and divine promises. The E source is thought to have arisen in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and is dated by most scholars to the eighth century BCE. The E source was probably woven together with the J source after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE, possibly by scribes from the Southern Kingdom of Judah. This fusion of E and J sources has been termed by some scholars the JE narrative.
3. P Source (Priestly): The P source focuses on ritual, genealogy, and priestly matters, and reflects a concern for order and ceremony. The P source is evident in the creation account of Genesis 1, which presents a structured and orderly depiction of God's creation over six days. This account also emphasizes the transcendent and majestic nature of God. The Noah account is a blend of J and P sources. The P source is prominent in the detailed instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-31) and the description of its rituals and furnishings (Exodus 35-40). These passages focus on the importance of proper worship and the role of the priests. The entire book of Leviticus is heavily influenced by the Priestly source with its detailed laws and regulations concerning sacrifices, rituals, purity, and the responsibilities of the priests, as are sections of Numbers, particularly those dealing with census data, genealogies, and rituals related to the priesthood (such as the consecration of the Levites and laws governing the priesthood). Scholars have identified elements of the P source throughout the Torah where there are detailed legal or ritualistic instructions, covenants, lists of genealogies and narratives that emphasize the importance of proper worship and adherence to religious laws. The priestly source was written in about the sixth century BCE, during or after the Babylonian Exile (587–539 BCE), although some scholars suggest it was completed and compiled during the post-exilic period (after 539 BCE) when the exiled Jewish community returned to Judah under Persian rule.
4. D Source (Deuteronomist). This source centers around the book of Deuteronomy, and emphasizes religious reform and law codes. It is thought to have been composed in the seventh century BCE, during the reign of King Josiah of Judah when a copy of this book was discovered in the Temple.
The redaction of the Pentateuch likely occurred during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile (586–539 BCE), particularly in the early Persian period (5th century BCE) and may have occurred over an extended period. There was a need at this time to consolidate various traditions and sources of Israelite history and law to provide a coherent religious narrative and legal foundation for the Jewish people. Earlier times have also been suggested.
​
Cassuto strongly rejected the Documentary Hypothesis and believed that the Torah was a single, unified composition, rather than a patchwork of independent documents. He noted that ancient Near Eastern literary practices often included repetitions, parallel narratives, and variations in language that were used to emphasize or elaborate key points. He suggested that the name YHWH (the personal name of God) is used in contexts highlighting the covenantal relationship with Israel, while “Elohim” (a more general name for God) is used in universal contexts. The following Table 1 summarizes his conclusions::
As for Cassuto, most orthodox Jews are unable to accept the Documentary Hypothesis, since it removes divine authority from the Bible and replaces it with at the most divine inspiration. It thus removes Divine authority as the absolute source of all moral law. It also assumes that the Jewish people are always willing to accept improved versions of the Torah, a proposition which is highly questionable. Recent work demonstrating linguistic similarities in alleged different sources, a narrative that progresses step by step rather than in a disjointed way, the subjective nature of the allocation of the Torah’s presumed sources in this hypothesis, and the many speculations regarding these sources make this hypothesis highly questionable.
​
An intermediate opinion is that of R’ Franz Breuer who accepts that there are apparent contradictions or inconsistencies within the text (which the Documentary Hypothesis uses to justify the existence of different sources), but proposes that this can be understood as a deliberate component of divine revelation. Rather than seeing the text as a compilation of various authors with differing agendas, Breuer saw these tensions as essential to a multilayered truth that the Torah wishes to communicate. This means that the Torah transmitted by God is multifaceted, and contains different narrative strands or styles (such as the use of different divine names, like Yahweh and Elohim). Nevertheless, this diversity expresses a deeper unity rather than proving multiple sources.3 This suggestion is often referred to as "multiple perspectives within the Torah."
A critique of Breuer’s ideas is that they serve little purpose. The Documentary Hypothesis was designed by scholars who rejected the idea of the Divine revelation of the Torah, and it continues to be supported by those uncomfortable with this notion. Also, by biblical scholars fascinated by textual contradictions. Breuer’s ideas are an attempt to preserve the Documentary Hypothesis as fact while at the same time preserving faith in Divine revelation.
​
The approach of this website/book is close to that of Cassuto. It emphasizes that the Torah is not a book about man. This is in contrast to the writing of R’ Soloveitchik and his influential essay “The Lonely Man of Faith” in which he considers the two creation stories to describe aspects of man.4 Neither is it a book about God. Rather, it is a book about the relationship between man and God. This relationship is by its nature contradictory. God is both far out there in infinity and at the same time all around us. Humans cannot encompass these two aspects of God simultaneously. The relationship between God and the Jewish people is also contradictory. On the one hand, the eyes of God are continuously upon the Land of Israel (Deuteronomy 11:12) and the Jewish people operate under a stricter system of reward and punishment than the other nations of the world. At the same time, the nation of Israel is like all other nations of the world and its fate is determined by the rules of history.
The Torah does not harmonize these contradictions but expresses it through the use of two names for God — YHWH and Elohim. This means that the names of God are not an incidental aspect to the Torah, but an integral part of its structure. As such, they are certainly worthy of study.
Maimonides appreciated the incompatibility between aspects of God when discussing the fear and love of God. He writes in his Mishneh Torah:
​
What is the path [to attain] love and fear of Him? When a person contemplates His wondrous and great deeds and creations and appreciates His infinite wisdom that surpasses all comparison, he will immediately love, praise and glorify [Him] yearning with tremendous desire to know [God’s] great name. . . When he [continues] to reflect on these matters, he will immediately recoil in awe and fear, appreciating how he is a tiny, lowly and dark creature, standing with his flimsy, limited, wisdom before He who is of perfect knowledge.”5
​
There are two aspects to the fear of God. One is fear of punishment and the other is awe of His presence. The Torah talks about love of YHWH, but never about love of Elohim, since Elohim is too distant for this type of relationship.6 On the other hand, the Torah does talk about fear of both YHWH and Elohim,7 since YHWH also relates to the moral universe.8
The name of God Elohim
The name Elohim is the name given to God by humanity and has the meaning of “a force within nature.”9 The ending of the word Elohim with “im” signifies that this name is in the plural. This is because God created and controls multiple powers within nature. Nevertheless, the verb attached to Elohim is usually in the singular, although there are a few exceptions.10 In some instances, Elohim is used in the Bible as a general term for “the Deity.” Elohim is also used as a general name for judges, since they are representatives of Elohim.11
“El” was a general term for deity in the Semitic language, and was the name of a supreme Canaanite god.
Elohim is the creator God in the first chapter of Genesis. He functions in a very systematic way, with the universe He created showing order, design and purpose. He is a distant and transcendent God. He is decisive and in contrast to YHWH does not display frequent changes of mind.
Despite existing up to infinity, Elohim is not remote from the universe He created and He is concerned with the general providence of His universe and the providence of mankind. This is very different from the Aristotelian concept of God as the Prime Mover who created the universe, gave it a push and then left it to its own devices. Within later Jewish ideas is the notion that the universe would even cease to exist without God’s continuing input.
Elohim is the universal God of all humanity, in that our universe was created for all mankind and not for the sake of the adherents of one religion or group. The universal aspect of Elohim is evident in a number of places in the Pentateuch. For instance, Noah blesses his son Shem in the name of YHWH, but his son Japheth by the name Elohim (Genesis 9:26-27). Shem is the progenitor of the Semites, while Japheth is the progenitor of the Greek nations.
​
It is illuminating to follow the consistency of ideas and literary expressions underlying the names Elohim and YHWH through the Five Books of Moses. This phenomenon, incidentally, can easily give rise to the erroneous impression that it is due to a consistent external source. Hence, in the first creation account we read:
​
Elohim blessed them [male and female] and Elohim said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the sky and every living thing that moves on the earth (ibid 1:28).
​
That man should procreate and populate the earth is not at all obvious. Even nowadays there are couples who limit their procreation because of their fear of nuclear annihilation, the problems associated with climate change, and the possibility of world starvation. If not for our trust in technology and diplomacy to overcome these problems, society could well come to the conclusion that procreation is a losing proposition. Such fears were even more prevalent in the ancient world, since, as will be explained in the essay on Noah, humans had a pessimistic attitude regarding the world they lived in.
​
Nevertheless, in the Noah story, Elohim emphasizes again the desirability of continuing to populate the earth, and we find almost identical wording regarding procreation as in the creation account, again promoted through the name Elohim:
​
And Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land (ibid 9:1).
To obviate all future concerns, Elohim proceeds to make a covenant with Noah and all future humanity that there shall “never again become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). A covenant is a formal way of making a promise to another party. The sign of this covenant will be a rainbow linking heaven and earth.
The name of God YHWH
The other commonly-used name for God in the Torah is YHWH. This name was not bestowed upon God by man, but was chosen by God and relayed to the Jewish people through Moses (Exodus 3:13-15). In contrast to Elohim, YHWH is an immanent God who is close to man and who relates to him on an individual level. He is therefore a God of individual providence. YHWH is concerned with the moral development of humanity. This explains His involvement in the Tower of Babel story. He also chose the seed of Shem to bring morality and the name of God into the world. He was recognized as the personal God of the Jewish forefathers and over time became the tribal God of the Jewish people.
The name of God YHWH first appears in the Torah in the first sentence of the second creation story in combination with the name Elohim:
These are the generations (i.e., products) of the heaven and the earth when they were created, on the day that YHWHK Elohim (God God) made earth and heaven (Genesis 2:4).
This double appellation for God sounds somewhat odd in Hebrew. It is not noticeable in English since the two names are usually translated as “the Lord God.” In Hebrew, however, it sounds just like it is written - God God. This combination occurs almost nowhere else in the Torah.12 All explanations as to why these two names are found together entail adding extra words such as “YHWH [who is the same God as] Elohim [used in the previous chapter]” or “YHWH [who is] the Deity.”
A question, though, can be asked regarding these interpretations. If the phrase “YHWH Elohim” is no more than an introduction to YHVH in terms of the name Elohim used in the first chapter, or it expresses no more than that YHWH is the Deity why is this combination of names continued throughout chapters 2 and 3? Would not the opening sentence have sufficed?
This leads to the explanation that Adam and Eve existed alone in the world in close proximity to the Divine. In this unique environment, their perception of the immanence and transcendence of God was fused as one. However, once they were ejected from the Garden of Eden, they no longer perceived these two attributes of God as a single manifestation of the Divine. From now on, God will relate to Adam and Eve and their descendants either with His attribute of YHWH or with that of Elohim, depending on the circumstances. Similarly, man and woman will oscillate in their awareness of these two attributes of God.
There are many times in the Pentateuch that YHWH responds to a situation, or even changes His mind, either for the better or worse. For example:
And YHWH said: “I have indeed seen the affliction of My people that is in Egypt and I have heard its outcry (tza’akatam) because of its taskmasters, for I know its pains. I shall descend to rescue it from the hand of Egypt . . . (Exodus 3:7-8).
We also read in the Noah story:
And YHWH regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and he was pained in His heart. And YHWH said: “I will blot out man whom I created from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them” (ibid 6:6-7).
It has to be like this. A close relationship has to be two-way. Were YHWH to be non-responsive, then even prayer would be a waste of time. God could also never demonstrate His attributes of tzedakah or righteousness and be the model for human behavior.
​
Nevertheless, this does lead to the question. God knows the future. How could He not know that man would take the wrong path at the time of Noah?
​
Rashi answers this question with an analogy from a midrash in which a non-Jew asks Rabbi Yehoshua this very question:
Do you not admit that the Holy One, Blessed is He foresees the future?” . . . Rabbi Yehoshua said to him. . . “Even though it was revealed before Him that their destiny was to sin and to suffer destruction, He did not refrain from creating them because of the righteous who are destined to arise from among them.13
​
Nevertheless, the rabbis reply does not really answer the question as to why the text is written in a way that implies that God does not know the future. There could be another answer. This is that YHWH, and possibly even Elohim, do not know the future. Man has free will, and YHWH can never know precisely what a person will do. God knows what a person is likely to decide based on that person’s character and previous choices. He has a general idea of the direction of humanity. He can also engineer the future. But He does not have complete foreknowledge. This approach is not generally accepted by Jewish sages, but has been raised by a number of Jewish philosophers and to my mind fits closer with the biblical text.14
​
It is noteworthy that the God associated with sacrifices in the Torah is always YHWH since sacrifices are a way of drawing close to God. Hence, Noah built an altar to YHWH in Genesis 8:20, even though it was Elohim who instructed him to leave the ark several sentences earlier (ibid 8:15).
The single exception in the Torah to this rule is instructive:
Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, took an olah-offering and peace-offering for Elohim, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with the father-in-law of Moses before Elohim (Exodus 18:12).
There is a midrashic opinion that Jethro converted to Judaism. If so, his offering should have been to YHWH. However, another way of looking at this passage is that he did not convert and his approach to God was as a universal, transcendent God. This idea was so foreign to his son-in-law Moses, a prophet of YHWH, that he did not attend this first recorded ecumenical event in human history. Hence, Moses’ name is not mentioned as being among the guests —" only Aaron and all the elders of Israel.”
On occasion, the Torah will make the point that YHWH and Elohim are working together. Hence, we read in the Noah story:
On that very day Noah came, with Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, with Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them into the ark. . . . thus they that came [of the animals], came male and female of all flesh, as Elohim had commanded him, and YHWH shut him in (ibid 7:13-16).
For proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, this can be regarded as skillful work on the part of the redactor in that both names for God are located within the same sentence. But there are alternative explanations. The command to collect two of every animal was issued by Elohim in His role arranging the universe, but it was YHWH who protected Noah during the raging flood.
​
Another example is when Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce Joseph and lands him in prison:
​
And it was after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and she said: “Lie with me.” But he refused: He said to his master’s wife” “ . . . How then can I perpetrate this great evil; I will have sinned against Elohim?”. . . . Then Joseph’s master took him and placed him in the prison. . . . The prison warden did not scrutinize anything that was in his custody, because YHWH was with him [Joseph]; and whatever he would do YHWH would make successful (ibid 39:7-23).
Joseph never speaks about YHWH, only Elohim, possibly because Jacob’s children did not feel YHWH’s presence in their lives. It is even conceivable that they did not know about Him. However, behind the curtain, YHWH was still very much involved in Joseph’s life and the destiny of the Jewish people.
A well-known, alternative explanation for the two names of God is that the name Elohim reflects God’s attribute of justice, whilst YHWH reflects His attribute of mercy. Hence Rashi writes in his commentary to the Torah:
“Elokim created” [in Genesis chapter I]: It does not say YKVK’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 Elokim]. 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 YKVK Elokim’s making of the earth and heavens” [in ibid chapter II].15
There is, however, a major problem with this explanation. While it fits nicely into the two creation stories it has limited application beyond this. Throughout the desert experience, for example, there were many instances in which God displayed his attribute of justice, yet invariably the name YKVK is used.
​
In conclusion, it is suggested that people in the ancient world would have had difficulty in conceptualizing the notion that the same God who created the universe was interested in developing relationships with humanity. Pagan gods had specific functions within nature, such as governing fertility and storms, but they never communicated with individuals, other than perhaps with a king.16
The two names of God Elohim and YHWH and the attributes each describes would have been radically new in the ancient world. At that time, there were gods of cities, and even gods of local areas, countries or empires, but no pagan god was interested in all of humanity. The notion of a personal god who was interested in and even communicated with individuals would have been a transformative idea. Thus, the Torah presented new ideas about one God in a way that was easy for people to conceptualize. The Torah also wished to differentiate between the universal and national aspects of God’s messages.
References
1. Lecture 2, The Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p18, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006. Also, The Names of God in The Koren Siddur with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks. p xiv, Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2009.
2. Lecture 3, More about the Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p32, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York 2006.
3. Mordechai Breuer. The Aspects Theory of Rav Mordechai Breuer. [In Hebrew]. Edited by Yosef Ofer. Alon Shvut. Tevunot, 2012. Also, Introduction. Breuer’s Shitat HaBehinot (Aspects Theory) in “In the Beginnings. Discovering the Two Worldviews Hidden within Genesis 1-11, p12, Gefen, Jerusalem.2023.
4. http://www.traditiononline.org/news/converted/Volume%207/No.%202/The%20Lonely%20Man.pdf.
5. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:2
6. Examples of love of YHWH in the Torah are Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (the Shema), Deuteronomy 10:12, Deuteronomy 11:1, Deuteronomy 13:3-4 and Deuteronomy 30:6.
7. Examples of the fear of YHWH in the Torah are Deuteronomy 6:13, Deuteronomy 10:12, Deuteronomy 13:4, Exodus 20:20, and Leviticus 19:14.
8. Examples of the fear of Elohim in the Torah are Genesis 22:12, Genesis 42:18, Exodus 1:17, Exodus 18:21and Leviticus 25:17.
9. Kuzari IV:1. This explanation also partially follows that of Nachmanides, as documented in his interpretation to Genesis. 1:1. Also, The Names of God in The Koren Siddur with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks. p xiv, Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2009.
10. An example is Genesis 20:13 where the verb for “caused” is in the plural. “And so it was, when Elohim caused me [i.e., Abraham] to wander from my father’s house, I said to her. . .” Rashi comments on this phrase and points out other examples in the Bible where the accompanying verb is in the plural. He feels it has no particular significance. A plural verb may also indicate the majestic form of God used for emphasis. An example of this is Genesis 1:20 when God says “Let us make man.” A midrashic explanation for this is that God consulted with the administering angels.
11. Examples of this use are "then his master shall bring him to God [Elohim], and shall bring him to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall bore through his ear with the awl, and he shall serve him forever" (Exodus 21:6) and: "If the thief is not found, then the householder shall come near to God [Elohim] that he had not laid his hand on his neighbor's property. For every item of liability, whether an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or a garment, or for any lost item about which he says: 'This is it,' the case of both parties shall come before God [Elohim]. Whomever God [Elohim] condemns shall pay double to his neighbor" (Exodus 22:7-9).
12. An example of this is Exodus 9:30. Elokim in this instance may well be translated as the Deity.
13. Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 6.6.
14. Most Jewish philosophers are in agreement that God has foreknowledge of people’s freewill choices before they are made. Nevertheless, there are orthodox philosophers, namely the Ralbag (Gersonides) and the Shlah who limit God’s foreknowledge. For a useful summary of this topic see “The Problem of Foreknowledge” in Illuminating Jewish Thought. Exploration of Freewill, the Afterlife, and the Messianic Era by Rabbi Natanel Wiederblank, 67-176. Maggid Books, 2018.
15. Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 1:1.
16. In the Noah story, God speaks freely to Noah. However, in the very similar Gilgamesh myth, the god Ea can only communicate with Upnapishtim about building an ark by speaking to the brick wall of his reed hut. See “Gilgamesh Tablet XI” in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, 110. Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.