18. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 18

The Meaning of the Divine Name Elohim

Previous section → The True Meaning of Creation

On the essence of the Name Elohim

The Master, the Guide [Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed II:6], wrote that the name Elohim is primarily the designation of judges, as in the verse, “the case of both parties shall come before the Elohim” (Exodus 22:8), and that this name was then borrowed for the angels and for the Creator, blessed be He, since He is Judge over all.

But to me, this is altogether unacceptable. For how could reason tolerate that the name Elohim was originally and essentially assigned to human judges, and only figuratively to the Creator—when, at the very beginning of the Torah, this name is applied to Him repeatedly, and in the Scriptures it appears thousands upon thousands of times with reference to Him? What we occasionally find—that it is applied to judges—is only in a few places, and written much later. It is known that whatever occurs most frequently, and appears first in Scripture, must be the primary designation; what is found but rarely, and secondarily, is not¹. Moreover, as I will explain further on, when the verses are rightly understood, the name Elohim is never truly said of judges².

Furthermore, our Sages explained in Tractate Shevuot, chapter Shevuat Ha-Edut, that the names which may never be erased are: Elohim, Eloha, Ehyeh, Shaddai, Tzevaot—and needless to say, the Tetragrammaton itself, whether written as it is spelled (Y-H-V-H) or read as Adonai or Yah, which are likewise holy names. By contrast, those names that may be erased include: HaGadol, HaGibor, HaNora, Rachum, Chanun, and the like, as Maimonides himself brought in the Book of Knowledge.

And it is known that these appellations were permitted to be erased only because their original designation was not for Him, but for human beings, describing emotions or attributes; they were applied to Him only metaphorically, and therefore erasure of them is permitted, since they are more distant from Him. But those names that were primarily and originally assigned to Him are always understood from the start to refer to Him; therefore, erasing them is forbidden, out of reverence.

It follows necessarily that since El and Elohim may not be erased, their first and primary designation must truly be for Him, not by way of borrowing from judges, contrary to the opinion of the Master.

Ibn Ezra, in his Torah commentary, wrote that El signifies “powerful,” as in the expression “It is in the power (yesh le-El) of my hand” (Genesis 31:29). Since we also find El and Eloha in the singular, he concluded that Elohim is a plural form, and that the plurality is an honorific—since it is our custom, out of respect, to address a great personage in the plural. He further wrote that, because all the acts of God are carried out through the angels who fulfill His will, He is also called Elohim.

But to me, these words of his are likewise unconvincing.

If one were to argue that the name Elohim is plural out of respect—since we find this name in the plural—then why is it also applied to those things which God has forbidden out of contempt: “You shall have no other elohim before Me” (Exodus 20:3), “Whoever sacrifices to elohim shall be destroyed” (Exodus 22:19)? Surely Scripture does not honor idols. Nor can one say that the term is used according to the mistaken thought of their worshippers, in the manner of “the men pursued after them” (Joshua 2:7)—as though it were only adopting their perspective³. For when the Torah warns us not to worship idols, it would not be fitting to speak of them in honorific language, in accordance with the delusions of fools. The proof is in the verse: “They sacrifice to demons that are not God, to deities (elohim) they did not know” (Deuteronomy 32:17). Here, in condemning them, it still calls them elohim—showing that the word is not a plural of honor or glory.

All the more so, the usage of plural honorifics in foreign languages is only when one addresses a great person directly, speaking to him in the plural, as though he were equivalent to many others. But when speaking about him in the third person, they do not use the plural⁴. Moreover, if the plurality of the divine name were a form of honor, why do we not find it with any of His other names—whether among those which may not be erased or those which may? If plurality were a sign of honor, it should apply to all His names and appellations. Yet it does not; it appears only in Elohim.

And what [Ibn Ezra] said—that because God’s acts are carried out through the angels, He is called Elohim—this too is not correct. For that would imply that the name Elohim in the very first verse of the Torah refers to the angels! But this is plainly false, for the first act of creation came directly from the First Cause, blessed be He, without any intermediary—not from the angels, who themselves are among His creations.

The Chaver [in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, Book IV, opening] said: Elohim is a title for one who rules over something, or for a judge who exercises authority. Thus, when applied to the supreme Ruler over all existence, it refers to God Himself. But it may also be said, by extension, of a force in the heavens, of a natural power, or of a human judge. The name was formed in the plural because of the practice of the nations, who made images and believed that in each image resided the influence of a celestial power, or something similar. Each one of these they called an eloah, and collectively they called them elim, swearing by them, as though they were their rulers. In their belief, they were many, in accordance with the multiplicity of forces that govern the body, and so on.

From his words it follows that Elohim means “Ruler,” and is said of one who rules. Its primary designation, then, is for God, the absolute Ruler of all; secondarily, it is applied to other beings according to their power. These words, indeed, are clearer than all the others. Still, the proper way to understand this requires lengthy explanation. Therefore, regarding this noble inquiry, I will set forth my own view. Because of its importance, I must expand upon it, and I will begin with two principles that you must first understand, from which you will grasp the meaning and import of this name.

Next section → Elohim and the Architecture of Creation