Man and God, Chapter 1 the Knowledge of God

THAT HE IS Y
THE Bible speaks of man’s knowledge of God mainly in four different phrases. There is, for instance, the expression: that they may know that I am YHVH.¹We leave the tetragrammaton untranslated in this chapter. The reason for it will emerge clearly from our discussion. Often, however, the word Elohim is added and we have, that they may know that I am YHVH, their God. A further variation we find in the phrase, that they may know that YHVH is the God. Finally, there is also the form in which, instead of a subordinate clause, the more direct accusative is used, as for instance, thou shalt know YHVH. The question we wish to discuss in this chapter is: are these terms about man’s knowledge of God used indiscriminately, or has each one of these phrases a specific meaning of its own? When the Bible says that you may know that I am YHVH, could it just as well have added the word, Elohekha, your God? Or in cases where the word is found, would the meaning of the text be in any way affected, had the phrase, your God, been omitted? Again, when the accusative is used, could the thought have been expressed by the more frequent propositional clause and, instead of thou shalt know YHVH, could the text just as well have read, thou shalt know that I am YHVH? Is there some principle that determines when to use one, when the other, of these phrases about knowing God?

Let us look at a number of passages in which to know God means to know that He is YHVH. Let us see whether we may discern some one feature which they have in common. Most of these passages occur in Ezekiel, but they are also found in many of the other books of the Bible. We shall quote them at random:

I will lay My hand upon Egypt, and bring forth My hosts, My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am YHVH, when I stretch forth My hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them. (Exod. 7:4–5)

And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he shall follow after them; and I will get Me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am YHVH. (Exod. 14:4)

For I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these My signs in the midst of them; and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what I have wrought upon Egypt, and My signs which I have done among them; that ye may know that I am YHVH. (Exod. 10:1–2)

And behold, a prophet came near unto Ahab king of Israel, and said: Thus saith YHVH: Hast thou seen all this great multitude? behold, I will deliver it into thy hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am YHVH. (I Kings 20:13; see also vs. 28)

Already these few passages seem to reveal a common pattern. God will be known by his mighty deed, by the signs and miracles which he performs in Egypt, by the destruction of the enemies of Israel. In the passages quoted, the Egyptians, the children of Israel, or King Ahab will know that He is YHVH by the convincing revelation of his supernatural might and power. This is expressed with clear emphasis on the occasion when Moses foretells Pharaoh the miracle of the turning of the waters of the Nile into blood. The words we read there are:

Thus saith YHVH: In this thou shalt know that I am YHVH—behold, I will smite with the rod that is in my hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. And the fish that are in the river shall die, and the river shall become foul; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink water from the river [italics added]. (Exod. 7:17)

The supernatural mightiness of God, which is revealed in the miracle, makes it known to all that He is YHVH. Most emphatic are numerous passages in Ezekiel which also show that YHVH makes himself known in this manner by what he performs on Jew or gentile alike. A terrible judgment, which is pronounced over Jerusalem, and in which God declares that he will have no pity with her inhabitants, concludes with the words:

Thus shall Mine anger spend itself, and I will satisfy My fury upon them, and I will be eased; and they shall know that I am YHVH.²The many parallel passages, especially in Ezek., show that through the act of divine judgment it becomes known that He is YHVH. Both the King James translation (“and they shall know that I the Lord have spoken it in my zeal”) and the J.P.S. translation (“and they shall know that I the Lord have spoken in my zeal”) are incorrect and misleading. I have spoken in My zeal, when I have spent My fury upon them. (Ezek. 5:13)

Consulting any reliable Bible concordance, anyone may find the many passages in Ezekiel that express the same idea. We shall let a few more stand here to make the point.

Another terrible judgment over Israel reads:

And I will … deliver you into the hands of strangers, and will execute judgments among you. Ye shall fall by the sword; I will judge you upon the border of Israel; and ye shall know that I am YHVH. Though this city shall not be your caldron, you shall be the flesh in the midst thereof; I will judge you upon the border of Israel; and ye shall know that I am YHVH. (Ezek. 11:9–11)

When God draws his sword against the land of Israel to cut from it the righteous and the wicked, it is said:

And all flesh shall know that I am YHVH.³As to the rendering of this passage in the Revised Version as well as in the J.P.S. translation, see previous note. I have drawn forth My sword out of its sheath. (Ezek. 21:10)

In the context of the punishment meted out to Seir it is said:

I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not return; and ye shall know that I am YHVH. (Ezek. 35:9)

The more passages one examines, the more clear does it become that they all have a common denominator: God becomes known through the manifestation of his power and his judgment over men and nations, over nature and history.

What does a similar analysis of the contexts reveal about the meaning of the phrase, according to which the knowledge acquired teaches one that He is YHVH our God? Once again we shall list some of the passages side by side.

Right at the beginning of Moses’ mission of redemption, he is sent by God to the children of Israel with a message that contains the following words:

And I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am YHVH your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. (Exod. 6:7)

When the children of Israel were murmuring in the desert, asking for food, Moses conveyed to them the words of God:

At dusk ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am YHVH your God. (Exod. 16:12)

About the service in the Tent of Meeting God says:

And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am YHVH their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. (Exod. 29:45–46)

Once again a pattern is noticeable. Significantly, however, it is rather different from the one, which we have found analyzing the term, to know that He is YHVH. In fact, it seems to be its very opposite. One can hardly think of a greater contrast than between the grim passages of Ezekiel, in which the prophet describes the manner of fury in which the knowledge reaches man that He is YHVH, and the tender words of loving care in which God assures the children of Israel that he will take them for a people unto himself, that he brought them out of Egypt so that he might dwell in their midst, that they may know that He is YHVH their God. Even when in their pusillanimity the children of Israel murmur against Moses and, by implication, against God, God fulfills their wish, granting them the manna and the meat of quails so that they may know that He is YHVH their God. We would then be justified in saying that when God makes manifest his power, when he reveals himself as the sovereign ruler or judge, when he thus is above man and nature, removed from them and transcending them, he makes himself known as YHVH. On the other hand, when he reveals his caring concern for man, when he shows his providential intervention on behalf of man, when he is near man, in the midst of men, he communicates knowledge that He is “YHVH your God.” The idea is greatly strengthened by a passage in Deuteronomy, in which the providential care is recalled by which the children of Israel were guided in the wilderness:

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am YHVH your God.

(Deut. 29:4–5)

The fact that they were sustained in the wilderness by the miracles of providence gave them knowledge of God; however, not the knowledge that He was YHVH, but that He was YHVH their God.

Most interesting is the exactitude with which, for instance, Ezekiel uses the two phrases under discussion. In chapter 36, God, speaking of the restoration of Israel, says:

And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, whereas it was a desolation in the sight of all that passed by. And they shall say: This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited. Then the nations I have left round about you shall know that I am YHVH! I have builded the ruined places, and planted that which was desolate. (vss. 34–36)

Another passage, dealing also with the theme of Israel’s future redemption tells of the prophetic vision of the feast of God on the mountains of Israel. The birds of prey and the beasts of the field are invited to feed on “the flesh of the mighty” and to drink “the blood of the princes.” They are promised that they will be filled at God’s table “with horses and horsemen, with mighty men, and with all men of war.” Continuing the theme, it is said:

And I will set My glory among the nations, and all the nations shall see My judgment that I have executed, and My hand that I have laid upon them. So the house of Israel shall know that I am YHVH their God, from that day and forward. (Ezek. 39:21–22)

The two passages are rather different in tone. The one draws the idyllic picture of restoration and rebirth, the other speaks of wrath and judgment. The first describes the impact that God’s redemptive act on behalf of Israel has on the nations. In the second example, on the other hand, the stress is on the significance for Israel of God’s judgment over the nations. God’s providential intervention in history is a revelation that He is YHVH when the providential act is for the sake of Israel and is viewed by the nations. In such an act only Israel could recognize that He is YHVH their God; the nations will see in it only the revelation of divine sovereignty. The one who redeems Israel is for them too YHVH, but it is not “their God.” For “my God” means the one who cares for me providentially. On the other hand, in the act of judgment performed upon the nations, Israel recognizes that He is YHVH their God, if what happens to the nations takes place on “the mountains of Israel” for the sake of Israel’s preservation. The differing meanings of the manifestation of the same divine act, when looked upon from differing points of interest, may be discerned in biblical books as apart from each other as Joshua and Isaiah. Concerning the twelve stones that were set up at Gilgal, after the crossing of the Jordan, Joshua said to the people:

For YHVH your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as YHVH your God did to the Red Sea, which He dried up from before us, until we were passed over, that all the peoples of the earth may know the hand of YHVH, that it is mighty; that ye may fear YHVH your God for ever. (Josh. 4:23–24)

A divine miracle is here described in its significance for the peoples and for Israel, for whose salvation it was performed. For the peoples it meant the knowledge of the power of YHVH; for Israel it communicated something YHVH their God did for them. A similar formulation we find in the opening verses of chapter 45 of Isaiah. The prophetic words are addressed to God’s anointed Cyrus, before whom God subdues nations. It is promised to him that:

I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron; and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am YHVH, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. For the sake of Jacob My servant and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee by thy name.

Cyrus is allocated a task within a divine plan. That he may perform his task, God subdues the nations before him and defeats his enemies. Thus, Cyrus beholds the revelation of divine might and learns to know that He is YHVH. But since what happens is done for the sake of Israel and not for the sake of Cyrus, it is also made known to him that He who is YHVH for all is “the God of Israel.”

There are two significant passages in Ezekiel in which the prophet, in relationship to Israel, changes the two terms, I am YHVH and I am YHVH their God, in the same context because of the change in the point of emphasis. Toward the end of chapter 34 in Ezekiel we read a moving prophecy of the future redemption of Israel:

And the tree of the field shall yield its fruit, and the earth shall yield her produce, and they shall be safe in their land; and they shall know that I am YHVH, when I have broken the bars of their yoke, and have delivered them out of the hand of those that made bondmen of them.… but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid. And I will raise up unto them a plantation for renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the nations any more. And they shall know that I am YHVH their God⁴Here, too, we are deviating from both the Revised Version and the J.P.S. translation. V’yad’u ki ani YHVH eloheykhem in verse 30 is the parallel to V’yad’u ki ani YHVH of verse 27. Furthermore, V’hema ami beyt Yisrael in verse 30 corresponds to V’yad’u ki ani YHVH eloheykhem at the beginning of the verse. “I am their God and they are My people” is a well-known biblical conjunction. am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are My people [italics added].

In the first part of this quotation occurs the phrase, I am YHVH; in the second part, the words are added, their God. However, there is an obvious change in emphasis. In the context in which the first formula occurs, the stress is laid on the revelation of divine might. This is underlined by the conjunction, when. They shall know that He is YHVH, when God breaks the bars of their yoke. But when God reveals to them his nearness, that he is the one who is with them, then they will learn that He is YHVH their God.⁵Although in the passage in Ezek. 39:21–22, which we discussed earlier, the manifestation of divine judgment over the nations is, from the point of view of Israel, seen as an indication of providential care which calls for the recognition that YHVH is Israel’s Elohim, such a passage does not exclude the possibility that where the emphasis is being shifted from divine transcendence to immanence, the formulation, too, should change from “that He is YHVH” to “that He is YHVH their God.” It should also be noted that in our present passage it is stated clearly that they shall know that He is YHVH, when he reveals his mightiness in breaking the bars of their yoke. Whereas in Ezek. 39 it is not stated that they will know that He is YHVH their God, when he judges the nation. Having mentioned God’s judgment over the nation, the prophet continues saying: And the house of Israel shall know that I am YHVH their God, from that day and forward. Whereas in our present passage the knowledge of God and the manifestation of His might are causally connected, God’s judgment and Israel’s knowledge of Him are associated only in time. In our passage the knowledge is the result of the divine deed, in Ezek. 39 it follows upon it. There the judgment is the prelude to God’s association with Israel that will teach them that He is YHVH their God. The Revised Version, retained by the J.P.S. translation, which renders Ezek. 39:22, “So that the house of Israel shall know …” is incorrect and misleading. It associates the judgment with the knowledge of God that accrues from it for Israel causally. The Hebrew original contains no causal nexus, but only a temporal sequence.

Most revealing in this respect is a passage in chapter 20 of Ezekiel. God reminds the children of Israel of the commandments he gave them in the wilderness, when he enjoined them saying:

I am YHVH your God; walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them; and hallow My sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that ye may know that I am YHVH your God [italics added]. (vss. 19–20)

This is what God told them in the wilderness. But they did not listen. They rebelled against God. They did not keep the commandments and desecrated the sabbaths of God. Speaking in the name of God, the prophet continues:

Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they set apart all that openeth the womb, that I might destroy them, to the end that they may know that I am YHVH [italics added]. (vss. 25–26)

In itself, this is a somewhat difficult passage to understand and one may do well to consult the various commentaries. However, the distinction between the previous quotation and this one offers no difficulty. The very statutes and commandments, the law concerning the sabbath and the holy days are themselves “the sign” between God and Israel; they themselves are a visible manifestation of providential care for Israel. The children of Israel were given this “sign” that they may live and know that YHVH is their God. However, those other ordinances, which are not good, and are given to them as a punishment for their sins so that they should not live and might be destroyed, bring it about that they might know that He is YHVH. The change in the usage of the two phrases in such close proximity is determined by the change in the theme and emphasis.

There is hardly an exception to the rule that the manifestation of divine transcendence, of God’s supernatural mastery over men and nature, makes known to the one who experiences it that He is YHVH; whereas the experience of divine immanence, of God’s providence and nearness, is responsible for the knowledge that He is YHVH, one’s God. Occasionally, a passage may contradict the rule. A careful analysis, however, shows that what, at first sight, appears to be an exception rather than being a contradiction confirms the principle that we have discovered. A point in case is a passage in the same chapter of Ezekiel from which we have taken the above two quotations. The concluding verses in chapter 20 read:

And ye shall know that I am YHVH, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country which I lifted up My hand to give unto your fathers. And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have polluted yourselves; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am YHVH, when I have wrought with you for My name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel saith the Lord YHVH.

Leading the children of Israel back into the land that God promised to their fathers is, of course, an act of providence. One might, therefore, have expected the phrase, and ye shall know that I am YHVH your God. One must, however, note that according to the context the return to the promised land does not occur in a condition of reconciliation between God and the people. The relation between Israel and God is still severed because of their “evil ways” and “corrupt doings.” Yet return they will to the land even without returning to God, because God will act for His name’s sake. God’s own “name” in the world has become involved in the destiny of Israel. He will lead them back to their own land not because of his concern for them at that moment, but because of his concern for his own “name” in the sight of the nations. While the divine deed is providential in its effect, it is not undertaken with providential motivation. Most interesting is the point made in the text that the children of Israel will understand this. They will remember their wrongdoings. They will know that what is being done by God is not done for their sake, which they would not deserve, but for the sake of God’s name. Their return to the land of their fathers is, therefore, not a manifestation of divine concern with their own destiny, thus they will know that He is YHVH, but not that he is “their God.”

The only other passage of this kind is found at the end of chapter 16 in Ezekiel. In conclusion of a chastising address to the people of Israel, in which their utter corruption was held up before them, we read:

For thus saith the Lord YHVH: I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, who hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant. Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. Then shalt thou remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder sisters and thy younger; and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not because of thy covenant. And I will establish My covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am YHVH; that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame; when I have forgiven thee all that thou hast done, saith the Lord YHVH [italics added].

Here too, the divine deed is providential in its effect. The supremacy of Jerusalem over her sisters, Sodom and Samaria, will be restored. God will establish with Israel an eternal covenant. At the same time Israel is reminded that it has broken the covenant. What is done for them is not because of their covenant, which they have not kept, but because of God’s covenant with them. God acts for them not because of them, but because of his covenant with them. The motivation of the divine action is the same as in the passage in chapter 20. God acts in their behalf for his name’s sake. Even God’s forgiving their sins has the nature of a psychological punishment, for it will put them to shame so that they will not open their mouth because of their dishonor. The very act of God’s goodness toward them will humiliate them, causing them to recall their evil ways. In a situation of this kind God is not really near. He does what he does because of what he is and not because of what he is for man. What is revealed to Israel on this occasion is that He is YHVH, not that He is YHVH their God.

Most significant is the use of the phrase “I am YHVH” in the well-known chapter 37 of Ezekiel. It occurs in the prophet’s vision of the valley of the bones. Ezekiel is called upon to prophesy in the name of God concerning the dry bones. In this prophecy the phrase “and ye shall know that I am YHVH” occurs three times. Let us see how it is being used. These are the relevant words of the prophecy.

Thus saith the Lord YHVH unto these bones: Behold I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am YHVH.

Thus saith the Lord Y: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am Y, when I have opened your graves, and caused you to come up out of your graves, O my people. And I will put My spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land: And ye shall know that I am Y; I have spoken, and performed it [italics added]. (vss. 5–6; 12–14)

Surely, in this case, the tender reference to ammi, My people, which is repeated twice, suggests a relationship of intimacy between God and Israel. To God’s “My people” would appropriately correspond the knowledge that he is their God. Yet the words are not found here. This, however, is a unique vision. The miracle is not that Israel will be brought back to their land but that the dry bones will come to life again. It is not God’s providential concern that is revealed in the miracle of resurrection—dry bones are in no need of providence—but his sovereignty over life and death. The vision of resurrection makes manifest how God transcends all creation and how, as the creator of all life, he may transform even death into life. The emphasis here is not in his relation to the living but on his majestic power even over death. Therefore, the resurrected will know that He is Y.⁶We have found only two passages which seem to be exceptions to the rule. They are Ezek. 29:21 and 36:38. In both cases the words used are: and they will know that I am Y. However, in neither of them is it clear who the subject is. In 29, the main theme is the manifestation of divine might over the nations. In verse 17 of the same chapter, in the same phrase, “and they will know” refers to the nations. If in verse 21, too, the reference is to the nations, there is no exception to the rule. We have already discussed the theme at the conclusion of chapter 36. Witnessing the exercise of divine providence over Israel, the nations learn that He is Y. In verse 36 there the subject is explicitly stated, ha-goyim, the nations. If, as it is not unreasonable, we assume that the subject remains the same in verse 38, there is no exception to the rule either. As to Isa. 49:23, 26 and 60:16, see our following discussion in note 22. Another deviation from our rule seems to be Ezek. 36:11. However, that prophecy is addressed to the mountains of Israel which will be redeemed from their desolation. That the trees will yield their fruits, that the field will be tilled and sown once again, that the mountains of Israel will be inhabited again, will reveal to the mountains that He is Y, but not that He is Y their God. The providential relationship that makes Y one’s God can only exist on the personal level of existence. It is God’s mightiness and sovereignty that is revealed in nature.

THAT HE IS Y ELOHIM

There remains, however, one question which requires further elucidation. If the manifestation of God’s sovereignty over nature and history conveys the knowledge that He is Y, what is the reason for the retention of the name that indicates divine transcendence when he reveals himself to men through his acts of providence and caring attention? By such acts he reveals himself as “our God” or “their God.” Why then is it necessary to state in such cases: that they may know that I am Y their God? Why would it not suffice to say: that they may know that I am their God? Two contradictory aspects of divine self-revelation seem to be combined in the phrase, that He is Y our, or your, Elohim. We shall gain an insight into the significance of this strange combination of opposites from the third biblical formulation that deals with man’s acquisition of knowledge of God, the knowledge ki Y hu ha–Elohim, that Y He is the Elohim.⁷For this unusual rendering see the discussion that follows.

In our opinion it is chapter 18 in I Kings that throws most light on the meaning of this phrase. We are referring of course to the confrontation between Elijah, the people, and the prophets of Baal. Turning to the people, Elijah addresses to them the well-known words: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Y be the Elohim, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him” (vs. 21). We depart here from the accepted translation that renders, if Y be God. As we shall see presently, the term Elohim in this context has a specific connotation which is completely obscured by the English translation. If, at least, the translators would have retained the definite article in front of Elohim and read, if Y be the God! this might have been awkward, but not as misleading as the current translation. It might have alerted the reader that the word God was used in a specific sense. The incorrect translation in this place, as well as in all the other passages where the same phrase occurs, is a serious mistranslation that completely distorts the meaning of the original and is responsible for a host of misconceptions about the biblical teaching concerning God. The English, if Y be God! suggests that the people of Israel were doubting whether Y was God or not. There is nothing of it in the Hebrew text. The very style of the question proves that the people knew very well who Y was, they knew that he existed. He was, indeed, very real to them. They knew very well that he was God, as the term is understood in English parlance. What they did not know or, rather, concerning which they were “halting between two opinions,” was the question whether Y was also ha–Elohim, the God in a specific sense. In what specific sense? The answer to this question is given in Elijah’s formulation of the challenge to the people: if Y is the God, follow him! Ha–Elohim is the one whom one may follow. The God whom one may follow is the one who leads. He who leads is near; he leads because he is concerned. He is “our” God.

The performance of the prophet Elijah on this occasion should be understood in the context of Judaism’s struggle for the purification of the God idea in the establishment of a strict monotheism. As is well known, many of the primitive people perceived the concept of a Supreme Deity that dwelt beyond time and space. But he was a God who was aloof, who could not be reached by man and for whom the affairs and lives of men were too insignificant to deserve his attention. The people called for a God who was accessible. Mediating deities between the Supreme God and little man were required. Such were the ideas of many of the early Jews. The long addiction to the Baal service, the toleration of the sacrifices on the bamot, existed side by side with their faith in Y as the Supreme God who was the ultimate source of all life, all-powerful and all-mighty, but just because of that far removed; as we would say today, transcendent. This became already clear in the story of the Golden Calf. When the idol was made, the people exclaimed: “This is thy Elohim, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” Yet, Aaron was able to say to them: “Tomorrow shall be a feast to Y.”⁸Exod. 32:4–5. The J.P.S. translation, “this is thy god, O Israel,” is more true to the Hebrew than the Revised Version’s, “these be thy gods, O Israel.” Nevertheless, neither the plural nor the singular brings out the meaning that is contained in the Hebrew Elohim in this, and in all related, contexts. The acceptance of an Elohim does not involve the rejection of Y. On the contrary, the feast in honor of the Elohim is a feast to Y. The Elohim is the mediator, he is the deputy of Y on earth. Y is above him; but even the Elohim derives his power and existence from Y. The Elohim, however, is the one who is near, he is the one who is immediately concerned with Israel. “This is thy Elohim, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt”; this, indeed, is the function of an Elohim; this is not the immediate concern of the Supreme God, Y—such was their way of thinking. Moses was teaching them that there were no mediating divinities between Y and man. Y was dealing with man directly. This was exemplified for them by the figure of Moses itself. But the people came to look upon Moses as the mediator. And when Moses was delayed to come down from the mountain, they spoke to Aaron: “Up, make us an Elohim who shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.”⁹Ibid. 32:1. According to their understanding, it was not Y who brought them out of Egypt, but his representative, through whom he acted, Moses. But the new idea does not work. This Moses, the man who led us out of Egypt—and note the emphasis on man—has disappeared. A mere man will never do. Give us an Elohim, who shall go before us. As in the challenge of Elijah to the people, the Elohim is the one whom one follows, so already in the story of the Golden Calf, the Elohim is the one whom one can follow because he goes before one. He is the God who is near, but under Y, who is aloof. This is also the significance of the golden calves that were set up by Jerobeam at Beth-el and at Dan. There too, we encounter the very same words that were uttered by the people on the occasion of the first golden calf: “Behold thy Elohim, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”¹⁰I Kings 12:28. It could be done so easily, because the calves did not mean to replace Y, but only to mediate between him and Israel.

We return now to a careful examination of the story of Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal on the Carmel. The people were wavering. They were not sure whether Y was the Elohim, the one who leads and whom one may follow or was there, perhaps, a need for an Elohim to stand between Y and man, to be concerned about man directly. It is important to pay attention to the carefully chosen words of Elijah. Speaking to the priests of Baal, he says: “And call ye on the name of your Elohim.” However, he does not continue saying: and I will call on the name of my Elohim, but: “and I will call on the name of Y.” He could not say, my Elohim; that was exactly the point under discussion. Was Y also Elohim, the one who is near and accessible? Thus he completes his statement to the Baal’s priests: “And the God that answereth by fire, let him be the Elohim.”¹¹Ibid. 18:24. We translate the first ha-Elohim. It refers to both Y and Baal and obviously does not have the specific meaning of the second, at the end of the verse. The answer will be the proof. It is the characteristic of a God who is near and concerned about man that he answers man’s plea. If Y answers, then he is not only the Supreme God, but also the near one; he is then not only the Creator but also the Sustainer; then Y is, notwithstanding his transcendence, also the Elohim, who walks before man and whom man may follow.

Let us now turn our attention to the prayer of Elijah. When the sacrifice had been offered, Elijah came near and spoke:

O Y, Elohim of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art Elohim in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. Answer me, O Y, answer me,¹²Both the Revised Version and the J.P.S. translation have here, “hear me.” However, the condition of the test was that God answer. “Aneynee” is not, hear me, but, answer me. that this people may know that thou, Y, art the Elohim, for thou didst turn their heart backward.

The prayer is addressed to Y who is also Elohim. He is the same who, even though he is Y, was the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; he guided them, he exercised his providence over them. The God who is far, he is also near; he transcends all, yet he is near all. But the people of Israel do not know it. They separate between Y and Elohim. Let it be known that thou art Elohim in Israel, that there is no separation of functions within God. Noteworthy also is the phrase: that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. If Y is not also Elohim, then no human being may be his servant, his messenger to man; then no one may do anything at his word. Y, if he is not also Elohim, has no word for man. That he has a servant, a prophet, a word to communicate, proves that Y is Elohim. Finally, there is the plea for an answer that this people may know that thou Y are the Elohim. Elohim is the Answerer; and if Y answers, then he is Elohim. When the answer came and all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and exclaimed: “Y, He is the Elohim; Y, He is the Elohim.”¹³The English rendering: The Lord, He is God; the Lord He is God, is a meaningless tautological statement that completely misses the significance of the event. There never was a question whether Y was a God or not, only whether He was an answering God.

The same phrase occurs also in Deuteronomy as well as in another place in I Kings, where it is given added emphasis. In chapter 4 of Deuteronomy the children of Israel are reminded of “the great thing” that God did for them, of the voice of God that they heard speaking to them, the miracles and the signs that God performed for their sake. The significance of it all is summed up in the words: “Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that Y, He is the Elohim; there is none else beside Him.” The theme is elaborated further in the words: “Out of heaven He made thee hear His voice, that He might instruct thee … and because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt, to drive out nations before thee greater and mightier than thou.” Once again the significance of that experience is grasped in the words: “Know this day, and lay it to thy heart, that Y, He is the Elohim in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else.”¹⁴Deut. 4:35–39.

The knowledge that reached the people was communicated to them through the revelation of divine might as well as divine providence. In keeping with our analysis this taught them that He was Y and that Y was the Elohim. However, in these two passages the words are added: “There is none else beside Him” and “There is none else.” But how was it shown to them that there was none else beside Him? The answer seems to be that there never was a question whether there could be another Y beside Y, i.e., a God of equal status, power, and dignity. The question was: was there an Elohim, a mediating deity, beside Him? Once, however, it was shown to the people of Israel that Y Himself was the Elohim,¹⁵In all passages we read, Y He is the Elohim, with the definite article in front of Elohim; the only exception being Pss. 100:3. The verse there runs: “Know ye that Y He is Elohim; it is He that hath made us and we are His, His people, and the flock of His pasture.” The passage conforms exactly to our analysis. That “He hath made us” means that He is the Creator, He is Y; that “we are His, His people …” proves that He is Elohim. Therefore, “know ye that Y He is Elohim.” A careful reading of the various passages will show that wherever the definite article precedes Elohim, the affirmation is made to counter other claims. Y is the Elohim and none else. In the verse from Pss. just quoted, no such emphasis is required; no reference is made to any counter claims. it was also established that there was no one else beside Him.

We may now read with better understanding the first words of the Decalogue. The usual translation reads:

I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.¹⁶Exod. 20:2–3; Deut. 5:6–7.

This is not the Bible. The Lord thy God is meaningless repetition. The words “before me” are not only superfluous in this ‘translation but seem to be empty of all significance. Our rendering is:

I am Y your Elohim, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other Elohim before me [more literally: added to my presence].

We may recall that when the children of Israel made the Golden Calf, they said: This is thy Elohim, Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and they proceeded to celebrate a feast unto Y. Y was the Supreme God, but his was not the menial task of leading people out of the house of bondage. That task he delegated to an Elohim. To counter such ideas the Decalogue commences with the majestic statement: I the omnipotent and transcendent Y am also yours, your Elohim, I am the very same that has brought thee out of Egypt. To bring people out of the house of bondage is also one of my functions. For Y He is Elohim. Therefore, thou shalt have no other Elohim “before me,” in addition to my presence, an Elohim to mediate between me and my creation, between me and man. The phrase, no other Elohim before me, conforms to the phrase, which we have discussed earlier, there is none else beside me.

Hosea put it this way:

Yet I am Y your Elohim

From the land of Egypt;

And thou knowest no Elohim but Me,

And beside Me there is no saviour. (13:4)

The passage brings to clear expression the identity between Elohim and the savior. However, there is no savior beside Y, for Y is Elohim. Israel should have known that since the days of its liberation from Egypt.¹⁷Cf. also Isa. 45:21 and our discussion of it below.

Even the message of Jephtah to the king of Ammon is consistent with this terminology.¹⁸Judg. 11:14–27. The reference in that message to “the Lord, the God of Israel,” who had “dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel,” as the English translation has it, may easily be misunderstood as being the counterpart to Chemosh, the god of Ammon. As Chemosh was Ammon’s tribal deity, so was—in Jephtah’s understanding—Y Israel’s. However, if this were so, Jephtah’s plea, also addressed to the king of Ammon, that “Y, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon” would be meaningless. The passage suggests that the concept, Y, the Judge, was intelligible to the Ammonite to whom it was addressed. One could call on him to judge impartially between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon. It is significant that, when Jephtah speaks of what God did for Israel, he calls him, Y the Elohim of Israel; but when he calls upon him to judge between Israel and Ammon, he refers to “Y, the Judge.” It was meaningful to speak to the Ammonites about Y, the Judge, because they, too, knew of a Supreme God who ruled over all men. Chemosh for them was the Elohim that was mediating between the Supreme God, the El Elyon, and the Ammonites. For Jephtah, however, Y and the Elohim of Israel were identical. The concept that Y, He is Elohim, does not tolerate any tribal deity beside Y, as it rejects categorically the idea of any mediating divinity between God and man.

We are now able to interpret more meaningfully the basic affirmation of the faith of Judaism. In English translation it reads: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”¹⁹Deut. 6:4. Only the Lord knows what this means, if it has meaning at all. Of course, the statement that God is one does make good sense. But why is it not stated so? Why not simply: Hear, O Israel, our God is one. Or, if one insists on the tautology, the Lord our God, why not: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one. We render it: “Hear, O Israel, Y is our Elohim; Y is one.” This is a vital statement about God in which every word counts. Hear, O Israel, Y is identical with “our” Elohim. The transcendent Creator is also the immanent Preserver. God who in his absoluteness is far removed is also near; the King and Ruler is also the Father and Sustainer. But notwithstanding that Y is also Elohim, Y is yet One.

The phrase, which we have found in Deuteronomy and in I Kings, to know that Y He is Elohim, occurs also in the dedicatory prayer of King Solomon, where it deserves special attention. Whereas in the other places the knowledge that Y He is Elohim is limited to the people of Israel, Solomon prays that it may be granted to all the peoples. The words are found at the conclusion of the king’s prayer:

And let these my words, wherewith I have made supplication before Y, be nigh unto Y our Elohim day and night, that He maintain the cause of His servant, and the cause of His people Israel, as every day shall require; that all the peoples of the earth may know that Y, He is the Elohim; there is none else.²⁰I Kings 8:59–60.

Naturally, the fact that Y maintains the cause of his people Israel does not reveal that he is Elohim for the nations. These concluding words refer to the entire contents of the supplication of Solomon. But the king prayed also for the nations, pleading:

Moreover concerning the stranger that is not of Thy people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for Thy name’s sake … when he shall come and pray toward this house; hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, to fear Thee, as doth Thy people Israel.²¹Ibid., vss. 41–43.

By seeing the prayer of the stranger, “not of Thy people Israel,” answered, all the peoples of the earth will know that Y He is also Elohim and there is none else beside Him. The idea is the same as in the story of Elijah. By “answering” Y reveals that he is the Elohim. Certainly, if all the peoples of the earth are to fear God as his people Israel, then they too must become his people. This, however, is only possible if, to them too, Y is revealed as being one and the same as the Elohim.

It is in chapter 45 of Isaiah that we find the theme stated in its most comprehensive universal terms. We have already made reference to the words in the opening phase of the chapter: “that thou mayest know that I am Y, who call thee by thy name, even the Elohim of Israel.” The handing over of the nations into the hand of Cyrus, revealing God’s might, make known to Cyrus that He is Y. But God uses Cyrus as an instrument in order to save Israel. Therefore, it is Israel’s Elohim who calls Cyrus. He calls him “for the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect.” It is, however, not left at that. God is not to remain unknown as Elohim to the rest of the world. The words further addressed to Cyrus are:

I have called thee by thy name,

I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known Me.

I am Y, and there is none else,

Beside Me there is no Elohim;

I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me;

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,

That there is none beside Me;

I am Y, and there is none else;

I form the light, and create darkness;

I make peace, and create evil;

I am Y that doeth all these things.

It is the theme of Y being Elohim elaborated in a universal context. Originally, it is the one who is Y for Cyrus, as he is for all creation, and Israel’s Elohim who calls Cyrus. The ultimate purpose of it, however, is that it be known to all that he is Y, beside whom no mediating Elohim may be placed. There is only Y and nothing else. For Y is Elohim and Y is one. He alone is the source of light and darkness, of peace and even of evil. He alone is the One who does all these things.

The idea is propounded further in verse 18 of the same chapter:

For thus saith Y:

The Creator of the heavens, He is the Elohim;

He who formed the earth and made it, He established it,

He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited:

I am Y, and there is none else.²²There are two passages in Isa. where, instead of “Thou shalt know that I am Y,” we should expect: “Thou shalt know that I am Y thy Elohim.” They are Isa. 49:23, and 60:16. However, in both cases the phrase is completed by words which are the equivalent of “thy Elohim.” In Isa. 49 we have: “And thou shalt know that I am Y whose waiters [those who wait for him] shall not be ashamed.” The Revised Version and the J.P.S. translation have: “And thou shalt know that I am the Lord, for they shall not be ashamed that wait for Me.” This is felicitous English but an all-too-free translation that distorts the meaning. According to it, Israel will know that He is Y because those who wait for him shall not be put to shame. However, whenever those who wait for him are not disappointed or let down, they know that He is Y their God. But in truth the Hebrew, asher lo yeboshu qovai, is not the reason given for how they shall know that he is Y. The words qualify Y. They will know that he is Y who does not let down those who wait for him. The meaning is identical with the phrase: they shall know that I am Y their God, exactly what is expected. In Isa. 60, too, “that I am Y” is completed in a manner that renders it in meaning equal to: that I am Y thy Elohim. The complete phrase runs: that thou shalt know that I am Y thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

The Creator of the heavens is, of course, Y. The first line of the statement affirms that Y He is the Elohim. But the rhythmic balance of the entire verse teaches us a great deal more. It explains the significance of the affirmation that Y is the Elohim. “He who formed the earth and made it” corresponds to “the Creator of the heavens.” The former and maker of the earth is, of course, the same as the Creator of the heavens. If so, then “He is the Elohim” holds the balance to, “He established it.” In other words, if we did not know that Y was also Elohim, we should only know that he created heaven and earth, but not that he also “established” it. He established it because Y He is the Elohim. But what is the significance of the activity of establishing in this context? Again we may elicit the meaning from the parallelism in the verse. The concepts the Creator and the Former of the first and second lines are taken up again in the third line. He created it, but not a waste. “Not a waste” parallels: He is the Elohim. He formed it that it be inhabited. “To be inhabited” is then the meaning of “He established it.” What is the meaning of all this? If one separates Elohim from Y, the Creator becomes the omnipotent supreme power in the universe, but utterly unconcerned about his creation. He might have created out of a super-abundance of vitality, remaining completely self-centered and apart from the consequences of his action. It would still be creation, but without any purpose as regards his creatures—a purposeless universe of waste, an earth not for the sake of habitation. This, however, is not the case. Y is the Elohim. He is purposefully related to his creation and to his creatures. In the very act of creation Y acted as Providence, for he created not for waste and formed an earth to be inhabited. The verse is appropriately concluded: “I am Y, there is none else.” There is, indeed, none else, for Y He is the Elohim.

The theme reaches its climactic statement in the verses with which the chapter ends:

Assemble yourselves and come and draw near together,

Ye that are escaped of the nations;

They have no knowledge that carry the wood of their graven image,

And pray unto an El [singular for Elohim] that cannot save.

Declare ye, and bring them near.

Yea, let them take counsel together:

Who hath announced this from ancient time,

And declared it of old?

Am I not Y!

And there is no Elohim else beside Me;

A just El and savior;

There is none beside Me.

Look unto Me, and be ye saved,

All the ends of the earth;

For I am El, and there is none else

By Myself have I sworn,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

That unto Me every knee shall bow,

Every tongue shall swear,

Only in Y, shall one say of Me, is victory and strength;

Even to Him shall they come and will be ashamed,

All they that were incensed against Him.

In Y shall all the seed of Israel

Be justified, and shall glory.

The peoples, with their idols, are in search of Elohim to save them. Y, they imagine, is too mighty and aloof to be concerned with them. They want little gods to serve their little needs and interests. But their El cannot save, for Y alone is the Elohim and there is none else beside him. Y is the only El and Savior. The time will come when all men will realize it and will seek their strength and salvation in Y alone.²³Isa. 45:4–7.

We may now conclude this part of our discussion by taking up once again the question at the opening of this section. We have found in the previous section that the manifestation of divine omnipotence brings the knowledge that He is Y; whereas the revelation of divine providence teaches that He is Y our God. We would do well now to replace the words “our God” or “their God” with the terms “our Elohim” or “their Elohim,” since Elohim—in this context—has the specific connotation that we have defined. We may very well find that God manifests himself as the omnipotent sovereign and Judge. When this happens, people who witness such manifestation know that he is Y. It, however, never happens that he reveals himself in such a manner that people would know that he is Elohim. For Y is Elohim. One may know that he is Y or that he is Y our Elohim, but never that he is only Elohim. For Y is our Elohim and Y is One.²⁴In our rendering we depart from both the Revised Version and the J.P.S. translation. Both versions disregard the poetic rhythm of the Hebrew original and obscure the meaning completely. Our rendering agrees with the Masoretic cantillation.

THE DECLARATORY PHRASES

It is not our intention to define the rules for the use of the terms Y and Elohim in the whole of the Bible. Ours has been a limited task—to determine the meaning of the two names for God when they occur in contexts that speak of revelation of knowledge about God. It is quite conceivable that, since Y and Elohim are one, the terms may be used interchangeably in phrases like, thus saith Y, or, and Elohim said. However, our studies in some of the fundamental concepts of the Bible, which have shown us an impressive consistency of usage across the entire face of the Bible, lead us to believe that a comprehensive investigation would show that Y and Elohim are not interchangeable at random, but are used consistently in conformity with certain rules and principles. The work has yet to be done. In pursuance of our more limited objective we shall examine the two declaratory phrases when God himself refers to himself as, I am Y, and as, I am Y, your (or their) Elohim. If certain specific manifestations of divine activity reveal that He is Y, while others, that He is Y, who is Elohim, it is not unreasonable to expect the same differentiation of meaning when God refers to himself in the declaratory manner by one or the other expression. We have already found this to be the case in the opening words of the Decalogue as well as in the affirmation of faith beginning with the words, “Hear, O Israel.” We shall now investigate the subject more comprehensively.

On a few occasions, “I am Y” is used as an introduction to a revelation as if the speaker were identifying himself.²⁵Cf. Gen. 16:7; Exod. 6:3; Ibid. 6:29. This kind of introduction is justified, no matter what the contents of the revelation that follows may be. When such an identification is necessary, the expression is appropriate even when what is being revealed is an action which shows God in his capacity as Elohim. The phrase does not refer to the contents of the revelation; it eliminates in advance all possible misconception concerning the identity of the speaker. Independently of the contents of the revelation, it is Y who addresses Abraham or Moses. We have to deal with those passages in which the declaratory statements of our discussion are the concluding words of a biblical revelation, quite obviously referring to the contents preceding them. In all such cases the declaration reaffirms the contents of the revelation, as if to say: this is so because I am Y or because I am Y your Elohim. Looking at these passages, we find the rule, which we have analyzed, quite convincingly buttressed further in the majority of the cases.

When God announces the tenth plague, the death of the first-born, with which he will smite the land of Egypt, he concludes by saying: “and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Y.”²⁶Exod. 12:12. While the passage seems to be the only one of its kind in the Books of Moses, there is a whole group of them in the prophecies of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel, they usually conclude with the phrase: I am Y; I have spoken it and will do it. They may be quoted at random; they all show the same characteristics. In connection with the punishment that is to befall Jerusalem so that the people of Israel may know that He is Y, it is also said:

So it shall be a reproach and a taunt, an instruction and an astonishment unto the nations that are round about thee, when I shall execute judgments in thee in anger and in fury, and in furious rebukes; I am Y, I have spoken it.

The chapter concludes on the same terrible note and with the same affirmation:

And I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread: and will send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I am Y; I have spoken it.

These, and all the other passages of the same nature,²⁷Ezek. 5:15–17. Cf. also Ibid. 21:22; 24:13–14; 30:12; 17:21, 24; 22:14; 21:37; 26:14. See also Ibid. 23:34; 26:5; 28:10; 39:5. It would be mistaken to believe that Ezek. 34:24 was an exception to the rule. It is true that in the context mention is made of the fact that God will save “His flock” that “they shall no more be a prey,” that he will appoint His servant David to be a shepherd over them and He will be their Elohim, nevertheless the passage concludes: I am Y, I have spoken. However, a careful reading will show that the words are not addressed to God’s flock, but to “the fat cattle” (cf. ibid., vs. 20), who are not satisfied with feeding on the good pasture but tread down with their feet what they leave, so that the weak ones that follow after them should not be able to enjoy it; they are the ones that drink from “the settled waters” but “befoul the residue”; the ones who “thrust with side and with shoulder” and “push all the weak with their horns”—it is to them that God’s words are addressed. God is going to judge “between the fat cattle and the lean cattle.” The very saving of “the lean cattle” is brought about through the judgment that will descend on the “fat cattle.” Since the words are directed to the latter, the passage concludes, as to be expected, with the phrase: I am Y, I have spoken. This is similar to what we have already had occasion to point out in connection with Ezek. 36:35–36. The restoration of the people of Israel will bring it about that the nations will know that He is Y. What for Israel is the revelation of divine love and providence, for the nations around about them it is a manifestation of divine might. Seen from the point of view of the nations, that passage, too, concludes appropriately: I am Y, I have spoken it, and I will do it. The salvation of the weak, that are God’s flock, is judgment over the mighty. confirm what we have found as regards the knowledge of God. “I am Y” indicates the manifestation of divine judgment and sovereignty over men and nature.

What, however, do the passages tell us that conclude with the declaration, I am your Elohim, or with some other appropriate phrase? Do they too confirm our expectations? One of the most striking confirmations of our thesis, we meet in chapter 26 of Leviticus. It is all the more convincing since it is preceded by one of the most awe-inspiring predictions of divine judgment in the entire Bible, with which the children of Israel were threatened in advance, “if they will not hearken to Him and not do all these commandments.” It is the chapter traditionally known among Jews as the Tokhaha. After the most terrifying pictures having been drawn of the circumstances that will befall them should they betray their covenant with God, the tone of the divine words addressed to them is changed and the Bible concludes:

And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am Y their Elohim.²⁸Levi. 26:44.

The covenant is the reality of the actual relation between God and Israel. It represents the truth that Y, the Supreme Ruler of all the worlds, dwells in the midst of Israel, for Y is their Elohim. This bond between Y and Israel is never to be severed. In the midst of his very anger, when he acts towards Israel as the awe-inspiring Supreme Lord, he remembers the covenant. He is Y their Elohim.

According to the law of the jubilee, all Jewish slaves went free in the fiftieth year. The reason given in the Bible is:

For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am Y your Elohim.²⁹Ibid 25:55.

Here, too, the closeness and intimacy of the relationship between God and Israel is emphasized. The meaning of this relationship determines the status of the Jew in the world. The Jew is God’s servant and God’s servant is not the servant of any man. This is so, because He is Y, the Elohim of Israel.

When we turn to the prophets we find the same consistency in the use of the phrase: I am Y your (or their) Elohim. When God speaks through the mouth of Isaiah to Israel, “His servant,” to Jacob, whom he “has chosen,” to “the seed of Abraham His friend,” comfortingly and encouragingly, he says to Israel:

Thou art My servant,

I have chosen thee and not cast thee away;

Fear thou not, for I am with thee,

Be not dismayed, for I am thy Elohim;

I strengthen thee, yea, I help thee;

Yea, I uphold thee with My victorious right hand.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

They that warred against thee

Shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought.

For I am Y thy Elohim,

I hold thy right hand,

Who say unto thee: “Fear not,

I help thee.”

As we read on in the same chapter, we come across the moving words of hope and promise:

The poor and the needy seek water and there is none,

And their tongue faileth for thirst,

I am Y, I will answer them,

Elohim of Israel, I will not forsake them.³⁰Isa. 41:9–13, 17.

The translation of Elohim as God, which occurs three times in this context, obscures completely the emphasis in the Hebrew original. The point is not that God is God, which of course is so and means little. Nor does Isaiah make the statement that God is Israel’s God and not God over the nations and the universe. Such an interpretation could only be based on ignorance and foolishness. What is said here quite clearly is that Y, the Universal Creator, is “with thee;” that he acts as Elohim, providentially and caringly, toward the weak and the poor; that Y is the one who answers, for, notwithstanding his being Y, he is Elohim of Israel.

When Zechariah prophesies concerning the day when God remembers “His flock the house of Judah,” he speaks for God saying:

And I will strengthen the house of Judah,

And I will save the house of Joseph,

And I will bring them back, for I have compassion upon them,

And they shall be as though I had not cast them off;

For I am Y their Elohim, and I will hear them.³¹Zech. 10:6.

When God shows his anger toward Israel, he appears as the removed and far away Lord of the Universe, but when he acts compassionately, it is because the Lord of the Universe is their Elohim, their compassionate shepherd and father.

There is a small group of three to four verses in the Bible which, though they deal with providential care for Israel, yet conclude with the declaration: I am Y, and not with, I am Y their Elohim. One we find in chapter 26 of Leviticus, from which we have quoted the passage that God will not break his covenant with Israel, because He is Y their Elohim. The statement there concludes with the words:

But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be Elohim unto them:³²For the reason for our rendering the Hebrew in this manner, see the discussion below on this point. I am Y.³³Lev. 26:45.

Other, even more important, statements of this kind we find in chapter 6 of Exodus. They occur in one of the earliest messages of God to the children of Israel, communicated to them by the mouth of Moses. They are, one might say, the very foundations on which God’s eternal people exist and survive. In them God identifies himself and explains his relationship to the children of Israel. This is the message to Israel:

I am Y, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments; and I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you Elohim; and ye shall know that I am Y your Elohim, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning which I lifted up My hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage: I am Y.³⁴Exod. 6:6–8.

This second passage is particularly revealing. God introduces himself as Y. And that is sufficient. The people know very well what is meant when it is said to them: I am Y. What they do not know is that Y stands in a specific relation to them. Therefore, it is necessary to enlighten them concerning this relationship. Y is going to save them from the house of bondage and take them for a people unto himself. Y is Elohim. When all this happens they will know that this is so; they will learn that Y is their Elohim. Nevertheless, the passage concludes, as the previous one which we have quoted, with the declaration: I am Y, and not, I am Y their Elohim. However, both passages have something in common, in which they differ from the other passages of a providential content. In all the other passages the providential deed or care is the proof that Y is Elohim. The proof has to be deduced from the divine deed. In the two passages under discussion, however, beyond God’s providential action it is explicitly promised that God will be an Elohim unto them. For reasons of style and logic of contents such a promise cannot be made in the name of Y who is their Elohim. The very forcefulness of the declaration lies in the fact that it is Y who promises to act toward Israel as Elohim. A related passage we may recognize in chapter 60 of Isaiah. The prophet treats the same theme in his own inimitable style. It is found at the close of the exalted prophecy that opens with the words:

“Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of Y is risen upon thee.” It too is a promise, in the entire Bible the most magnificent promise made to Israel:

Thy sun shall no more go down,

Neither shall thy moon withdraw itself;

For Y shall be thine everlasting light,

And the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Thy people also shall be all righteous,

They shall inherit the land for ever;

The branch of My planting, the work of My hands,

Wherein I glory.

The smallest shall become a thousand,

And the least a mighty nation;

I am Y; I will hasten it in its time.³⁵Isa. 60:20–22.

This is, of course, the ultimate form of divine providence. But the promise is not only expressed in what God will do for Israel, but also in what he will be unto Israel. He will be their everlasting light. The imagery illustrates the closest intimacy between God and Israel. It is the poetic formulation of the thought, and I will be Elohim unto them, at its deepest. As in the previous two texts, it is the very essence of the emphasis that it is Y who makes such a promise: “I am Y; I will hasten it in its time.”³⁶In the three passages which we have analyzed in which overriding promises are made, it may very well be that “I am Y” at the conclusion may have the meaning: I may be relied upon to keep my promise; I have the power to do it; for I am Y. This is, indeed, how the rabbis in Talmud and Midrash often interpret the phrase: I am Y, to be relied upon to punish the transgressor and to reward those who do my will. It may be interesting to compare Num. 16:41 with Lev. 22:33. In both cases reference is made to God’s bringing Israel out from Egypt that he may be Elohim unto them; in Numbers the verse concludes with, “I am Y your Elohim,” whereas in Lev. we have, “I am Y.” A careful attention to the Hebrew shows that in Num. the reference to the Exodus is in the past, whereas the declaration, “I am Y your Elohim,” refers to the present. There is no promise in that text. The meaning is that God, who took them out of Egypt to be their Elohim, is even now Y their Elohim. In Lev., however, for whatever reason, God’s function as the redeemer from Egypt is mentioned in the present tense. “I am Y, who sanctifies you, who brings you out of the land of Egypt to be unto You for an Elohim” are the words in Lev. As indicated in our discussion, such a statement may be concluded only with, I am Y, and not with, I am Y your Elohim.

Thus far, our expectation that the declaratory phrases, “I am Y” and “I am Y your Elohim” will show the same distinction in usage as that between the revelational ones concerning our knowledge of God, has been confirmed. We encounter, however, some difficulties in certain chapters of Leviticus, where concluding declaratory phrases are used to impress upon the people the importance of some divine injunction or law. Some of the laws conclude with the affirmation, I am Y; others again, I am Y your Elohim. One may easily find the examples, especially in chapters 18 and 19. On the basis of internal textual evidence, it is practically impossible to discover a reason why the emphasis of either of the declaratory statements is attached only to some of the laws and is omitted from the majority of them. But are we able to discern some ordering principle or principles in those cases when either of the two formulas are used? We may readily agree that a divine commandment could well carry the concluding emphasis: I am Y. It would indicate the source of authority from which the law derives its validity. The reference to Y would be appropriate as an indication of God’s function as the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. But how come that in a number of cases the command for the observance of a law is reinforced by the reference to God as “Y your Elohim”?

It would seem that the general injunction to keep God’s commandments is enjoined with the phrase: I am Y. “And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them: I am Y” seems to be the formula in such cases.³⁷Cf. Lev. 19:37; 18:4; 22, 31. This, however, seems to be the case only when no reason is given for the commandments, as if the Bible wished to say: do them because God commanded them. The usage changes whenever the reason for the commandments is explicitly elaborated. In chapter 18 of Leviticus, for instance, we read:

I am Y your Elohim. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes. Mine ordinances shall ye do, and My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am Y your Elohim.³⁸Ibid. 18:2–4.

In these words moral judgment is passed over “the doings” of Egypt and Canaan. The statutes of God are not the laws of an autocrat who derives pleasure from ordering his subjects around. The laws of God are intended to counteract the evil practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites and to show the children of Israel another way. The Lawgiver acts out of concern for his people. The giving of the law itself is a manifestation of divine providence. For this reason the authority behind the law is not just I am Y, but, I am Y your Elohim. This is borne out by other passages where the thought comes to even clearer expression. In the very same chapter we read:

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out from before you. And the land was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomited out her inhabitants. Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations … that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation before you. For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep My charge, that ye do not any of these abominable customs, which were done before you, and ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Y your Elohim.³⁹Ibid. 24–30.

God is deeply concerned about the moral quality of his people. The land that he promised them cannot carry a spiritually defiled nation. God’s laws are given to them that they may endure. Because he is Elohim does Y insist that his laws be kept. The idea is fully clinched in chapter 20 in the words:

Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all My ordinances, and do them, that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nations which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you: Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give unto you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am Y your Elohim, who have set you apart from the peoples.⁴⁰Ibid. 20:22–24.

God has shown that he was their Elohim by setting them apart from the nations and entering into a covenant with them. This, however, was not vacuous favoritism. He desired a people that was different from those whom he had to reject because of their abominations. Israel is set apart by the statutes and the ordinances of God that alone can preserve it in moral and spiritual health. Out of providential concern Y set them apart; out of the same concern he gave them his laws, for Y is their Elohim.

In connection with the law concerning the fringes, which the children of Israel were commanded to make in the corners of their garments, they were also enjoined to do all God’s commandments, of which the fringes would remind them as they contemplated them. There, too, the doing of all the commandments is reinforced by the concluding observation: I am Y your Elohim.⁴¹Num. 15:39 The passage shares in common with the previous ones of the same kind the fact that, like with them, the injunction is not issued with peremptory authority. A reason is given why this law of the fringes should be observed:

And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Y and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray.

As in the earlier texts which we have just discussed, the law is prescribed out of divine concern with the moral and spiritual condition of the people. Something is given them to help them to remember and that, as a result, they may not go astray as was their wont. As compared to the previous passages, this one has a distinguishing feature. The demand is made upon the children of Israel that they keep God’s commandments and be holy unto “their Elohim.” This may well lead us to an examination of such texts in which a law is given in association with the injunction for holiness. We shall place two such passages side by side:

Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am Y your Elohim; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy.… For I am Y that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your Elohim; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am Y your Elohim. And keep my statutes, and do them: I am Y who sanctify you.⁴²Lev. 11:43–45; 20:7–8.

The contexts in both places show clearly divine concern for the spiritual welfare of Israel. Worth noting, however, is the reason given for the command to be holy: to be holy because holy is also Y their Elohim. We do not find in the Bible a call to holiness because Y is holy, but because Y your Elohim is holy.⁴³Lev. 20:26 is no exception. That he set Israel apart that they should be his, means, of course, that he is their Elohim. Therefore, “for I Y am holy, and have set you apart …” equals: for I Y, your Elohim, is holy. Y, the omnipotent, transcendent God, cannot be imitated. No one may be asked to be holy because Y is holy. Only because Y is Elohim, because notwithstanding his absoluteness, he relates himself to man and reveals himself as the providential father, is imitatio dei possible; only because of that may one say to a mere man: be thou holy, for God too is holy.

As we now proceed in our investigation of the individual commandments, we may not be able to discover clear and unambiguous rules, but some interesting features may yet emerge. Let us bear in mind that our question is not really why a law is occasionally underlined with the declaration, I am Y, but rather, why at times the longer formula is used, I am Y your Elohim. We note that when reference is made to the Exodus the emphasis is, I am Y your Elohim. For instance:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home born among you, and thou shalt love him as Thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am Y your Elohim. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment.… Just balance, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am Y your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.⁴⁴Ibid. 19:33–36.

The mentioning of Exodus calls for the affirmative phrase, I am Y your Elohim. The Exodus is the classical manifestation of divine providence over Israel. Anywhere God is mentioned in connection with it, he is called Y your Elohim.

We also observe that laws which are directed against idol worship are usually enjoined with the emphasis, I am Y your Elohim, but never with, I am Y. So we read, for instance: “Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am Y your Elohim.”⁴⁵Lev. 26:1. Cf. also Ibid. 19:4; Ezek. 20:7, 18–19. This is all the more significant since the words that follow immediately are: “Ye shall keep My sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary: I am Y.” Quite obviously, the change in phraseology intends to make a point. It would seem to us that what is emphasized is in keeping with our thesis. The danger was not that the idols may usurp the place of Y. They were meant to be the approachable connecting deities between Y and man. They were usurping the place of Elohim. The laws against idol worship pointedly conclude, I am Y your Elohim; once again the idea being: there is none else beside me.⁴⁶Lev. 20:31 also belongs in the same category. “Ghosts and familiar spirits” are like idols, meant to stand between the Supreme Power and man. But since Y is your Elohim, there is no room for them in the system of Judaism. As to Lev. 19:21, “I am Y” is sufficient since it is directly preceded by, “and thou shalt not profane the name of your Elohim.”

Our quote of the sabbath law, too, deserves some further attention. Exactly the same wording occurs once more in chapter 19 of Leviticus. But Ezekiel writes: “And hallow My sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that ye may know that I am Y your Elohim.”⁴⁷Ezek. 20:20. Is it unreasonable to assume that the prophet underlines the sabbath law with the Elohim phrase because he makes mention of the sign that the sabbath is between God and Israel? A sign between God and man means that Y is man’s Elohim. The parallel to Ezekiel’s formulation we find in Exodus where we read: “Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am Y who sanctify you.”⁴⁸Exod. 31:13. As in Ezekiel, the sabbath is designated as a sign between God and the children of Israel. It is, therefore, not enough to state: that they may know that I am Y. It is true, neither does the completion of the phrase, your Elohim, occur here. However, as we have already noted earlier, Israel’s duty for holiness is the direct consequence of their being set apart from among the peoples. The God who sanctifies them is the one who set them apart in order to sanctify them. He is their Elohim. “That ye may know that I am Y who sanctify you” is the equivalent of Ezekiel’s “that ye may know that I am Y your Elohim.”⁴⁹Cf. also Ezek. 20:12 which shows that Ezekiel uses the formula of Exod. very much in the manner in which he uses the one discussed in our text.

There is, however, one place where the sabbath commandment is followed by the declaration, I am Y your Elohim, even though no reference is made to it as a sign between God and man. It is found in the opening part of chapter 19 of Leviticus. Is it an exception or does it confirm the rule? The passage is exceptional in one other important aspect. Most surprisingly, the sabbath law there is linked to the injunction to respect one’s parents. It reads as follows: “Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and ye shall keep My sabbaths: I am Y your Elohim.” The connection between respecting one’s father and mother and the observance of the sabbath is puzzling. We accept the rabbinical interpretation that explains the connection in the following manner. Since God commands a man to respect his parents, one might think that one should obey one’s parents even if they should demand of one some deed which involves a desecration of the sabbath. To exclude such a possibility, the Bible combined the two commandments, as if to say: even though one should respect one’s father and mother, yet keep ye my sabbaths. The commandment to honor one’s parents does not overrule the sabbath law; for I am Y your Elohim and you as well as your parents are obligated to honor me.⁵⁰Cf. Torat Kohanim, K’doshim, 5; Talmud Babli Y’bamoth, 5/B. The principle is then expanded to include all God’s commandments. Have we gained anything from this interpretation for the clarification of our own problem? Psychologists, occasionally, see in the idea of God nothing more than the projection of the father image. One might say with much greater justification that, at times, the God image is projected upon a father or a mother and parents become idolized. There are, indeed, entire cultures in which ancestral worship takes the place of religion and God is replaced by the ancestral image. Returning now to our text, one might say that if a parental command could suspend a divine law, one would literally have idolized father and mother and established them as “Elohim,” standing between man and God. It is for this reason that this specific combination of two commandments is underlined by the statement: I am Y your Elohim. Since the term Elohim expresses the providential aspect of divine nature, the phrase in this context carries the association that Y himself is the Father, the ultimate Parent. Our interpretation is born out by what follows immediately upon the combined parents-sabbath commandment. “Turn ye not unto the idols, nor make yourselves molten gods: I am Y your Elohim.” If a parental wish would overrule any divine law, it would be tantamount to turning unto an idol.

We are left with a number of individual laws, whose importance is emphasized by the statement, I am Y your Elohim. We shall list them side by side.

And ye shall not wrong one another; but thou shalt fear thy Elohim; for I am Y your Elohim. (Lev. 25:17)

And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am Y your Elohim. (ibid. 19:10)

And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden; three years it shall be as forbidden unto you; it shall not be eaten. And in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise unto Y. But in the fifth year may ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you more rich by the increase thereof: I am Y your Elohim. (ibid. 19:23–25)

Is there anything that these laws have in common? One may readily discern the common feature between the second and the third. In both cases one is required to give up something that one considers one’s own. The gleanings and the fallen fruits in one’s vineyard are one’s own property. They have to be surrendered to the poor and the stranger. The yield of one’s fruit trees in the first years is one’s own, but one has to surrender it at God’s demand. In this latter command it is said, that it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof. Once again we shall quote the perspicacity of talmudic interpretation. Rabbi Akiba explained: the Torah speaks here to counter the promptings of man’s evil inclination. A man might say: for four years I have toiled in vain. It is for this reason that it is said: that it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof.⁵¹Torat Kohanim, K’doshim, 68. In other words: let him not worry; he will not be the loser for observing this law. Might we not then say that the affirmation, I am Y your Elohim, is appropriate at the conclusion of this law? A man need not worry about the loss which he is to incur by keeping this commandment. Let him trust in God, for “I am Y your Elohim, your Sustainer and Provider.” But this interpretation applies very well to our second quotation. A small farmer, who is required to give up the gleanings and the fallen fruits of his vineyard, may himself be hard put to it to make a tolerable living and not be inclined to be that generous toward the poor and the needy. It is for this reason that he is reminded: I am Y your Elohim; all your sustenance comes from Y who is your Provider.

What however about the first of the three laws that we have listed above? Rabbi Akiba’s interpretation takes us right to it. In fact, it is derived from the very context in which that law itself occurs. “And ye shall not wrong one another” is said there in connection with the year of the Jubilee. Almost immediately after it, and in the same connection, we read:

And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat until ye have enough, and dwell therein in safety. And if ye shall say: “What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase; then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth produce for the three years. (Lev. 25:19–20)

The same human anxiety about which this passage speaks applies to the entire institution of the Jubilee. The slaves were to go free, agricultural properties returned free to their original owners. One did not sell land, but only the crops according to the number of the years left to the Jubilee. All arrangements were only temporary; prices for land varied accordingly. The people were required to treat what they considered their property as if it were not their own. For, indeed “the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and settlers with Me.” For reasons of economic anxiety and concern for their livelihood, it would be natural for some people not to be too conscientious in the observance of all the laws pertaining to the Jubilee. Here, too, the injunction: “And ye shall not wrong one another; but thou shalt fear thy Elohim,” is therefore properly concluded with the words: I am Y your Elohim; as to the future, trust in the one who is your Sustainer.

We may now sum up the results of our present discussion. The emphasis, I am Y, is appropriate when the source of authority is to be underlined. However, when reasons are given, which show that the laws themselves are a manifestation of divine care for the moral and spiritual health of Israel, the appropriate affirmation is: I am Y your Elohim. Whenever reference is made to the Exodus in connection with a particular law, the emphasis is: I am Y your Elohim. Laws that are directed against idol worship adequately emphasize that Y is Israel’s Elohim. Finally, when a law requires surrender of possession, which may be the cause of economic anxiety, the reminder that Y is Israel’s Elohim is a call to place one’s trust in divine providence.

TO BECOME ELOHIM FOR SOMEONE

Another phrase which requires some elucidation and which has bearing on our immediate subject is the divine promise that God will be l’Elohim to some one person or to a people. The first time we encounter the expression in the Bible is in chapter 17 of Genesis where it occurs twice in the same context, in God’s promise to Abraham.

And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to become Elohim for thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will become Elohim for them. (vss. 7–8)

For some mysterious reason in the Revised Version, followed here by the J.P.S. translation, the same Hebrew idiom, lih’yot l’Elohim, is changed in the translation. Accordingly, God promised Abraham to be a God unto him and to be the God of his children. Now, to say that God promises to be their God is good English, but it is disregarding completely the Hebrew idiom. Regrettably, it also conveys an unbiblical meaning. For God, the Creator of all the worlds and the Absolute Sovereign over all his creation, as he is depicted in the Bible, is of course God. For him to promise that he will be someone’s God in particular would be nonsensical. He is whatever he is. He is God and will not be anything in the future what he is not already now. He is God and as such, God over all. On the other hand, “to be a God unto thee,” the promise regarding Abraham personally according to the adopted translation, is closer to the Hebrew original, but hardly very meaningful. What does it mean to be a God to someone? We believe that there is no one who has the slightest intelligible notion of it. It is not surprising that in this passage, as well as in all other passages in the entire Bible, the idiomatic quality of the Hebrew, lih’yot l’Elohim, was consistently overlooked. As long as the specific meaning of the term, Elohim, in this, and similar, context was not understood, the Hebrew idiom could not be appreciated. Nowhere does the phrase occur in the Bible: to be your God, or, to be their God. “Lih’yot l” does not mean: to be for, but, to become. Of course, to become God for you, would not do at all. What God promised Abraham was: I, God, will become Elohim for you and for your children. It makes excellent sense, if one realizes that the term Elohim indicates the providential attitude of God toward man, the manifestation of divine guidance and protection. “I shall become Elohim for you and for your children” does not mean that God will be his and his children’s God, which is meaningless, but that God will enter into a providential relationship with them and will be Elohim, Leader, Protector, Savior, unto them. There is no passage in the Bible, where the term occurs, where it has not exactly this meaning. In the case of Abraham, to be Elohim for him and for his children is connected with the eternal covenant and the promise of the land. As in the case of Abraham, so at later times too the covenant between God and Israel is the manifestation that God becomes Elohim for Israel. We find it in Deuteronomy and in Jeremiah.⁵²Deut. 29:11–12; Jer. 31:32; 32:38. Often it is the Exodus which is mentioned to illustrate the point that God desires to be Elohim for the children of Israel. For instance: “For I am Y that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to become Elohim for you.⁵³Lev. 11:45; cf. also, ibid. 22:33; 25:38; 26:45; Num. 16:41.

A most impressive passage is the one at the close of chapter 29 of Exodus. It illustrates, and—as it were—sums up, almost our entire discussion in this chapter. It runs as follows: “And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and I will become Elohim for them. And they shall know that I am Y their Elohim, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am Y their Elohim.” That the Divine Presence dwells among the children of Israel is due to God’s desire to be Elohim for them. That the Sh’khina is in their midst gives Israel the knowledge that Y, the Far-One, is nevertheless, their Elohim, the one who is near. Y is, indeed, their Elohim; he acts toward them as Elohim.⁵⁴Cf. also Lev. 26:12.

That Elohim stands for the manifestation of providential divine attitude toward man comes to clearest expression in some statements of the prophets. Jeremiah could never have said, as the translators would make us believe, that “at that time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel.” No matter when, and no matter what, God is God all the time. What God said to Israel through the prophet was a promise of divine providence. What he really said was: at that time, I shall become Elohim for Israel; I shall act toward them as Elohim.

Some of the most powerful prophecies of future redemption center around the theme that God will act as Elohim toward Israel. Jeremiah, for instance, declaimed in the name of God:

Behold, I will gather them out of all the countries, whither I have driven them in Mine anger, and in My fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them back unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely; and they shall become a people for Me, and I shall become Elohim for them; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me for ever; for the good of them and of their children after them; and I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put My fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me.⁵⁵Jer. 32:37–40; cf. also ibid. 30:22; 31:32.

God is, of course, their God even when he punishes them in his anger; even in their Exile, he does not cease being God. But when he gathers them in from all the countries, he reveals himself as Elohim in redeeming action toward them; he becomes Elohim for them.

In discussing this passage, it may be advisable to pay some attention to the phrase often correlated to the one we have been discussing in this section of our study, i.e., lih’yot li l’am. Just as lih’yot l’kha l’Elohim does not mean, to be your God, neither does lih’yot li l’am mean, to be My people. Because of the idiomatic correspondence between the two phrases, we have translated: and they shall become a people for Me. We render all other passages containing the same idiomatic expression in the same manner. But what does it mean, to become a people for God? Just as “to become Elohim for them” indicates an attitude of divine concern toward Israel, so does “to become a people for Me” require an attitude of attachment to God on the part of Israel. As God is their Elohim by dwelling in their midst, so do they become his people by living in his presence. The everlasting covenant means, as Jeremiah puts it, that God will not turn from them, nor will they depart from him. God will give them “one heart and one way” that they may fear him for ever. God’s providential care for them includes their spiritual salvation as well as their political redemption. This is in keeping with what we have established in the previous part of our discussion, i.e., that the giving of the Law itself is due to divine providence over Israel.

Jeremiah’s theme is taken up again and sounded with even greater passion by Ezekiel.

Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel … ; neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they become a people for Me and I shall become Elohim for them.⁵⁶Ezek. 37:21–23; cf. also ibid., 26–28.

By saving them from their Exile and by cleansing them from their sins will God become Elohim for them and they will become a people unto him because they will no longer defile themselves with their transgressions.⁵⁷Cf. also Lev. 26:12 where that Israel will become a people unto God is introduced with the words: “If ye walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them.” Quite clearly in Deut. 29:12 the entering into covenant with God and into his oath, by means of which God establishes Israel as a people unto himself and becomes Elohim for them, implies that Israel walk in the way of God. Even more explicitly, ibid. 26:17–18. Not only will God cause them to dwell in their land, says Ezekiel, but he will also “sprinkle them with clean water” so that they be clean. He will also give them a “new heart” and a “new spirit”; he will put his own spirit in them and cause them to walk in his statutes and keep his commandments and do them. Thus, reconciliation will be established between God and Israel and the relationship of the covenant fulfilled, realized. Israel will become God’s people and God will turn to Israel and become Elohim for them.⁵⁸Ezek. 11:20; 36:28.

At the close of this part of our discussion, it may be interesting to quote in full God’s original message to Israel through the mouth of Moses, as they were launched into world history on their career as God’s people.

Wherefore say unto the children of Israel: I am Y,

and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments;

and I will take you to Me for a people, and I will become Elohim for you;

and ye shall know that I am Y your Elohim, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning which I lifted up My hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage:

I am Y. (Exod. 6:6–8)

We are now in a position to appreciate fully the exactness of the terminology used in this founding message to Israel. “I am Y” is the opening statement. Let there be no mistake about it. It is Y who is speaking and not some subsidiary deity under him, some mediating Elohim between God and man. And it is Y himself who will bring them out of the house of bondage and take them for a people unto himself, because Y will become Elohim for them. Then Israel will know that Y is their Elohim. He brought them out of Egypt and not some intermediary divine being. There is also the assurance that God will lead them to the land long promised to the patriarchs. Finally, we have the conclusion: I am Y, as if to say: I may be relied upon to keep my promise; I am the Creator and the Lord over all, I have the power to do as I plan.

Our examination has shown that there is in the entire Bible a remarkable consistency in the usage of some basic concepts, which originally defined the relationship between God and man, and in particular, that between God and Israel.

TO KNOW HIM

We come now to the final term indicating knowledge of God, which we set out to investigate. It is the expression: lada’ath eth YHVH. Practically at first glance we note that the concept has certain ethical implications, which at times are stated negatively, at others, positively. Of the sons of Eli, for instance, it is said that they were “base men, they knew not Y.”⁵⁹I Sam. 2:12. The passage conveys the idea that had they known Y, they would not have been base. We recall the bitter comment of Jeremiah:

O that I were in the wilderness,

In a lodging-place of wayfaring men,

That I might leave my people,

And go from them!

For they are all adulterers,

An assembly of treacherous men.

And they bend their tongue, their bow of falsehood;

And they are grown mighty in the land, but not for truth;

For they proceed from evil to evil,

And Me they know not,

Saith Y. (9:1–2)

The corresponding positive rendering of the thought is found in the famous chapter 11 of Isaiah where the vision of universal peace and harmony is concluded with the words:

They shall not hurt nor destroy

In all My holy mountain;

For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Y,

As the waters cover the sea. (vs. 9)

Do these passages mean to say that the knowledge of God is identical with ethical action, that the two—perhaps—are interchangeable? We believe that what is indicated is a causal nexus between ethical and moral behavior and the knowledge of God. This is, in our mind, borne out by another passage in chapter 9 of Jeremiah. Verse 5 there says, concerning Israel:

Thy habitation is in the midst of deceit;

Through deceit they refuse to know Me,

Saith Y.

The rendering, “through deceit,” obscures the meaning. In our opinion, the Hebrew b’mirma in the second line, is the equivalent of the two words b’tokh mirma in the first line. A better rendering would therefore be:

Thy habitation is in the midst of deceit;

In [the midst of] deceit they refuse to know Me.

The meaning is much clearer now. They dwell in the midst of deceit and in such a condition they, of course, refuse to know God. They hold on to their deceitfulness, which means that they refuse to know God. He who knows God cannot be deceitful.

What, however, may be the meaning of knowing God in the specific phrase under discussion? It seems to be different from the expressions that we have discussed earlier. It is not to know that he is Y, or, that he is Y our Elohim; but to know him. What is it that the sons of Eli did not know? Surely they must have known quite a great deal about God. They were priests in the sanctuary. They knew that he was Y, Israel’s Elohim, who led them out of Egypt. The people of Israel, too, whom Jeremiah castigated without mercy, must have known a great deal about God. What kind of knowledge were they lacking? They knew about God, but they did not know Him. We may be led to an understanding of the term, if we recall what is said about Samuel, when God revealed himself to him for the first time. Samuel did not realize that God was calling him. The Bible says of him in this connection: “Now Samuel did not yet know Y, neither was the word of Y yet revealed to him.”⁶⁰Ibid. 3:7. No doubt, young Samuel must have known a great deal about God. He probably knew more than any one else of his generation. But, he did not yet know Y; the word of Y had not yet been revealed to him. In other words, as yet, he had had no experience of divine revelation. Like Job, Samuel too might have exclaimed: “I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth Thee.” In the case of Samuel, to know Y certainly meant to have a personal experience of the Divine Presence, to confront God, and to be “face to face” to him as it were, and thus to know him. A person may know about another one a great deal; but one may actually know someone else, if one has entered into a real personal relationship with him. Such knowledge Samuel was lacking prior to his first experience of divine revelation. To know God, in this sense, would not mean intellectual knowledge or information, but what is understood by knowing a friend, someone beloved. One knows with one’s whole being; the knowledge is a bond that unites. Such knowledge has no object but is an actual relation between two subjects. It is most intimate between God and his prophets, yet Hosea uses the same concept to describe the relation of love between God and all of Israel. It is a well-known passage, in which Israel is mystically symbolized as God’s betrothed. Addressing Israel, God says:

And I will betroth thee unto Me for ever;

Yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in righteousness, and in justice,

And in lovingkindness, and in compassion.

And I will betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness;

And thou shalt know Y. (2:21–22)

If one bears in mind that, to know, in the Bible is also used to indicate the consummation of the union between husband and wife,⁶¹See, for instance, Gen. 4:1. one might almost read instead of “thou shalt know Y,” “thou shalt love Y.” To know God means to stand in a personal relationship of love to him. It is a bold vision indeed, that Hosea carries to the people of Israel, maintaining that the relationship that is natural between God and his prophet is open for all Israel. Yet, he was building on an old tradition in Israel. In his last will and testament David said to Solomon:

And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the Elohim of thy father, and serve Him with a whole heart and with a willing mind; for Y searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts; if thou seek Him, He will be found of thee. (1 Chron. 28:9)

That if one seeks God, God lets himself to be found means of course that one is able to find him, not just to learn about him. When one finds him, one knows him. And all may seek.

While this knowledge cannot always be as intimate as between God and the prophets or as in the mystical union between God and Israel in the vision of Hosea, it is always the expression of a personal intimacy of relationship between God and man. The idea found one of its finest expressions in one of the great passages of Jeremiah:

Behold, the days come, saith Y, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah … this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel … I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will become Elohim for them, and they will become a people for me; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: “Know Y”; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Y; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. (31:31–34)

A superficial reading of the English translation will not reveal the logical connection between the two statements in the latter part of this quotation. How does Israel’s knowledge of God depend on God’s forgiving their sins? Only if to know him means to be at one with him, to enter into a relationship of intimacy with him, are the two ideas logically dependent on each other. For, as Isaiah would say, your iniquities separate between you and your God and your sins hide his face.⁶²Isa. 59:2. And when God’s face is hidden one cannot “know” him, for the relationship has broken down. God forgives their sins, he removes the separation himself, he lets himself be found, that they may “know” him. Most interesting is the fact that Jeremiah singles them out individually for such knowledge of God, “from the least of them unto the greatest of them,” as indeed such knowledge is the realization of a personal relationship between God and man. It will happen, when God’s law will no longer have to be imposed upon them, but will become the inward law of their own nature. According to Isaiah, not even Egypt will be denied this immediate knowledge of God. For God will make himself known to Egypt too, “and the Egyptians shall know Y in that day.” Yes, God will smite Egypt, but he will do it “smiting and healing”; and they shall return into Y and he will be entreated of them, and will heal them. It is this day, on which Egypt too will be called God’s blessed people.⁶³Ibid. 19:21–25.
CHAPTER 2

Following Jeremiah, we may then say that to know God includes to carry God’s law imprinted on one’s “inward parts,” to do his will out of love as a manifestation of one’s own nature. To enter into the knowing relationship with God is the great transforming experience in human life, which changes human nature itself. This is the root of the causal connection between this knowledge of God and ethical conduct, which we noted at the beginning of our discussion. He who carries God’s law inscribed on his heart cannot dwell in the midst of deceit. Thus, they shall not hurt nor destroy in all God’s holy mountain, when the earth is full the knowledge of Y as the waters cover the sea.

In summation one may say that when God makes himself known through his actions one learns about him, either that he is Y or that he is Y our Elohim. But when man seeks him and he lets himself be found, then one knows him by a knowledge that is a bond of love between God and man.

Concluding Notes

Sigmund Mowinckel, in his study Die Erkenntnis Gottes bei den Propheten (Oslo, 1941), discusses the meaning only of the object phrase about the knowledge of God, to know Y, which we analyzed at the close of the chapter. His interpretation comes very close to our own. While it may not be quite correct to say, as he does, that in the Bible to know a person is always identical with a relationship of trust, friendship, with a sense of belonging to each other, often it is so. He is right in describing the knowledge of God as a personal, existential relation between God and man. On the whole, we agree with the main burden of his statements on this subject. He says, for instance:

Gotterkennen oder “kennen,” das bedeutet für den Israeliten, in einem gegenseitigen, persönlichen Gemeinschaftsverhältnis zu ihm stehen, seinen Namen, sein Wesen, seinen Willen und seine Gefühle kennen, und zwar existentiell, so dasz man dadurch die Richtung, die Qualität, den Inhalt und die Direktive des eigenen Lebens erhält.… [p. 6] “Kennen” eben ein gegenseitiges, persönliches Gemeinschaftsverhältnis ist, innerhalb welcher der eine im Sinne und Geiste des Andern handeln kann und will—sei es “instinktiv” oder sei es, dasz er bewuszt seine Gedanken und seinen Willen darauf richtet. (pp. 39–40)

We feel, however, that Mowinckel does not fully realize the causal nexus between this kind of existential knowledge of God and the human attitude and action which follow from it. He is very close to it in calling the human deed that follows such knowledge of God instinctive. But he is not quite definite about it, as is seen from the end of our quotation. Thus, he also writes:

Die Erkenntnis Gottes ist nun aber, sehen wir, keine theoretisch-betrachtende Einsicht, sondern ein praktisches Verhalten und Tun. Darum, und nicht so sehr um den Gottesbegriff, handelt es sich in der Verkündigung der Propheten, wenn sie Gotteserkenntnis fordern und erwarten.… Wer Gott kennt, der musz es in seinem Tun zeigen. Das ist der Hauptpunkt in der prophetischen Auffassung der Gotteserkenntnis. (pp. 33–34)

He is quite right in stating that the knowledge of God is no theoretically contemplative insight and that the concern of the prophets is not with the philosophical concept of the idea of God. But one should not say that the prophetic interest is practical attitude and action. It is not. The knowledge of God is what Mowinckel himself said it was—an existential relation of mutuality of trust and confidence. The human attitude and the human deed are the outcome of such a personal relation. The knowledge of God has an existentially transforming influence upon the nature of men who participate in it. It is not that he who knows God has to show it in his behavior; he will show it because he cannot help showing it. He comes out of this “knowledge of God” another man. Since Mowinckel is not aware of this transfiguring effect of the knowledge of God, he is not able to appreciate fully Jeremiah’s words about the new covenant, when God will write his law upon “their inward parts and in their hearts,” so that there will be no more need for them to teach each other “saying: ‘Know Y’; for they shall all know Me” (31:33–34). This is no new departure. As we have shown in our analysis of this text, Jeremiah elaborates what has been implicitly stated whenever the knowledge of God is mentioned, i.e., the transfiguring quality of the existential experience of this kind of knowledge.

Mowinckel discusses only one type of the biblical knowledge of God. He is not concerned with the phrases that speak of knowing God, using the formula with the subordinate clause: that they may know “that I am Y” or “that I am Y Elohim.” G. Johannes Botterweck, in a dissertation entitled “Gott Erkennen: Im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments” (Bonn, 1951), discusses these phrases too. As to the object phrase which is Mowinckel’s subject, he leans completely on Mowinckel. As to the other two, he recognizes that they speak of a knowledge of God received through a manifestation of either His judgment or His salvation. However, he does not see the distinction between “that I am Y” and “that I am Y Elohim.” Neither does he discuss the fourth phrase that we have noted, i.e., “to know that Y He is the Elohim.” On the other hand, Walther Zimmerli in Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel, Eine theologische Studie (Zurich, 1954), does analyze all the four formulas whose investigation has been our subject in this chapter. Unfortunately, we cannot agree with any of his conclusions. In our opinion he misses completely the significance of the object phrase which—as we have shown—is the most intimate form of knowing God. He is misled here by overlooking the distinction between “that I am Y” and “that I am Y Elohim.” As a result, he overemphasizes “that I am Y,” as an act of divine self-revelation in which God reveals his Persongeheimnis (the secret of his person) in the revelation of his name. Thus, this phrase stands for the highest form of man’s knowledge of God, which leads Zimmerli to underrate the importance of the object phrase. In reality, as we have shown, the object phrase means knowledge of God, whereas the formula with the subordinate clause stands only for knowledge about God. Knowledge of God has the transfiguring effect; knowledge about God does not have it. Had he seen the distinction, he would have realized that this knowledge of God was not the communication of a supreme Persongeheimnis in the divine name, but a manifestation of divine involvement in human history through divine actions. Not seeing the distinction between the two versions of the subordinate clause, he can write:

Nun weisz ich, dasz Y Gott ist, wird die Antwort des Menschen vor dem ihm verkündeten und dann sich ereignenden Geschehnis sein müssen. In solcher Antwort wird er den, der sich in seinem Namen persönlich geoffenbart hat, als den Herrn Israels und damit auch den Herrn des einzelnen in Israel vor sich haben. (p. 67)

The fact is that this kind of responsive acknowledgment to the revelation never occurs when what is being revealed is that He is Y. We find such acknowledgement only as a human response to the revelation that Y is Elohim, as in the story of Elijah in I Kings 18 or in the prayer of Solomon in I Kings 8. The reason is simple. When God shows His sovereign might and authority over all creation, there was no need for any responsive acknowledgment. The people of the Bible never doubted His omnipotence. They were wavering only as regards the question whether Y himself acted also as the Elohim in the specific sense of providential care and guidance or were such tasks delegated to subordinate mediating deities. Only on this point was acknowledgment necessary. The answering exclamation is not that Y is God but that He is the Elohim, the term Elohim being used in the specific sense as we have indicated in our text.

Zimmerli is greatly puzzled by the fact that there seems to be no harmonizing formula in Ezekiel for the two types of divine action which are so far apart as “sein Gericht bis zum blutigen ‘Ende,’ sein Erwecken zu neuem Leben” (his judgment to the bitter end and his resurrection to a new life). Actually, we have found the unifying concept, and not only in Ezekiel but in the entire Bible, in the formula, Y He is Elohim or Y your Elohim, indicating that God, who is far removed is also near, that He who is transcendent is also immanent, that Y who is Elohim is One.

It seems to us that Bible scholars have overlooked the special meaning that Elohim has in all the texts that deal with the knowledge of God and the acknowledgement of Y as Elohim. It is usually assumed that Elohim is the general name for God and Y is the personal name that he has for Israel. We have shown that this is not so. The innumerable passages in which God exercises judgment over the nations that they may know that he is Y are in themselves sufficient to prove that Y is the biblical name for God in the universal sense, as the God of all creation, known as such by all nations. As we have seen, even the confrontation between Jephtah and the Ammonites, far from proving that Chemosh was seen as the counterpart to Y, proves the opposite, since in the end of his message to the king of Ammon he appeals to Y the Judge to judge between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon. Quite clearly, this was an appeal to a Supreme Judge whom the Ammonite would recognize too. A. B. Davidson, in The Theology of the Old Testament (New York, 1914), is right in saying that Y and Elohim are not parallel names; unfortunately he reverses the order. According to him, as with all Bible scholars, Elohim is the general term and Y the specific one. We have shown that, within the area of our specific subject matter in this chapter, the very opposite is the case. If Davidson and the others were right, the responsive formula of acknowledgment ought to be: Elohim, He is Y. Y, He is the Elohim cannot mean that Y is God, for that must already be known with the knowledge of the very name of Y. It would be homiletics to attach too much importance to the definite article in front of Elohim and interpret the phrase as, Y He is the God, meaning the supreme God, the one above all others. All the texts which we have analyzed in this connection prove that Elohim is to be understood in the specific sense, as the manifestation of Y, who notwithstanding his Sovereignty and aloofness, is yet near and providentially concerned.

Davidson makes the apt observation that there is “perhaps no more singular phenomenon in the history of Israel than the repeated outbreaks into idolatry.… These repeated falls into idol worship, exhibited throughout the whole history of Israel … require some explanation” (p. 86). Indeed, an explanation is required. But as long as one sees Elohim as the general idea of the deity and Y as the personal name of God for Israel, the explanation will not be forthcoming. Trying to understand the repeated backslidings of Israel into idolatry, one ought to bear in mind the words of Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York, 1962). On the subject of idol worship in Israel he writes:

In face of such misconceptions the theologian has to learn from the general science of religion what are the special properties of an image. It soon appears that images were only in the most exceptional cases actually identified with the deity concerned: at any rate this was not done in the cults with which Israel came into contact. Images made no claim to give an exhaustive representation of the being of the deity. The pagan religions knew as well as Israel did that deity is invisible, that it transcends all human ability to comprehend it, and that it cannot be captured by or comprised in a material object. But this did not deter them from consecrating cultic images to it.… The image has nothing to say about the being of the deity or the mode of its inner life. What it speaks about is rather how the deity is pleased to reveal himself, for the image is first and foremost the bearer of a revelation. (pp. 213–14)

This insight may well help us to explain the repeated falls of Israel into idolatry. The “calves” and the “baalim” were not meant to represent Y or to replace Y. They were symbols of His presence and His nearness by way of a mediating deity. Von Rad has been anticipated by Rabbi Yehuda Hallevi, the eleventh-century Jewish philosopher, who in his philosophical work, the Kuzari, uses the same insight in order to explain the sin of the “Golden Calf” (see part 1, par. 97). The average Israelite needed some visible symbol as a sign of the nearness of the invisible and remote Y. The Golden Calf, as also the calf of Samaria, had this mediating function. Our interpretation of the relevant passages was guided by Rabbi Yehuda Hallevi. One ought to appreciate the difficulty the average early Israelite must have encountered in making peace with the idea that Y had no mediators, that notwithstanding His omnipotent aloofness, He was yet near as Savior and Sustainer, that one had direct access to the awesome King who was also the loving Father. The prophets’ struggle against religious syncretism is the struggle against the mediating deity, who as the Golden Calf or the Baal is always the Elohim. By affirming that Y is Elohim the statement is made that Y Himself is also the near one, notwithstanding His essential transcendence.

Bible scholars often maintain that the early prophets in Israel taught a practical monotheism but not a theoretical one. E. Sellin, for instance, sees clearly that Elijah’s mocking of the Baal proves that he denied it every possible form of existence. But he continues, saying: “theoretischer Monotheismus ist das nicht … noch nicht, es fehlt … die positive Aussage, dasz Y der einzige Gott sei.” (See Theologie des Alten Testaments [Leipzig, 1933], pp. 11–12.) He goes even as far as to say that not even the famous Sh’ma of the Jews contains such a statement of theoretical monotheism. It would seem, then, that all those generations of Jews who for more than two millenia have been living and dying with the Sh’ma on their lips, did not really know what they were saying. Sellin’s mistake is unavoidable. As long as Elohim, in those contexts in which we have discussed the term, is understood as the general idea of God, it is impossible to gain a correct interpretation either of the first words of the Decalogue or of the Sh’ma. We have analyzed those passages. Once it is seen that Elohim is used in the specific sense, as outlined by us, the meaning of the Sh’ma becomes very plain and clear. Hear, O Israel, Y is our Elohim, i.e., He is the Judge and the Savior, the King and the Father, and yet: Y is One.

Such a statement is not a practically monotheistic statement, but a theoretically monotheistic one. And so are also all the other related statements, even the people’s acknowledgment before the altar built by Elijah, exclaiming that Y He is the Elohim, Y He is the Elohim. Since Y was recognized as the Sovereign and Creator and since the Elohim of other religions had the function of subordinate deities under Y, the recognition that this was not true, that Y himself was also the Elohim and there were no mediators, was in fact a theoretically monotheistic affirmation.