The Unknown God of Exodus 6:3—Did Abraham know Yahweh?

Introduction

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shadday), but by My name Lord (Yahweh) I was not known (yd’) to them” Exod 6:3 (NKJV)

Some of the weight of the documentary hypothesis has been hung on Exod 6:3 which supposedly suggests Patriarchal ignorance of the Yahweh name. In a previous article the title Shadday (translated “Almighty”) was examined and it was suggested in the conclusion that a tentative translation for El Shadday would be the “God who blesses (with offspring) and nourishes”.[1] The patriarchs knew God as El Shadday but apparently they did not know God as Yahweh? What does it mean to know God as Yahweh? [2]

Knowing and not Knowing

The irony of the Exodus situation is that the divine blessing of fertility implicit in the El Shadday title is so abundant that it causes problems for the descendants of Abraham—they become a vast multitude in the land of Egypt. This is perceived as a threat by the new Pharaoh as he did not “know” Joseph. This introduces another Exodus theme, namely, that of knowing and not knowing.

The new Pharaoh does not know Joseph (Exod 1:8), nor does he know Yahweh (Exod 5:2). On the other hand, Yahweh knows Israel (Exod 2:25) and knows their sorrows (Exod 3:7), and he also knows Moses by name (Exod 33:12, 17), even though the name of Yahweh is (apparently) unknown (Exod 6:3). However, the salvific act that Yahweh is about to perform will make him known to both Israelites (Exod 10:2) and Egyptians (Exod 7:5).

The key word is yd’ (to know) a verb which, N. M. Sarna points out, appears more than twenty times in the first fourteen chapters of Exodus:

The usual rendering, “to know,” hardly does justice to the richness of its semantic range. In the biblical conception, knowledge is not essentially or even primarily rooted in the intellect and mental activity. Rather, it is more experiential and is embedded in the emotions, so that it may encompass such qualities as contact, intimacy, concern, relatedness, and mutuality. Conversely, not to know is synonymous with dissociation, indifference, alienation, and estrangement; it culminates in callous disregard for another’s humanity.[3]

In the NIDOTTE entry for yd’ T. E. Fretheim points out the problem of narrowing the term’s definition:

The meanings of yd’ are difficult to relate to one another. They range from sensory perception to intellectual process to practical skill to careful attention to close relationship to physical intimacy. The relation to other verbs in this semantic field is difficult (cf. the vbs. in Isa 6:9; 32:3-4; 41: 20; 44:18). It is probable that precision in nuancing is not to be sought in such words in isolation; only the context allows such distinctions to emerge. In the broadest sense, yd’ means to take various aspects of the world of one’s own experience into the self, including the resultant relationship with that which is known. The fundamentally relational character of knowing (over against a narrow intellectual sense) can be discerned, not least in that both God and humans can be subject and object of the verb.[4]

The Context of Exodus 6:3

The context of Exod 6:3 is an accusation by the people of Israel shared with Moses that mention of the name of Yahweh to Pharaoh has not had the desired effect—in fact the opposite is true; demand by Yahweh to free the people had only worsened matters. The name Yahweh had brought evil on the people and increased Pharaoh’s intransigence. The documentary hypothesis treats Exod 6:3 as a duplication of Exod 3:14; in other words as a revelation of the divine name when it is actually a response to an accusation but framed as a covenant. R. Rendtorff [5] identifies the following structural elements in Exod 6:2-8:

Self-introductory formula	v. 2	I am Yahweh
Parallel statements	v. 4 v. 5	and also established My covenant with them and also….. have remembered My covenant
Covenant formula	v. 7a	I will take you for my people and will be God for you
Recognition formula	v. 7b	Then you shall know that I am Yahweh your God
Self-introductory formula	v. 6	I am Yahweh
Self-introductory formula	v. 8	I am Yahweh

Interestingly, Rendtorff observes (p. 15) that the ‘self-introductory formula’ I am Yahweh is “explicitly set over against the introductory formula in Gen 17.1, ‘I am El-Shaddai’” and later remarks (p. 16) that he finds “a kind of chiasmus between these two texts” (i.e. Genesis 17/Exodus 6). Rendtorff also notes several unusual features in Exod 6:2-8, for example the verb ‘take’ (v. 7a) occurs in no other formulation of the covenant formula – “but it is certainly not by chance that this word appears at this precise point, where God addresses Israel as a people for the first time.” (p. 16); also, the Priestly recognition formula in its expanded ‘long’ form occurs here for the first time in the Hebrew Bible. Rendtorff concludes that Exod 6.2-8 is therefore, “…..in several respects a key text. This is true not only of its position in the wider context of the Exodus narrative, but also and above all because of its central theological statements about God’s relationship to Israel…this text, which is theologically so important, has been formulated throughout with especially scrupulous care” (p. 17).[6]

The divine response to Moses’ complaint in Exod 5:20-6:8 is a finely balanced apologetic carefully structured around a covenant formula that has inter-relationships with earlier Abrahamic covenant material. God is reminding Moses that the patriarchs had known him as El Shadday – they had experienced him in his capacity[7] as the “God who blesses{with offspring}and nourishes – “But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them” (Exod 1:7). It was, in fact, this very blessing that had caused their current dilemma.

Did Abraham know Yahweh?

That the patriarchs (and here we think especially of Abraham) knew God in his capacity of El Shadday is unquestionable, but did they “know” him as Yahweh? The salvific acts experienced by Abraham during his sojourning, particular the revelation on Mt Moriah, suggest that Abraham did “know” Yahweh as his saviour. If that is the case the Hebrew should be understood as an interrogative – – “but by My name Yahweh was I not known (yd’) to them?”—but this is not supported by any Hebrew grammarian.[8] Whatever meaning we attach to “know” it is indisputable that Yahweh “knows” Abraham,

For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of Yahweh, to do righteousness and justice, that Yahweh may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him. Gen 18:19 (NKJV)[9]

The question is whether this “knowing” was reciprocated—can Abraham “know” Yahweh in the same way that Yahweh “knows” Abraham?

The NT (1 Cor.13:12) suggests degrees of knowledge: “Now I know (ginōskō) in part, but then I shall know (epiginōskō) just as I also am known (epiginōskō)”. The Greek ginōskō is probably closest to the Hebrew yd’ as it is used to express intimacy (cf. Matt 1.25; Luke 1.34) in a similar way to the Hebrew (“Now Adam knew Eve his wife”, Gen.4:1).

In the NT ginōskō frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known. The term epiginōskō suggests the development of advanced knowledge—a fuller relationship than ginōskō. Another Greek term translated as “know” is oida from the same root as eidon (to see)[10] to know from observation or to perceive, and both forms (oida/eidon) are used to translate yd’ in the LXX of the Exodus account (cf. Exod 3:7, 19; 5:2; 9:14; 11:7; 33:12, 17).

The sense of intimacy in ginōskō is particularly noticeable in Jesus’ response to Philip. Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known (ginōskō)[11] me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). The Greek literally reads: “so much time with you I-Am and not you-have-known me Philip?” Although the I-AM verb in the construct is purely functional, it resonates with significance when placed alongside the other Johannine I-AM sayings. The reference to time (so long/such a long time, NIV/YLT etc.) indicates that exposure to and intimacy with Jesus should have resulted in “knowing” him and therefore in “knowing” the Father. The twin themes of knowing and seeing God encountered in Philip’s question, and in Jesus’ subsequent promise of the comforter (John 14:17),[12] echoes the “presence” of Yahweh in Exod 33:14. The allusion in John 14 is (similar to Exod 6:3) therefore linked with knowing the Yahweh name:

Exodus 33	John 14
Show me now your way, that I may know You (v. 13)[13]	And where I go you know, and the way you know. (v. 4)
You have not let me know whom You will send with me (v. 12) My Presence will go with you (v. 14) [Cf. “presence” in Isa 63:9-14]	the Father will send (in my name) …. the Helper, the Holy Spirit (v. 26)
and I will give you rest (v. 14) [Cf. Isa 63:14 ‘rest’]	Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you (v. 27)
Please, show me your glory (v. 18) [Cf. Isa 63:12, 14 ‘glorious’ – though not Hebrew ‘kabod’]	Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us. (v. 8)
I will proclaim the name of the Lord (v. 19)	And whatever you ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (v. 13)

In Exodus 33, the phrase “Yahweh knows him [Moses] by name” is employed in v. 12 and v. 17 and forms an inclusio denoting Moses’ close relationship (face to face; cf. Deut. 34:10) with God. Moses is enquiring who God will send to help him shepherd the people into the Promised Land, specifically asking Yahweh to “show your way” (v. 13) and “show your glory” (v. 18). The way of Yahweh (cf. Gen 18:19) is Jesus Christ, “I am the way the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:16).

Conclusion

The sad fact is that throughout Israel’s long prophetic history the name of Yahweh was unknown (cf. Isa 52:6; Jer 16:21; Ezek 39:7) in the sense that the Jews were ignorant to the inherent purpose and character revealed in the Yahweh name. The prophet Jeremiah envisaged the time when it was no longer necessary to teach thy neighbour to know Yahweh …this is an allusion to the Passover:

And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next to his house. Exod 12:4 (NKJV)

And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ Exod 12:26 (NKJV); cf. Luke 2:46

In other words the “teaching” of “neighbour/children” is linked to the covenant meal that memorializes the Passover. This is the intellectual “knowing” of Yahweh…grounded in the historical facts taught about the Passover deliverance at the memorial…but the prophet envisages a future where no one needs to be taught…because they all have first-hand intimate knowledge of divine salvation.

The Jews could not lay claim to knowing God while at the same time refusing the one he sent:

Then they said to him, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know (eido) neither me nor my Father. If you had known (eido) me, you would have known (eido) my Father also. John 8:19 (NKJV)

The relationship between Father and son is reciprocal:

As the Father knows (ginōskō) Me, even so I known (ginōskō) the Father… John 10:15 (NKJV)

Moreover, Jesus knows his sheep and they in turn know him and hear his voice (John 10:14-16). Ultimately, the only way to know Yahweh is by knowing Jesus:

If you had known (ginōskō) me, you would have known (ginōskō) my Father also; and from now on you know (ginōskō) him and have seen him. John 14:7 (NKJV)

In Jesus’ response to Philip in John 14:8-9 “knowing” is virtually synonymous with “seeing”. Abraham named the place where Isaac was sacrificed in Gen 22:14 Yahweh-Yireh—literally Yahweh will be seen (revealed)[14], underpinning Jesus’ statement in John 8:55-56,

Yet you have not known (ginōskō) Him, but I know (eido) Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know (eido) Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know (eido) Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. John 8:55-56 (NKJV)

In conclusion, Abraham did “know” Yahweh and did “see” Yahweh but that revelation was progressive and was only seen with the eye of faith until the appearance of the Messiah:

Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew (epiginōskō) Him; and He vanished from their sight. Luke 24:30-31 (NKJV)

It is only in the act of salvation that the unknown God can be truly known.

---

[1] See, P. Wyns, “El Shadday” in The Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation: Annual 2010 (eds. A. Perry, P. Wyns & T. Gaston, J. Adey; Sunderland: Willow Publications 2010), 85-96.

[2] The documentary hypothesis is a source theory about the Pentateuch that achieved its mature formulation in the work of J. Wellhausen (d. 1918). This theory proposed that the Pentateuch had basically four source documents: (J) Yahwist source, presumed to have been written about 850 B.C., (E) or Elohist source, about 750 B.C., (D) or Deuteronomistic source about 620 B.C. and the priestly source (P) in the completed Pentateuch about 500 B.C. Exod 6:3 is often employed as a “proof-text” for the documentary hypothesis. According to this theory the author of this verse was unaware that the Patriarchs employed the Yahweh name, and presumably the final editor of Exodus failed to correct the discrepancy. According to this theory this is evidence that the Pentateuch is a document compiled from different “sources”, some of them contradictory.

[3] N. M. Sarna, Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 5.

[4] T. E. Fretheim, “[dy” in the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, (5 Vols; ed., W. A. VanGemeren; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 2:409-414, (410).

[5] R. Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: an Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 15-17. I have summarised the analysis that he presents on pages 15-17 in the form of a table.

[6] See Elmer A. Martens, “Tackling Old Testament Theology” JETS 20 (1977): 123-132, who views the pericope of Exod 5:22-6:8 and the identity of Yahweh as the unifying theme of Old Testament theology.

[7] According to S. D. Glisson the preposition b in the phrase be ‘el shaddai, which can mean “in the capacity of”, acts as a governing preposition for both nouns. The reading is achieved when this is placed alongside shemi (name) in the sense of “my reputation, fame, or character.” S. D. Glisson, “Exodus 6:3 in Pentateuchal Criticism” Restoration Quarterly 28.3, (1985/86): 135-43, (141).

[8] See H. G. Mitchell, “The Omission of the Interrogative Particle,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper, (2 vols; ed. R. F. Harper, F. Brown, and G. F. Moore; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908), 1:115-129, who restricts the number of occurrences in the Old Testament to 39, of which he attributes 12 or 17 to a corruption of the text. L. A. Heerboth, “Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” Concordia Theological Monthly 4 (1933): 345-349.

[9] Jesus Christ was the descendant of Abraham who did as Abraham charged. Contrast John 8:39: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham”.

[10] The themes of “seeing” and “knowing” are twinned and are often synonymous.

[11] The form of the verb ginōskō employed here is the indicative perfect active 2nd person singular.

[12] “The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you”.

[14] In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen (KJV). [Ed. JWA]: This is both a parabolic and a personal testing moment and the neuter ‘it’ of KJV is not neutral but insensitive to the spirit of Christ associated with this. Also, in Hebrew there is no neuter to be the pronoun ‘it’, but for the English sense (or sensibility!), literally reproducing ‘he’ or ‘she’ often does not seem appropriate. Sometimes, however, as in this Genesis 22 instance, featuring the gender of a term in translation connects with the non-linguistic identity whose gender is, on one reading, the male seed of Abraham. This being he whose day Abraham saw and rejoiced (John 8:56).