Parashat Va’era 2023: The Names of God
The Hebrew name of the book of Exodus, Sefer Shemot, or the book of Names, gets its title from the names of the sons of Jacob who came to Egypt at the invitation of Joseph. But another issue of names comes up in the first part of Exodus that seems more important. We have already been introduced to Jacob’s family and reciting their names again adds little to the story. On the other hand, in the first chapters of Exodus we find new and important information about the name(s) of God.
In Exod 6:3, we find God saying to Moses, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, אל שדי, but I was not known to them by my name YHWH יהוה.
It is true that we find God self-identifying as אל שדי to Avram in Genesis 17:1 and to Jacob in Gen 35:11. Isaac uses that name speaking to Jacob in Gen 28:3. And Jacob uses it in speaking to his children in Gen 43:14, and to Joseph in Gen 48:3 and Gen 49:25.
But the name יהוה was also clearly known to and used by the Patriarchs:
- Gen 15:7 God to Abraham, “I am יהוה who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession.”
- Gen 18:14 God to Abraham, “Is there anything too wondrous for יהוה? I will return to you at the same season next year, and Sarah shall have a son.”
- Gen 24:3 Abraham to his servant, “Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by יהוה, the God of heaven.”
- Gen 26:22 Isaac speaks, “Now at last יהוה has granted us ample space to increase in the land.”
- Gen 27:20 Jacob to Isaac, “because יהוה your God granted me good fortune.”
- Gen 27:27 Isaac to Jacob “Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of the fields that יהוה has blessed.”
- Gen 28:16 Jacob speaks, “Surely יהוה is in this place, and I did not know it.”
So, each of the Patriarchs speaks the four-letter name of God, and Abraham hears the name directly from God. Even before God self-identifies as יהוה, though, it seems the name is known. In Gen 4:26, long before the Abram account begins, we read, “And to Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh. It was then that man began to invoke יהוה by name.”
So, what can it mean when God says, “I was not known to them by my name יהוה”? How can God say that the name by which God has been known is אל שדי when we can find the four-letter name so clearly in previous usage?
That is not the only question regarding the name(s) of God that we encounter in the early chapters of Exodus. In the first 16 verses of Chapter 3; in the account of Moses at the burning bush; we find four different names of God:
- God is referred to as יהוה in Ch 3:2, 4, 7, 15, 16
- God is referred to as אלהים, or in construct form, אלהי, in Ch 3:1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
- God tells Moses that God’s name is אהיה אשר אהיה in Ch 3:14
- But, also in 3:14, Moses is told to give the people the name אהיה as the name of God.
There are fifteen uses of the various names of God in only sixteen verses of the text, and in verse 14, alone, three different names are used. In that verse God tells Moses that God’s name is אהיה אשר אהיה and in the same verse, God tells Moses to give a truncated version of that name to the people. But neither of those names is then used in identifying God or in passages in which God speaks. The text immediately reverts to the more typical usage of יהוה and forms of אלהים. (El Shaddai is found again in later texts, particularly in Job.)
The classical commentators have offered several explanations for the apparent conflicts in the accounts of God’s name(s). One approach addresses the not-knowing of the four-letter name. It is based on analysis of the Hebrew phrase in Exod 6:3 לו נדעתי, which means “I did not make myself known/reveal myself.” That allows the conflict to be resolved on the understanding that the four-letter name was known but that God in God’s self, was not known. The knowing, then, was limited by the limited nature of God’s revelation. In that case the name might be seen as essentially a label. A word used to identify without the assumption of a deeper understanding.
Another approach addresses the meaning of אל שדי. The early Greek translations, including the Septuagint, understood the word שדי to be composed of ש-, meaning “which” or “that,” and די, meaning “enough,” or “sufficient.” In combination with אל, meaning God, the phrase was understood to mean “the God Who is sufficient.” Grammarians point out that the vowel associated with the ש does not support that translation, but even Maimonides saw that explanation as appropriate.
The idea of sufficiency can be seen as supporting the notion that God’s revelation to man was restricted. Just as God did not make himself known in a certain way, earlier, here we might think that God only made Himself known in a way sufficient to the needs or abilities of man, at that time. Perhaps the Patriarchs only needed to know God at a certain, restricted level. Or, that God only needed them to have a certain level of knowledge.
God’s words to Moses at the burning bush seem to support the idea of revelation-as-needed, or a kind of progressive revelation. Moses asks God how he should answer the Hebrews in Egypt if they ask him the name of the God who sent him to them. “And God said to Moses ‘Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.’ He continued, ‘Thus shall you say to the Israelites, Ehyeh sent me to you.’” (Exod 3:14) So, to Moses God gives the full name “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh,” but God instructs Moses to give the people only a truncated version of that name, Ehyeh. We never hear Moses actually giving that name to the people. But why might Moses be given a “full” name by God, but be instructed to give the people a shortened or incomplete version of that name?
I think the idea of sufficiency proposed for the understanding of El Shaddai can be helpful here. There are two aspects to the question of sufficiency: first, the idea that God reveals that which is sufficient to the time, person, and circumstance; and second, the idea that man must have sufficient capacity to receive and understand God’s revelation. Ramana Maharshi, the 20th century Indian non-dualist, said that the understanding of God expressed in the name Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, represents the highest spiritual teaching in all of the world’s scriptures. That is the name God reveals to Moses and I think most would see Moses as having a superior capacity to understand both the message of God and the nature of God than did the people still oppressed in Egypt. And if we can agree on that sort of distinction, I think a useful pattern emerges.
The Patriarchs, as much as we have come to consider them highly evolved spiritually, represent only the beginning of a journey towards the knowledge of God. When God first addressed Abram, the call was to take physical action; to leave one physical location and to move to another. Faith and courage were certainly required, but the action was at the most material of levels. Abram needed to understand God’s direction and to act on it. The direction was accompanied by a promise of rewards at the physical level. God would make of Abram a great nation. God would bless Abram and make his name great. Abram’s challenge was to believe the promise and act on the direction. The extent of God’s self-revelation is not addressed explicitly but the notion of sufficiency implied in the name El Shaddai seems to fit the situation logically.
When God instructs Moses to speak to Pharoah in Exod 7:16 his direction is: You shall say to him “יהוה, Elohei ha’Ivrim, sent me.” The four-letter name is used, and the name is identified as the God of the Hebrews. This is presumably considered sufficient for use in communication with Pharoah. To Pharoah the name would be heard simply as a name, a label used to refer to the specific God of the Hebrews. And when Pharoah thereafter referred to the God of the Hebrews, he used the four-letter name Moses had given him.
To Moses, though, the name would have a much deeper meaning. He would understand that name in the context of the “full” name God had communicated directly to him. And what was that context? The name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh is typically translated, “I am that I am,” or “I will be what I will be,” based on the idea that the word Ehyeh is an expression of the Hebrew verb “to be.” But what does that mean? There are multiple possibilities depending on the approach to the question. On a very literal level we might think of that name as signifying that God can be, is, and will be, whatever God might desire, choose, or need to be. But the difference between God’s message to Moses and the message God gives Moses for the people argues against such a literal approach. God told Moses to tell the people that God’s name was Ehyeh. That is, itself, an expression of the idea “I am” or “I will be.” What might the fuller expression given to Moses add to that?
I think that, to Moses, God provides an expanded understanding of his nature and that the “full name” Moses is given expresses the idea of pure being or pure existence; that is, is-ness, am-ness, being-ness; pure potential beyond any ideas of materiality. But that was not only beyond the capacity of the people to grasp, it was also more than they needed to understand at that time.
It seems to me that the Septuagint’s and Maimonides’ understanding of El Shaddai and the difference between the two names given to Moses at the burning bush point in the same direction. That the progression of names in the early biblical accounts reflect progressions of both requirement and capacity. On one track, the requirement is almost purely a matter of label. On the other is the twin dynamic of God’s willingness to reveal the divine nature and man’s capacity to understand it.
In God’s earliest communication to Abram, the issue is what God would do, as was the case in teh Noah account, for example. In Exodus 3, though, at the burning bush, God revealed to Moses something of what God is. The name El Shaddai was sufficient for many of the early Patriarchal accounts. It would presumably not be sufficient for Moses. Moses needed to know more than what God does. He needed to know at least something of what God is.
Rabbi David Cooper wrote a wonderful book titled “God Is a Verb,” which recognizes that God’s nature is wholly non-material and better expressed in a verb form rather than in a noun form. And that is how God told Moses to identify Him to the Israelite people. But to Moses God communicated a name that is really neither a thing nor an action. Rather, it is a quality. Not just being, but beingness, which is a step beyond just being. It is not the condition of being but the more subtle quality of being.
That, I think, is what God saw as sufficient to the needs of Moses at that time and as sufficient to his capacity. Both of which I think were well beyond those of his predecessors as well as his contemporaries.
CRL 1/24/2023