וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נֹודַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃ (Exodus 6:3)
And I appeared to Avraham to Yitsḥaq and to Yaʿaqov as El Shaddai and My name YHWH I was not known to them
Introduction: Divine Revelation and Hiddenness
This verse from Exodus 6:3 captures one of the most theologically charged moments in the Torah: the contrast between appearing and being known. At the heart of this verse lies a subtle and profound play between two binyanim—Niphal and Qal. In the verbs וָאֵרָ֗א (“I appeared”) and נֹודַ֖עְתִּי (“I was known”), we encounter two different voices of revelation: one active and self-initiated, the other passive and veiled. Let us explore how the choice of binyan shapes the entire theological and narrative impact of this verse.
Verb Analysis and Binyan Identification
1. וָאֵרָ֗א — I appeared
- Root: ר־א־ה (“to see”)
- Binyan: Niphal (perfect, 1st person singular)
- Morphological Structure: Prefix וָ- (conversive + perfect), initial א (from Niphal prefix), internal vowel pattern ֵ-ָ
- Function: Passive or reflexive of “to see” — meaning “to appear” (i.e., to be seen)
- Semantic Force: Instead of saying “I showed Myself” in an active form (e.g., Hiphil), God uses a form that implies presence rather than performance. He was seen—not just saw or revealed Himself.
- Syntactic Role: Subject (God) + prepositional phrases אֶל־ indicating indirect objects (Avraham, Yitsḥaq, Yaʿaqov)
- Nuance: The Niphal gives a reverent, mysterious tone. The patriarchs did not behold a showy divine display—they perceived God’s presence as it appeared in their lives.
- Comparative Insight: Elsewhere, the root ר־א־ה occurs in Qal as “to see,” and in Hiphil as “to cause to see” or “to show.” The Niphal in this verse strikes a balance: it affirms divine initiative but through a relational lens of revelation.
2. נֹודַ֖עְתִּי — I was known
- Root: י־ד־ע (“to know”)
- Binyan: Niphal (imperfect, 1st person singular, with passive voice)
- Morphological Structure: Prefix נֹ- (Niphal), vowel pattern -וּ-ַ, suffix -תִּי indicating 1st person singular
- Function: Passive — “was known”
- Semantic Force: Unlike the active Qal form (יָדַע, “he knew”), this form emphasizes that the action was not initiated by the subject. God is not asserting “I did not let them know Me” (as a Hiphil would suggest), but rather “I was not known” — suggesting human limitation or divine withholding.
- Syntactic Role: Verb + dative object לָהֶם (“to them”)
- Discourse Effect: The shift from וָאֵרָ֗א (a form of presence) to נֹודַ֖עְתִּי (a form of hiddenness) deepens the verse’s paradox. Though God appeared, He remained ultimately unknown—highlighting the progressive unfolding of divine self-revelation across covenants.
- Literary Effect: The Niphal here “lets the verb recline into the background.” It suggests that the lack of knowledge wasn’t necessarily willful concealment but the nature of divine mystery at that time.
Visual Breakdown: Binyanim in Motion
| Verb | Root | Binyan | Voice | Translation | Narrative Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| וָאֵרָ֗א | ר־א־ה | Niphal | Passive / Reflexive | I appeared | Divine Presence |
| נֹודַ֖עְתִּי | י־ד־ע | Niphal | Passive | I was known | Divine Hiddenness |
Thematic Interplay: Revelation Through the Niphal Lens
It is not coincidence that both verbs—one of appearance and one of being known—are cast in the Niphal binyan. The Niphal here acts like a veil: it allows God’s movement toward humanity to be genuine, yet not overpowering; real, yet not exhaustive. The patriarchs saw something—an appearance—but did not grasp the fullness of the Name.
The verse implicitly sets the stage for a new kind of relationship: no longer just divine presence, but divine identity known by name. The binyan choices serve this literary function by softening the verbs into relational experiences rather than declarative acts.
How the Binyan Shapes the Story
The Niphal in this verse slows the action down. Instead of God doing (as in Hiphil), God is perceived. Instead of men knowing God (as in Qal), God is not known. These binyanim serve as grammatical drapery over a revelatory threshold. They reinforce that divine identity in the Tanakh is not merely told—it is unveiled, gradually, relationally, and sometimes through absence.
Like footsteps heard but not seen, these passive stems echo the divine humility in self-disclosure: וָאֵרָ֗א… yet לֹ֥א נֹודַ֖עְתִּי. A tension held within the very morphology of the verbs.
