God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob—A Divine Name Including Mortals?

At the burning bush, God directs Moses to appear before Pharaoh to demand that he free the Israelites from Egypt. Moses then asks what name he should use to identify God to the Israelites (Exod 3:13).^[1] God’s initial response is that his name is אֶהְיֶה (Ehyeh):

‏^{שׁמות ג:יד} וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם.

^{Exod 3:14} And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” He continued, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’”^[2]

In the continuation of his speech, however, God presents the tetragrammaton, YHWH, as His proper name. He then elaborates upon the divine identity by stating that that YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

‏^{שׁמות ג:טו} וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה כֹּה תֹאמַר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם זֶה שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר.

^{Exod 3:15} And God said further to Moses, “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: This shall be My name forever, this My remembrance for all generations.”^[3]

A Divine Name

Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.E.–50 C.E.), in a comment on this verse, reverses the order of God’s statement. God first declares “this is my name,” and thus what follows—“God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob”—is a divine name, not just an epithet:

^{On the Life of Abraham (Abr.) 51} He linked them together by uniting His own proper name harmoniously with theirs, calling Himself by a title blended from the three: “For this,” He says, “is my eternal name, ‘God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob’”—substituting for an absolute name a relative one.^[4]

Philo’s exegesis is based on his reinterpretation of the LXX,^[5] in which the divine name, YHWH, is not mentioned; instead, it is rendered by the word, Kyrios, “Lord”:^[6]

^{LXX Exod 3:15} And God spoke again to Moses, “Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord (Kyrios) God of your fathers, God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob has sent me to you; this is my eternal name and my remembrance for generations of generations.’”^[7]

Without a proper name in the verse, the phrase “God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob” constitutes another appellation for God, and Philo interprets it as the subject of the phrase that follows it: “this is my eternal name.”^[8]

The Patriarchs as Symbols

Philo, engaging in his characteristic allegorical interpretation,^[9] understands the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not only as human beings, but as symbolic of three different “types of soul” and of three kinds of excellence—teaching or learning, nature, and practice:

^{Abr. 52} These words seem to be speaking about men of holy character, but in fact they are indications of a natural order which is more obscure than, and far superior to, the realm of sense-perception. For the sacred word would seem to be investigating types of soul, all of noble nature, one striving towards the good through instruction, one through natural ability, one through practice. For the first, by name Abraham, is a symbol of excellence derived from teaching, the middle one, Isaac, from natural ability, the third, Jacob, from practice.^[10]

The Greek Approach to Moral Improvement

As far back as the sixth or fifth century B.C.E., Greek thinkers debated what qualities were required for moral improvement. The earliest reference to the qualities of learning, nature, and practice is found in a fragment from the 5^th century sophist Protagoras. The same qualities are again mentioned in Plato’s (ca. 429–347 B.C.E.) dialogue, Meno, where Plato has Meno, a young aristocrat from Thessaly (a region in east central Greece), ask, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue can be taught, or is acquired by practice, not teaching? Or if neither by practice nor by learning, whether it comes to humankind by nature or in some other way?”^[11]

By Philo’s time in the first century C.E., the notion that learning, nature, and practice are key to improvement was widely accepted and applied not only to moral betterment but also to the acquisition of such skills as poetry, oratory, and other practical capabilities. Indeed, the triad of qualities is mentioned by such Greek and Roman writers as Isocrates, Aristotle, Horace, and Cicero.^[12]

The Patriarchs as Learning, Nature, and Practice

Philo himself does not make explicit how each of the patriarchs came to be associated with one of the three qualities that leads to personal improvement, but he offers enough clues in his works for us to conjecture about the origins of these associations.^[13]

Abraham as Learner

Philo’s identification of Abraham as a learner appears to be based on interpretations of key events in Abraham’s narrative. Yehoshua Amir (1911–2002) has suggested, “If Abraham meant the way of learning, his life had to be conceived as a progressive series of stages.”^[14]

The first of these stages is Abram’s migration from Chaldea (Gen 12:1–7), which, according to Philo, represents the patriarch’s movement away from false belief in astrology and in the equation of creation with the divine and his advancement toward recognition of the true God. Abraham’s progression from false to true belief is further confirmed by the change of his name from “Abram” to “Abraham,” since, as Philo explains, etymologically, “Abram” signifies reliance on astrology, while “Abraham” indicates the mind of a sage.^[15]

Another stage pertains to Abraham’s relationship with Hagar (Gen 16:1–6).^[16] In Philo’s allegorization, Abraham must become familiar with the “encyclical studies” or “preliminary studies”—grammar, geometry, astronomy, rhetoric, and music, among others—which are represented by Hagar, before he can unite productively with Sarah, a symbol, in different passages, of virtue, wisdom, or philosophy.^[17]

Isaac as Excelling by Nature

The connection between Isaac and nature focuses on single verses rather than whole episodes. For example, Genesis includes a notice that Isaac was weaned:

^{בראשׁית כא:ח} וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד וַיִּגָּמַל וַיַּעַשׂ אַבְרָהָם מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל בְּיוֹם הִגָּמֵל אֶת יִצְחָק.

^{LXX Gen 21:8} The child grew and was weaned, and Abraam made a great banquet on the day his son Isaak was weaned.^[18]

Philo views Isaac’s weaning as his having achieved maturity naturally and thus Philo links him with attaining excellence through natural ability:

^{On Dreams 2.10} Isaac...learns from no teacher but himself, for Moses represents him as weaned (Gen. xxi. 8), absolutely disdaining to make any use of soft and milky food suited to infants and little children, and using only strong nourishment fit for grown men, seeing that from a babe he was naturally stalwart, and was ever attaining fresh vigour and renewing his youth.^[19]

Another possible source behind this connection with Isaac may have been an interpretation of his conception and birth:

^{בראשׁית כא:ב} וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה לְאַבְרָהָם בֵּן לִזְקֻנָיו לַמּוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים.

^{LXX Gen 21:2} And Sarra conceived and bore to Abraam a son in his old age at the appointed time, as the Lord had spoken to him.^[20]

Philo comments:

^{On Flight and Finding 167} This is he whom Holy Writ calls “Isaac,” whom the soul did not conceive at one time and give birth to at another, for it says “she conceived and gave birth” (Gen. xxi. 2) as though timelessly. For he that was thus born was not a man, but a most pure thought, beautiful not by practice but by nature.^[21]

Although Philo allegorizes Isaac here as a thought, the underlying idea is that the soul (i.e., Sarah) conceived and gave birth simultaneously as though Isaac had been naturally perfect at the outset and required no development between conception and birth.

Jacob as Practicer

Finally, the identification of Jacob with practice is based on an interpretation of a single passage, his wrestling with an adversary (Gen 32:25–33):

^{On Dreams 1.129} The divine word readily listens to and accepts the athlete to be first of all a pupil, then when he has been satisfied of his fitness of nature, he fastens on the gloves as a trainer does and summons him to the exercises, then closes with him and forces him to wrestle until he has developed in him an irresistible strength, and by the breath of divine inspiration he changes ears into eyes, and gives him when remodeled in a new form the name of Israel—He who sees.^[22]

As a wrestler, Jacob can be understood to be an athlete, and the Greek word athlētēs is often used synonymously with the word askētēs, or one who practices.^[23]

The Greek Graces

How and why were the patriarchs linked with these paths, or qualities, in the first place? Philo offers a possible clue when he mentions, almost parenthetically, another name for the three qualities:

^{Abr. 54} It is entirely appropriate…that he [i.e., Moses] should have linked together these three—in theory, men, but really, as I have said, types of excellence, namely, natural ability, learning, and practice—people call these by another name, the Graces, also three in number, either because God has bestowed upon our race^[24] these three capacities for the perfection of our lives, or because they have given themselves to the rational soul, as a gift perfect and most lovely.^[25]

Here Philo alludes to the Greek mythological figures, the Graces, said by Hesiod to be daughters of Zeus and Eurynome (Theogony 907–909). These figures have a long and varied history of interpretation.^[26] Philo’s association of the Graces with learning, nature, and practice suggests that at some point they may have been allegorized as the three paths to virtue. If so, perhaps Jewish exegetes—either Philo himself or a predecessor—imported this allegorization of the Graces in Greek tradition and adapted it to apply to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God’s Eternal Name Cannot Be Associated with Mortal Patriarchs

Philo offers yet another clue about the reasons for this allegorization when he explains that it would not be fitting to have the name of the immortal God linked to the mortal beings, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Instead, they must be understood symbolically:

^{Abr. 54} [i]n order that the eternal name revealed in the oracles may be referred not to human beings but rather to the three afore-mentioned capacities….^[27]

These figures, then, must be recognized as abstract—and therefore indestructible—capabilities:

^{Abr. 55} For the nature of human beings is perishable, while that of the moral excellences is imperishable; and it is more suitable that the eternal should be called by what is imperishable rather than what is mortal, since imperishability is akin to eternity, while death is its foe.^[28]

Thus, the name of God, understood to be “God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob” must be taken allegorically to refer to the three immortal qualities of learning, nature, and practice, qualities that befit the divinity.^[29]

Philo’s Applications of the Patriarchal Motif

Philo applies his allegorical understanding of the patriarchs in many different contexts to explain difficulties and irregularities in Scripture and, especially, to explain differences between the patriarchs.

The Patriarchs’ Wives and Concubines

For example, in Genesis, Abraham and Jacob have several wives and concubines, whereas Isaac has only one wife, Rebecca. Philo explains that, as one who attains virtue through learning or instruction, Abraham must pursue a wide variety of studies, the plurality and variety of which correspond to Abraham’s different wives and concubines. Similarly, as one who achieves virtue through practice, Jacob must adopt and undergo a variety of exercises and experiences, and this variety is represented by his several wives and concubines (Congr. 34–38).

In contrast to his father and son, however, Isaac attains virtue by nature and thus has no need of numerous lessons and experiences. Isaac’s ready achievement is symbolized by his having one wife, Rebecca. Indeed, as Philo explains, her name means “constancy” and symbolizes the constancy of God’s gifts to her husband.^[30]

Differences Between Abram and Jacob’s Name Changes

Philo’s allegorical interpretation also appears in his explanation of the names used for the patriarchs. Abraham is consistently referred to as “Abraham” after his name is changed from Abram, whereas Jacob continues to be called “Jacob” even after he receives his new name, “Israel.” According to Philo, the difference relates to how each patriarch acquires virtue.

Just as one who attains virtue through teaching retains what he has learned through his role as a learner and the help of memory, so too does Abraham consistently retain his name:

^{On the Change of Names (Mut.) 84} For the one who has been improved by teaching [Abraham]—possessing, as he does, a well-apportioned nature that guards his retentiveness with the assistance of memory—makes use of this cognitive persistence, having fixedly laid hold of and firmly grasped the things that he has learned.^[31]

As one who attains virtue through practice, however, Jacob must, like an athlete, repeatedly continue his effort in order to retain his achievement, which remains unsteady. Thus, his name in Genesis vacillates between Jacob and Israel, even after he is renamed:

^{Mut. 84} The practicer, by contrast, whenever he has exercised intensely, catches his breath again and relaxes, gathering and recovering the power that had been enfeebled by toil, just as those who anoint their bodies for the games. For these, likewise weary from practice, lest their powers entirely leave them on account of the difficulty and intensity of their training, pour oil on themselves.^[32]

But Isaac’s Name Does Not Change

By contrast, Isaac’s name does not change but remains the same throughout. To explain this difference, Philo suggests that the new names given to Abraham and Jacob/Israel reflect these patriarchs’ need for outside influences in order to improve. Their names change:

^{Mut. 88} [b]ecause taught virtue and practiced virtue, on the one hand, receive external incentives for improvement. The one who is taught, for instance, desires the knowledge of which he is ignorant, while the one who uses training longs for the garlands and prizes that are set out for the soul that loves toil and contemplation.^[33]

Being naturally virtuous and perfect by nature, however, Isaac needs no external stimuli to promote improvement, and this situation is symbolized by his name remaining constant throughout:

^{Mut. 88} The self-taught and self-learning class, on the other hand, since it is established by nature rather than by the cultivation of character, carries itself from the beginning in a balanced, perfect, and even manner....^[34]

Appreciating Philo’s Exegesis

Philo’s unconventional understanding of the divine name thus gave rise to one of his most ingenious and sophisticated exegetical motifs, which then took on a life of its own—completely separate from the divine name—in his works. As Amir declares:

Nowhere did Philo’s amazing exegetical ingenuity find a more responsive field of endeavor than in the immeasurable realm of meanings that he opened up here. The way in which he was able, in the Jewish sphere, to manipulate the key that he had won from Greek mythological allegory shows him at the peak of his achievement.^[35]