- Featured picture: James Tissot – David and Jonathan (c. 1896); Gouache on board; Part of the collection of The Jewish Museum, New York – example of Tissot’s series on Old Testament subjects (the painting depicts a gentle, emotional, and intimate encounter – the composition evokes the depth of mutual recognition and closeness, resonating with the Hebrew concept of yadaʿ, where knowing is not merely intellectual but embodied, relational, and profound)
The Bible’s Most Subversive Verb
The separation between “knowing” and “loving,” which many believe to be as distinct today as they have ever been, did not exist in the same way in the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew word for “to know” or “to lie with” is yadaʿ (יָדַע), and while these two meanings are quite different from each other today, the idea of them being separate has evolved over time.
Their ambiguity is not merely a matter of language but rather an expression of a theological view: to know is to join in, to be part of the existence of something or someone else – to be entwined with the life of another.
“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain.”
Genesis 4:1
The older translators chose to avoid the more modern translation “had sexual relations” when translating this verse. Instead, they translated the older word “knew”, and while possibly unknowingly, they helped preserve a very important concept that existed in the minds of the ancients: that knowledge is a form of intimacy.
In the case of the Hebrew word yadaʿ, the concepts of knowing and being known seem to blend together. To know someone is to engage in their being; to be known is to be entered into, not visually, but spiritually.
Modern understanding of the act of sexual relations, has reduced the act to mere physicality, while in ancient terms, the act was viewed as a form of revelation.
Therefore, knowledge was not simply a matter of acquiring knowledge or information, but a form of communion.
Knowing as Participation, Not Observation
Knowledge was never merely an idea for the ancient Hebrews; “to know” (yada’) has always implied engagement, experience – being inside or part of reality, as opposed to looking at it from outside.
In the book of Amos, Yahweh declares:
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth.”
Amos 3:2
This does not suggest limited awareness, but rather the deep relational intimacy that creates a bond between people. Thus, this kind of knowing also includes the aspects of vulnerability, choice, and reciprocity, which are emotionally associated with the relationship of marriage, rather than the cold, unemotional aspects of mere data.
This type of relational, experiential knowing is dramatically different from the later Greek concept of gnosis, which reduces knowledge to a disembodied, abstract, intellectual process. Greek philosophers attempted to find truth by separating their minds from their bodies.
On the other hand, Hebrew thought finds truth by becoming more embodied and living more intimately in the world.
Therefore, “to know,” in the sense of the Bible, means to live inside the world, and to some degree, to love.
The Erotic Language of the Divine
Hebrew prophets and poets didn’t hesitate to use sensuality as a way to express the divine-human bond. When they talked about their relationship with God, they used the language of lovers, the language of desire – of faithfulness and of infidelity.
“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.”
Song of Songs 1:2
“And in that day, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer ‘My Master.’”
Hosea 2:16
Here, the erotic is transformed into the sacred; desire is not condemned, it is transcended; it is the way we speak of revelation.
The divine-human intimacy is not an abstract relationship, it is one of presence – it is an intimate relationship, a sensual relationship – not physical, but a deep one.
Many mystics throughout history have expressed the same feeling of tension – the anonymous author of “The Cloud of Unknowing” wrote:
“By love He may be gotten and held, but by thought never.”
To know God is to surrender intellect to intimacy.
This is what the Hebrew word yada’ has been whispering through the ages before there was any attempt at theological explanation.
How Knowledge Lost Its Flesh
Something that had an influence on the whole of humanity took place when the scriptures were confronted by the philosophical traditions of Greece.
Abstract knowledge replaced embodied knowledge. Sacred intimacy was no longer seen as such, but as potentially problematic. Platonic and later Augustinian influences caused many of the Church fathers to view the body as an obstacle to contemplating the divine.
Here again, yada’ was replaced by gnosis – by learning about rather than being involved with. Sexuality became something to escape or transcend, rather than through which we are able to glimpse at the divine.
By the Middle Ages, to “know God” meant to master doctrine, not to enter into mystery.
The body was left behind, and the erotic – once a pathway to revelation – was exiled from theology.
Reclaiming the Erotic as a Way of Knowing
Still though, the older vision hasn’t disappeared entirely; It shows up in mystics, poets, and modern thinkers who feel that knowing truly requires you to be vulnerable and present.
Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” picked back up on the Hebrew emphasis on relational knowing:
“All real living is meeting.”
In every authentic experience of knowing (whether of another human being, the world itself, or God) there will come a point where both people mutually expose themselves. No matter what the nature of the knowing, the self will never go unscathed.
When we consider the erotic aspect of yadaʿ as simply reducing it to less than the original, we’re missing that it actually adds depth to the overall concept of knowing. It reinforces the truth that all knowledge isn’t purely conceptual but is also a creative force that takes form of flesh and blood..
When the Bible says “Adam knew Eve”, it speaks of more than the beginning of life. It gestures toward the mystery that to know is to join, to risk, to merge, and to become more than one was before. In each of these authentic meetings, an idea is conceived and the person is transformed.
The Uncaged Knowing
If yadaʿ means union as a form of knowledge and not domination or definition – then the theology of the word has radical implications on how we view love and embodiment today.
The Hebrew understanding of intimacy as relational participation rather than hierarchical structure creates sacred space for all types of mutual knowledge.
For queer individuals, this ancient term becomes a form of reclaiming: evidence that divine intimacy was never intended to be limited by gender, norm, or dogma.
The soul’s need to be known and to know others is not determined by the body it resides in. As such, yadaʿ speaks an unlearned truth that the world continues to struggle with – that every honest expression of love is already holy.
Interpreters have been making decisions for a very long time regarding which interactions were violent, which were sacred, and which were simply unspeakable.
However, the Hebrew text does not make these distinctions. Some may even argue that it does so intentionally. The word will not tell you who was involved in a meeting, nor what happened during the meeting.
What the Hebrew word will insist upon is that something was known. And that beautifully and disturbingly is the point.
The Sacred Unknowing
At last, the Hebrew yadaʿ refuses to isolate the body from the soul or reason from passion; it insists that each and every one of us has a way of knowing – whether human or divine – which demands vulnerability, desire, the willingness to be observed and the courage to be seen.
We are able to know the other when we have entered into the other.
The other will be able to know us when we have been undone.
And perhaps that is the most ancient revelation of all:
And, possibly, it is there in that deconstruction of the self that lies the earliest form of revelation: the divine is not located in what one knows about; rather, the divine resides in what one wills oneself to be known by.
Leave a Reply