God's transcendence and immanence as seen in the burning bush

As I have mentioned before, Scott Oliphint writing on certain things is extremely helpful. For instance, on the topic of God's condescension I have not come across anyone's writing or teaching which is more enriching or engaging; it might be out there, I just haven't come across it. Part of his discussions and writings on condescension pertain to God's aseity or transcendence. If God is a God who condescends, or stoops to our level, then he must be above, beyond, and other than us. I really appreciate Oliphint's approach on this aspect of God's character.

He touches upon this in his most recent offering, Covenantal Apologetics. Speaking of the difference between us and God he writes, "Every experience that we [humans] have in all of creation is an experience of utter dependence. But the Lord is not one who depends on anything; he, and he alone, is who he is" (60).

Oliphint sees this attribute of God in many places and in many ways in the Scriptures. But one of the examples that is a memorable one for me deals with Moses and the burning bush. Oliphint writes,

The revelation that Moses has of what is really the unburning bush is, in part, designed to reveal to Moses both of these truths [God is transcendent and immanent]. The fire, which represents the Lord himself, is in no way dependent on the bush in order to burn. The fire is, in that sense, a se [other, transcendent, independent]. It does not need the bush for fuel; it is able to burn in and of itself. But it is also with the bush. It could easily appear on its own, because it is in need of nothing to burn. Or it could appear beside the bush. Instead, it is linked inextricably with the bush, even as the Lord himself-who is who he is-has bound himself inextricably to his people. (60)

This is a beautiful picture of both God's transcendent otherness and his condescending, immanent covenanting with us.

The burning bush a revelational sign

Westminster Theological Seminary professor Scott Olphint introduces a very interesting idea concerning Moses and the burning bush. This appears in his book Reasons for Faith.

It is not an insignificant detail that what draws Moses into God's presence on that mountain is a picture of who God is. There is no analogy in the creation for the independent and the uncreated. So God creates a picture of his character in the burning bush. He gives Moses a sign: an "independent" fire. The fire does not derive its burning from the context in which it burns. It is self-generated, contradicting all rules of creation. The bush is on fire, but the fire is not dependent on the bush; it possesses its own energy. There is, it seems, a deliberate and revelational sign given by God to unveil the significance, both of God's covenantal revelation to Moses (because fire is with the bush), and of his revelation of the divine name-"I AM WHO I AM." (237)

The burning bush event encapsulates the God's self-revealing of his name I AM WHO I AM which is clearly a very significant moment in the relationship between God and Israel and thus is of massive import for all mankind. Thus, this event bears the study and intense gazing that the church has encumbered it with. Dr. Oliphint's insights are fascinating to consider.

Frame and Edwards on transcendence

From Edwards' A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections:

Not that the saints are made partakers of the essence of God, and so are godded with God, and christed with Christ, according to the abominable and blasphemous language and notions of some heretics: but, to use the Scripture phrase, they are made partakers of God's fullness, Eph. 3:17, 18, 19, John 1:16, that is, of God's spiritual beauty and happiness, according to the measure and capacity of a creature; for so it is evident the word fullness signifies in Scripture language. (emphasis mine)

From Frame's The Doctrine of God:

The biblical metaphysics...makes a clear distinction between the Creator and the world, his "creaturely other." God is the Lord; the universe serves him. God is entitled by nature to be Lord; we are not. His lordship extends to everything that he has made. So there is no continuum between God and creation. There are no degrees of divinity; God is divine, we are not...So we have here, fundamentally, not a continuum, but a distinction between everything divine and everything creaturely. (emphasis mine)