The Burning Bush

In the Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr, a Father of the second century, argues that the one who appeared to Moses is called both Angel and God. The question of who speaks from the bush was thus put to the sacred page very early in the Church. It bears on the literal sense: the identity of the speaker at Horeb.

Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses.

In his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, follows Stephen’s retelling and observes that the Angel appears to Moses after long exile, when he no longer expected to return. He sees God’s call unhindered by lapse of time. It bears on the literal sense: the setting of the call.

Do you mark that it is not hindered by lapse of time? For when he was an exile, when a stranger, when he had now passed much time in a foreign land, so as to have two sons, when he no longer expected to return, then does the Angel appear to him.

In the Summa Theologica, answering an objection on the visible missions of the Holy Spirit, Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, gives the bush as one of the bodily appearances made to signify and then pass away. It bears on the literal sense: the fire was a real sign with a purpose, distinct from the divine nature.

They seem, however, to be like to the flame of the burning bush seen by Moses and to the column which the people followed in the desert, and to the lightning and thunder issuing forth when the law was given on the mountain. For the purpose of the bodily appearances of those things was that they might signify, and then pass away.

In his Commentary on Exodus Cornelius a Lapide, a Jesuit exegete of the seventeenth century, treats the literal sense of Moses tending sheep at Madian, and cites Philo on the shepherd’s art as a prelude to rule. He sets the call within the history of Moses’ life. It bears on the circumstances of the literal narrative.

For the 40 years in which he lived in Madian Moses was a shepherd of sheep; for as many years after he was shepherd and leader of a people. “For the shepherd’s art,” says Philo, “is a prelude to kingship, that is to the government of men, the most gentle flock. He alone can be a king in every respect perfect who is well skilled in the shepherd’s art, and by caring for the lesser animals has learned how he ought to preside over the greater.”

In his Commentary on Exodus Lapide asks in what manner the bush burned, and answers that Scripture often speaks of things as they appear to men. It bears on the literal sense by distinguishing what the beholders saw from the cause behind it.

For Holy Scripture often, especially in phenomena and apparent things, speaks of them not as they are in themselves on the part of the thing, but as they appear, or as men commonly judge and speak of them. So here the bush is said to burn, because to men ignorant of the secret of the thing and its cause it seemed to burn, and all who saw it would have said it burned.

In his Commentary on Exodus Lapide reports an earlier literal reading, from Philo and Theodoret: the fire signifies the Egyptians and the bush the Hebrews, afflicted and not consumed. It keeps to Israel’s own history, and so belongs to the literal sense of the sign.

This fire signified the Egyptians; the bush, the Jews: the fire burning and afflicting, but not consuming them: nay rather making them more splendid and stronger: for the bush is a weak and thorny shrub, wounding even by touch alone; but this remained unhurt by the fire, and was superior to it: which signifies that the present weakness of the Hebrews would be turned into great strength, and that they themselves through grave and many plagues, as through the thorns of a bush, would prick and sorely wound the Egyptians by whom they were then vexed (so Philo and Theodoret).

In his Commentary on Exodus Lapide takes up the difficulty that the one in the bush is called an angel and yet speaks as God. He answers that the angel serves as messenger but speaks with the authority and in the person of God. It bears on the literal sense: who is speaking at Horeb.

You will say: How then does this angel call himself God? I answer: Because, although in service he was an angel, yet in inspiration, representation and authority he was God; for he sustained and represented the person of God by whom he was sent, and who inspired him with what he should say, and spoke through him.

In his Commentary on Exodus Lapide explains why Moses is forbidden to approach and commanded to put off his shoes: reverence is due to the divine majesty present there. It bears on the literal sense of the holy ground and of the angel’s command.

Moses here, when after the manner of nature boldly, curiously and with little religion he wished to approach to search into this mystery of the fire in the bush, was forbidden by the angel, and commanded to put off his shoes, to show reverence to the divine majesty, which in this place showed its presence, and to approach with great submission and veneration of mind to receive from there the oracle of God.

In his Commentary on Exodus Lapide comments on God’s words “I am come down,” and calls the expression anthropopathic: God descends by operation, not by change of place, since he is everywhere. It bears on the literal sense of God’s mission to Moses.

God speaks anthropopathically, or in human manner. For if the business were of a man placed in heaven, wishing to succour someone on earth, he would certainly descend. “I am come down,” therefore, not by change of place, who am everywhere, but by operation, and by the preparation of a speedy liberation of the Hebrews.

Haydock’s notes on Exodus, drawn from earlier Catholic commentators, give the literal reason for the title “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”: the promise of Chanaan made to each. They also hear in the threefold “God” an intimation of the blessed Trinity. It bears on the literal sense of the self-introduction.

God takes the title of these three patriarchs, because he had promised Chanaan to each of them, and because they were eminent for virtue. God is repeated thrice, to insinuate the mystery of the blessed Trinity, and to shew that the Lord watches over each individual, as if that one alone existed.

Haydock’s annotation on Exodus gathers Challoner, Origen and Calmet on the name “I am”: being itself, eternal, self-existent and without change, beyond any name that could fully explain the divine perfections. It bears on the literal sense of what Moses is to say.

I am being itself, eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite; without beginning, end, or change; and the source of all other beings. (Challoner)

No name can fully explain the divine perfections. As God is alone, he stands in need of no distinctive appellation, as Lactantius, and even the pagans have confessed. (Origen, contra Cels. vi.) (Calmet)

Haydock’s annotation on Exodus, citing Tirinus, notes that God had until now been called Elohim and here assumes the incommunicable name of four letters. It bears on the literal sense of the name as revealed to Moses.

Hitherto God had generally been called Elohim. But now he assumes the incommunicable name (Tirinus) consisting of four vowels, Jod, He, Vau, He, Jehovah, the essence, or OWN, a word which the Greek Scriptures leave undeclined, to denote the unchangeable nature of the Deity. The word has been pronounced Jehovah by the moderns, and by the ancients Jevo, Jao, Jave, &c. (Haydock)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church opens its treatment of the divine name with the bush: God calls Moses as the God of the fathers, faithful to his promises, coming to free their descendants. As the Church’s present summary of her faith, it fixes the literal sense of the scene.

God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that burns without being consumed: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings. He is the faithful and compassionate God who remembers them and his promises; he comes to free their descendants from slavery.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church draws from the revealed name God’s faithfulness from everlasting to everlasting, in “I am the God of your father” and “I will be with you.” It bears on the literal sense of the name as God’s presence to his people in order to save them.

By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past ("I am the God of your father"), as for the future ("I will be with you"). God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches here that the divine name is both a revealed name and something like the refusal of a name, for God is the hidden God, ineffable, who yet draws close to men. It bears on how the literal words of the name are to be understood.

This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.