The God in the Burning Bush Is Not Omnipotent

By Matt Huffman

The iconic burning bush narrative offers an example of and support for amipotence.

Christians believe that Scripture reveals who God is. If our vision of God does not line up with Scripture, we are called to reexamine our vision of God. Thomas Jay Oord shows that omnipotence, or the vision of a God that is all-controlling, is not biblical. The Bible offers a different vision of divine power, and Oord labels it amipotence. Whereas omnipotence prioritizes coercive control among God’s attributes, amipotence prioritizes love. This means that when we think about divine power, we need to look at it through the lens of love.

This shouldn’t be a stretch for Christians, because Scripture tells us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16). For years, many theologians have said that since God is the Ultimate, we must ask ourselves what is the ultimate power. But if “God is love,” shouldn’t we be asking what kind of power must such a God have?

What does it mean to look at God’s power through the lens of love? What does amipotence look like? I’d like to look to Scripture for an example. Such a model serves two purposes. First, it offers an example of what amipotence looks like. Second, it shows that Oord’s vision of amipotence aligns with the vision of God in Scripture. One of the most iconic, well-known biblical stories is the story of Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3:4-4:17). When we ask what this narrative reveals about God, focusing specifically on 4:10-17, we find that the God in the burning bush is not omnipotent. No, this God is amipotent.

Literary Context

Moses is perhaps the most important character in the Torah, so his call at the burning bush marks an event that will transform the future and identity of the Israelites. Exodus begins where the story of Genesis leaves off, but quickly turns to the oppression and enslavement of the Israelites. Moses is born amidst death and destruction, but miraculously survives against all odds. After a brief but eventful narrative of Moses’s life, we come to Moses’s call narrative in Exodus 3 and 4. God appears to Moses in a burning bush and proclaims, “The cry of the Israelites has now come to me; I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress them. So come, I will send you to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt.” (Exodus 3:9-10).

But Moses is apprehensive. He pushes back on God’s call four times. He asks, “who am I to do this?” (3:11); “What if they ask your name?” (3:13); and “What if they don’t listen to me or believe me?” (4:1). The last push back brings us to 4:10-17. Moses insists that he lacks the speaking ability to carry out the task that God is calling him to (4:10). After yet another reassurance from God that God will be with Moses and will equip Moses, Moses does not relent and pushes back one final time, urging God to send someone else (4:13). This time, God does not try to reassure Moses. God gets angry and says, “how about we send Aaron with you?” (4:14). The remainder of the Exodus narrative tells the story of the liberation of the Israelites, wondering in the wilderness, and the beginning of a covenant community.

The Plot & Visions of Divine Power

One of the first steps in uncovering the meaning of a text is to identify where it falls on the transmissive/expressive spectrum. In this particular passage, the text leans towards expressive, as it tells the story of Moses’s back and forth with God. We do not get direct statements about God, rather we get a story in which God is a character. This tells us to look at the plot for communicative meaning. When we look at the plot of Moses’s call narrative within the overall plot of the entire book of Exodus, two truths emerge.

First, the Moses call narrative reveals a God of persuasive power rather than coercive power. God is intimately and relationally involved in the narrative, but God does not force God’s will upon Moses. God responds to each of Moses’s pushbacks with persuasive reassurance. When Moses questions, “Who am I?” God assures Moses that God will be with him and that the Israelites’ freedom will testify to this fact. Instead of forcing God’s will onto Moses, God attempts to reassure him. When Moses continues to push back with, “What if they ask your name?” God again attempts to reassure Moses, saying “tell them Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.” (3:15). When Moses asks, “What if they don’t believe me?” God shows Moses that God can perform signs to make the people believe. And when Moses doubts his speaking ability, God assures him that God will be with his mouth and teach him what to say.

Each step of the way, God does not ignore Moses’s doubts and anxieties. God affirms them with responses and assurances. In the narrative, God clearly wants Moses to be the sole spokesperson to confront Pharaoh, but God does not force this desire on to Moses. God attempts to persuade Moses with reassurances and signs. And ultimately, God does not get what God wants. God resorts to plan b, which is having Aaron accompany Moses.

The second truth we encounter is that when God does not get what God wants, God returns with new possibilities. When Moses refuses to heed God’s call, God does not give up. God does not scrap the Israelite liberation plan. God does not even give up on Moses. God returns with the next best possibilities. God essentially says, “Well, if you’re not comfortable taking on the task of this call, what if we send someone with you?” And the rest of the narrative reveals that even when God does not get what God wants, God can work with what’s possible to bring about liberation. Even though Moses refused God’s call to be the sole spokesperson, the Israelites were still freed.

Amipotence

These two truths reveal an amipotent God. In regard to the term amipotence, Oord notes that he “coined this word to stress the priority of love over power in God.” Oord says over and over again that love does not control. I think we all know this intuitively. When we encounter any relationship in which one person is controlling the other, we know that, at best, this is an unhealthy relationship, and at worst, potentially dangerous. Why would God’s love be any different? The God of the burning bush does not control Moses.

In this passage, we see that love is the priority in multiple ways. One, love is given priority in that the sole purpose of Moses’ call was to liberate the people from enslavement. God is moved to action by the cries of the oppressed. Two, God relationally responds to all of Moses’ concerns and pushbacks. Three, God does not force God’s will on Moses. While the text may not specifically state that love is given priority in God’s power, we know that narratives do not make explicit claims. They reveal truths through story. And this story reveals a God that responds to the cries of an oppressed people and a God that does not force God’s will on Moses. We see a vision of divine power in which love is prioritized.

Oord reminds us that “Love as we know it involves giving and receiving relationships.” And isn’t this what we see in the back and forth between God and Moses? God does not silence Moses. God does not ignore Moses’s fears and anxieties. God listens and responds with reassurances. There is a give and take in the relationship between God and Moses. Moses gives a push back, and God responds relationally. Moses gives another pushback, and God again responds relationally. Over and over again.

Amipotence also highlights the dignity of human agency. For a God that controls everything, humans don’t have much say in the events of their lives. But “amipotence assumes that divine love always and necessarily provides power to creatures.” The God of the burning bush gives Moses power. God wants Moses to be the sole spokesperson for God’s confrontation with Pharaoh, but the power to make that decision is given to Moses. God attempts to reassure Moses that God will be with him and give him everything he needs to fulfill the role. God expresses God’s desire to Moses that he be the one to free the Israelites. But ultimately, Moses chooses not to be the sole spokesperson. And God honors that decision.

Oord notes that “Love’s ultimate victory will not come through absolute control but through relentless love.” This fact is attested to in the second truth we named above—that God is a God of new possibilities. God’s love desires the freedom of the Israelites from oppression. But that victory does not come from God’s absolute control. The Israelites are freed through God’s relentless love. Over and over again, God attempts to lure Moses toward his call to free the Israelites. And over and over again, Moses pushes back on God’s call. But God does not give up. God returns and responds with relentless love. When Moses ultimately chooses not to be the sole spokesperson in the fight for freedom, again God does not give up. God doesn’t abandon the plan for liberation. God doesn’t give up on Moses. God returns with new possibilities in light of Moses’s decision. And the narrative reveals that even though God didn’t get what God wanted, God was still able to bring about liberation through God’s relentless love.

Conclusion

If we take the vision of divine power in Exodus 4:10-17 as paradigmatic, we can see Scripture’s overarching narrative as a story of a God of amipotence luring creation towards liberation and love. And it is a story that tells us that when we inevitably fail to respond to God’s call, God meets us in the next moment with new possibilities. For people of faith, this narrative should shape theology and practice. If we are to have a biblical faith, our theologies and practices must be grounded in amipotence.

A long history shaped by authoritarian, coercive visions of divine power has sanctioned authoritarian, coercive earthly powers. And perhaps that is why so much of the United States seems so easily lulled towards an authoritarian future for America. The rise of Christian nationalism is an authoritarian movement driven by an authoritarian, coercive vision of divine power. But Exodus 4:10-17 tells the story of a God that does not force God’s will. It tells of a God that persuasively lures through relationship and relentless love. This is not an authoritarian God. And that must shape our theologies and practices.

Furthermore, this passage offers a word of encouragement for those of us that are terrified by this authoritarian shift in our country. First, it tells us that God will do all that God can do to persuasively lure creation towards God’s vision for the world. We can trust that in this very moment of fear and anxiety, God is persuasively luring the world towards God’s vision of hope, love, and justice.

But secondly, this passage tells us that no matter what happens—even if God’s will is thwarted—God will be fully present in the next moment, offering new possibilities. Exodus 4:10-17 tells us that God is working to topple authoritarian Pharaohs. God is persuasively luring creation towards liberation. And Exodus 4:10-17 tells us that even if God’s amipotent power is ignored or thwarted, that is not the end of the story. Liberation is still possible. God will return in the next moment with new possibilities and relentless love. In the midst of rising authoritarianism today, we can take comfort in the God of amipotence.

Bio: Matt Huffman is a former interfaith community organizer, an alum of the Living School at the Center for Action and Contemplation, a current seminarian at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, and a chaplain in training. While he enjoys theologizing and philosophizing, most of his time is spent with his family—a wife and two young daughters.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Matt Huffman explores amipotence through the story of Moses and the burning bush, highlighting a God of persuasive rather than controlling power. God does not override Moses’ doubts but engages them, respecting his agency. The story shows that God doesn’t always get what God wants, yet persists, working with what’s possible to bring liberation. God is moved by the cries of the oppressed and responds with care. An amipotent God honors human freedom while continually offering new possibilities. I agree with Matt that rather than depicting an authoritarian deity, the burning bush reveals a God of nurturing love, inviting cooperation rather than demanding submission.

For more on Oord’s view of Trump and authoritarian theology, see this article.

* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.