The Priest of Midian

“Jethro, the priest of Midian…” –Exodus 18:1

Moses’ father-in-law Jethro is described as the “priest of Midian” at two different times in the story of the Exodus. The first time is when Moses flees from Egypt and encounters Jethro’s daughters (Ex. 2:16, 3:1). The second time occurs when he returns Moses’ wife and sons, at the beginning of the Torah portion bearing his name (Ex. 18:1). Jethro’s title is important because of its universal association with his name. Whether Jethro was a priest of the God of Israel or some pagan order is not given explicitly in the scriptures, but the probability of each will be examined in the context of both appearances of Jethro in the narrative of the Exodus.

In Moses' first encounter with Jethro, the Midianites had been separated from the children of Israel for over 500 years. Midian was a son of Abraham through Keturah (Gen. 25:2). To sketch in the timeframe from the birth of Midian to Jethro’s encounter with Moses, several assumptions must be made. If the time that Israel dwelt in Egypt was 430 years, then Moses would have met Jethro about 390 years into that period (Acts 7:23, 30). Jacob was 130 years old at the beginning of the stay in Egypt (Gen. 47:9), so from the time from the birth of Jacob to the meeting of Moses and Jethro would be about 520 years. To measure the period from Midian’s birth to Jacob’s birth, it is assumed that Midian was born shortly after Sarah’s death (Gen. 25). Since Midian is listed fourth, perhaps six years elapsed between Sarah’s death and his birth. The age of Isaac at Sarah’s death is 37 at the most (Gen. 17:17, 23:1) and Rebekah bore Jacob and Esau when Isaac was 60 (Gen. 25:26). Adding these numbers together, the period from Midian’s birth to the birth of Jacob would be about 17 years (37+6=43; 60-43=17). This makes for a period of about 537 years from Midian’s birth to the meeting of Moses and Jethro.

With this period in mind, it is important to consider whether Midian and his sons would have continued in the faith of Abraham or would have fallen into the idolatry of the nations around them. In the immediate context, this consideration is entirely speculative. Using a broader context, there are examples in the scriptures where faithfulness to God is both brief and enduring. During the time of the Judges, a typical period of faithfulness is around 40 years (Judg. 3:11, 5:31), which doesn’t leave much hope for Midian. However, in Jeremiah 35 there is a story about a clan of Israelites called the Rechabites who had kept the word given to them by Jonadab the son of Rechab from the time of Saul (c. 1010 B.C.) to the time of Jehoiakim (c. 600 B.C.), a period of over 400 years. It may be that at least some of the Midianites were like the Rechabites, and although the Levitical priesthood had yet to be established Jethro could have been a priest of God in the same manner as Melchizedek.

On the second encounter, the scripture sheds more light on the content of Jethro’s faith and it is probable that he was indeed a priest of God. In Exodus 18, Jethro rejoices at the news of Israel’s deliverance and offers a short hymn to God where he says, “Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods” (v. 11). Whether this statement reflects a recent change of heart or is an expression of continuing faith can be debated. Nebuchadnezzar makes a similar statement in Daniel 4:37: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven.” In this case, the now implies a recent change of heart. Job, in contrast to this, also says, “I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You” (Job 42:5). Job had been previously considered a righteous man and his expression of now is one of deepening and continuing faith. Jethro could be in either category, depending in particular on his spiritual state at his first encounter with Moses. Further demonstration of Jethro’s faith in God is seen through the wisdom he gives to Moses about delegating responsibility. Had it not been God’s wisdom, Moses would not have heeded it and since “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 111:10) Jethro would have needed the fear of the LORD to impart the wisdom that he did.

The story of Jethro, priest of Midian, raises almost as many questions as answers as we dig deeper into this enigmatic character. However, may we not miss in the details in the story the unequivocal honor and respect shown to Jethro by Moses. This speaks both of Moses' humility and Jethro's eminence. May we learn from both.

Questions for Parashah #51

Exodus 8:20 – 9:35

Isaiah 34:11 – 35:4

Hebrews 12:14-17

Torah Resource Commentary

This is the last part of the annual portion of Va'era. We are continuing through the administration of plagues, signs, and wonders upon the Egyptians, ultimately leading up to the death of the firstborn. This portion covers the plagues of swarms, cattle disease, boils, and hail.

1. Concerning the ten plagues, the Sages teach that the ten plagues may be divided into four groups: those administered by Aaron (3), those administered by Moses (3), those administered jointly by Moses and Aaron (1), and those administered by Adonai himself (3). The teaching goes on to describe how Aaron's plagues (#1, 2, and 3) pertain more to the earth, water, and corporeal things while Moses' plagues (#4, 5, and 6) deal with air, fire, and ethereal things. Is this a valid or useful classification system for understanding the plagues? Why or why not? There are several other ways to diagram and interpret the plagues and each may reveal various perspectives on the purpose and meaning of the plagues.
2. In demonstrating His power to Pharaoh, Adonai systematically displayed mastery over all the elements and ideas that the Egyptians worshiped. How does this foreshadow the events in Yeshua's ministry when he displayed similar mastery over the natural and supernatural forces he encountered? Is it possible to cite examples from the gospel accounts that show Yeshua exercising authority over an element or symbol of each of the ten plagues? Be creative.
3. What is the signficance of ten plagues? Where else does this number show up in the exodus and wilderness journey? Does it have any prophetic signficance?
4. The plagues in Parashah #151 heavily emphasize the fact that Adonai is 'making a distinction' between the land of Egypt and the land of Goshen, the Egyptians and the children of Israel. This separation gives us an absolutely vivid illustration of what important biblical concept? How does this change or impact how we view specific instructions related to this concept?
5. From a few portions back, we recall that Pharoah declared that he did not know Adonai (Ex. 5:2). Legends of the Bible describes a curious unfolding of events(pg. 326), elaborating that Pharaoh asked for the archives containing the names of the gods of the nations, from which he read, "The gods of Moab, the gods of Ammon, the gods of Zidon—I do not find your God inscribed in the archives!" Moses and Aaron exclaimed: "O thou fool! Thou seekest the living in the graves of the dead. These which thou didst read are the names of dumb idols, but our God is the God of life and the King of eternal life." Wow! What gospel reference does the phrase "seekest the living in the graves of the dead" bring to mind? What is the scripture reference and context of that statement? Contrast this story with Pharaoh's hardened heart.

New Study: Gospel of Matthew

I would like to spend a few words introducing our new group study by Rabbi Bruce Booker from Priest River, ID. Rabbi Booker is a member of the council of the UMJA. The study is entitled The Gospel of Mattityahu (Matthew) from a Jewish Perspective and will cover, in eight sections, the major themes of the book of Matthew with many clarifications and expansions of the traditional understanding of the book by viewing it through the lens of first century Judaisms. The series will undoubtedly take longer than 8 weeks to complete, but we will proceed at the pace of a lecture per week with slides, audio, and handouts. In addition to the materials that are provided as part of the course, the following two textbooks are listed as part of the curriculum, so I am giving the reference for each book here with a link to purchase on Amazon.

• Jewish New Testament Commentary, David H. Stern, Ph. D., Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1996.
• The Gospel of Matthew, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Craig S. Keener, William B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2009.

Don and Judi have offered to print extra handouts and copies of the presentation slides to enhance our learning experience. The first session last week was a nice introduction to the book and a good functional test of our technical capabilities.

For this week, we will be covering Section 1, the genealogy of Yeshua. The textbook readings are pages 1-15 of Stern and pages 73-81 of Keener.

Questions for Parashah #50

Continuing in Parashah Va'era, here are several questions for our coming weekly study. The reading is #50 in the triennial cycle, a schedule of which can be found at Torah Resource.

Exodus 7:19-8:16
Joel 3:9-21
Romans 9:17-18

Link to Torah Resource Commentary

The questions are below. Please feel free to leave your thoughts, questions, and responses in the comments section.

1. Based on Exodus 7:25, "and seven days passed," and other textual clues, the Sages formulated that the period of each plague was one month total: approximately three weeks warning of the plague, and one week or seven days of the duration of the plague, after which the plague would end by default. In several cases in the administration of the ten plagues, Pharaoh pleaded for an earlier end to the plague, a plea that was granted by the Almighty through the agency of Moses and Aaron. This teaches us several things: 1) that Hashem does not send a punishment or judgment without a significant period of warning. Question/challenge: list several verses stating this principle and narratives in the Torah and prophets that emphasize this aspect of Hashem's mercy 2) The week, or seven day, duration of the plagues has eschatological overtones, especially since in the Sages' formulation the period of the week can be "cut short" by divine decree. Question/challenge: expound on the eschatological overtones and cite a reference(s) of the period of judgment being cut short.
2. This portion covers the first three plagues: blood, frogs, and lice. As the narrative progresses, Pharaoh is alternately adamant in his opposition to letting the people go and in his desire for mercy in the midst of the plagues, signs, and wonders. Is there a method to Pharaoh's madness, his swings between arrogance and entreaty? The Sages explain that whenever Pharaoh felt his own life at stake, he pleaded for mercy, but in all other cases the plague was irritating but not life-threatening so he hardened (literally, "made strong") his heart. Does this interpretive tool help explain Pharoah's actions? In what sense? In what ways is this interpretation a stretch?

I hope to add a question or two before Shabbat from the Haftarah and Apostolic portions. In the meantime, may the Holy One, blessed be He, enliven our minds to comprehend His Word in sincerity and truth.

Questions for Parashah #49

I will begin to use this blog to post weekly questions for the coming weekly study. Our reading cycle is the triennial cycle, a schedule of which can be found at Torah Resource.

Exodus 6:2–7:17
Ezekiel 28:25–29:31
Acts 7:17-22

Link to Torah Resource Commentary

Here are several discussion questions for this week's portion. Please feel free to leave your thoughts, questions, and responses in the comments section.

1. In the beginning of Moses and Aaron's confrontation with Pharaoh, the Egyptian court magicians could duplicate the plagues by their secret arts (staff to snake, water to blood, swarms of frogs). Why is it that they could not reverse any of the plagues? Hearkening back to last week's parashah (Ex. 6:1), we can ask again, whose hand is the strong hand, whose arm is the outstretched arm here? Are their parallels in the gospels and in the book of Acts where sorcerers or demonic forces caused harm and destruction to people or animals? Why were these same forces unable or unwilling to create life?
2. In the haftarah portion, Israel's leaning on Egypt is described as leaning on a reed that is unreliable, a reed that snaps and causes the shoulder to tear and the loins to shake (Ez. 29:7, ESV). Similarly, we may be tempted to rely on Egypt, and the things of Egypt, the river Nile and the self-made prosperity that flood irrigation represents. What are several ways that we can "lean on Egypt" and what, through personal experience, has the result been? This is more of a personal application question.
3. Ezekiel 29:11 declares that the Egyptians will be in dispersion as a result of the Babylonian conquerors and that the land of Egypt would be uninhabited for 40 years. Which parts of Egypt were included in this decree? What is the time frame of its fulfillment? Are there other biblical and historical references to this time of dispersion?
4. How does the time period of 40 years compare with the captivity and exile of Judah for 70 years? What does that teach us about how God judges the nations versus his own people? What does this communicate about his covenantal nature?
5. Ezekiel 29:16 labels Egypt as a "guarantor recalling sin" (Stone Chumash). We are not to return to the things that once enslaved us, no matter how tempting or comfortable they are. How do we know very specifically from the text of Exodus that the children of Israel were never to return to Egypt?

Questions for Parashah #48

Putting some discussion questions together mid-week is a feature that I want to commit to in order to help us think about the weekly portion and guide our discussion when we get together on Shabbat. So here are several questions on this week's portion.

Exodus 4:14 – 6:1
Isaiah 55:12 – 56:7
Acts 7:35-37

1. In Exodus 6:1, whose hand is the strong hand (compare to Ex. 3:19 and 13:3)? Are there any other biblical references as to what (or who) the strong hand or strong arm of the LORD represents? Besides examples from the Exodus narrative, list up to five other instances where the arm of the LORD is revealed.
2. Comparing Exodus chapters 4-6 to Stephen's defense in Acts 7, in what ways (2 or 3 specifically) is Yeshua the "prophet like Moses" (Deut. 18:15-18)? What does Yeshua have to say in the book of John concerning those who do not receive his words, but consider Moses a prophet?
3. Concerning Aharon as Moses' spokesperson, our passage records that Moses shall be to him as "Elohim" - literally God or gods. What is meant by this declaration? Is the LORD considering a man, Moses, to be God? Are there other examples in the scriptures where men or created beings are called gods?
4. How did Aharon get a day off from brick-making to go meet Moses in the wilderness (Ex. 4:27)? Did he have a place of prominence or authority among the slaves?
5. There are many questions, both linguistic and interpretive, concerning the circumcision of Moses' son. The text states that the LORD sought to kill Moses, and implies that he was a dead man on account of not circumcising his son. The translation in the Chumash is different from most English translations, but the explanation there is 100% satisfactory. Other there other data that need to be factored into this event to really comprehend what was going on?
6. In Isaiah 56, addressing eunuchs and foreigners, what in the consistent, specific action correlated with covenant membership and with "keeping justice, and doing righteousness?" What does the centrality of that action/observance teach us?
7. How does the context of Isaiah 56 help expand or elucidate the Synoptic gospel accounts (Matt. 21:13, Mark 11:15) of Yeshua's action of cleaning out the money changers and quoting Is. 56:7?

Interesting note: the Chumash picks up on the Hebrew grammar concerning the donkey that Moses placed his family on during the trip to Egypt. Because Ex. 4:20 uses the definite article, "the", in connection to the donkey, we might infer that it was no ordinary donkey but a special donkey. The sages infer that this was the same donkey as Abraham rode, the donkey that went to Mount Moriah, and it will be the same donkey that Messiah will ride (Rashi). The important thing to note is that even a small word in the Torah ("the") can reveal something about the Messiah, and so we should be careful with each word. Of course, it's stretching it to say that it was the exact, physical, literal donkey in all cases, but as a figure it points right to the triumphal entry. A very special little donkey, indeed, not just "a" donkey but "the" donkey!

Jack Sprat and Leviticus 7

With barbecue season underway, here is a blast from the past considering forbidden fats. Put a fork in it!

Drifting through the small group of friends and family is the familiar and pleasing smell of sizzling steaks and hamburgers on the grill. People chat amiably about the week as children play: work, the weather, life, and lessons learned. As the cook pulls the meat off the grill, the subject turns to the Torah portion for the week, Tzav. One of the men questions whether it is right to eat any of the meat because there is fat with it. The cook, obviously insulted, makes a wise crack about Jack Sprat and everyone else seems uncomfortable. Is he right? Finally, the cook recalls his study of the passage and replies that the fat prohibited in Leviticus 7:22-25 is limited to the fat of animals that died naturally, were torn by beasts, or were offered as sacrifices.

There is a principle of Torah interpretation that whenever a command that appears to be general in nature is elsewhere explained and made more specific, the more specific interpretation is correct. One example is the command not to wear a garment of different sorts (Deut. 22:11, Lev. 19:19). This could be taken to exclude any garment that is not made of only one material. Yet in the immediate context of both verses, the different sorts are described: linen and wool. There is to be no mixture of plant and animal fibers, reinforcing a distinction of creation. This principle of Torah interpretation will help explain the general command, “You shall not eat any fat,” in Leviticus 7:23.

There are two aspects of what “any fat” means. The first is what fat of any animal is included and the second is to what animals in what situations does the command apply. The type of fat is defined numerous times. It is only the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails, the two kidneys and all the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver. With sheep the fatty tail is also included. The first aspect of “any fat” is thus limited.

The second aspect is clear from the next few verses. Fat of animals that die naturally or are torn by beasts shall not be eaten. This is sensible since the flesh of such animals should not be eaten. The fat of animals given as an offering by fire to the Lord must not be eaten, which accords well with a parallel passage where the justification for not eating the fat of the sacrifice is that “all the fat is the Lord’s,” as a type of food. To eat it would be to steal from the Lord. With the second aspect so defined, it would appear that the theology of fat is fairly complete but there is one objection that must be addressed.

In Leviticus 3:17, there is a perpetual statute forbidding the eating of fat and blood. When coupled with the command against blood, it would seem that the prohibition of fat would transcend the context of offerings as the prohibition of blood does. To address this possibility, a careful study of the occurrences of the prohibition of blood must be made to see if the prohibition of fat is connected to it outside of the context of offerings. In the passages I consulted, there is no mention of fat (Gen. 9, Lev. 17, Deut. 12, Acts 15). There is no theological principle for not eating fat that would permit it to be extricated from its connection to offerings.

One clear proof text is Nehemiah’s instructions to the people to “eat the fat and drink the sweet” at the conclusion of the reading of the Torah in Nehemiah 8. The people were taught and given the sense of the Torah, and if Ezra and his assistants had made a broad application of “you shall not eat any fat” Nehemiah’s instructions would have been aberrant. Ezra must have taught a limited and biblical sense of fat and it is this sense that saved the barbecue above from becoming a steak-trimming and burger-tossing affair.

You Shall Offer Salt

Here's another "blast from the past" from the first parashah of Leviticus, Vayikra, "and He called."

“Every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all of your offerings you shall offer salt.” -Leviticus 2:13

Last week’s Torah portion contained a description of the construction of the tabernacle, its furnishings, and the priestly garments. This portion, Vayikra, begins a description of the service of the tabernacle and the duties of the priests. Since Yeshua is described as both temple (Rev. 21) and High Priest (Heb. 7), the particulars of the construction and service of the tabernacle reveal his character and the responsibility of his people toward him. It is with this in mind that the meaning and purpose of salting sacrifices must be considered. Salt speaks of preservation and perseverance, two aspects of the covenant to which the salted offerings pertain.

Much commentary has been written about the preservative aspect of salt. For example, “you are the salt of the earth,” is generally understood to mean that believers are a preservative force against the corruption of the world. Since this aspect has been widely explained, I will not address it here. The second aspect, perseverance, is less commonly noted but offers insight into the text above (Lev. 2:13) and other related passages. The persevering aspect of salt may be seen in the grain offering. After the offering was burned on the altar the salt would remain unchanged. Among the ashes would be unburned, unmelted, persevering salt, a testimony to the continuing nature of God’s covenant and his desire for the perseverance of believers.

There are two passages where salt and a covenant appear together in the Bible: Leviticus 2:13 and Numbers 18:19. In both cases, the phrase occurs in the context of an offering and speaks of an everlasting commitment of God to his people. The covenant of salt, according to one commentary, was a Near Eastern tradition that consisted of ratifying a covenant through the eating of a seasoned meal. Taken in this sense, the requirement of salt in the offering could be a reminder of the meal that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders ate before God as a seal of the covenant newly made with the people in Exodus 24. Similar covenant meals include that of Laban and Jacob (Gen. 31:46) and that of Yeshua and his disciples (Matt. 26:28). These are covenants of salt.

The perseverance of salt through the sacrificial fire teaches of the importance of salt for believers. In Mark 9:49-50, Yeshua says, “For everyone will be seasoned by fire, and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt. Salt is good, but if the salt loses its flavor, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace with one another.” Believers, as living sacrifices (Rom. 12), must be seasoned with salt so that as trials consume the outward person eternal glory will be revealed (2 Cor. 4:16). Having salt may be compared to building well on the foundation of the Messiah (1 Cor. 3:12-15). If a believer has salt in himself, then he is able to season his speech with salty, eternal words (Col. 4:6) and awaken the sense of eternity in every man’s heart. Yeshua’s question about how tasteless salt can be seasoned demonstrates a grave danger, which is also explained in Hebrews 6:4-8. If the flavor is lost, then the salt is worthless and will not withstand either the trials of this world or the baptism of fire that is to come (2 Pet. 3:10).

The practice of salting a sacrifice to God is a reminder of the covenant of salt, an enduring covenant. The covenant is connected to the fellowship meal, which finds its ultimate fulfillment in the Lord’s Passover. All believers are to have salt in them, salt that is the remembrance of the covenant and will enable them to persevere trials and preserve them through the judgment of the earth by fire.

How Heresies Function

As I was thumbing through Volume 3 of Francis Schaeffer's complete works, I found the following teaching about how heresies function. I found his observation compelling and particularly applicable to this corner of belief and practice known as "Messianic" as we have encountered many "Points 40–50" teachers and have to some extent been guilty of emphasizing certain points of teaching out of context and proportion to the whole (Points 1–100). The quoted passage is from the last few pages of the book The New Super-Spirituality, as found in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Volume 3, A Christian View of Spirituality (p. 399ff).

"It is interesting to see how heresies function and how the Devil wins out. Let us say that the complete body of Christian teaching consists of points 1–100. Now, then, we must realize that this Christian teaching is not just dogmatic, but meets the needs of man as God has made him and as man now is since the Fall. So, in order for the whole man to find fulfillment, he must have teaching from points 1–100. If you study church history, I think you will find that heresies arise like this: the church begins to fail to preach, or preaches very weakly, say, points 40–50.

Let us say, therefore, that points 40–50 are unstressed. Two things follow. First, the situation is unbiblical. True Christianity is a balanced whole. Second, Satan takes points 40–50 out of the total Christian framework and encourages someone to overemphasize them. And this becomes heresy. In other words, points 40–50, instead of being kept in line and in relationship to the rest of Christian doctrine, are moved out and away from the whole system. Being out of place, they somehow become inverted or reversed.

But why does Satan win? He wins because there is a longing and a need in the human heart and mind; points 40–50 are needed because the whole of Christian teaching is needed, not only to give one the right Christian system, but to meet the needs of total man as he is in the fallen world. Satan wins because when people recognize the lack of points 40–50 in their church and suddenly see someone stressing them, they go to that group not realizing that the points are being overstressed, and they are caught in a net.

One group is stressing points 40–50, but in an overemphasized way, out of relationship to the whole of Christian doctrine. Another group, on the other hand, sees this overemphasis on points 40–50 as a heresy, and so they retreat in the opposite direction. They preach points 40–50 even less than they did before in order to be safe, in order to be clearly seen as not being a part of a heresy or wrong teaching. Satan fishes equally on both sides, and he wins on both sides."

For the reader: what are some "points 40–50" that come to mind? How have we or have we not been successful these types of situations? Please leave comments, stories, and questions in the comment box.

Nadab and Abihu

The following post is part of a "blast from the past" series, a series of Torah-portion teachings that I began to write in 2005. I hope to contribute current posts for the most part, but I will work some of these older writings in as well.

“So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.”
-Leviticus 10:2

God’s judgment of Nadab and Abihu should serve as a reminder of God’s holiness. He will cause his servants to be either great examples or terrible warnings. No servant is excluded from the demands of holiness and the certainty of judgment. Believers, as a kingdom of priests, compose the house of God where judgment must begin according to Peter. God’s word to Aaron in Leviticus 10:3 explains his concern for his own holiness: “By those who come near me I must be regarded as holy; and before all the people I must be glorified.” Nadab and Abihu acted presumptuously with respect to God’s commands by offering strange fire. The fire of judgment that consumed them must burn as a testimony to God’s holiness to illuminate the danger of presumption and lead men in the way of reverence and truth.

A working definition of presumption will help in understanding the nature of Nadab and Abihu’s sin. According to a dictionary definition, presumption is overweening self-assertion. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word translated “presumptuously” in Numbers 15:30 is to act “with a high hand.” Presumption is characterized by defiance and a willful disregard for known consequences. It implies autonomy of action.

An example of presumption with similar consequences is the death of Uzzah found in the Haftorah portion. Uzzah died for extending his hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant. He presumed upon God’s holiness and disregarded the instructions concerning the ark and God vindicated his holiness at the expense of Uzzah’s life. Clearly, it was not simply God’s displeasure with Uzzah’s sin but zeal for his own holiness and glory that prompted this judgment. His servants must regard him as holy or his holiness will be further obscured and even ridiculed.

Paul develops the nature and consequences of presumption at several points in the book of Hebrews. In chapter 6, he warns that believers who fall away presuming a renewal to repentance actually crucify again the Messiah and subject him to open shame. They are soil that bears thorns whose end is the same fire that went forth against Nadab and Abihu. The clearest warning to believers against willful sin is found in Hebrews 10. Paul teaches that willful sin, or presumption, invites a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation. Through this judgment God’s character is upheld. Finally, in Hebrews 12, Paul underscores his plea that the believers serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear with a reminder that God is a consuming fire. Failure to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear places one at peril with a consuming fire. Since presumption is the opposite of reverence, it is fair say that only fire awaits those who presume to worship God according to their own designs (Deut. 12:8) while neglecting the pattern given by God through Moses, the Prophets, and in these last days by his Son.