See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand (Deuteronomy 32:39).

Someone asked if the Bible admits to there being other gods because sometimes it speaks of Yahweh, the God of Israel, going against the gods of the nations. Simply put, no. There are no other gods but God. The mention of "gods" in the Bible does not suggest actuality but simply what pagans think, believe, and worship as such.

We find a parallel declaration in Isaiah 43:10–13,

And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me... So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, And I am God. Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?

Again in Isaiah 45:5 we read,

I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.

Now, notice something else back in Deuteronomy 32:39. God says, "It is I who put to death and give life." Once again, God says, "I have wounded and it is I who heal." How are we to understand this? Is God simply saying that He can kill and give birth? Is He simply saying that He can wound people and also heal their wounds? No. There is nothing special about these things. Then, what is God saying here?

God is saying that death and life, wounds and healing, are His domain. In other words, no one can kill without God's both knowing and allowing it, neither can they wound anyone. What is more, the beginning of life and the restoration of life are also His province. There is nothing hidden from the LORD. There is nothing that slips His notice or control, neither the craftiness of men nor of angels. You can attribute this or that genocide to ruthless rulers or even the devil, but ultimately God allowed it. If it happened apart from His knowing or apart from His control, then He would not be God.

Theologians make a big deal about how it was not God but Satan who afflicted righteous Job and his family, but did God not know what Satan would do? Was God deceived by Satan? Didn't God give Satan permission to do what he did and that with limits? When we make such excuses for God, rather than defending His honor, we are belittling Him, and we show ourselves ignorant of the true nature of God.

Friends, the fact that God sees and controls all death and life, all wounding and healing, should comfort us. Then, we can know for sure that He has the power to bring His promises to completion:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:28–30).

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The Song of Moses declares that Israel cannot escape the Lord's judgment by turning to another divine protector. Deuteronomy 32 contrasts the living God with the powerless refuges in which the people have trusted. His power over death and life, wounding and healing, is therefore not simply an inventory of abilities. It announces that no rival can reverse his verdict or take ultimate control of his people. The passage confronts idolatry while preparing for the vindication described at the song's conclusion.

The statement that there is no other God should be distinguished from the claim that every biblical reference to other spiritual beings is imaginary. Scripture can deny the deity of idols while acknowledging angels, hostile powers, and demonic involvement in idolatry. Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20 explicitly make that latter connection. These beings are not competitors equal to the Creator. Biblical monotheism does not require an empty spiritual universe; it requires an unrivaled God. Compare Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20.

The original's emphasis on divine sovereignty also keeps the book of Job from becoming a contest in which God is unaware of the adversary's actions. The opening chapters explicitly place limits upon what may happen. Yet distinguishing the agents is not merely an excuse invented to protect God. The narrative itself identifies the adversary's destructive role and portrays human raiders as responsible actors. Theological care means retaining those distinctions while confessing that events do not lie outside God's knowledge and providence.

This matters especially when speaking about atrocities. To say that God permitted an event is not to say that he morally approved the perpetrators or that the victims' suffering was insignificant. Nor do we usually know the particular good God will bring from a particular evil. Romans 8:28 must be read with verse 29, where the good is tied to conformity to Christ, and with the chapter's groaning, suffering, and hope of redemption. The promise is larger than an explanation that makes every tragedy appear immediately beneficial.

The comfort offered here is consequently sturdy but not glib. God can sustain his people and complete his saving purpose when they cannot make sense of their circumstances. That assurance does not forbid mourning, resistance to injustice, or prayer for healing. Those responses can be ways of trusting his revealed goodness. The same God whose sovereignty gives hope commands care for those who suffer.

Philippians 1:6 draws attention to his continuing work rather than our ability to account for every event. We may confess that no power can finally frustrate his purpose while admitting how much remains beyond our understanding. Such confidence can free us from both panic and the pressure to supply explanations that Scripture has not given. The Lord who holds life and death is also the One whose faithfulness has been revealed in Jesus Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:26–27 records God saying He would have annihilated them and wiped out even the memory of them, but that He feared the taunt of Israel's enemy, who might misunderstand and claim their own power had triumphed and that the LORD had nothing to do with it.

Since the people have not yet entered the land, this is a prophecy of their future. God would be so angry with them that He would consider annihilating them. What stays His hand here is not the faithfulness of the few but the prospect that the watching world would misinterpret His actions. God does not want anyone taking credit for what He has done.

Know for certain that the chief end of all things is God's glory. And know that His holiness is not a small matter — the judgments recorded in Scripture are real, and the whole adult generation delivered from Egypt died in the wilderness.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The observation about verse 27 is genuinely interesting and worth keeping: God's stated concern is that judgment not be misread as the strength of Israel's enemies. Divine action is bound up with divine reputation throughout the Old Testament, and the comment is right that God's glory is a governing concern in Scripture. Many Christians, particularly in the Reformed tradition, would affirm that God's glory rather than human benefit is the final end of all things.

But several of the claims built on top of that need answering.

On God's fatherhood: this is not a modern sentimental import. Jesus taught His disciples to address God as Father in the prayer He gave them, called Him Father throughout His ministry, and told Philip that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father. Paul writes that believers have received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry Abba, Father (Romans 8:15), and John marvels at what manner of love the Father has given that we should be called children of God (1 John 3:1). Hebrews treats divine discipline as evidence of sonship rather than as a counterweight to it. God's fatherhood is not a soft emphasis balanced against His holiness; it is how Jesus taught us to approach Him.

On the Prodigal Son: the parable-concealment principle does not apply here. Luke tells the reader exactly why it was spoken — the Pharisees and scribes were complaining that Jesus welcomed sinners and ate with them (Luke 15:1–2) — and the parable answers that complaint directly. It is Jesus's own portrait of the Father, told to make a point rather than to obscure one, and the father who runs while his son is still far off is the image Jesus chose.

On "no hesitation": Scripture says otherwise in its own voice. God declares that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but desires that they turn and live (Ezekiel 33:11), and Lamentations says He does not afflict from His heart (3:33). Hosea 11 is an extended portrait of God recoiling from the judgment His people have earned — how can I give you up? — which is precisely the passage the comment's rhetorical question about fathers would need to reckon with. The very verse under discussion describes God's hand being stayed.

The underlying instinct — that we tend to domesticate God and forget His holiness — is a fair corrective and worth taking. It does not require diminishing His fatherhood, which Scripture presents not as a competing attribute but as the relationship the gospel exists to restore.

Moses declares he'll proclaim the LORD's name — praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, His works perfect, all His ways just — a faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 32:3–4).

What a powerful statement! No matter our current circumstances, let's remember our God is perfect and His ways are just. As His children, this alone should be our comfort. Whether our road leads to blessing or suffering in this life, humanity's chief purpose is to glorify God. May the LORD's name be praised!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The "Rock" imagery this comment highlights is worth noticing as a title reserved specifically for God throughout this entire song of Moses, used repeatedly across the chapter as a deliberate contrast to Israel's coming idolatry — the very next verses accuse Israel of abandoning "the Rock who fathered them" for gods that were "no gods at all" (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 32:15–18). Calling God "the Rock" right at this song's opening isn't simply poetic flourish; it's setting up the entire composition's central accusation, that Israel would eventually trade something permanent, faithful, and unshakeable for things that were nothing at all.

I'm thankful today that the Lord has granted me another day on earth. Let's live worthy of His calling, proclaiming His name and praising His greatness. God says He'll surely bring calamity on His children for their unfaithfulness, but in the end, they'll be vindicated, and all nations will rejoice with His people. Their unfaithfulness can never nullify God's plan to bless them, and other nations through them. Christ came through the line of Judah to bless Jews and Gentiles alike — His faithfulness prevails in every circumstance. Isn't it such a comfort that He's faithful?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The vindication this comment describes — Israel's unfaithfulness ultimately unable to nullify God's larger plan of blessing — becomes Paul's own explicit topic in Romans 11, where he insists that Israel's rejection isn't final or total, and that "all Israel will be saved" in some ultimate sense still to come (Romans 11:25–26). That's a genuinely debated passage regarding its precise scope and timing, but its underlying confidence matches this comment's own closing point exactly: God's covenant faithfulness operates on a timeline long enough, and a purpose large enough, that human unfaithfulness — even Israel's own repeated failures across their entire history — was never going to be the final word on how the story ends.

I was surprised to read that God Himself buries Moses on the mountain. The footnotes note it could also be read as "they" buried him, so it's not entirely certain. But as others have already noted, Moses must have held a truly special place with God for Him to have personally handled his burial. We usually think of Moses simply as a prophet and intermediary between the people and God. I've rarely heard anyone discuss the actual relationship between Moses and God directly, or whether God viewed him as more than merely a man or prophet — if God buried him personally, rather than leaving it to the people or priests, does that suggest something closer than a simple God-servant relationship? To me, it opens up the possibility that Moses and God had conversations well beyond what's actually recorded in Scripture — not that I imagine them discussing anything trivial, but perhaps the deeper, soul-searching questions we all carry, questions about creation, and about the wickedness of God's own people.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Deuteronomy 34:10 itself offers some direct support for the closeness this comment is speculating about, stating plainly that no prophet like Moses ever arose again in Israel — one whom the LORD knew "face to face." That phrase is used nowhere else in the Old Testament to describe anyone's relationship with God, which suggests the text itself, not just later speculation, is already marking Moses's relationship with God as categorically unique among everyone who came before or after him. The personal burial this comment finds so striking may simply be the narrative's final, concrete illustration of exactly that already-stated uniqueness.