God doesn't fear anyone. There is not one verse in the entire bible that says otherwise. He is the one eternal sovereign God who rules the universe and everyone and everything in it. HE FEARS NO ONE!!!
The way you have interpreted the verse to mean God feared the other gods, is incorrect.
God of Heaven was concerned that the nations who He would use as instruments to chastise and punish His people, that they would be under the wrong impression. And draw the wrong conclusion.
They, the humans might think that because they defeated Israel/Judah therefore ...
Deuteronomy 32:27 alludes to Exodus 32:
7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your ...
Slander of a virgin, 13-21: Here is the scenario.
“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against
her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and
says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her
a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring
out the evidence of the girl’...
The reason why Moses could guarantee that Caleb would inherit that land is because Moses ‘spoke’ for God. He was the Lords representative in the covenant the Israelites were under (Yes I’m aware Caleb was/may? have been a gentile, but if so?, he was ‘grafted’ into this covenant.)
GAL 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the ...
36 except Caleb son of Jephunneh. He will see it, and I will give him and his descendants the land he set his feet on, because he followed the LORD wholeheartedly.
God will give Caleb the land he has set his feet on.
13 Then Joshua blessed Caleb son of Jephunneh and gave him Hebron as his inheritance.
Joshua gave Caleb Hebron as ...
No. The humiliation is in the kidnapping and rape.
Having sex with your wife isn't inherently humiliating. However, these verses aren't talking about having sex with a wife. They're talking about kidnapping a woman during warfare, raping her, and forcing her to be your wife. The Law of Moses allowed the Israelites to kidnap and rape women to force them to ...
English Standard Version Deuteronomy 21:
But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated [H6031] her.
Is having sex with a wife the same as humiliating her?
No, not universally speaking. The connection between the two was not so ...
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her
head, and pare her nails; ...
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let
her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money,
thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
(Deuteronomy 21:12,14, KJV)
The humiliation (or ...
In a certain sense, YES,
for in angelic state there is no sex, but angels' relationship is supra-/beyond-sexual and since also humans can reach this sublime angelic state (Mark 12:25) any lesser attitude that involves sex can be called, in this sense, "humiliation", regardless, of course, male and female gender.
In fact, it is proven by an ...
even the elders of the city shall take an heifer; of a year old, as the same Targum, and so Jarchi; and in this the Jewish writers agree, that it must be a year old, but not two
It is supported by Targum and Jarchi.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown provides the logistical detail:
According to Jewish writers, the Sanhedrin, taking charge of such a ...
Based on the context, since it is "the elders" who must bring the heifer, the responsibility falls on them.
And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even
the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been
wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; (Deuteronomy 21:3,
If the city had some form of ...
That is not the only problem!! Look at Deut 23:1-3 -
1 No man with crushed or severed genitals may enter the assembly of
2 No one of illegitimate birth may enter the assembly of the LORD, nor
may any of his descendants, even to the tenth generation.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the
assembly of the LORD, even to ...
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to
his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the
LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV)
The law most certainly was applicable to times before it was declared in the Israelites' hearing. It applied, for example, to Ruth, the Moabitess, who was a descendant of a bastard ...
As @TonyChan stated the Mosaic Law of [ דְּבָרִ֗ים Devarim 23:3 | "Deuteronomy" 23:2 ] cannot be a retroactive law against Perez. - The issue of David as מַמְזֵ֖ר Mamzer (Moabite descendant) would start with Boaz.
We learn about the biological father of דָוִד David in [1 Samuel 17:12] : "David was the son of this [Ephrathite] man from ...
Genesis 38 happened long before Deuteronomy 23:2. Moses' laws were not retroactive. E.g., Genesis 20:
11 Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ 12Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.
Abraham married ...
Keep in mind that the decree that they will die before entering the holy land only included those twenty years and older,
In this wilderness your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years
old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against
And this age is repeated many times throughout the OT.
Thus a lot of the adults and teens (...
Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them: Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land.
which many now present had seen, and were then old enough to take notice of, and could remember, though their fathers then in being were now dead:
Benson adds more:
When reading this text in the original Hebrew, one of the first things to be noticed is that the verse starts with imperative verbs, i.e. commands. One of the next things to notice is that those commands say to travel (KJV: take your journey) to a variety of places, both foreign and potentially domestic (slightly ambiguous, but the reference to "...
Did Jesus set aside divorce (Deu. 24:1) and replace it (Matt. 19:9)?
As partially answered elsewhere (the first link provided by the OP), there is a great distinction between the Old Law and that of Christ's new teaching.
The Mosaic order was reinstituted in another form upon the inauguration of the new priesthood (Heb. 7:11-12), one in which ...
Jesus did not replace anything but rightly interpreted the law on this question, as Rabbi Shammai did against the mainstream legalistic tradition of Hillel and Akiva. Wisdom and Spirit, as opposed to legalism. An open-minded person of spirit sees beyond the letter- to God himself. See Mark 2:27 for example: Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
The discussion started because Pharisees wanted to test Jesus.
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
In the times of Jesus there were two main schools within Pharisaic Judaism. They were Houses of Hillel and Shammai. The term עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר (some indecency) was ...
Did Jesus set aside Deuteronomy 24:1 and replace it with Matthew 19:9 on the issue of certificate of divorce?
Let's look at the sequence of events for this scene.
vs 3: The Pharisees ask about the legality of divorce. This is done not as a means of clarification but as the verse says 'to test him'.
vs 4-6: Jesus reminds the Pharisees of the Genesis account ...
There is a difference between obtaining a divorce and then going the next step in marrying someone else. Jesus does not say it is not permissible to divorce; he is saying that if one divorces and then marries someone else, he is committing adultery.
In other words, the Biblical usage for "divorce" is akin to our modern usage of "separation.&...
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But ...
I am not sure that is question is valid for this site (we do not give advice at all!!) so let me offer the comments of the Prophet Isaiah 56:3-7
Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD
will utterly exclude me from His people.”
And let the eunuch not say, “I am but a dry tree.”
For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who ...