Judges 3:1Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

This decision was so that subsequent generations could witness God's providence firsthand and, when confronted with adversaries, would call on the Lord for support. Instead of interpreting it as a temptation, Symmachus suggests that it was meant to provide training and teach the art of warfare. The expression employed by the Seventy, Let him tempt, should not imply God's ignorance. Indeed, even Abraham was not tested by God to understand his character, for it is also stated that God knew, ‘Abraham commanded his son and his house to keep all the judgments of the Lord God’ (Gen. 18:19). Thus, the purpose of divine testing is not for God to gain knowledge of humanity but to educate those lacking understanding. Just as God commanded Adam to engage his mind, He left certain nations to reveal the righteousness of some and to admonish the sinful nature of others. The writer articulates: ‘that Israel may be tempted by them, that they may be led away, if they will obey the commandments... which I commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.’ The actions themselves reveal that the Hebrews were responsible for the incomplete liberation from the wickedness of those nations. Joshua defeated twenty-nine kings, excluding the commanders of Jericho and Gaius, with the Israelite army, despite lacking a city, strongholds, or seasoned warriors. Conversely, those who came after Joshua, with fortified cities, substantial wealth acquired from warfare, and a full array of weapons, including walls and trenches, were unable to vanquish the remaining nations due to their own iniquity.

solely so that the upcoming generations of the Israelites might gain knowledge and learn the art of warfare. Further, it states: They were allowed to tempt the Israelites, to determine whether they would adhere to the commandments of the Lord that He commanded their ancestors through Moses. Indeed, God was not envious of the tranquility of Israel nor did He wish them harm; rather, He understood that these struggles would ultimately benefit them: by being continually assailed by the Gentiles, they would remain aware of their need for the Lord’s assistance. They would constantly reflect on Him and invoke His name, ensuring that they would neither fall into complacency nor lose the ability to engage and cultivate their virtues. For often, security and prosperity can lead to the downfall of those who find it difficult to face adversity.

This is why the Lord struck down the formidable adversaries that challenged His chosen people on their journey to the promised land, yet permitted the Philistines and Canaanites to endure, as it is written, to test Israel through them. At times, as I mentioned, to individuals graced with special favor, God allows lesser imperfections to remain, ensuring there are always challenges to face. Consequently, their hearts are kept humble; they may triumph over significant adversaries while still acknowledging that even the smallest foes can cause them distress. In an astonishing way, one individual can be both strong in virtue and weak in vulnerability—secured on one front yet feeling disarmed on another. Thus, the good they strive for, even when achieving it proves elusive, compels them to serve humbly what they do possess. Is it any wonder that we affirm this about humanity? For even heaven itself testifies to this truth, as some of its inhabitants fell while others remained steadfast: those who withstood the pride-induced downfall of their peers, like the elect angels, grew more resolute in their humility. Hence, the loss served to strengthen those who became more firmly established in eternal grace. This principle applies to every soul; a minor loss that fosters humility can, at times, yield significant growth for the spirit.

It is evident that wars and other disasters do not happen without God's intention. However, this does not imply that we should refrain from defending ourselves against our adversaries, mistakenly believing that this act opposes the will of God. Scholastic theologians have identified two aspects of God's will: 1) the will of signs and 2) the will of favor. I will refrain from elaborating on the will of signs, as what has been previously stated is sufficient. The will of God's favor, on the other hand, remains unknown to us for as long as it exists, and we may only understand His true intentions in due time.

We can relate this understanding to our enemies and conflicts. God has often allowed invaders to conquer the people of Israel to keep them in check, ensuring they do not stray from His path. They fought against their enemies until they discerned God’s will. However, when the prophet Jeremiah communicated God’s directive to submit to King Nebuchadnezzar, the situation was different. Likewise, when a fire ignites and cannot be quelled despite all human effort, it is a sign that God has ordained that this house should not only catch fire but also be consumed entirely, to test the faith of His friends and to bring judgment upon His foes.

In all other experiences, we should apply this understanding to the will of God's favor. The principle of self-preservation is also supported by worldly examples. A father who wishes to gauge his son's proficiency in fencing gives him a wooden sword and instructs him to spar against himself; in this case, the son is not rebelling against his father, just as a soldier faces his foe. In the same way, one who strives to extinguish a fire, defend against an enemy, or heal an illness is not opposing God’s will that corrects our misdeeds, but rather contending against the causes of suffering that are inherently opposed to God's nature.

A house can be set ablaze due to malice, hatred, or greed—these motives are indeed sinful, and yet it is not wrong to resist them. In seeking to heal an illness, one is not contradicting God’s will but rather confronting human suffering, for most illnesses stem from violations of proper care. In this respect, those who resist attackers do not defy God, but rather contend against those who unjustly wage war. In such situations, it is not only permissible but a duty to protect oneself and one’s own, unless it becomes evident for particular reasons that such defense is displeasing to God.