Judges 3:2Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

The author notes that during Joshua's leadership, God did not entirely wipe out all the inhabitants of the land so that future generations could experience His providence and, when faced with adversaries, would invoke the Lord's power to aid them. Rather than suggesting that Jesus should be tempted, Symmachus interprets this as an intention to prepare them and instruct them in warfare. However, the term used by the Septuagint, 'Let him tempt,' does not imply a lack of knowledge on God’s part. For even in the case of Abraham, God did not test him to discern his character, for it is recorded that God knew ‘Abraham commanded his son and his house to keep all the judgments of the Lord God’ (Gen. 18:19). Thus, God tests not to understand Himself, but to educate the uninformed. Just as He instructed Adam to engage his intellect, He allowed certain nations to remain in the land to reveal the righteousness of some and to correct the wickedness of others. This clarifies the writer’s point: ‘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.’ Evidence shows that it was indeed the Israelites' own shortcomings that led to an incomplete conquest over these wicked nations. Joshua defeated twenty-nine kings, excluding the leaders of Jericho and Ai, with the Israelite army, which lacked fortified cities, defenses, or experienced soldiers. Yet, those who came after Joshua, equipped with fortified strongholds and vast wealth gained from victories, and armed with various weapons and defensive measures, were unable to conquer the remaining nations due to their own corrupt actions.

A similar thought appears in the Book of Judges, where it addresses the removal of spiritual adversaries confronting Israel: these nations were left to test the Israelites alongside them, with the intent that future generations would learn the ways of warfare. Additionally, it states that they were permitted to tempt the Israelites to determine if they would adhere to the Lord's commandments, which He had imparted to their ancestors through Moses. God was not envious of Israel's peace nor wished them harm; rather, He recognized that these challenges would be to their benefit. By being consistently challenged by the Gentiles, they would remain aware of their reliance on the Lord's assistance. They would keep Him in their thoughts and call upon Him, thus avoiding stagnation and retaining the capacity to combat struggles and cultivate virtues. Indeed, security and abundance can often lead to the downfall of those who are not tested by difficulties.

It is evident that wars and other calamities occur under God’s sovereignty. However, this does not imply we should forgo defenses against our adversaries, mistaking such actions as resistance to God’s will. Theologians distinguish between two aspects of God’s will: 1) the will of signs and 2) the will of favor. I shall not elaborate further on the will of signs, as what has been stated suffices. The will of God’s favor, however, remains elusive; while we experience it, the understanding of God's true intentions will be revealed to us later.

We can look to the historical context of Israel, where God allowed foreign nations to oppress them, not to foster disorder or neglect of Him, but to motivate their return to righteousness. Their resistance persisted until they comprehended God’s intentions, yet the prophet Jeremiah instructed them to submit to Nebuchadnezzar’s rule. Similarly, if a fire rages and cannot be quelled despite efforts, this indicates God's judgment that the destruction serves to test the faith of His faithful while punishing the wicked.

Thus, we should apply the concept of God's favor to all other circumstances. Furthermore, the morality of self-preservation is validated through worldly examples. Consider a father who, desiring to teach his son to fence, provides him with a wooden sword and instructs him to practice. In this scenario, the son is not defying his father; he is engaging with his opponent. Likewise, those who douse flames, confront aggressors, or seek healing from illness are not opposing God's punitive will, but challenging the source of their suffering, which God Himself abhors. A structure may be consumed by fire due to malevolent intent or selfish actions, all of which are indeed sinful; yet resistance to these evils is not only acceptable but necessary.

To care for the sick does not equate to defying God's purpose but addresses human suffering, which often stems from violations of natural law (such as gluttony or neglect). Similarly, when one combats an aggressor, they resist not God but an unjust aggressor. In such cases, it is not only permissible but essential to defend oneself and one’s own, unless it is revealed that such defense is contrary to God’s desire for specific reasons.