Providence in Israel’s Wars
Hello Rabbi!
Following a discussion between my military friends, most of whom are not religious, regarding “divine intervention” in Israel’s wars, and in light of the Rabbi’s words on matters of prayer/providence, I wanted to ask the Rabbi’s opinion:
Is there a way to explain the many victories of the State of Israel, against all odds, if it were not said that there was divine help or divine intervention (or any similar formulation, a miracle in nature’s way…) or is everything attributed only to a tactical-strategic advantage? It is true that this is a question without a military-technical committee and the army trains and does not rely on miracles… It is known that universities around the world do not teach Israel’s wars because they have no way to explain the victories. What is the rabbi’s opinion?
And in the same matter, if there really is no divine intervention, what is the purpose of a prayer gathering held when Israel is in a time of trouble, such as wars or kidnappings? Are we asking God, the Holy One, to deviate from His custom and intervene, or does this have repercussions even without a change in the leadership of the world?
Of course, these things are beyond our understanding of God’s ways, but I would love to know how the Rabbi sees things.
Thank you very much and all the best!
Hello L.
In my opinion, there is definitely a way and many are doing it. No less good than any other war. I don’t necessarily see providence and a miracle here.
By the way, why is the army really training? After all, God will help, right? Well, we forgot the “effort” excuse, of course.
As for the myth that universities don’t teach about victories here, I don’t know where you got that nonsense from, but it’s probably part of some religious propaganda. Pure nonsense.
Indeed, when people pray, they ask for intervention. I think it usually doesn’t happen.
Why does the army really train? God will help, won't He?
Staite of Pu'erosh:
And Joab saw that the battle was against him before and behind; and he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array to fight against the Syrians. 10 And the rest of the people he delivered into the hand of Abishai his brother; and he put them in array to fight against the children of Ammon. 11 And he said, If the Syrians be too strong for me, then shall I be saved; and if the children of The Ammonites will be stronger than you, and I will go to help you. 12 Be strong and let us be strong for our people and for the cities of our God; and the LORD will do what is good in his sight.
And what does this guy say? Did they train? They just went out to fight and did what he thought was best.
I didn't say that you don't need to practice, and not just because of "effort", but because you don't trust in miracles, I think there is a difference. But God is "the one who gives us the strength to do good".
I'm not familiar with the history of wars in the world, but victory in situations like the one Israel faced is not something ordinary.
The quote I brought is something I heard from someone who was in this course at a university in the US, I don't remember from whom right now. But that's not the point.
It's true that everything can be explained intellectually, as some have bothered to explain the biblical miracles as natural phenomena, but why necessarily also say the other side - that God removed His providence completely? When was there a change in providence? It's true that there are no visible miracles, but why not say that God works through nature? I don't see "divine intervention" as something that doesn't happen, maybe it's hidden, but it never happens?!
There is a natural way to explain everything.
Or at least that is the basic assumption of modern science.
If we start from this assumption, there is no possibility of discerning a miracle. Any miracle that happens today will be accepted as an observation that requires an explanation. If it is in a ‘high’ field (in terms of the level of reduction to physics) then it is not difficult to find an explanation because the field is flexible anyway. The ‘low’ field is more difficult, but even if an explanation is not found, the observation will simply wait for a theory to explain the observation and receive empirical confirmation. For example, a cosmologist (and I am deliberately giving an example of a field in which it is impossible to perform an empirical experiment satisfactorily) who receives an observation that does not fit with the theory will never dismiss the observation as a miracle.
Again, I understand that everything can be explained by science, but why is the rabbi so eager to explain it that way? Is he eager to say that there is divine intervention (I don't like that term) like the common people throughout their history?
I didn't say it never happens, but it doesn't seem to happen. Normally, that's certainly not the case, but there can always be exceptions. When you test the laws of nature, they always work. When there is divine intervention, it's always an exception to the laws of nature.
You call it being pushed, but I call your approach pushing. In my opinion, talking about divine involvement is self-deception. Most of us live in the scientific worldview and believe in it. When you take paracetamol, it brings down the fever, whether you prayed or not. That's why people invent "intervention" and other funny excuses. No one really believes that any particle in the universe moves outside the laws of physics. When we see it with our own eyes, we won't believe it. Larger systems are nothing more than a collection of particles, so it's unlikely that a large system works differently.
"When we see it with our own eyes, we won't believe it." That is, you will never believe in an actual miracle, only in its possibility.
Indeed. It's hard to imagine a situation where, when I encounter an event, I would declare it a conference. But I think it's still possible (in a sufficiently extreme case). I think that such a situation can only be judged when you actually experience it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
