Alex O'Connor presented a powerful dilemma about divine violence that left Christians stumped on Jubilee. In this video, I reveal a completely new framework that resolves this challenge while taking both Scripture and ethics seriously.

In this video, you'll discover:

• Why simply calling the commands "hyperbole" fails to address the deeper moral questions
• How God's stunning self-revelation in Exodus 34:6-7 provides the key to understanding divine justice
• A sophisticated ethical framework that shows how mercy operates within judgment
• How even the hardest cases (like 1 Samuel 15) can find meaningful resolution

 Here's the video. I've also included the full written transcript below. I hope this is helpful!

Introduction

Today we’re talking about Old Testament violence. We’re breaking down Alex O’Connor’s dilemma from divine violence that stumped Christians when he debated them on Jubilee. 

If you want to feel confident and satisfied in how you deal with troubling texts, you need a  way to handle God commanding the killing of innocent people.

But here’s the thing. I’m not going to tell you hyperbole and God’s judgment alone solve the problem. Because that’s not what you need.

What you need is to understand who God is, what he commits himself to do, and why he does the morally right thing given all the factors in play.

In short, you need a complete theory: One that is rooted in Scripture, takes cues from philosophy, and captures the goodness of God in the face of his harsh commands.

If we haven’t met, my name is Christopher. I have a PhD in philosophy, and I’ve taught thousands of university students how to think clearly about life’s biggest questions. Now I teach Christian thinkers how to answer the toughest challenges to their faith.

I’m working on a course on OT violence. So if you get something out of this video and you want to go deeper, click the link here to register your interest.

This will put you on the waitlist and increase your chances of getting in on the ground floor when I open the course for a limited time to a limited group of students.

Steelmanning Alex's Argument

On Jubilee, Alex defended the claim that God commands genocide in the Bible. He focused on the killing of innocent people. As he presses:

“But did God say to the prophet Samuel, ‘Leave alive nothing that breathes; kill every man and woman?”

Now watch this. He proposes a dilemma.

“If he did, then we've got the command to kill innocent children. If he didn't, then we've got a problem of the accuracy of the Old Testament.”

Dilemmas are powerful. They back your opponent into a corner. Alex forces the Christian to accept that either God commanded the killing of innocent people or the Bible doesn’t accurately record what God said and did. The first horn of the dilemma implies God isn’t perfectly good. God is morally compromised if he commanded the killing of children. The second horn of the dilemma questions whether you can trust the Old Testament's portrayal of God and His interactions with people.

How can you get out of this dilemma? I’m going to show you a new way of responding to the problem of OT violence. I hope this will give you intellectual and spiritual peace concerning violent passages in Scripture.

Steelmanning Alex’s Dilemma

When responding to someone it’s important steelman their argument. You want them to think, “Boy, he nailed it. In fact, he put it better than I did.” To this end, I put a lot of work into formulating Alex’s in its strongest possible form.

What is the argument behind his dilemma? Let’s work through it together. Don’t sweat the symbols. I’ll explain everything.

The Conclusion

When reconstructing arguments you need to first find out where you’re going. What’s the conclusion? The conclusion is the dilemma: either God is not good or the Bible is not reliable. Then we get an or-statement: God issued the commands or he didn’t. This logically exhausts the options. How does he defend the conclusion?

He tweaks the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple.

"If we had a story of the cleansing of the temple—if we discovered some early manuscript, some version of John where Jesus goes into the temple... and starts beating up children... You'd probably think either it didn't happen or if you could prove that it did happen, that Jesus was less moral than you thought he was."

By analogy, either what’s recorded in the Old Testament didn’t actually happen, so the Bible isn’t a reliable guide to who God is and what he has done, or it really did happen as recorded and the God of the Old Testament is not perfectly good. He’s less moral than you thought. 

The First Premise

Now that we have the conclusion figured out we have to figure out what the premises are. Here’s another analogy Alex presents.

"Imagine if we  discovered that behind the scenes, the Prime Minister of Israel had said, 'Leave alive nothing that breathes. Kill everyone: kill man, kill woman, kill child and infant. Kill the animals, kill the donkeys; don't leave anything alive that breathes.' Even if he was trying to sort of make a hyperbolic point, the fact that children are then dying as a result, I think that we could lay some blame at His feet."

By analogy, if God issued a command using herem language, which requires complete destruction of cities and peoples including noncombatants, then God is ultimately morally responsible for their deaths. Given that noncombatants were killed in the conquest, it follows that God is responsible for wronging them. He did something immoral, so he isn’t perfectly good. 

If we make this more precise, it becomes the first premise in the argument. 

Before we do that we need to abbreviate the claims as follows:

• C: God issued herem commands
• K: Noncombatants were killed
• G: God is perfectly good

This gives us the first premise:

1. (C ∧ K) → ¬G

The Second Premise

Next we have the claim that the Bible is not reliable. When his Christian opponent suggests commands weren't accurately recorded Alex says, "Okay, fine. So you think that the scribe has inaccurately recorded the command of God; therefore, the Old Testament is [unreliable]." 

Letting R stand for:

• R: The Old Testament is reliable

We get that if God didn’t issue herem commands, then it’s not the case that the Old Testament is reliable. So, the second premise is:

2. ¬C → ¬R

The Third Premise

Alex takes pains to affirm that noncombatants were killed.

He cites Joshua:

"We're then told that 12,000 people fell that day, all the people of Ai, and it says 12,000 men and women. So we know that women who were non-combatants were also killed."

He also cites 1 Samuel 15: 

"Saul decides to keep the king as a captive, and he also saves the best of the animals. The prophet Samuel comes to him and says, 'What have you done?'...God regrets that he made Saul king...Because Saul didn't follow his commandment to completely destroy the Amalekites"

So, the third premise is that noncombatants were killed:

3. K

The Fourth Premise

The last premise is the exhaustive or-statement. Either God issued harem commands or he didn't.

4. C ∨ ¬C 

Now I’ll quickly talk you through how we get the conclusion from the premises. Don’t sweat the details. I just want you to know it’s a logically valid argument.

The Best Response Strategy

To show the argument is unsound we just need to show one of the premises is false. Arguing premise 3 is false is challenging. How would you establish that literally no noncombatants were killed? Using a hyperbolic reading of the commands and archeological evidence may show the conquests were not as huge in numbers, but this doesn’t secure the claim that no noncombatants were killed. As with Jericho we know a noncombatant like Rahab and her family were in the fortified city. It’s hard to believe either all noncombatants escaped or that there were no other noncombatants apart from Rahab in the city. Fortified ANE cities used civilians to support their functioning.

We could deny premise 2. That would involve showing that even if God did not actually issue herem commands it still can be that the Bible is a reliable guide to who God is and what he has done in history. While this is possible, it’s not the best route to go. The text is clear that these commands were issued. So we would be saying something like: if the text didn’t mean what it says, or if God didn’t say what it says he did, then the Bible still can be trusted. While there might be a way to make this work, it is pretty strained and problematic.

The best response strategy is to argue that premise 1 is false. We accept that God issued the herem commands and that noncombatants were killed, but we argue this doesn’t undermine God from being perfectly good. How would we do this?

Covenant Virtue Ethics

God’s Virtuous Character

In response to the problem of OT violence, I’ve developed what I call “Covenant Virtue Ethics.” It is a theory of normative ethics. It explains under what conditions a command or action is morally right or wrong. It is a virtue theory because it is based on God’s virtuous character as found in Exodus 34:6-7. Why invoke Exodus?

Given that Alex uses the conquests to question the character of God we can wield the fullness of God’s character in responding to the challenge.

The conquests are, in part, God fulfilling his covenant to Israel. This includes promises of land and other blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. God is setting Israel apart as a light to the world – a light pointing to the ultimate salvation purpose in Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. The conquest is God doing what he said he was going to do. It’s him being faithful to his word and who he says he is.

Right before renewing his covenant with Israel through the prophet Moses God reveals his character to Moses. This is important. Before he says who he is he says his name twice. God didn’t stutter. This is him saying, “This is who I really am.” Pay attention to this. Here’s how he describes himself.

The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” 8 And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped. (Exodus 34:6-8)

Then God affirms His Covenant promise concerning the land:

And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. “Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” (Exodus 34:10-11)

So what do we observe of God’s character right before he renews his Covenant with Israel, which includes the driving out of the Canaanites?

God reveals himself as:

• Merciful and gracious
• Slow to anger
• Abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness
• Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin
• but who will by no means clear the guilty

God’s character is merciful, gracious, patient, loving (hesed), faithful (emet), forgiving, and just. These are virtues that are essential properties of God’s nature and essence. They dispose and orient God to do certain things and say certain things. They are not external to God. They are who God is at his core, ad intra as philosophers say.

How do these relate to God’s goodness? The short answer is that they comprise his goodness. God is good because he is essentially loving, merciful, gracious, patient, forgiving, and just. 

What does it mean to say he’s perfectly good? Richard Swinburne in his book The Coherence of Theism explains,

“in claiming that God is by nature morally perfectly good, the theist means that God is so constituted t hat he never does actions which are morally wrong" (Swinburne 1977: 179). 

We can refine this. As philosopher Ed Wierenga says, God’s goodness is,

“the goodness involved in always doing what is morally right, having morally proper motives, and exercising the moral virtues" (Wierenga 2003: 210). 

Moral Obligations

Virtue is key, but it isn’t the only normative ethical element in Covenant Virtue Ethics. The divine character, as expressed in Exodus 34:6-8, also grounds duties. God has duties to his creatures. He freely takes on these duties, and they emanate from his virtuous character. 

Concerning the covenant with Israel he makes certain promises. Promises involve creating or imposing obligations on one’s self. After saying who he is and laying out the details of the covenant God binds himself to the covenant.

God is essentially faithful and true. He will always do what he says he’s going to do. He said he was going to give the land to Israel as an inheritance and that is a big reason why there are the various conquests.

Moral Reasons

The context-sensitive element comes in with how stringent these virtue-based rules are in any given case. The moral reasons presented in specific situations determine the "weight" of different rules. This introduces flexibility while maintaining objective grounding.

God's wisdom allows perfect discernment of how to weigh competing moral considerations and act according to the most weighty rule in each situation. This preserves God’s perfect goodness while allowing nuanced responses to complex moral situations.

There are multiple duties that arise out of God’s character, and no one duty always takes precedence in every situation. The various duties must be weighed against each other and God in his perfect wisdom does this weighing given all the moral reasons in play.

Here we can borrow from philosopher W.D. Ross. He articulates a group of prima facie or provisional duties. The weightiest duty in a case involving a conflict of duties becomes the “duty proper.”  Let's look at Ross’s duties.

First, let's look at Fidelity - the duty of promise-keeping. Think of this as a fundamental obligation to keep our word. When you make a promise or commitment, this duty requires you to follow through. In theological context, this connects deeply to God's faithfulness.

Reparation is fascinating - it's about making things right when wrongs occur. You might think of this as moral repair work. When damage is done, this duty calls us to restore and make amends.

Gratitude might surprise you as a fundamental duty, but consider: when we receive good, we have an obligation to acknowledge and return it. This shapes how we respond to benefits received from others.

Justice as distribution by merit is crucial. This isn't just about punishment - it's about giving what's due, both rewards and consequences. In theological ethics, this connects to God's perfect justice.

Beneficence - doing good to others - forms a positive obligation. It's not enough to avoid harm; we must actively promote others' welfare.

Finally, Non-maleficence - avoiding harm - might seem obvious but is distinct from beneficence. Sometimes we can't do good, but we can at least avoid causing harm.

These duties often conflict, which is why Ross called them "prima facie" - they can be outweighed by stronger duties in specific situations.

1. Fidelity (promise-keeping)
2. Reparation (making up for wrongs)
3. Gratitude (returning good)
4. Justice (distribution by merit)
5. Beneficence (doing good)
6. Non-maleficence (avoiding harm)

Let me walk you through how God's character traits revealed in Exodus 34 ground Rossian moral duties.

Let's start with Hesed - God's steadfast, covenant love. When you examine this trait carefully, you'll see why it grounds:

• Beneficence (doing good to others) because steadfast love actively seeks others' welfare
• Non-maleficence (avoiding harm) because love inherently protects from harm
• Gratitude as the proper response to such overwhelming divine love

Hesed (Steadfast Love):

• Grounds Beneficence
• Grounds Non-maleficence
• Grounds Gratitude (as proper response)

Now consider Emet - God's faithfulness and truth. This trait naturally grounds:

• Fidelity because faithfulness defines keeping commitments
• Reparation because truth requires making things right
• Justice because faithfulness maintains right relationships

Emet (Faithfulness/Truth):

• Grounds Fidelity
• Grounds Reparation
• Grounds Justice

Looking at Compassion/Grace, you'll notice how it grounds:

• Beneficence through active mercy
• Non-maleficence by seeking to prevent suffering
• Reparation by making restoration possible

Compassion/Grace:

• Grounds Beneficence
• Grounds Non-maleficence
• Grounds Reparation

God's Patience ("slow to anger") plays a special role:

• Moderating how justice is applied
• Strengthening our duty to avoid harm
• Affecting when and how wrongs are addressed

Patience (Slow to Anger):

• Moderates Justice
• Strengthens Non-maleficence
• Affects timing of Reparation

When we examine Forgiveness, we see it:

• Grounding reparation by making restoration possible
• Shaping how justice is applied
• Creating gratitude in those forgiven

Forgiveness:

• Grounds Reparation
• Affects Justice application
• Relates to Gratitude

Finally, Justice with its generational scope:

• Grounds the basic duty of justice
• Affects how we make things right
• Links to keeping faith across time

Justice (with generations):

• Grounds Justice duty
• Affects Reparation
• Links to Fidelity

This mapping of how each divine trait grounds each Rossian duty is helpful. I find these connections reveal the deep coherence between divine character and moral duties. Now we can extract the conquest-specific moral reasons and the options for various courses of action.

Commands, Reasons, and Duties 

Let me clarify the relationship between command strength and Rossian duties. This is an important distinction that helps us understand how CVE works.

When we talk about command "strength" or "stringency," we're actually referring to how heavily weighted the relevant Rossian duties become based on the moral reasons present. Let me break this down:

The duties themselves (fidelity, justice, beneficence, etc.) come from Ross, but their weight or stringency in any given situation is determined by the moral reasons that strengthen or reduce them. Think of it like this:

1. First, we have divine virtues from Exodus 34 grounding Ross's duties
2. Then, specific moral reasons either:
   • Strengthen these duties (making them more stringent)
   • Or reduce their weight (making them less stringent)
3. Finally, this weighing process determines how stringent the resulting command should be

So when we say a command is "stringent," what we really mean is:

• The moral reasons present significantly strengthen certain Rossian duties
• These heavily weighted duties justify stronger commands
• The command's strength matches the duties' weight

For example, at Jericho:

• The moral reasons (first battle, pattern setting, etc.)
• Strengthen duties like fidelity and justice
• Justifying a more stringent command

REASONS FOR STRINGENT COMMANDS

Let me walk you through the reasons that can justify stringent commands in conquest narratives. As we explore these, you'll see how they connect to God's character revealed in Exodus 34:6-8.

Related to Fidelity

• Promise fulfillment necessity
• Pattern setting importance
• Covenant progress required
• Teaching faithfulness

First, let's look at Fidelity reasons. When you examine promise fulfillment necessity, you're seeing the core of God's faithfulness (emet) in action. Think about pattern setting - these early conquests had to establish how God would fulfill His promises. You can see why covenant progress matters - it's the forward movement of God's redemptive plan. And teaching faithfulness? That's showing both Israel and surrounding nations who God is.

Related to Justice

• Corporate wickedness
• Historical accountability
• Protect vulnerable
• Prevent future evil
• Uphold moral order

When we turn to Justice reasons, we're dealing with God's revealed attribute of "not leaving the guilty unpunished." You need to understand corporate wickedness - we're talking about systematic evil like child sacrifice. Historical accountability shows you how past actions have consequences. When you consider protecting the vulnerable, you're seeing defense of those who cannot defend themselves. And preventing future evil? That's looking forward to establish lasting justice.

Related to Reparation

• Past wrongs require response
• Historical debts
• Restore right order

Let me show you how Reparation reasons work. These connect to making things right after wrongs. You can see how past wrongs require response - evil actions demand addressing. Historical debts build up over time. And sometimes, as you'll notice with restoring right order, justice requires dramatic action to reset proper relationships.

Related to Beneficence

• Long-term good served
• Future evil prevented
• Redemptive purposes
• Protection of others

Finally, you might be surprised by Beneficence reasons, but they flow from God's hesed (steadfast love). Consider how long-term good served shows severe actions producing lasting positive outcomes. When you look at redemptive purposes, you're seeing connection to God's larger salvation plan. And protection of others? That's the defensive aspect that often gets overlooked.

REASONS FOR LESS STRINGENT OPTIONS

Let me walk you through the reasons that might reduce command stringency and the various action options available. As someone who's studied these challenging theological questions deeply, I want to help you understand how CVE analyzes these elements.

Related to Non-maleficence

• Innocent lives at stake
• Child casualties
• Civilian harm
• Property destruction
• Cultural loss

First, let's examine Non-maleficence reasons. When you consider innocent lives at stake, you're dealing with the most serious moral consideration. Child casualties particularly strengthen this duty - think about their complete innocence and vulnerability. Civilian harm extends this concern more broadly. Even property destruction and cultural loss matter morally, though they carry less weight.

Related to Beneficence

• Mercy possibilities
• Rehabilitation potential
• Peace options
• Integration possibilities

Turning to Beneficence reasons, you'll notice opportunities for positive action. Mercy possibilities show potential for redemptive approaches. When you look at rehabilitation potential, you're seeing chances for transformation. Peace options and integration possibilities point toward less destructive solutions.

Related to Justice

• Individual innocence
• Varying guilt levels
• Age/capability differences
• Limited involvement

The Justice-reducing reasons are particularly interesting. Individual innocence challenges collective judgment. You need to consider varying guilt levels - not everyone bears equal responsibility. Age and capability differences matter significantly, as does limited involvement in corporate sins.

Related to Patience

• Time available
• Warning possible
• Alternative strategies
• Gradual approaches

Let me show you how Patience-related factors work. Time available suggests less urgent response needed. Warning possibilities open alternatives. When you examine alternative strategies and gradual approaches, you're seeing options for measured response.

ACTION OPTIONS

This brings us to Action Options, ranging from most to least severe:

1. Total military engagement - maximum force
2. Selective targeting - focused response
3. Siege/containment - pressure without destruction
4. Forced displacement - removal without death
5. Integration with conditions - controlled absorption
6. Peaceful settlement - minimal force

Each option represents different ways divine commands might be implemented while respecting these reducing factors.

Commands, Reasons, and Virtues

Foundational Divine Virtues:

• Merciful and Gracious (rachum v'chanun)
• Slow to Anger (erek apayim)
• Steadfast Love (hesed)
• Faithfulness/Truth (emet)
• Forgiving wickedness/sin
• Justice (not clearing guilty)

How These Ground Moral Reasons

Highest Weight Reasons (+):

From Hesed (Steadfast Love):

• Protection of covenant people
• Long-term redemptive good
• Future generation welfare

From Emet (Faithfulness):

• Covenant promise fulfillment 
• Historical commitments
• Pattern establishment

From Justice:

• Response to wickedness
• Protection of vulnerable
• Prevention of future evil

Counter-balancing Reasons (-):

From Mercy/Grace:

• Innocent lives at stake
• Child casualties
• Civilian suffering

From Patience:

• Time for repentance
• Warning possibilities
• Alternative approaches

From Forgiveness:

• Individual variance
• Mercy opportunities
• Integration possibilities

Most Stringent Duties Based on God’s Virtues

Let me analyze which duties become most stringent in the conquest commands based on the virtues in Exodus:

For Jericho:

Fidelity (grounded in Emet/Faithfulness) becomes most stringent because:

• First battle sets pattern
• Core promise initiation
• Divine reputation
• Covenant progress

For Ai:

Justice (not clearing guilty) is the most stringent due to:

• Achan's sin response
• Military necessity 
• Pattern maintenance
• Teaching function

For Amalekites:

Justice + Fidelity combination is the most stringent because:

• Attacked weakest
• Historical wickedness
• Covenant protection
• Future prevention

However, all balanced by:

• Mercy possibilities
• Patience allowing time
• Grace in implementation
• Forgiveness opportunities

So while fidelity and justice duties can become most stringent based on reasons present, they're always moderated by other virtues from Ex 34:6-8.

Why Don’t the Reducing Factors Win Out? 

When we look at reducing factors, they specifically strengthen duties that come from mercy, grace, and patience in Ex 34:6-8. For example:

Strongest Duty-Reducing Factors:

• Innocent lives at stake
• Child casualties present
• Civilian harm possible

These strengthen:

• Non-maleficence duty
• Beneficence duty
• Mercy requirements

BUT, even at their strongest, these don't outweigh the combined force of:

1. Fidelity (from emet)
2. Justice (from not clearing guilty)
3. Protection (from hesed)

Because:

• Multiple highest reasons align
• Core purposes require action
• No alternatives sufficient
• Divine wisdom balances perfectly

So while reducing factors are real moral reasons and strengthen certain duties, they don't overcome the combined weight favoring the stringent commands. They instead:

• Shape implementation
• Enable mercy
• Guide practice
• Allow moderation

Let me analyze three key cases showing how reducing factors operate but don't overcome the most stringent duties:

Jericho Case:

Stringency-Creating Weight:

• First battle pattern (+++)
• Core promise start (+++)
• Divine power show (+++)

PLUS

• Corporate wickedness (++)
• Military necessity (++)
• Teaching purpose (++)

Reducing Factors:

• Innocent lives (---)
• Child presence (---)
• Civilian harm (--)

BUT didn't outweigh because:

• Pattern setting crucial
• No alternatives worked
• Mercy possible (Rahab)

Ai Case:

Stringency Weight:

• Military necessity (+++)
• After Achan lesson (+++)
• Strategic need (+++)

PLUS

• Corporate guilt (++)
• Future prevention (++)

Reducing Factors:

• 12,000 deaths (---)
• Women included (---)
• Civilians present (--)

BUT didn't outweigh because:

• Teaching function required
• Strategy allowed escape
• Implementation flexible

Amalekites Case (Hardest):

Stringency Weight:

• Attacked weak (+++)
• Historical evil (+++)
• Future threat (+++)

PLUS

• Covenant protection (++)
• Pattern opposition (++)

 Reducing Factors:

• Explicit infant targeting (---)
• Animal inclusion (---)
• Maximum harm (--)

BUT didn't outweigh because:

• Protection necessary
• History demanded response
• Future required securing

Why Alternatives Don’t Achieve Key Purposes

Let me analyze why alternatives fail to achieve essential purposes in each case:

Jericho:

Selective Military Only

Fails because:

• Weakens pattern-setting function
• Reduces divine power demonstration
• Risks military effectiveness
• Undermines teaching purpose

Siege/Containment

Fails because:

• Delays covenant progress
• Weakens authority establishment
• Requires more resources
• Reduces demonstration effect

Displacement

Fails because:

• Leaves future threats
• Weakens pattern clarity
• Incomplete justice
• Risks return/resistance

Integration

Fails because:

• Fails covenant separation
• Risks religious corruption
• Misses teaching moment
• Weakens divine authority

In Amalekites case (hardest):

No alternative achieved:

• Required accountability
• Future protection
• Teaching function
• Pattern establishment

The key is that alternatives must:

1. Achieve ALL essential purposes
2. With LESS opposing weight
3. While maintaining authority
4. And accomplishing goals

How Alex Might Object to CVE

Let me analyze how Alex O'Connor would likely object to CVE:

To the Defeat Condition:

Are you seriously suggesting it's okay to kill people because they'll get divine relationship afterward? This is like saying abortion gives babies a fast-track to heaven. You can't justify killing innocents by appealing to postmortem benefits.

To Alternative Analysis:

Why couldn't an omnipotent God find better alternatives? You're saying the all-powerful creator of the universe had no choice but total destruction commands? This strains credibility.

To Weighing Process:

This seems like sophisticated rationalization. You're creating a complex framework to justify what we all know intuitively is wrong - killing children. No amount of weighing makes infant killing right.

On Divine Character:

If Exodus 34 reveals God as merciful and patient, how do you square that with commands to kill infants? It seems the framework makes God's character incoherent.

On Implementation:

Even if the commands allowed mercy in practice, the very issuing of total-kill commands is morally compromising. A good God wouldn't command this even hyperbolically.

Responding to Alex’s Objections

Here's robust responses to Alex's likely objections:

On Defeat Conditions:

The defeat condition isn't mere compensation or justification. This misunderstands Adams's insight in two ways:

• It's not about 'benefits outweighing harm'
• It's about ultimate transformation through relationship
• Victims themselves retroactively accept their role

Not like abortion analogy because:

•  Not using death instrumentally
•  Not choosing to cause harm
•  Genuine tragedy acknowledged
•  Transformation unique to this context

On Alternatives:

The question isn't about raw power but about achieving necessary purposes while maintaining:

• Divine character expression
• Human free will
• ANE context realities
• Teaching functions

No alternative achieved ALL purposes with LESS opposing weight. This isn't limitation but wisdom.

On Weighing Process:

The framework doesn't override moral intuitions but shows how:

• Real tragedy acknowledged
• Horror taken seriously
• Mercy remains possible
• Resolution provided

It's not rationalization but careful moral analysis grounded in divine character.

On Divine Character:

Ex 34:6-7 shows mercy AND justice together:

• Mercy doesn't negate justice
• Patience doesn't prevent judgment
• Love includes protection
• Character remains coherent

The commands express ALL virtues, not just some.

On Implementation:

ANE hyperbolic language served crucial purposes:

• Cultural communication
• Authority establishment
• Teaching function
• Pattern setting

While allowing merciful implementation within justice.

Strengthening the Replies

Let me strengthen these responses.

On Defeat Conditions:

This objection fundamentally misunderstands what Adams means by defeat. Let's be precise:

• Not consequentialist balancing
• Not instrumental use of death
• Not mere compensation

Instead:

• Complete transformation of meaning
• Through direct divine relationship
• Where victims themselves, with full autonomy and understanding
• Value their role in redemptive history

The abortion analogy fails because:

• That instrumentalizes death
• Actively chooses harm
• Assumes mere benefit calculation
• Lacks transformative element

Defeat shows how genuine tragedy can be:

• Fully acknowledged
• Never minimized
• Yet ultimately resolved
• Through relationship itself

On Alternatives:

Your objection assumes divine omnipotence means:

• All logically possible options available
• No contextual constraints matter
• Human freedom irrelevant
• Purposes separable

But this misses:

• Necessary connection between means/ends
• Inseparability of teaching/demonstration
• Requirements of free creatures
• Wisdom in historical context

No alternative achieved:

• Pattern establishment
• Authority demonstration
• Teaching function
• Future prevention

While causing less opposing weight.

This isn't about raw power but wisdom in relating to free creatures in history.

Pattern Establishment and Teaching Function

Let me analyze precisely what pattern establishment and teaching function mean and why alternatives couldn't achieve them:

Pattern Establishment Means:

Demonstrating how God:

• Keeps covenant promises
• Executes justice
• Shows mercy within judgment
• Maintains faithfulness

Setting precedent for:

• Divine authority recognition
• Response to wickedness
• Mercy possibilities
• Implementation guidance

Teaching Function Means:

Revealing God's character:

• Both justice and mercy together
• Faithfulness to promises
• Patience in judgment
• Grace within justice

Showing Israel and nations:

• Divine sovereignty
• Covenant seriousness
• Wickedness consequences
• Mercy availability

Why Alternatives Fail:

Selective Military Only:

• Weakens authority demonstration
• Blurs character revelation
• Reduces teaching impact
• Loses pattern clarity

Siege/Containment:

• Delays pattern establishment
• Diminishes teaching force
• Weakens authority show
• Clouds character display

Integration:

• Misses teaching moment
• Loses pattern setting
• Fails to demonstrate authority
• Blurs character revelation

The key is that these purposes required:

• Clear demonstration
• Unmistakable authority
• Visible pattern
• Obvious teaching

More Strengthening

On Weighing Process:

Your objection assumes moral intuitions are:

• Simple rather than complex
• Univocal rather than multifaceted
• Absolute rather than weighted
• Isolated rather than contextual

But careful analysis shows:

• Multiple moral factors interact
• Different duties compete
• Context shapes weight
• Divine wisdom balances

The framework demonstrates:

• Real tragedy acknowledged fully
• Moral horror taken seriously
• Competing duties weighed carefully
• Resolution provided without minimization

This isn't rationalization because:

• Grounded in divine character
• Respects moral complexity
• Handles genuine tensions
• Provides principled resolution

On Divine Character:

Ex 34:6-7 reveals crucial complexity:

• Mercy AND justice together
• Grace AND accountability united
• Patience AND response combined
• Love includes protection

The commands express this through:

• Mercy within judgment (Rahab)
• Patient warning given
• Protection provided
• Justice executed

Not character contradiction but:

• Full expression of virtues
• Complete divine revelation
• Perfect wisdom displayed
• Ultimate resolution shown

On Implementation:

ANE language served multiple crucial purposes:

• Cultural communication effectiveness
• Authority establishment necessity
• Teaching function clarity
• Pattern setting power

While allowing:

• Mercy in practice
• Escape possibilities
• Surrender options
• Implementation wisdom

This maintains:

• Divine goodness
• Biblical reliability
• Moral coherence
• Historical accuracy

How Shows Premise 1 False

Let me summarize how CVE shows premise 1 [(C & K) → ~G] is false and apply this to reading difficult texts:

The Power of CVE:

Grounded in Divine Character (Ex 34:6-7):

• Mercy and grace
• Patience 
• Steadfast love (hesed)
• Faithfulness (emet)
• Forgiveness
• Justice with generations

Shows Commands Right Because:

• Virtues ground duties
• Reasons properly weighed
• No better alternatives
• Implementation allowed mercy
• Tragic elements defeated

Defeat Resolution Through:

• Divine relationship
• Ultimate transformation
• Retroactive acceptance
• Complete fulfillment

Therefore C & K compatible with G because:

• Commands morally justified
• God acted from character
• Mercy remained possible
• Resolution assured

Why for CVE God Didn’t Command Genocide

Let me analyze carefully why CVE shows these weren't genocide commands:

Genocide Definition:

• Intent to destroy group
• Identity-based targeting
• Systematic elimination
• No escape allowed
• Total destruction goal

CVE Shows Different Intent:

Based on Ex 34:6-7 virtues:

• Political control needed
• Wickedness response
• Land transfer focus
• Teaching function

Not ethnic/identity targeting

Evidence for This:

Historical:

• Joshua 24 shows survivors
• Population continuity
• Integration occurred
• Many remained

Implementation:

• Mercy possible (Rahab)
• Escape allowed
• Surrender options
• Strategic focus

Command Purpose:

Primary Aims:

• Covenant fulfillment
• Justice response
• Pattern setting
• Teaching function

Not:

• Group elimination
• Identity destruction
• Total annihilation
• Ethnic cleansing

Supporting Analysis:

ANE Context:

• Hyperbolic language
• Victory rhetoric
• Political focus
• Authority claims

Implementation:

• Moderation allowed
• Mercy possible
• Strategic approach
• Civilian distinction

Therefore:

Commands were:

• Military-political
• Limited in scope
• Purpose-focused
• Mercy-allowing

Not:

• Identity targeting
• Systematic elimination
• Total destruction
• Escape preventing

Why It’s Not Ethnic Cleansing

Let me analyze systematically why CVE shows these weren't ethnic cleansing commands:

Ethnic Cleansing Definition:

• Forcible removal of ethnic group
• Identity-based targeting
• Territory "purification"
• Cultural elimination goal
• No integration allowed

CVE Shows Different Purpose:

Based on Ex 34:6-7:

• Response to wickedness 
• Political control needed
• Covenant fulfillment
• Teaching function

NOT identity/ethnic based

Evidence Against Ethnic Cleansing:

Integration Possible:

• Rahab and family incorporated
• Mixed multitude remained
• Joshua 24 shows survivors
• Cultural interaction continued

Command Focus:

• Corporate wickedness
• Military resistance
• Political control
• Land transfer

Purpose Distinctions:

Ethnic Cleansing Aims:

• "Pure" territory
• Cultural elimination
• Identity erasure
• No mixing allowed

CVE Shows Real Aims:

• Justice response
• Covenant fulfillment
• Teaching function
• Pattern setting

Supporting Evidence:

Implementation:

• Integration allowed
• Mercy possible
• Mixed population result
• Cultural interaction

Historical Results:

• Population continuity
• Cultural exchange
• Intermarriage occurred
• Communities mixed

Practical Application for Reading Difficult Texts:

Start with Divine Character:

• Look at Ex 34:6-7
• See virtues expressed
• Notice how they interact
• Watch for balance

Analyze Moral Factors:

• What duties involved?
• What reasons present?
• What alternatives possible?
• How implementation worked?

Look for Mercy Within Judgment:

• Notice escape possibilities
• See warning given
• Watch implementation
• Find grace examples

Trust Ultimate Resolution:

• Through relationship
• In transformation
• With understanding
• Complete resolution