Let's face it. Biblical violence is one of the most challenging moral and theological dilemmas for Christian faith. When passages describe God commanding Israel to "destroy [the Canaanites] totally," "show them no mercy," or details the slaughter of "men and women, children and infants," we confront a serious tension: How can the God revealed as perfectly loving and just also command actions that appear genocidal?

Introduction: The Theological Dilemma

Randal Rauser (2009) powerfully frames this challenge through a logical argument that results in an apparent contradiction:

1. God is the most perfect being there could be.
2. Yahweh is God.
3. Yahweh ordered people to commit genocide. [Based on a surface reading of certain OT texts]
4. Genocide is always a moral atrocity. [Based on moral intuition/modern understanding]
5. A perfect being would not order people to commit a moral atrocity.
6. Therefore, a perfect being would not order people to commit genocide. (from 4, 5)
7. Therefore, Yahweh did not order people to commit genocide. (from 1, 2, 6)

This valid argument creates a direct contradiction between premise 3 (the apparent textual claim) and conclusion 7 (the necessary theological conclusion based on God's perfection). A skeptic might use this to argue against God's existence or goodness. As Christians committed to both God's perfection and Scripture's authority, we must resolve this contradiction. Rauser and I both ultimately affirm conclusion 7 (Yahweh did not order genocide as understood in premise 4) over premise 3 as typically interpreted, but we arrive there via different paths.

In his book Jesus Loves Canaanites, Rauser proposes a solution he calls "Providential Errancy Theory" (PET). PET resolves the contradiction by rejecting premise 3 outright: it argues that the biblical texts, while inspired, are in error in reporting that Yahweh actually issued such morally atrocious commands. God, according to PET, providentially allowed these errant human perspectives into Scripture for pedagogical purposes.

A Glimpse at My Solution

In this article, I will critically examine Rauser's PET and propose an alternative framework: Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE). CVE provides a more theologically coherent and hermeneutically responsible solution. CVE also lands on conclusion 7 (Yahweh did not order genocide-as-atrocity) but rejects premise 3 as formulated on interpretive grounds, not by claiming textual error.

Here’s a preview of CVE’s resolution of the logical dilemma. CVE maintains both God's perfect character (P1, P2, affirming C6 & C7)—understanding that perfection encompasses the full, complex divine nature revealed in passages like Exodus 34:6-7 (including both profound love and unwavering justice)—and the integrity of Scripture as God's reliable self-revelation (challenging PET's view of P3). It resolves the contradiction by arguing that premise 3, based on a surface reading, misinterprets the nature and context of the divine commands.

Through a rigorous analysis grounded in God's full character, specific covenantal contexts (Field), the stated justification for divine action (Basis), God's intended aim (Target), the nature of the commanded action (Mode), and the overarching redemptive plan (Telos), CVE argues that what God actually commanded was not "genocide" as understood in premise 4 (i.e., the intentional destruction of a people as such, constituting a moral atrocity).

Rather, CVE proposes that God, acting in His unique role as Sovereign Judge within a specific redemptive-historical moment, commanded severe acts of judgment aimed at specific, context-dependent divine Targets. Crucially, because God's character is perfectly good and holy, His intended Target must always be aimed at achieving a genuine good (e.g., executing justice against systemic, destructive wickedness defined as the Basis; preserving covenant faithfulness). This good divine Target must be carefully distinguished from the severe means (Mode) commanded and its often horrific, foreseen consequences within that specific context.

While involving violence and tragic consequences (potentially impacting entire communities due to the logic of corporate identity prevalent in the ancient Field), the divine command, properly understood through CVE's framework, differs significantly in its Basis (specific condemned practices vs. ethnicity) and intended divine Target from the modern concept of genocide assumed in premises 3 and 4 of Rauser’s theological dilemma.

Thus, CVE affirms C7 (Yahweh didn't order genocide-as-atrocity) without resorting to textual errancy. It offers a path that preserves both divine goodness and textual integrity by demanding a deeper, theologically informed interpretation of the commands themselves. This article will outline CVE's framework and demonstrate its capacity to address the challenge of biblical violence more effectively than Rauser’s PET.

Setting Aside Hyperbole (Sort Of): Its Relevance and Limits

Before diving into Rauser’s view, it's important to clarify the role of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literary conventions, including hyperbole, in understanding biblical violence. This is a point where my approach finds partial agreement with Rauser but ultimately diverges in its application. We both agree that simply identifying hyperbolic language in conquest narratives does not, by itself, fully resolve the profound moral questions these texts raise.

As Rauser rightly points out, even if the numbers were exaggerated or the commands weren't followed to the absolute letter, the texts still appear to depict divinely sanctioned violence that includes noncombatants, which remains deeply troubling. The core issue isn't just the scale but the nature of the commanded action.¹

However, CVE argues that understanding these texts requires acknowledging ANE literary conventions like hyperbole as one crucial factor in interpreting what kind of action (Mode) was actually commanded or described. CVE, using terminology from Christine Swanton’s Target-Centered Virtue Ethics (TCVE), calls this the mode of action.²

ANE warfare accounts often employed highly stylized, exaggerated language to signify total victory, complete devotion of spoils or enemies to a deity (herem), or the political and religious supplanting of one group by another. Phrases like "leave nothing alive that breathes" or claims of annihilating entire populations often functioned as rhetorical declarations of ultimate triumph and divine judgment signaling the completeness and irreversibility of the intended outcome, rather than necessarily serving as precise, literal military orders or exhaustive reports.³

Recognizing this potential hyperbole (alongside other genre features and accommodation) in the description of the mode is crucial for CVE's analysis for several reasons:

1. It Refines the Moral Question: Instead of necessarily evaluating a divine command for the literal, exhaustive slaughter of every individual, we might be evaluating a command for decisive judgment and removal of a corrupt system (Target), expressed using the intense, totalizing rhetoric conventional for signifying complete judgment in that historical and literary field. The moral evaluation shifts, though difficulty remains.
2. It Interacts with Divine Intention (Target): Hyperbolic or stylized rhetoric often emphasizes the intended result or target (e.g., complete judgment against the Basis, elimination of idolatrous influence) more than demanding a specific, literal execution of every detail of the mode. CVE focuses on discerning God's underlying Target, rooted in His revealed character (Exodus 34:6-7) and covenant purposes (Telos), and evaluates the commanded mode (interpreted contextually, accounting for genre and potential accommodation) in light of that Target.
3. It Contextualizes the Severity: Understanding the conventional nature of this rhetoric helps situate the commands within their proper ANE field, preventing us from imposing modern literalism anachronistically onto the description of the mode.

Therefore, while CVE concurs with Rauser that identifying hyperbole is not a complete solution—the texts still depict morally challenging divine commands involving brutal violence aimed at specific divine Targets—it views recognizing these literary conventions as an essential interpretive step for understanding the likely nature of the commanded or described mode. Clarifying the likely mode informs the subsequent moral analysis within CVE's broader framework.

CVE's full response goes beyond analyzing the rhetoric of the mode to engage the deeper questions of divine character, covenant context (Field), the specific Basis for judgment, the intended divine Target, the distinction between intention and foreseen consequences, and the overarching redemptive Telos, integrating insights from thinkers like Murphy, Swinburne, Adams, and Stump to offer a comprehensive framework. Understanding literary conventions like hyperbole is necessary groundwork for interpreting the mode, but the main ethical work lies in analyzing the command's justification and purpose (Target, Basis, Telos) within CVE's broader theological structure.

Now let’s turn to breaking down Rauser’s view on biblical violence.

Rauser’s Position on Biblical Violence

Rauser’s Four Arguments

In his article “Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive,” Rauser articulates four central arguments that form the backbone of his resolution of the theological dilemma. These arguments work collectively to dismantle the plausibility of Premise 3 while strongly affirming Premise 4, thus leading to the acceptance of Conclusion 7.

By way of outline, here’s what his arguments accomplish:

• Arguments 1 and 2: Serve primarily to solidify Premise 4 (Genocide is always a moral atrocity), making it non-negotiable.
• Argument 3: Directly attacks the justifications often used to defend Premise 3 (Yahweh ordered genocide), undermining its credibility.
• Argument 4 offers a practical, prudential reason to reject Premise 3.

Let's examine each argument.

Argument 1: Bludgeoned Babies (Supporting Premise 4)

Rauser argues forcefully that the intentional killing of children is an unqualified evil. Citing examples like the 1994 Rwandan genocide, he asserts that any person with properly functioning moral cognition instinctively condemns such acts. This conviction is captured in his Never Ever Bludgeon Babies (NEBB) principle, which he considers an indubitable moral truth known through intuition, akin to perceiving logical truths.

He uses an analogy with sense perception: just as one can see that a ball cannot be simultaneously red and blue all over, one can intuit the absolute wrongness of bludgeoning babies. This knowledge isn't based on ignorance of potential divine reasons but on positive moral perception. He challenges the consistency of those defending the Canaanite slaughter, asking if the horror of baby killing disappears simply by changing names and dates ("Hutu bludgeoner" to "Israelite bludgeoner," "Tutsi baby" to "Canaanite baby," 1994 to 1450 BC).⁴ Defending such acts requires overriding this fundamental moral certainty.

The upshot is that by establishing the absolute, intuitive wrongness of acts central to genocide (killing children), this argument makes Premise 4 undeniable. This intensifies the conflict with Premise 3 when considered alongside God's perfection (Premise 1).

Argument 2: Calley's Corruption (Supporting Premise 4)

Taking the issue further, Rauser argues that even if one tried to justify the killing itself, the act of carrying out genocide is inherently a moral atrocity due to the devastating psychological and spiritual damage it inflicts on the perpetrators. He points to the case of William Calley (My Lai massacre) and studies on PTSD in soldiers, showing war's corrupting potential. Carrying out the herem commands, he contends, would have similarly corrupted the Israelite soldiers. A command that necessitates such corruption cannot be from a perfectly good God.

This adds another layer to Premise 4, showing genocide is atrocious not only for victims but also for perpetrators. It makes the idea of a perfect God issuing such a command (Premise 3) even more problematic, strengthening the impetus to reject Premise 3.

Argument 3: Rationalizing Genocide (Attacking Premise 3)

This argument leverages Noam Chomsky's principle of universality (applying the same moral standards to ourselves as to others). Rauser argues defenders of the Canaanite conquest violate this by carving out an extraordinary exception for Israel through rationalization. 

He identifies a common pattern: "divide, demonize, destroy." An in-group (Israelites) claims superiority/divine sanction, demonizes the out-group (Canaanites) as a threat, and justifies their destruction – a pattern mirroring justifications for modern genocides (Nazi, Hutu). He highlights inconsistencies, like condemning Canaanite child sacrifice while endorsing a broader slaughter, as evidence of special pleading. Such rationalizations are needed precisely because the command itself (Premise 3) doesn't align with universal moral standards or divine consistency.

This argument directly undermines the perceived legitimacy and justifications for Premise 3. By exposing the problematic reasoning required to defend it, Rauser weakens its standing as a credible divine command, making its rejection more plausible.

Argument 4: The Cost of Genocide (Prudential Reason to Reject Premise 3)

Rauser presents a pragmatic argument: the belief that God commanded genocide (affirming Premise 3) has historically fueled horrific violence, with Christians citing the Canaanite narrative to justify atrocities (e.g., Carolingian massacre of Saxons). Rejecting this interpretation—denying Premise 3—removes a dangerous ideological precedent. The negative practical consequences of affirming Premise 3 provide a compelling reason to seek interpretations that avoid it, such as concluding Premise 3 is based on textual error.

This offers a practical, moral incentive to reject Premise 3. The devastating historical impact of believing it true makes denying it a more ethically responsible choice, supporting Rauser's resolution.

Rejecting Premise 3

Rauser's four arguments converge to support his resolution: maintaining God's perfection (Premise 1) and the absolute wrongness of genocide (Premise 4) requires rejecting the claim that God actually commanded it (Premise 3). Arguments 1 and 2 solidify the moral horror, Argument 3 dismantles the justifications for the command, and Argument 4 highlights the dangerous consequences of accepting it. For Rauser, this leads to the conclusion that Premise 3 reflects an error within the biblical text, not a factual report of a divine command, thus preserving both God's goodness and our core moral intuitions (Conclusion 7).

From Rauser's Article to His Book: Setting the Stage

At the end of his article, after presenting the four arguments against God commanding genocide, Rauser writes:

"While this may not yet tell us how we should respond to biblical narratives of divinely sanctioned violence, at the very least it will save Christians from the sorry spectacle of attempting to convince ourselves and others of that which everybody knows cannot be true." (2009: 41)

The specifics of how to respond are detailed in his book, Jesus Loves Canaanites. Before going into alternative theories or critiques of Rauser's arguments, it's helpful to understand his full framework. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Rauser's four arguments successfully show Yahweh did not order genocide as commonly understood, a key question arises: Why would Scripture, inspired by a divine author, include narratives that seem to attribute such commands to God?

Rauser's Five Principles for Interpreting Scripture

In chapter 7 of Jesus Loves Canaanites, Rauser outlines five guiding principles for reading Scripture. These principles form his interpretive methodology and shape his approach to challenging texts like the conquest narratives.

Principle 1: The Perfect God

This principle anchors Rauser's approach in the nature of God, echoing step 1 in the logical argument from his paper: God is the most perfect being conceivable, possessing all perfections, including omniscience, moral perfection, and omnipotence. How does this relate to biblical inspiration? Rauser, referencing William Lane Craig, uses the concept of middle knowledge:

"Because God omnisciently possesses perfect middle knowledge (i.e. knowledge of counterfactual possibilities) he can orchestrate the conditions in which human creatures will freely write the precise words that he desires in his canon. Once those words have been written, God appropriates them into his canon by making their words his words." (2021: 133)

On this view, Scripture results from divine intent and aligns with God's purposes. When encountering texts attributing apparent immorality to God, His moral perfection dictates three possibilities for Rauser:

"1. The text is in error; 2. My understanding of the text is in error; 3. My understanding of moral perfection is in error." (2021: 33-34)

The Perfect God principle implies that apparent flaws might serve a purpose intended by the divine author, prompting careful rereading. But what if careful reading suggests the text itself is in error (option 1)? How can a text overseen by a perfect God contain errors? Rauser clarifies that biblical inerrancy, in his view, applies primarily to:

"the intentions of the perfect God who oversees the composition and compilation of the entire text: if God is the perfect author then at least with respect to God's intentions there will be no errors or goofs in the text. God, after all, knows perfectly well what he wants to say. But that divine intention may not always be available to the human author." (2021: 140)

This distinction leads directly to the next principle.

Principle 2: Two Authors (Human and Divine)

Rauser addresses potential textual errors by emphasizing Scripture's dual authorship: human and divine. Crucially, the intentions of these two authors can diverge. The human author might not grasp or convey the divine author's full intent. This involves two senses of meaning: the literal sense (human author's intent) and the plenary sense (divine author's intent), which may differ.

He illustrates this using Isaiah 7:14 ("Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"). Rauser suggests the literal sense is related to a sign for King Ahaz involving a young woman's child, while the plenary sense points prophetically to the virgin conception of Christ.

The significance of the Two Authors principle is:

"Since I believe God is not merely a great author but the one perfect author, I am committed to the reading assumption that God did not commit any errors in the plenary sense even if God inerrantly included human errors in the literal sense." (2021: 145-46)

Therefore, even if the literal sense seems to portray God commanding genocide (which Rauser rejects based on his four arguments), this doesn't bind the divine meaning (plenary sense) to that immoral portrayal. One can trust the perfect divine author intends a meaning consistent with His character, even if it requires looking beyond the human author's literal expression.

Principle 3: The Canon as a Unified Whole

This principle views Scripture as a unified revelation crafted by God. Every part is intentionally included and serves the whole narrative. Therefore, individual passages must be interpreted in light of the entire canon. Isolating texts risks misinterpreting their meaning within the larger divine message.

Rauser advocates using "control texts"—key passages that illuminate dominant themes throughout Scripture—to guide interpretation. While he doesn't provide strict rules for identifying these, he emphasizes God's perfection and moral intuition as vital guides, especially when dealing with biblical violence.

Principle 4: Jesus as the Supreme Revelation

Jesus Christ represents the ultimate revelation of God's character. Rauser states, "the life and teachings of Jesus provide the final guide for all interpretation and application," (2021: 153) fundamentally shaping how Christians should approach difficult texts depicting divine violence.

He contrasts two approaches: viewing Jesus' work as continuous with and completing Old Testament violence, versus seeing Jesus' life and teachings as a radical critique and in discontinuity with that violence. Rauser adopts the latter, suggesting New Testament revelation should inform our understanding of Old Testament difficulties.

For Rauser, Jesus' life and teachings are the ultimate control texts. This isn't about creating a smaller "canon within the canon," but rather:

"it is a commitment to the belief that the sum total, fullness and completion of God's revelation comes in Jesus Christ such that the whole of scripture should be read in light of him." (2021: 156)

Jesus' emphasis on loving neighbors and enemies becomes ultimate. Any interpretation that promotes alienation, demonization, or harm contradicts this central revelation.

Principle 5: The Goal of Love

Scripture's ultimate purpose, according to 2 Timothy 3:14–17, is salvation through faith in Christ and training in righteousness, culminating in love for God and neighbor (Luke 10:27–28). Therefore, any interpretation that hinders this goal of love must be incorrect, even if it seems textually plausible. Rauser puts it passionately:

"If that is what scripture is for, if it is for the end of conforming us into the image of Jesus so that we may love all people, including outsiders, the others, the outgroup, the wayfarer, stranger and enemy, if it reaches out to and encompasses both Samaritans as well as Canaanites, and if it calls us to love all these people as we love ourselves, then any reading which is inconsistent with that ethical, spiritual goal cannot be correct and it needs to be rejected....[I]f our current way of reading portions of Scripture is not creating greater lovers of God and/or neighbor, if it instead leads us to objectify and dehumanize our neighbor as when theologians like Archer demonize Canaanites as a 'cancer of moral depravity' and 'baneful infection,' then we need to return to the text and seek a new interpretation because that reading cannot be right. No reading that reduces our neighbor to being a disease can be a correct reading." (2021: 160)

Drawing on Eric Seibert, Rauser concludes that correct interpretations foster love and do not inspire, promote, or justify violence, oppression, or harm. An interpretation is sound when it leads readers toward greater love for God and neighbor.

Rauser's Engagement with Alternative Views on Biblical Violence

To better understand Rauser's position, it's helpful to briefly examine his critique of other common interpretations of biblical violence.⁴ Seeing why Rauser rejects alternative paths clarifies the rationale behind his own theory.

Critique 1: The "Genocide Apologists"

Rauser uses this direct label, acknowledging that many within this group might resist it. However, he argues the label fits because they implicitly or explicitly accept two claims: 1) God genuinely issued commands that align with the 1948 UN definition of genocide, and 2) Since God is a morally perfect law-giver, these commands were morally permissible, even obligatory.

Historically, John Calvin represents this view: God holds the prerogative over life and death, and His commands are inherently just and right, even if similar actions would be immoral outside divine authority. Calvin points to God's mercy (waiting 400 years) and the Canaanites' alleged extreme moral depravity as justifications for their total destruction, including children.⁵

Contemporary examples include Clay Jones (2009), who meticulously lists Canaanite sins warranting destruction, suggesting that reluctance to accept God's commands stems from not taking sin as seriously as God does.

Rauser criticizes this group for special pleading and rationalization. He argues they fail to confront the horrific reality of close-quarters mass killing and overlook the brutalizing effect such warfare would have on the perpetrators. He warns this view can desensitize adherents, leading them to see violence as pious work, potentially even enjoying the eradication of perceived "cancers."

What about the common defense that the herem was necessary to protect Israelite fidelity? Rauser counters using his Perfect God principle. He finds the claim that slaughter was the only way an omnipotent God could protect Israel from Canaanite influence deeply problematic:

"would entail that the only way an omnipotent God could protect the Israelites from the sin of the Canaanites was by way of slaughtering the whole society or something worse. Really?...To suggest that this was the least grisly avenue open to an omnipotent being who wished to secure the moral purity of the Israelites is to strain credulity well past the breaking point." (2021: 181)

An all-powerful God had countless other options, from miraculous intervention to natural displacement. Furthermore, this apologetic conflicts with the Jesus and Love principles. Jesus taught universal love, making the exclusion of Canaanites problematic. This view also requires dehumanizing the victims to justify their slaughter, directly opposing the call to embrace the outcast.

Critique 2: The "Just War" Interpreters

This group resembles the apologists in affirming the commands as historical divine orders but explicitly rejects the "genocide" label. They argue God sometimes uses warfare in unique, unrepeatable circumstances for judgment, and the Canaanite conquest aligns with just war principles.

Rauser engages with Justin Taylor, who argues the destruction wasn't genocide because exceptions were made for repentant individuals (Rahab, Gibeonites), indicating the targeting wasn't based purely on ethnicity but on rebellion against God.⁶

Rauser counters that the texts clearly target Canaanites as a distinct group marked by specific religious practices considered abhorrent. He states, "That desire to kill distinct Canaanite religious identity and practice is all that is required to classify the actions undertaken by the Israelites as genocidal" (2021: 195). The sparing of shrewd individuals like Rahab or the Gibeonites doesn't negate the overall goal of eliminating the group's religious identity.

He then addresses key Just War proponents Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan (Did God Really Command Genocide?). They argue:

1. The primary command was to drive out the Canaanites, like a landlord evicting tenants, not primarily to kill them.
2. Cities like Jericho and Ai were primarily military forts (following Richard Hess), not large civilian centers, minimizing noncombatant deaths.
3. The language describing total destruction is hyperbolic, signifying decisive military victory, not literal annihilation. Claims of such victory are also hyperbolic.

Rauser responds that even a "drive out" scenario constitutes ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, it likely involved slaughtering the most vulnerable (elderly, disabled, young children) who couldn't flee quickly. He graphically imagines this outcome to counter attempts to sanitize the violence:

"[W]hat would happen to those people, the least of these of Canaanite society, upon meeting the advancing Israelite soldiers. The answer is clear: anyone who remained behind would be slaughtered with sword and spear and whatever bludgeoning tools may lie about...the Israelite soldiers would turn themselves upon the victims in a pious religious frenzy, plunging their spears into the abdomens of squirming toddlers, hurling large rocks down on the skulls of crawling disabled adults, swinging their swords into the necks of shivering elderly women." (2021: 203)

Military forts invariably house noncombatants. Joshua 8:25 explicitly mentions "Twelve thousand men and women" killed at Ai. Claiming no noncombatants were killed strains credibility. Further, hyperbole doesn't negate intent. Even if numbers were exaggerated, the texts still appear to describe an intent to destroy the religious-ethnic group as such. Reduced numbers or survivors don't change the fundamental moral problem of the command's apparent goal.

Critique 3: The "Spiritualizers"

This approach interprets violent passages allegorically. For example, Psalm 137:9 ("Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks") isn't taken literally but, following C.S. Lewis, as representing the "killing" of sinful desires before they mature.⁷

Rauser points to Origen's allegorical reading of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:16-17), where the command to destroy everything in the city becomes an injunction against bringing worldly ways into the Church.⁸ Modern scholars like Douglas Earl similarly interpret Canaanites not as literal people but as symbols of sinful impulses.⁹

Rauser raises three objections:

1. Symbolic interpretation doesn't necessarily resolve the moral problem if the text also refers to literal events.
2. Spiritualizers face a dilemma: Did the events happen historically? If yes, allegory distracts from real-world violence. If no, biblical history becomes useful fiction, potentially undermining trust in Scripture's reliability.
3. Allegorical interpretation often lacks clear controls, risking subjective eisegesis (reading meanings into the text).

Despite these criticisms, Rauser acknowledges valuable insights from "New Spiritualizers":

• Herem relates to covenant fidelity in hostile territory, focusing on spiritual survival more than just physical battle.
• The phrase "the battle is the Lord's" should prevent these texts from licensing human violence in God's name.
• Herem highlights boundary dynamics: outsiders (Rahab, Gibeonites) can be included, and insiders (Achan) excluded, calling for humility. (2009: 271)

However, Rauser finds this insufficient. He believes the sheer ugliness of the literal text demands condemnation; simply spiritualizing it away doesn't align with the Jesus and Love principles. Only by acknowledging the literal sense as depicting something morally wrong (an error) can one read faithfully.

Rauser's Position: Providential Errantism

Rauser aligns himself with Providential Errantism. This view holds that the conquest narratives contain moral errors—specifically, misrepresentations of God's character and commands—which God nevertheless providentially allowed and included in Scripture for pedagogical purposes. Echoing Greg Boyd, Rauser suggests God inspired the overall text but permitted human authors' flawed moral perspectives, using these errant inclusions to provoke readers toward deeper moral discernment and wrestling with the text.¹⁰ 

This solution aims to preserve God's moral perfection (by denying He commanded genocide) while upholding a form of inspiration (God intentionally used flawed human accounts for our growth). Rauser grounds this in two concepts:

1. Progressive Revelation: God reveals truths gradually over time. Jesus, in fulfilling the Law, also corrected misunderstandings of it.
2. Accommodation: God meets limited, flawed humans where they are to guide them toward deeper understanding. Rauser cites L. Daniel Hawk: "God had to enter and identify with a violent world in order to establish the basic understanding of human dignity that would form the foundations for more refined ethical sensibilities." (2021: 283)

Rauser distinguishes his view from the idea that God actually commanded genocide as an accommodation to ANE violence. He finds that incompatible with God's perfection, asking why an omnipotent God couldn't reveal His will without endorsing genocidal practices, especially when Jesus later directly challenged flawed moral assumptions. Such accommodation might also seem to license other immoralities.

Instead, Rauser favors the interpretation where God allowed the Israelites to falsely believe He commanded genocide. Why? As part of a divine pedagogy, forcing readers to "critically engage with them, confident that they are included to form the faithful reader into a lover of God and neighbor." (2021: 296).

He incorporates Greg Boyd's analogy of these texts as "literary crucifixes," where God bears the sin of His people—including their sinful portrayal of Him as a genocidal warrior—taking on a literary appearance reflecting that sin, demonstrating His willingness to stoop into their flawed understanding.

While Boyd tries to retain some historicity (suggesting Israel distorted God's nonviolent Plan A into violence), Rauser remains critical, noting even Boyd's Plan A (driving Canaanites out with hornets) involves violence and ethnic cleansing.

Endorsing Eric Seibert's call to "read with the Canaanites" (humanizing them as God's image-bearers), Rauser addresses the resulting textual ambiguity. Why didn't God make His disapproval clearer? He flips the question:

"Rather than focus only on the question of whether God has done enough to disambiguate the Bible, perhaps we should ask: have we? It could be that one important reason that God has allowed the degree of ambiguity that exists is precisely so the church can undertake the responsibility of faithful pastoral and community disambiguation of the text. Perhaps there is intrinsic value in the church as a corporate body wrestling with Scripture in this manner as Jacob wrestled with the angel." (2021: 329)

Ultimately, Rauser argues, faithfully wrestling with these difficult texts, guided by God's perfect character revealed in Christ and the call to universal love, leads to recognizing the problematic commands as human error providentially included, not as direct divine mandates.

Moral Intuition

The final piece of the puzzle to Rauser's view of biblical violence is his reliance on moral intuition. He is a moral realist who thinks our conscience can give us immediate, non-inferential starting points for moral evaluation. As mentioned earlier, he thinks we have a moral faculty akin to our perceptual faculty that can reliably deliver beliefs that form the bedrock of our theorizing. Any person with a properly functioning cognitive capacity should be able to see that commanding genocide is inherently evil.

Regarding moral intuitions and the Canaanites, Rauser wonders if one's conscience:

"might also justify one in rejecting the claim of a historic, divinely commanded genocide a priori? Can our intuitions bar the door to consideration of the claim that the perfect God of absolute love commanded the mass slaughter of an entire society: not just male combatants, but also women, children, infants, the mentally handicapped, and the elderly?" (2021: 73)

Rauser follows Budziszewski in claiming that killing innocent humans is intrinsically wrong. But, here's where things get especially problematic. Moral intuitions dictate how we must read the Bible. If one's intuition tells against God commanding a genocide in history, then 

"whatever the biblical texts may mean to teach us, they cannot intend to teach us that. And insofar as your conscience likewise forbids the idea that God commanded such apparent moral atrocities, you ought not to believe it." (2021: 75).

As might be apparent, Rauser places significant weight on our God-given moral intuitions. He argues that our intuition strongly recoils at the idea of a loving God commanding the slaughter of infants and non-combatants. This intuition, while fallible (like hermeneutics), is a crucial guide. In his debate with Paul Copan, he asks pointedly if we can imagine Jesus guiding a soldier's spear into a child.

Problems with Intuition-Driven Inquiry

Now that we have a picture of Rauser's view on biblical violence, it's time to turn to the critical task. First, it's good to acknowledge the intuitive appeal of Rauser's position. No one wants to believe God commanded moral atrocities. His view entails that God didn't. That's a positive and satisfying result on many levels. Yet, there are serious problems just under the surface of this rosy picture. Let's work backwards through his view, starting with what we just discussed--his privileging of moral intuition as a gatekeeper for admissible readings of Scripture.

There are many potential problems with elevating moral intuition as Rauser does when it comes to trying to interpret and make sense of biblical violence. The issues fall into three categories: theological, moral, and philosophical.

Theological Problems

The first group of concerns focus on Rauser's view undermining divine authority and revelation. His approach risks placing fallible human intuition (even if God-given) as a higher authority than divine revelation (Scripture). Traditionally, theology holds that Scripture judges human intuition, not the other way around. If our intuition determines what Scripture can mean a priori, then revelation is effectively limited by human sensibilities.

Regarding God's sovereignty and inscrutability, Rauser's view potentially limits God's ability to act or command in ways that transcend or challenge human understanding. God's reasons might be inscrutable or part of a larger plan not immediately obvious to our moral sense (cf. Job, Romans 9). Dismissing interpretations a priori prevents grappling with the possibility of divine purposes beyond our immediate grasp. This is especially problematic given Rauser's emphasis on "wrestling with Scripture...as Jacob wrestled with the angel." Writing off interpretations because they conflict with intuition forfeits this deeper search for the ways of God.

When it comes to the nature of sin, Christian theology often emphasizes the noetic effects of sin. It damages our cognition in crucial ways. The Fall corrupted all human faculties, including reason and moral intuition. Although this doesn't make intuition useless, it means it's fallible, potentially biased, darkened, and not always a reliable guide to moral truth. Relying on it as the ultimate arbiter ignores its potential corruption. Can we confidently assert our post-Fall intuition perfectly mirrors God's moral commitments? Though our faculty of intuition may be God-given, it is still marred by the ravages of sin.

Additionally, there are issues concerning progressive revelation and challenging norms. God often challenged the existing moral and religious norms of His people throughout Scripture (e.g., Peter's vision about unclean foods, Jesus' reinterpretation of the Law). If prior intuition had been the absolute standard, such revelations might have been rejected a priori. This approach risks freezing revelation at the level of current human intuition.

There's also the worry that heavy reliance on moral intuition results in us creating God in our own image. There's a danger of tailoring our understanding of God to fit our moral comfort zones, rather than allowing Scripture, even its difficult parts like the conquest narratives, to shape and potentially correct our understanding of God. It risks fashioning a God who always conforms to contemporary Western liberal sensibilities, rather than the potentially more complex and challenging God revealed in the whole counsel of Scripture.

Moral Problems

The next set of concerns focus on moral issues. First we have worries concerning subjectivity and relativism. Moral intuitions vary significantly across cultures, historical periods, and even individuals. Whose intuition becomes the standard for biblical interpretation? Rauser might appeal to a "properly functioning" intuition, but defining that without circularity (i.e., it's properly functioning if it agrees with my view) is difficult.

There's also a great deal of historical variance. Past societies had radically different moral intuitions about things like slavery, honor killings, or the status of women. Using our specific historical moment's intuition as the absolute judge of ancient texts seems chronocentric and potentially arrogant.

Conflicting intuitions is also an issue. Rauser allows that intuitions can be person-relative. And, even today, people have conflicting intuitions on major moral issues (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, economic justice). How does this method resolve interpretive disputes when intuitions clash? It risks leading to interpretive anarchy based on subjective feelings.

The next group of worries center around oversimplification of complex issues. There's a neglect of context built into moral intuition. It often operates on simplified scenarios ("killing babies is wrong"). It may struggle to adequately process the unique, complex historical, theological, and covenantal contexts presented in passages like the Canaanite conquest. It may neglect the conquest as a unique historical moment, questions of corporate identity/judgment, and potential unique divine purposes. Intuition might offer a strong negative reaction without fully engaging the specific claims and context of the text.

Additionally, intuition struggles with something regularly dismissed, namely that God as the creator and sustainer of all life has a unique prerogative with regard to life. While killing innocents is intuitively wrong for humans, the theological question involves whether God, as the author of life and ultimate judge, might operate under different moral parameters or have morally sufficient reasons (even if unknown to us) for commanding actions that would be wrong for humans to initiate. Intuition struggles with such potential divine prerogatives.

Lastly, intuitions can be strongly influenced by emotion. Rauser sees this as a good thing. We should be morally disturbed, if not outraged, by the thought of God commanding the killing of innocent persons. This runs the risk of self-deception. One thinks intuition is reliably tracking the moral facts and the emotions are simply amplifying the objective moral valence, but in reality cultural conditioning and personal desires can impact intuitive responses to troubling texts. You might intuitively reject a difficult doctrine not because it's truly immoral, but because it's uncomfortable or challenges one's preferred view of God or oneself.

Philosophical/Epistemological Problems

The last set of concerns with Rauser's intuition-driven critique of Scripture are philosophical. More specifically, they impact moral intuition as a source of moral knowledge. I'll keep this section brief, but you should know there are deep philosophical waters concerning the reliability of moral intuition and intuition generally.

Concerning their reliability, intuitions are susceptible to numerous cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, framing effects, and emotional reasoning. While Rauser likens it to perception, moral intuition lacks the same kind of external verifiability and corrigibility as sensory perception. We can test if our eyes deceive us, but testing the "accuracy" of a moral intuition against objective reality is far more complex.

As hinted at earlier, relying heavily on personal intuition when interpreting texts can lead to a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning or question-begging. This occurs when the conclusion you reach is already assumed in your starting point. For example, someone might follow this line of thought: "My gut feeling tells me that commanding genocide is profoundly immoral. Because I believe God is perfectly moral, God could never command such a thing. Therefore, any religious text that appears to show God commanding genocide cannot mean what it seems to say and must be interpreted differently." The problem here is that the final interpretation of the text isn't derived from analyzing the text itself, but is instead dictated by the initial intuitive judgment about morality and God's nature; the conclusion is effectively "baked into" the premise.

Regarding epistemology, there's the problem of foundationalism. Rauser seems to treat these moral intuitions as properly basic or foundational beliefs. However, it's debatable whether complex moral judgments like "God commanding group killing is intrinsically wrong" are truly foundational, or if they are derived from other beliefs (about God, justice, human value, etc.), which themselves might need grounding or could be challenged by revelation.

Also, there are issues concerning falsifiability. If interpretations are dismissed a priori based on intuition, it makes certain theological claims effectively unfalsifiable or immune to textual evidence. How could Scripture ever genuinely challenge or correct our deeply held moral assumptions if those assumptions are used to preemptively filter Scripture's possible meanings?

There are also scope limitations. Basic moral intuitions (e.g., against wanton cruelty) might be reliable starting points, but it's a significant leap to claim they have the precision and scope to definitively adjudicate complex, context-specific, historical-theological questions about alleged divine commands within ancient texts.

Summary of Issues Regarding Moral Inquiry

In sum, though Randal Rauser's concern for reconciling Scripture with a morally pure God is commendable and resonates with many, grounding biblical interpretation primarily on the veto power of current moral intuition presents significant theological, moral, and philosophical difficulties. It risks subjectivism, undermines the authority of revelation, potentially ignores the complexities of sin's effects on human faculties, and may prematurely close off engagement with the challenging aspects of the biblical text and the nature of God Himself. 

A more traditional approach would argue for a dialectic where intuition informs interpretation, but Scripture ultimately holds the corrective authority, even when it deeply challenges our sensibilities. And, a competing approach to intuition driving moral inquiry is to have theory driving moral inquiry. On such a model you start with a moral theory and you allow that theory to shape interpretations of Scripture and revise moral intuitions. This is the approach I will take in a bit.

Objections to Rauser's Overall View

Rauser embraces Providential Errancy. This means there's a difference between what the report says God commanded and what God actually willed. Rauser's view supports this by attributing the "error" in the report to the human author's flawed perspective, which God providentially allowed for pedagogical reasons, while God's "actual will" aligns with Jesus/love.

Rauser's combination of intuition-driven inquiry, his five principles for Biblical interpretation, and his embrace of Providential Errancy generates many worries. Below are four such worries formulated as objections.

The Objection from Epistemic Circularity

Can Rauser’s method reliably establish God's "actual will" to contrast it with the report of God’s will, one which contains errors?

The Objection from Epistemic Circularity, as I call it, challenges the very possibility of the method working reliably. For Rauser, "the life and teachings of Jesus provide the final guide for all interpretation and application," (2021: 153), and this fundamentally shapes how Christians should approach difficult texts depicting divine violence.

For Rauser, Jesus' life and teachings are the ultimate control texts. They are the ultimate filter for interpretation, and this "is a commitment to the belief that the sum total, fullness and completion of God's revelation comes in Jesus Christ such that the whole of scripture should be read in light of him" (2021: 156).

Jesus' emphasis on loving neighbors and enemies becomes ultimate. Any interpretation that promotes alienation, demonization, or harm contradicts this central revelation and should be rejected. But, this creates a problematic form of circularity regarding knowing God’s actual will from the mere reports of his will (which may be in error).

Here's the problem:

• We need to use Jesus (our Tool) to check Scripture for errors.
• But we get our knowledge of Jesus (the Tool) from Scripture itself.
• If Scripture can contain errors, how do we know for sure that the specific parts telling us about Jesus are completely free from error? What if those parts are also influenced by flawed human perspectives?
• To confidently use Jesus as the perfect, error-free standard, we must first trust that the scriptural accounts about Him are perfectly reliable representations of God's actual will.
• BUT...the method starts by saying Scripture might contain errors. If we just assume the Gospel parts about Jesus are error-free without an independent reason, we are essentially assuming part of our conclusion (i.e., "these specific parts are reliable") before we even start.

The question for Ranal to address are: How does your method avoid problematic circularity? What’s the justification for trusting the source of the standard, given the view's own admission about the potential fallibility within that source?

Without a good answer, it looks like the method relies on assuming what it needs to prove: that the scriptural basis for its standard is reliable.

Intuition to the Rescue? (No!)

Could an appeal to moral intuition break the epistemic circle?

Rauser relies on moral intuition to identify problems. This is the idea that interpretations conflicting with Jesus's life and teaching (which embody love) are incorrect, and that we should "condemn the moral errors" apparently commanded in some texts.

Could this same intuition be used to ground the standard? The argument might be: We intuitively recognize the supreme moral goodness and authority in the Gospel portrayal of Jesus, and that intuition validates Him as the true standard, independent of the logical loop.

This move faces significant challenges. Whose intuition counts? Are moral intuitions not heavily influenced by culture? My next objection suggests they are. Do all people share the same intuition about the Gospel portrayal? Definitely not. 

Thus, relying on moral seemings to establish the fundamental standard seems more problematic than using it just to flag inconsistencies, as it risks making the foundation entirely subjective, as I argue in another objection. It likely doesn't offer a robust escape from circularity concerns for those demanding a more objective grounding.

The Objection from Imbalanced Moral Value Projection

Drawing on concepts from moral psychology, specifically Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph's Moral Foundations Theory,¹² my worry is that Rauser’s approach engages in a form of moral projection. It imposes an imbalanced or culturally specific set of moral values onto the biblical text and its context, which leads to an uncharitable or inaccurate evaluation.

This objection focuses on the standard or lens being used to identify a "theological or moral error" in the biblical report when compared to God's "actual will." Rauser’s view implicitly uses a modern, Western-biased moral framework focused heavily on Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity to judge the ancient texts.¹³ 

Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity are often emphasized in modern Western ethical discussions. When Old Testament texts depict actions causing harm (death, displacement) or appearing unfair (collective punishment, preferential treatment of Israel), they are flagged as morally problematic based on these foundations.

This neglects other moral values that are important within an Ancient Near Eastern (ANE)  context. Such a context operated with a broader set of moral foundations, including (using Haidt and Joseph's categories):

• Loyalty/Betrayal (Ingroup): Concepts like covenant faithfulness, treason against God (idolatry), national solidarity, and distinctions between insiders and outsiders were paramount.
• Authority/Subversion: Respect for divine authority, the legitimacy of God's commands (even harsh ones), social order, and judgment against rebellion were crucial.
• Sanctity/Degradation (Purity): Ideas about holiness, ritual purity, avoiding defilement (especially through idolatry or forbidden practices), and consecrating land or people were central.

To understand and evaluate the portrayal of God's character and actions in the Old Testament charitably and accurately, you need consider this broader set of moral values that were operative in that context. Judging solely by Harm/Fairness involves projecting a limited, potentially anachronistic, framework on that context.

The upshot is that evaluating God's actions (e.g., commanding conquest, enforcing purity laws, demanding exclusive loyalty) only through the lens of Harm/Fairness makes them almost inevitably appear as "moral errors." However, if you also consider the high value placed on Loyalty (to the covenant), Authority (God's sovereignty), and Sanctity (eliminating idolatrous defilement) within that cultural perspective, the rationale behind these actions within the text's own framework appears different, even if still challenging to modern readers.

Rauser’s method doesn't just identify conflicts with the ultimate revelation in Christ, but misinterprets the Old Testament context itself by failing to engage with its own complex moral landscape. It condemns commands and actions based on a selective application of moral values, rather than first seeking to understand those actions within the full spectrum of values presented or assumed by the text.

Before imposing a potentially narrow modern ethical grid onto ancient texts, and labeling something a "human moral error," you should strive to understand if it aligns with other moral values (like Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity) that were highly prized in that context and are arguably part of the biblical portrayal of God's concerns, even if those values sometimes lead to actions that conflict with modern Harm/Fairness priorities.

If the commands in the reports can be seen as coherent expressions of God's will concerning Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity (attributes arguably part of God's multifaceted character, even if expressed harshly in that context), then they might not actually be "errors" relative to God's will as expressed then. And Rauser might be misidentifying contextual expressions of God's justice, holiness, or faithfulness as "errors" simply because they don't align with a modern, limited focus on harm and fairness.

The Impoverished Character, Impoverished Love Objection

Rauser’s view risks reducing God's morally perfect character primarily or solely to love, as emphasized by Jesus's command to love God and neighbor. This is problematic.

Such a reduction presents an imbalanced view of Jesus. While Jesus certainly emphasized love, his character and teachings also profoundly reflected God's holiness (opposition to sin), righteousness (upholding God's standards), faithfulness (to God's plan and promises), and justice (teachings on judgment, accountability). Focusing predominantly on love, particularly a concept of love seen as incompatible with judgment or severity, presents an incomplete picture of Jesus himself.

This leads to an oversimplified hermeneutical filter: "If it doesn't look like [this narrow conception of] love, it cannot be truly from God." This fosters misinterpreting the Old Testament. Applying this filter to challenging Old Testament passages like the conquest narratives leads to the conclusion that they cannot reflect God's true character because they involve violence and judgment, which are deemed "unloving." Consequently, they are dismissed as merely human "erroneous projections... of tribal war culture and mindset."

Reduction of moral perfection to love ignores other divine attributes in the OT. It overlooks how these same OT narratives can be understood as expressions of other facets of God's perfect moral character, operating within a specific redemptive-historical context:

• Faithfulness: God acting faithfully to His covenant promises to Israel (e.g., the promise of land).
• Justice/Righteousness: God enacting judgment against actions the text portrays as deeply sinful and persistent ("long condemned egregious sin"), upholding His righteous standards.
• Holiness: God preserving the holiness of His people or the land by opposing defiling practices (as understood in that context).

Cutting against this is the idea that God's character is consistent (holy, just, faithful, loving, etc.), but the expression of these attributes varies depending on the specific situation and the stage in redemptive history. The conquest narratives, in this view, show attributes like justice, faithfulness, and holiness being expressed in ways appropriate to that specific harsh context, even if this differs from how they are expressed in the person and work of Jesus in the New Covenant context.

Further, borrowing from previous objections, the reduction of God's character to love is problematic because the definition of love being employed is itself narrowly defined by Harm/Fairness concerns. This makes it almost inevitable that OT passages depicting God acting forcefully to uphold covenant loyalty, execute judgment (Authority), or eradicate perceived spiritual contagion (Sanctity/Purity) will be deemed "unloving" and thus dismissed as human error reflecting "tribal war culture," rather than being grappled with as complex expressions of God's multifaceted character within a specific, challenging historical context.

Thus, the concern is that by using an imbalanced view of Jesus (emphasizing only love) to create a simple "love filter," the approach fails to recognize the multifaceted nature of God's perfection and how attributes like justice, holiness, and faithfulness were also operative and revealed in the Old Testament, as contextually expressed. It risks discarding parts of scripture not because they truly contradict God's character, but because they contradict a reductionist understanding of that character.

The Objection from Harmful Consequences

This objection is that, on Rauser’s account, God lacks sufficient moral reason to allow errors due to the resulting harm they can cause.

For Rauser, God, despite being morally perfect and providentially meticulous, intentionally and providentially allowed human authors to include their own flawed perspectives and "gross moral errors" (like apparent divine commands for genocide) within the text of Scripture. God did this for a specific pedagogical purpose: to make readers wrestle with the text, recognize the human error through the lens of Christ, and ultimately learn deeper spiritual lessons about love and God's true character.

Yet, these reasons are morally insufficient given the severe negative consequences. A morally perfect and omniscient God would have foreseen that allowing such texts (even as human error) would:

• Cause believers profound doubt about His goodness.
• Lead some to lose faith or trust.
• Create deep moral confusion about His character.
• Be misinterpreted and misused historically to justify real-world atrocities (by people taking the human error as divine command).

Moreover, the supposed lessons Rauser claims God uses the error for are not widely recognized. So, not only are the benefits not sufficient to outweigh the harms, but God would have foreseen that most believers throughout the ages would have missed his ironic twist on the plain reading of the text within its ANE context. God would have foreseen that most would just be confused and not perform the necessary wrestling to grasp these deeper truths. 

A morally perfect God wouldn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing gross moral errors in the text that lead believers to question his goodness, lose faith, cause confusion, and inspire atrocities.

 

Thus, even if we grant the intention behind allowing these texts might be pedagogical, the reasons fail on two counts:

• Moral Justification: The pedagogical goals don't outweigh the harms, especially when less harmful methods would presumably be available to a perfect God.
• Practical Effectiveness: The method itself (embedding errors and relying on mystery) is a poor and potentially counterproductive way to achieve genuine clarity, sound critical analysis, and reliable character formation.

This highlights the negative consequences of adopting Rauser’s justification of providentially included errors. As a result, it directly challenges the coherence and moral weight of Rauser’s proposed divine rationale.

Given the cumulative worries and objections above, we’re warranted in considering a new way to interpret texts involving divine violence. Though I don’t think any of the critiques of Rauser’s view are knockdown arguments, they do cumulatively suggest the need for a better theory. To that I now humbly turn.¹¹

Covenant Virtue Ethics: An Integrated Moral Theory

Philosophical Foundations and Purpose

Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE) is a comprehensive normative ethical theory. It aims to articulate what makes actions right or wrong, define the nature of the good, and determine the basis of moral worth. Its main foundation lies in virtue ethics, specifically drawing significantly from Christine Swanton’s Target-Centered Virtue Ethics (TCVE). To this foundation, CVE adds crucial insights from Divine Command Theory (DCT) and Natural Law Theory (NLT), integrating them into a cohesive whole.

Unlike ethical systems that begin with human moral intuition or abstract philosophical reasoning, CVE takes its starting point as God's own self-revelation, particularly His character as shown within the context of covenant relationships described in Scripture. The description of God's character in Exodus 34:6-7 is considered the most pivotal expression of this self-revelation, displaying the rich tapestry of His perfect attributes, including both profound love and unwavering justice. As a result, CVE asserts that God's full revealed character, dynamically manifested within the framework of covenant, serves as the ultimate foundation and objective standard for all moral judgments.

Understanding and living out morality, therefore, involves discerning and reflecting God's perfect character. This is achieved through actions that successfully "hit the targets" defined by God's virtuous attributes. This is done while always considering the specific covenantal situation which constitutes the "field" (in TCVE terms) for moral action. The covenant is not merely a backdrop but the fundamental relational structure that establishes moral obligations and shapes the context in which virtues are properly exercised.

CVE is designed to satisfy both theoretical and practical ethical aims. On the theoretical level, it seeks to identify the essential features that render actions, persons, or states of affairs right or wrong, good or bad. CVE locates these moral properties in the successful expression of God's divine character. Such success consists in hitting the appropriate virtuous targets within the relevant covenantal context. On the practical level, CVE offers a structured decision-making procedure. This procedure guides agents toward correct moral verdicts by systematically integrating several layers of analysis: an assessment of the specific covenantal context (Field, Basis), character-based reasoning informed by TCVE's target analysis (Target), a careful analysis of intention utilizing principles like the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) to distinguish the intended aim from foreseen consequences of the chosen Mode, and an evaluation of how an action aligns with God's ultimate redemptive purpose (Telos).

Holiness, Authority, and the Metaphysical Size-Gap

God's relationship with creation, particularly with finite and morally imperfect beings like us, is shaped by His essential attribute of holiness. This holiness, revealed from the earliest encounters like the burning bush and the events at Sinai (Exodus 3:5; Exodus 19), and explicitly stated as foundational in the Law (Leviticus 11:44-45; 19:2), is central to who He is. It possesses a two-fold nature: it signifies His stunning majesty. This encompasses His absolute uniqueness, infinite power, self-sufficiency, and fundamental 'otherness' or separation from everything created (Exodus 15:11). Holiness also defines His perfect moral-purity. This is His absolute freedom from any taint of sin, evil, or defect, establishing Him as the ultimate, unwavering standard of righteousness and goodness. Without this essential holiness, God would cease to be God as He has revealed Himself.

Based on God’s holiness Christian philosopher Mark Murphy analyzes the implications of God's nature using concepts such as the "metaphysical size-gap" or the "absurd size gap," as Marylin McCord Adams also embraces. This term captures the immense, almost incomprehensible chasm, which is both ontological and qualitative, that exists between the infinitely perfect, absolutely holy, self-sufficient Creator and the finite, dependent, and morally deficient nature of created beings, particularly humanity after the fall. God's majesty-holiness establishes the staggering difference in being (infinite versus finite, uncreated versus created), while His moral-purity holiness establishes the stark contrast in character (absolute perfection versus sinfulness). This profound gap, rooted in God's absolute holiness, creates a fundamental "unfittingness" for direct, unmediated intimacy. The sheer glory of His majesty can overwhelm the finite (Isaiah 6:5), and His absolute moral purity is inherently incompatible with, and must necessarily stand in judgment against, sin and imperfection. His holy presence is like a "consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29) to that which is profane or sinful.

This profound difference grounded in God's holiness not only creates an unfittingness for unmediated intimacy but also establishes God's unique moral authority and situates Him differently from His creatures. Murphy employs the term "dikaiological order" to describe a shared system of norms, mutual rights, and reciprocal duties that allows the concept of one party 'wronging' another to be meaningful within that system. God's status is as the sovereign, self-sufficient, holy Creator who is not subject to external constraints or limitations in the way creatures are. Because of this immense size-gap God and creatures do not naturally inhabit the same dikaiological order. God does not operate under the same framework of mutual obligations that governs creature-to-creature relationships. Recognizing this distinction helps us to understand why certain divine actions or commands recorded in Scripture, viewed solely from a human, creaturely perspective, might appear problematic. They may stem directly from God's unique status and role as Creator and Judge, operating according to norms appropriate to His perfect holiness and the vast gulf separating Him from creaturely finitude and imperfection.

It is this unique status and essential holiness that, as Murphy argues, gives rise to "requiring reasons." These reasons are distinct from "justifying reasons," which might make an action permissible, good, or understandable. For example, God's love provides a justifying reason for Him to create or to show mercy. A requiring reason creates a rational obligation or compulsion to act (barring counter-reasons), while a justifying reason merely creates a rational permission or option to act. The concept is crucial in thinking about morality and divine action. It addresses whether certain values or situations generate reasons that demand a specific response from a rational agent (like God) or simply make certain responses good or allowable. Requiring reasons stem necessarily and directly from God's own nature or status as the perfectly holy one. They concern what is fitting or even necessitated for God to be the holy God He is (God qua God). In this context, God's holiness provides Him with powerful requiring reasons to maintain a certain separation or distance from sin, evil, and imperfection. For the absolutely perfect and holy God to enter into unmediated, unqualified intimacy with profound imperfection and moral evil would be fundamentally "unfitting" to His nature. It would compromise the very integrity of what it means for Him to be holy. Thus, while justifying reasons rooted in love might motivate God's benevolent actions towards His creation, the requiring reasons rooted in His holiness dictate the necessary conditions and inherent separations involved in how a perfectly holy God relates to a deficient and defective world.

Yet, despite this vast gap and the requiring reasons necessitating a degree of separation, the biblical narrative reveals God's gracious initiative to bridge this divide through the mechanism of covenant. The existence and significance of covenant are underscored by the size-gap it seeks to traverse. Covenant represents God's voluntary and profoundly gracious act to establish specific, structured relationships. This is what Murphy refers to as "cooperative activity" with creatures He is not naturally obligated to engage with in such a manner. In initiating a covenant, God freely chooses to place Himself under certain self-imposed obligations, defined not by external compulsion but by His own perfect, holy character and His faithful promises (e.g., His covenant promises to Israel). Within this divinely initiated covenantal framework, God establishes the terms and possesses the unique authority to relate to humanity and issue commands in ways that reflect His will and character within that specific relational structure, ways that might be impossible or inappropriate outside of it. These commands then function as expressions of His holy nature and sovereign will for His covenant partners.

Why God Cannot Intend Evil

In Chapter 7 of Divine Holiness and Divine Action, Murphy argues that God cannot intend evil because doing so would violate God's absolute holiness. Again, the holiness framework posits that God, due to absolute perfection, possesses requiring reasons—reasons God must act on unless there are adequate contrary considerations—to avoid intimate relationships with anything deficient, defective, imperfect, or limited in goodness, which includes evil.

Although God might countenance evil (accepting it will result from a choice) as a foreseen consequence of achieving some other intended good, intending evil is fundamentally different. Thus, Murphy emphasizes a crucial distinction between merely foreseeing an evil outcome and actively intending it. When an agent intends a state of affairs, even as a means to an end, achieving that state becomes partially constitutive of the agent's success. The realization of the intended object defines the success of the action. In contrast, a merely foreseen outcome, even if it serves as evidence that an intention was carried out successfully, is not itself part of what constitutes that success. The agent can remain alienated from it.

Therefore, if God were to intend evil, that evil's coming into existence would be intrinsically linked to the success of God's own action. The obtaining of evil would partially define God's success as an agent, rather than being merely an unwelcome byproduct or side effect of achieving a separate, good intention. This establishes an extraordinarily intimate relationship between God and the intended evil, where the evil itself is something God is set on achieving and forms part of God's successful agency.

This necessary intimacy involved in intending evil directly conflicts with God's absolute holiness. Because holiness gives God requiring reasons not to stand in such intimate relationships with deficiency and evil, God cannot intend evil. This argument from holiness provides a powerful reason, distinct from purely moral considerations, why intending evil is incompatible with the nature of an absolutely perfect being.

Applying this to Rauser’s theological dilemma, which we discussed at the beginning of this post, given that genocide is a moral atrocity—an unqualified evil—God cannot intend genocide. A similar point applies to ethnic cleansing and the targeting of innocent noncombatants. God cannot intend such evils as His ultimate aim or Target. Therefore, when analyzing biblical commands involving such horrific outcomes, CVE insists that God's actual intended Target must be identified as a distinct good consistent with His character (e.g., executing justice, preserving the covenant), while the tragic evils involved must be understood within the interpretive framework as foreseen consequences of the Mode employed in that unique context, rather than the intended goal itself.

Divine Character as Moral Standard and Source of Virtue Targets

In addition to God’s holiness, there are moral attributes that form the normative core of CVE. This is the character of God as revealed most explicitly in Exodus 34:6-7. This passage, given immediately before God renewed His covenant with Israel after the Golden Calf idolatry, functions as God's self-description, revealing His essential nature. The key moral attributes identified here are:

• Merciful (rachum): Compassionate, deeply loving, like a parent's tender care.
• Gracious (channun): Showing unmerited favor, bestowing kindness not based on worthiness.
• Slow to Anger (erek appayim): Patient, forbearing, long-suffering in the face of provocation.
• Abounding in Steadfast Love (rav-chesed): Overflowing with loyal, covenantal love and kindness; reliable goodness.
• Faithful (emet): True, reliable, consistent, dependable in word and deed.
• Forgiving (noseh): Bearing or taking away iniquity, transgression, and sin, demonstrating a readiness to pardon.
• Just (naqqeh lo yenaqqeh): Literally "will by no means clear/leave unpunished," signifying God's unwavering commitment to accountability, righteousness, and upholding moral order against sin.
• Intergenerationally Consistent (poked avon): "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children... to the third and fourth generation" (Ex 34:7).
  • CVE interprets this challenging aspect not as arbitrary collective punishment or direct imputation of guilt across generations for specific acts, but as reflecting the profound and lasting corporate consequences of foundational, persistent wickedness, particularly rebellion against God's covenant and redemptive purposes (the Telos). It signifies that such deep-seated, unrepented corporate hostility can have enduring effects that God, in His unique role as Sovereign Judge operating within the covenantal Field and according to His revealed character, may address over time according to His own timetable and purposes. This aspect of divine justice, revealed alongside overwhelming mercy and love, underscores the seriousness with which God views systemic, covenant-breaking evil.

These moral attributes are not abstract philosophical ideals. They are the revealed nature of the personal God who acts within the history of covenant relationships. They exist in a dynamic and creative tension, not as contradictions. Following insights from Matthew Lynch (2022), CVE emphasizes that, in addition to holiness, mercy and steadfast love (Hesed) form the central core of God's character, often described as "triumphing over" judgment. Yet mercy and love do not negate or cancel out His commitment to justice and faithfulness. Understanding this ordered relationship and balance is vital for interpreting God's actions throughout Scripture.

CVE integrates Christine Swanton’s Target-Centered Virtue Ethics (2003, 2021) to analyze how these divine attributes function as the source of moral normativity. TCVE views virtues not just as dispositions but in terms of their aims or "targets." Each divine attribute, considered as a virtue, has a characteristic profile:

• Field: The domain or sphere in which the virtue operates (e.g., situations of suffering for mercy; covenant relationships for faithfulness; instances of wrongdoing for justice).
• Basis of Acknowledgment: The specific feature within the field that appropriately triggers the virtue's response (e.g., vulnerability for mercy; existing commitments for faithfulness; nature/severity of transgression for justice).
• Mode(s) of Responsiveness: The characteristic way(s) the virtue acts or responds to its basis (e.g., alleviating suffering for mercy; fulfilling promises for faithfulness; rectifying wrongs/judging for justice). Note: Swanton emphasizes a pluralism of modes beyond simple promotion of good.
• Target(s): The specific goal, state of affairs, or outcome the virtue aims to achieve in that particular context through its mode(s) of response (e.g., relief of suffering for mercy; integrity of covenant for faithfulness; restoration of moral order/accountability for justice).

According to CVE informed by TCVE, acting rightly means successfully reflecting God's character by "hitting the appropriate target(s)" with the "appropriate mode(s) of responsiveness," triggered by a correct perception of the "basis" within the relevant covenantal "field."

Context-Weighted Reasons Shaping Targets and Modes

CVE incorporates a context-weighted reasons approach, drawing on work by Eleonore Stump and Richard Swinburne, to explain how God's immutable character manifests differently in various situations. While all of God's attributes (Mercy, Justice, Faithfulness, etc.) are eternally and equally perfect in His nature, the specific features of a given situation (the "field" and "basis" in TCVE terms) provide stronger reasons for expressing certain attributes more prominently than others in that context. 

For example, a situation involving extreme, unrepentant wickedness (basis) within the covenant community (field) might heavily weight the reasons associated with divine justice, making its target (e.g., judgment for accountability) paramount. Conversely, a situation of genuine repentance and vulnerability (basis) might heavily weight the reasons associated with mercy, making its target (e.g., forgiveness and restoration) the primary focus.

This dynamic weighting, driven by the context interacting with God's full character, determines several key aspects of a morally right (God-reflecting) action:

• Which divine virtues provide the strongest motivating reasons in that specific scenario.
• The precise content of the relevant virtue's target in that context. For instance, the target of justice might be retributive punishment in one context but focus on restorative measures in another, depending on the basis and the overall telos.
• The appropriate mode of responsiveness needed to effectively hit that specific target. A severe mode might be required to hit justice's target against a basis of extreme corruption, while a gentle mode is fitting for hitting mercy's target toward the repentant. 

This context-weighted approach allows CVE to explain apparent shifts or tensions in divine actions and commands across Scripture without concluding that God's underlying character is inconsistent or changing. It acknowledges that reflecting perfect character sometimes requires different responses in different circumstances. Furthermore, incorporating Stump's idea of learning through "failed plans," CVE suggests that human moral development involves learning which modes effectively hit God's targets in various contexts, often through trial and error, guided by God's overarching pedagogical aims.

People-Formation, Horror Defeat, and the Ultimate Telos

To understand the ultimate purpose guiding God's actions, CVE integrates insights from Eleonore Stump on "people-formation" and Marilyn McCord Adams on "horror-defeat" Christology. God's overarching goal, or telos, is understood as the formation of peoples over vast stretches of history for intimate, loving relationship (shalom) with Himself. This divine project is fundamentally pedagogical. It involves guiding humanity toward moral and spiritual maturity, a process that necessarily includes navigating the complexities of freedom, suffering, evil, and even "horrors"—Adams's term for evils so profound they threaten to destroy the meaning of a participant's life. Learning often occurs through failures, such as missing moral targets or using inappropriate modes, prompting growth and redirection toward God's aims.

Adams's horror-defeat framework explains how God achieves this ultimate telos of union despite the pervasive reality of horrors, which seem capable of rendering life irredeemably meaningless. This framework centers on the person and work of Christ:

• Stage I: Horror Participation and Divine Solidarity: God, through the Incarnation of Christ (thereby crossing the "size-gap" discussed by Murphy and Adams), enters human existence and shares our vulnerability to horrors. Christ participates in horrors as victim (suffering injustice, torture, death), occasioner (his presence leading to suffering for others), and even perpetrator (insofar as challenging systems or being part of imperfect societies involves unavoidable complicity). This divine solidarity establishes an objective, unbreakable link—an "organic unity"—between any experience of horror and the possibility of intimate relationship with God. The horror itself becomes a site where God meets the sufferer.
• Stage II: Healing Meaning-Making Capacities: Because horrors damage our psychological and spiritual ability to perceive meaning, God, often through Christ understood as an "Inner Teacher," actively works to heal and restore these capacities. This enables individuals to recognize, understand, and subjectively appropriate the positive meaning grounded in Christ's solidarity (Stage I), integrating the horror experience into a narrative of redemption and union with God.
• Stage III: Cosmic Renewal and Resurrection: Ultimately, overcoming horror requires transforming our fundamental vulnerability. This is achieved through bodily resurrection and the renewal of all creation ("new heavens and new earth"), establishing a "horror-free zone" where embodied persons can flourish in perfect shalom with God and each other, free from the metaphysical conditions that generate horror. Christ's resurrection serves as the guarantee and first instance of this final stage. This Christological perspective provides the ultimate context for understanding God's actions in history. It shows how God, through Christ, works redemptively even amidst profound evil and suffering, ensuring that His loving purpose of union with His creatures prevails, ultimately defeating the power of horror to destroy meaning.

Interpretive Framework: Patristic Hermeneutics

CVE adopts a sophisticated approach to interpreting Scripture, drawing heavily on the principles articulated by Richard Swinburne and exemplified by the early Church Fathers (Patristics). This framework recognizes the complexity of biblical texts and aims to discern God's intended meaning faithfully. Key elements include:

• Multiple Complementary Levels of Meaning: A passage can have meaning on several levels simultaneously: its meaning within the original human author's historical and cultural context; its meaning when read as part of a larger biblical book or section (canonical context); and its ultimate theological meaning within the context of the entire Bible and God's overarching redemptive plan (divine context/intention). These levels should ideally complement rather than contradict each other.
• The Patristic Method and Augustine's Rule: A central principle, often associated with Augustine, is that interpretations must align with "purity of life [reflecting God's character] or soundness of doctrine." If a literal reading of a passage seems to contradict the core attributes of God revealed in Exodus 34 or established Christian doctrine (like the teachings of Christ), then a metaphorical, allegorical, or non-literal interpretation of certain aspects (often the described mode of action) may be required to preserve coherence. The goal is always to understand the specific text in a way that harmonizes with the character of God revealed consistently throughout Scripture.
• The Principle of Accommodation: This principle acknowledges that God, as the divine author, tailors His communication to the specific audience's limited understanding, cultural norms, and stage of moral development. God "accommodates" His revelation, meaning that the clarity with which divine targets are revealed or the specific modes commanded might be adapted to what a particular people could grasp or enact at a certain point in history. This explains apparent developments or seemingly harsh commands in earlier texts without attributing inconsistency to God or error to the text itself. The mode might be accommodated, but the underlying divine target remains consistent with God's unchanging character. This principle also implies interpreting Scripture in light of established scientific and historical knowledge, as advocated by Fathers like Augustine and elaborated by Swinburne: God does not intend revelation to teach outdated science.

Decision Procedure: The Five-Step CVE-DDE Process

To provide practical guidance for moral evaluation and interpretation, CVE offers a structured five-step decision procedure. This procedure systematically integrates the core theoretical components of CVE with the ethical framework of the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE), understood as a principle derived from natural law concerning the moral significance of intention and causality. The steps are:

1. Covenantal Context Assessment: This first step involves identifying the specific context or "field" (TCVE) of the action. What covenant(s) are operative? What is the historical stage and cultural setting? What are the roles and relationships of the agents involved? It also involves analyzing the situation to identify the "basis" (TCVE) for action – the specific features (like wickedness, need, promise) that call for a virtuous response. Part of this step includes classifying the intrinsic nature of the action's mode (is it good, neutral, or intrinsically evil?), corresponding to DDE's first condition. Murphy's concept of dikaiological orders is also relevant here: are the parties interacting within a shared order or does God act from His unique authority?
2. Character-Based Intention Analysis: This step focuses on discerning the intended divine "target" (TCVE) and the agent's intention. It requires prioritizing God's core character attributes from Exodus 34 (Mercy, Love, Faithfulness, Justice, etc.) and analyzing the context-weighted reasons to determine which virtue's target is primary in this situation. Crucially, it involves distinguishing the intended target (the ultimate good end sought) from the intended mode (the means chosen to achieve the target) and from merely foreseen side effects of the mode. This maps onto DDE's second condition concerning intention. A key assessment is whether the intended target aligns with God's perfect character and whether the intended mode is permissible. Murphy's principle, derived from God's holiness, applies here: God cannot intend evil as either the ultimate target or as the means (mode) chosen for its own sake.
3. Means-End Relationship Analysis: This step examines the causal relationship between the chosen mode and its effects, particularly relating to DDE's third condition. Does the good target directly result from the mode, or is the good target achieved only by means of the bad effect caused by the mode? If the bad effect is the necessary causal means to the good target, the action is impermissible under DDE. This step involves considering alternative, less harmful modes that might still hit the target and carefully evaluating "closeness problems" where distinguishing the mode's direct effect from its means is difficult, always through the lens of God's overall character and intended target.
4. Proportionality and Harm Minimization: This step assesses whether the good achieved by hitting the intended target is proportionate to the harm caused or foreseen as a side effect of the chosen mode (DDE's fourth condition). It involves evaluating the covenantal consequences and potentially integrating Swinburne's Good Benefactor Conditions (GBC), considering whether the action contributes positively to the overall life-value of those affected, possibly factoring in long-term or afterlife compensation consistent with God's ultimate beneficent plans. It also asks if the harmful aspects of the mode were truly necessary to achieve the target and if reasonable efforts were made to minimize the foreseen harm (sometimes considered DDE's fifth condition). The multi-generational scope of God's people-formation project informs this assessment.
5. Redemptive Purpose Alignment: The final step evaluates the action's coherence with God's ultimate redemptive telos: the goal of people-formation for loving union (shalom) with Him (Stump). It integrates Adams's horror-defeat framework, considering how the action fits within the larger narrative culminating in Christ's victory over evil and suffering. The assessment concludes by ensuring the action, considered holistically (target, mode, foreseen effects, telos), aligns with the balanced, unified character of God revealed in Exodus 34. Does the action achieve overall virtue by hitting the appropriately weighted targets sufficiently well in this specific context?

Integration of DCT and Natural Law Theory

CVE achieves a coherent integration of Divine Command Theory (DCT) and Natural Law Theory (NLT) by grounding both within the primary framework of Virtue Ethics, specifically God's revealed character analyzed through TCVE. Virtue/Divine Character serves as the ultimate foundation, defining the nature of the Good and the fundamental moral targets derived from God's attributes. Within this framework, DCT finds its place as divine commands function as authoritative directives from God, guiding agents towards specific divine targets or requiring specific modes of action that express God's character appropriately within particular covenantal fields. The authority of these commands is not arbitrary. It is from God's perfect character, wisdom, love, and unique sovereign status (explained by Murphy's size-gap concept). NLT is integrated as reflecting the rational moral order embedded in creation by a wise and good Creator – an order knowable in part through human reason and conscience. This natural order, including principles like the DDE, is understood as being conducive to hitting the targets of virtue and achieving the telos of human flourishing (shalom) in relationship with God. Reason, therefore, can discern aspects of God's moral requirements, complementing and cohering with revealed commands. 

The CVE mechanism of context-weighted reasons shaping the specific targets and appropriate modes of virtue helps harmonize these different dimensions, ensuring that divine commands and natural law principles all serve the unified purpose (telos) of forming a people capable of reflecting God's character and entering into union with Him. DCT and NLT are thus viewed not as competing theories or secondary additions, but as integral, constitutive components of the comprehensive CVE framework.

Covenant Virtue Ethics’ Analysis of Biblical Conquest Narratives

Applying the fully integrated Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE) framework allows for a nuanced analysis of the challenging conquest narratives. This approach utilizes the five-step decision procedure, incorporating insights from Target-Centered Virtue Ethics (TCVE), Murphy's holiness framework, Swinburne's hermeneutics and benefactor ethics, Stump's people-formation perspective, Adams's horror-defeat Christology, Lynch's emphasis on shalom and Exodus 34, and the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE).

Deuteronomy 7: Commands Regarding Canaanite Nations

(1) Covenantal Context Assessment

The analysis of Deuteronomy 7 begins by identifying its specific field: the context of the Sinai covenant as Israel stands poised to enter the promised land. The historical moment is critical – Israel is transitioning, vulnerable to cultural and religious assimilation that threatens its unique covenant identity and role. 

The primary basis for the divine commands presented is the pervasive and morally condemned religious practices of the Canaanite nations (detailed elsewhere, e.g., Leviticus 18/20, including practices like child sacrifice), which pose an existential spiritual threat to Israel's fidelity and the long-term covenantal telos. 

This context establishes the field not simply as territorial conquest, but as the preservation and establishment of a holy covenant community dedicated to Yahweh. Applying Murphy's framework, we recognize distinct dikaiological orders: God relates to Israel through the specific terms of the Sinai covenant, a relationship different from His dealings with nations outside that covenant. This grounds God's unique authority as Sovereign Judge to issue specific commands within this redemptive-historical field. 

The commanded mode involves separation, prohibition of treaties and intermarriage, and destruction of idolatrous objects, aimed at preventing assimilation. The intrinsic nature of these actions (as modes) is complex; separation itself is neutral, while destroying idols could be seen as good, but the associated violence requires further analysis under DDE.

(2) Character-Based Intention Analysis

CVE asserts, based on Murphy's holiness principle, that God cannot intend evil as His ultimate target. Therefore, God's primary intended target in Deuteronomy 7 must be understood as intrinsically good: the preservation of covenant faithfulness and holiness within Israel, preventing the assimilation that the text identifies as the crucial basis of the threat (Deut 7:4). 

Context-weighted reasons, stemming from God's character revealed in Exodus 34 (per Lynch), heavily favor divine Faithfulness (its target being the fulfillment of land promises and preservation of the covenant people) and divine Justice (its target being judgment upon the persistent, corrupting wickedness identified as the basis). 

The commanded mode emphasizes separation and removal of this corrupting influence. While the mode is severe, reflecting the weight given to Justice and Faithfulness in this context, Mercy (another core Ex 34 attribute) remains operative in the ultimate telos (God's plan to eventually bless all nations through Israel) and is arguably reflected in the text's later mention of a gradual mode of displacement (Deut 7:22). The intention analysis distinguishes the intended good target (covenant preservation/justice) from the mode commanded and its foreseen consequences (DDE Condition 2).

(3) Means-End Relationship Analysis

This step examines the causal link between the commanded mode and the intended target, applying DDE Condition 3. The commanded means – prohibiting treaties/intermarriage, destroying idols, displacing/judging the populations practicing condemned rites – are presented as directly serving the target of maintaining Israel's distinct covenant identity and purging the land of the idolatrous practices constituting the basis for judgment. 

Interpreting the scope and nature of the commanded mode (especially the language of total destruction) requires Swinburne's multi-layered hermeneutic, acknowledging the potential for Ancient Near Eastern hyperbolic rhetoric signifying the severity of the intended judgment target rather than a literal, exhaustive description of the required mode. The alternative mentioned (gradual displacement in 7:22) suggests the primary target wasn't immediate annihilation but the removal of corrupting influence, allowing for varied modes. 

The explicit focus on religious practices as the basis distinguishes the divine target from ethnic eradication. DDE applies here: the intended good target is covenant preservation and justice; the harm involved in the necessary mode of judgment and separation is a foreseen side effect, not the intended causal means to achieve the good target.

(4) Proportionality and Harm Minimization

Evaluating proportionality (DDE Condition 4) requires weighing the good achieved by hitting the target against the foreseen harm of the mode. The text frames the idolatrous threat (basis) as existential to Israel's covenant identity and the ultimate redemptive telos, thus presenting the severe mode of judgment/separation as proportionate within the narrative's logic. 

Applying Swinburne's Good Benefactor Conditions suggests that God, as the ultimate benefactor who guarantees overall positive life value (potentially through post-mortem compensation or fulfillment within the grand sweep of history, aligning with Adams's horror-defeat), can justify severe temporary modes if they are deemed necessary to achieve a greater, essential good target or telos. 

Evidence of harm minimization (DDE Condition 5) might be seen in the allowance for gradualism (7:22) and the long prior period of divine patience (Gen 15:16, cited as part of the basis). The multi-generational perspective of Stump's people-formation telos informs the long-term assessment of proportionality.

(5) Redemptive Purpose Alignment

Finally, the action must align with the ultimate telos. Hitting the immediate target of forming a distinct, faithful people in the land serves the long-term redemptive goal: eventually blessing all nations through Abraham's lineage. 

Integrating Adams's framework, these severe actions (modes), involving participation in historical horrors, are situated within a larger narrative where Christ ultimately defeats the power of horror, transforming its meaning. 

From Stump's perspective, this represents an early, challenging stage in God's long-term project of people-formation, employing historically conditioned and accommodated modes necessary to establish the covenant foundation before Christ could reveal the ultimate divine target (universal reconciliation) and the perfected mode (sacrificial love, inclusion). Christ fulfills the underlying covenant target of establishing God's people, but does so through a radically different mode. 

The overall analysis suggests the action, within its specific context and interpreted through CVE's lens, aims at overall virtue by hitting the targets of Faithfulness and Justice deemed necessary for the ultimate telos of Mercy.

Joshua 6: Conquest of Jericho

(1) Covenantal Context Assessment

The conquest of Jericho in Joshua 6 occurs within the field of covenant inheritance fulfillment and a demonstration of divine power at the threshold of the promised land. As the symbolic "firstfruits" of the land, Jericho's fall is presented as crucial for establishing the covenant (part of the telos). 

The primary mode employed is strikingly supernatural and liturgical (processions, trumpet blasts, collapsing walls), framing the field predominantly as one of divine action, with Israel largely functioning as witnesses and agents of cleanup after God Himself acts. This highlights God hitting the target of His own Faithfulness to His promises. The basis for judgment is Jericho's position as the initial, symbolic opposition to God's covenant plan for the land.

(2) Character-Based Intention Analysis 

God's primary intended target is demonstrating His covenant Faithfulness by miraculously fulfilling the land promises, thereby encouraging Israel's trust. The chosen mode—supernatural intervention following prescribed ritual—directly serves this target, emphasizing divine agency over human military might. 

Context-weighted reasons heavily favor Faithfulness. Yet, divine Mercy is also operative. Its target (salvation) is hit in the preservation of Rahab and her family. The basis for this mercy is Rahab's demonstrated faith and alignment with God's purposes (hiding the spies), showing that covenant standing, not ethnicity, determines outcomes. Applying Murphy's principle, God cannot intend evil; thus, the intended divine target is promise-fulfillment and righteous judgment against symbolic opposition, not destruction for its own sake.

(3) Means-End Relationship Analysis

The supernatural/ritual mode is the direct means to achieve the target of demonstrating divine power and faithfulness. Human participation (marching, shouting, enacting the ban) is secondary and follows God's direct action. The prohibition on spoils (a constraint on the mode) further directs the focus away from human gain and towards the divine target of consecration and acknowledging God's sole agency in victory, reinforcing the covenantal nature of the field. 

Applying Swinburne's idea of multiple levels of meaning suggests theological targets (e.g., demonstrating the nature of spiritual warfare, the necessity of obedience) beyond the immediate military event. DDE analysis focuses on God's intended good target; the destruction involved is a foreseen consequence of the judgment enacted through the chosen divine mode.

(4) Proportionality and Harm Minimization

The text presents the comprehensive destruction (herem enacted as part of the mode) as proportionate to Jericho's status as symbolic "firstfruits" representing the opposition (basis) to God's plan. This totality signifies complete judgment and consecration to God. Harm minimization (a mode of Mercy) is selectively applied only to Rahab, whose actions met the basis for receiving mercy (faith). 

Swinburne's Good Benefactor Conditions framework suggests God ensures overall positive value for all involved in His grand plan, potentially involving post-mortem compensation (part of Adams's framework too), justifying the severe immediate mode within His ultimate loving telos.

(5) Redemptive Purpose Alignment

Hitting the target of conquering Jericho serves the intermediate telos of covenant establishment in the land, crucial for the unfolding redemptive narrative. Rahab's integration into Israel (hitting Mercy's target) significantly connects to the ultimate telos, as she becomes an ancestor of Christ. 

Adams's horror-defeat framework situates this violent event within the history that Christ enters and redeems. The miraculous mode prefigures Christ's own power over sin and death. From Stump's viewpoint, this event occurs at an early stage of people-formation, employing dramatic, accommodated modes aimed at the crucial target of establishing covenant presence, modes later superseded by Christ's perfected revelation of divine targets and modes.

1 Samuel 15: Saul's Disobedience Regarding Amalek

(1) Covenantal Context Assessment

The command regarding Amalek in 1 Samuel 15 occurs within the field of Israel's early monarchy, testing the king's (Saul's) obedience and faithfulness within the covenant structure. Saul acts explicitly as God's agent. 

The basis for the command is presented as God's longstanding, decreed judgment against Amalek, stemming from their treacherous attack on Israel during the vulnerable Exodus period (Exodus 17), marking them as persistent enemies opposing God's covenant people and purposes. 

Murphy's framework underscores God's unique authority, grounded in the size-gap and His role as Sovereign Judge, to issue such a command for judgment against a party deemed hostile to the covenant telos.

(2) Character-Based Intention Analysis

God's intended target, communicated via the prophet Samuel, is the execution of decreed Justice (specifically retributive judgment, given the stated basis) against Amalek and a demonstration of divine Faithfulness to His prior word concerning Amalek. 

The commanded mode is herem (often translated as total devotion to destruction), signifying complete judgment, separation from the profane, and dedication of everything to God, leaving no room for human profit or compromise. 

Based on God's holiness (Murphy), the intended target must be understood as the good of executing justice and upholding divine faithfulness, not enjoying destruction itself. The command requires Saul, as God's agent, to hit this specific target using precisely this prescribed, severe mode.

(3) Means-End Relationship Analysis

The text presents the herem mode as the necessary and specifically commanded means to achieve the intended target of definitive divine judgment and separation from this persistent enemy. 

Saul's partial obedience—sparing Agag and the best livestock—constitutes a failure because he employs a different mode driven by a different target (likely self-glory, perceived economic benefit, or misplaced piety in wanting sacrifices). This substitution breaks the required means-end link specified in the divine command. 

Applying DDE to God's command: the intended good target is justice/faithfulness against the designated basis; the destruction involved is the foreseen effect of the necessary mode of judgment (herem) required to hit that target in this context.

(4) Proportionality and Harm Minimization

The narrative presents the extreme herem mode as proportionate to the perceived severity of the basis—Amalek's foundational, treacherous opposition to God's people at a moment of extreme vulnerability, interpreted as hostility to God's redemptive plan itself. In this specific command, harm minimization is explicitly overridden by the nature of the herem mode; hitting the target of total judgment and devotion to God takes precedence over sparing value or life. 

Again, Swinburne's GBCs and Adams's framework suggest God ensures overall positive value within His ultimate plan, justifying even such severe intermediate modes if deemed necessary for the telos, with justice potentially fulfilled and meaning ultimately restored beyond the immediate event. Saul's failure demonstrates a misunderstanding of the divinely determined proportionality required to hit God's specific target in this instance.

(5) Redemptive Purpose Alignment

Hitting the target of executing judgment on Amalek via the herem mode serves the broader telos by establishing boundaries against forces persistently opposing God's redemptive plan and reinforcing the necessity of complete obedience for the covenant people and their king. Saul's failure tragically underscores the importance of aligning with God's specified target and mode over human rationalizations or ritual substitutions (Stump's pedagogical point about learning what doesn't work). 

While the herem mode itself is highly context-specific (likely involving Swinburne's accommodation principle), the underlying principle of aligning human action with divinely revealed targets remains crucial. Adams's framework incorporates this difficult event into the long history leading to Christ, who fulfills the target of ultimately defeating evil, but through the radically different mode of self-sacrifice.

Summary of Findings

Analyzing these conquest narratives through the comprehensive lens of Covenant Virtue Ethics consistently yields interpretations that differ significantly from simplistic endorsements or dismissals. CVE does not interpret these texts as commands for ethnic cleansing or as timeless precedents for violence. Instead, it understands them as unique, context-specific acts primarily framed as divine judgment operating within a particular covenantal framework established by God.

Several key findings emerge consistently: 

1. The context (field) of each command is crucial and non-repeatable, involving specific covenantal relationships, historical moments, and divine prerogatives grounded in Murphy's size-gap and dikaiological distinctions, preventing universal application. 
2. The stated basis for divine action is consistently theological – judgment against specific, pervasive, morally condemned practices (like those in Lev 18/20) viewed as threatening the covenant telos, rather than targeting groups based solely on ethnicity. 
3. God's intended target is always understood as intrinsically good (e.g., executing justice, preserving covenant fidelity, purging lethal corruption), consistent with His perfect holiness (Murphy), which precludes intending evil.
4. The commanded mode (e.g., herem, destruction language) requires careful interpretation using Swinburne's hermeneutics, acknowledging potential Ancient Near Eastern literary conventions like hyperbole and focusing on the theological purpose (signifying total judgment or devotion) rather than assuming exhaustive literal execution in every detail. 
5. Divine Justice and Faithfulness are often the context-weighted attributes driving these actions, but Mercy remains operative, visible in God's prior patience, the potential for accommodation in the mode, and the sparing of individuals like Rahab based on their alignment with God's targets.
6. Ultimately, these difficult events are situated within God's long-term telos of people-formation (Stump) and horror-defeat through Christ (Adams). They represent challenging, historically conditioned episodes serving specific roles in redemptive history, employing accommodated modes that are decisively superseded by Christ's revelation of the ultimate divine target (reconciliation) and perfected mode (sacrificial love). 

Thus, CVE argues that these narratives, while demanding careful and theologically informed reading, can be understood as coherent, albeit often severe, expressions of God's complex character (Exodus 34) acting within specific, non-repeatable covenantal contexts to achieve His ultimate redemptive purposes.

CVE Analysis: Weaknesses in Rauser's Five Principles for Reading Scripture

Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE) identifies significant weaknesses in Randal Rauser's five principles for interpreting Scripture, particularly concerning the conquest narratives. From the CVE perspective, Rauser's principles, while aiming for moral coherence, ultimately lack the necessary theological depth and hermeneutical structure. 

This deficiency leads him to embrace a solution, Providential Errancy Theory (PET), which posits errors within Scripture itself, thereby undermining its integrity and authority—a conclusion CVE finds unnecessary and theologically problematic. CVE proposes an alternative path that upholds both God's perfection and Scripture's reliability through a more robust interpretive framework.

Principle 1 (A Perfect God is Morally Perfect)

CVE wholeheartedly affirms God's perfection as its foundation, agreeing that a perfect God cannot command an intrinsic moral atrocity. However, CVE critiques Rauser's application of this principle as overly narrow and potentially shaped by anthropocentric assumptions. His focus on select divine attributes risks overlooking the richer, complex portrait of God's character revealed in Exodus 34:6-7, which CVE takes as central. 

As Lynch highlights, this passage reveals a God who is simultaneously Merciful, Gracious, Loving, and Faithful, yet also Just and Holy. CVE understands divine perfection not merely as conforming to a human intuition of niceness, but as God flawlessly "hitting the target" (in Swanton's terms) appropriate to His full character in response to the specific basis within a given covenantal field. Sometimes, hitting the target of Justice against an extreme basis (like systemic, destructive wickedness threatening the covenant telos) within a specific historical field might require a severe mode of action. Such an action, from CVE's perspective, is not a contradiction of perfection but a contextual expression of God's multifaceted holiness and faithfulness, serving the ultimate telos of Holy Love. 

Rauser's appeal to middle knowledge doesn't fully engage this dynamic character expression. In contrast, CVE's use of Murphy's concepts—the "metaphysical size-gap" separating divine and human natures, and God's operation within distinct "dikaiological orders"—provides a more robust theological framework for understanding God's unique status, moral prerogatives, and authority as Creator and Judge. These concepts explain why God might justly command actions that humans cannot initiate. 

Consequently, Rauser's proposed trilemma (textual error, interpretation error, or moral understanding error) is considered a false one. CVE offers a fourth option 

(d): a sophisticated interpretation focusing on discerning the unique divine target, the specific basis, the covenantal field, the commanded mode (interpreted contextually using appropriate hermeneutics), and the ultimate telos, thereby demonstrating the coherence of God's character and commands without resorting to positing textual error.

Principle 2 (Scripture Has Two Authors, Divine and Human)

CVE finds Rauser's sharp division between the human author's intent (allegedly flawed literal sense in conquest texts) and the divine author's intent (a separate, often contradictory, plenary sense) problematic. This creates an unnecessary dichotomy that risks undermining the doctrine of inspiration and making the discernment of divine meaning overly subjective. 

CVE, integrating Swinburne's hermeneutics, prefers understanding Scripture through multiple complementary levels of meaning – historical, canonical, and theological/divine intention. These layers work together to reveal different facets of God's intended targets and overarching telos, without necessarily positing a conflict between divine and human authorship resulting in "human errors" providentially included. Apparent discrepancies or morally challenging commands are better understood through Swinburne's Principle of Accommodation: God fits His revelation, including the clarity of expressed targets and the nature of commanded modes, to the human audience's capacity and the specific historical field. This allows for development and context-specificity without attributing falsehood to the divinely inspired text. 

Rauser appears to apply his two-author distinction selectively, lacking clear, consistent criteria for determining when the literal sense reflects error versus divine intent. CVE's structured analysis of Field, Basis, Mode, Target, and Telos provides more consistent, textually grounded hermeneutical control, guiding the interpreter to understand the text's meaning within its specific covenantal and redemptive-historical context.

Principle 3 (The Canon Provides Interpretive Context)

CVE agrees that the canon is essential but finds Rauser's application underdeveloped and overly reliant on subjective moral intuition. His lack of clear principles for identifying specific "control texts" risks arbitrary selection and potential circularity, where intuition selects passages that merely confirm pre-existing moral sensibilities. 

CVE offers a more structured approach, grounding canonical coherence in the unified divine character revealed primarily in the pivotal Exodus 34 passage, which CVE considers the foundational "control text" defining the ultimate targets of virtue (Mercy, Justice, Faithfulness, etc.). Interpretation then proceeds by understanding how various parts of the canon depict God (or humans acting under God's command) hitting these fundamental targets through different modes appropriate to diverse covenantal fields and historical stages of people-formation. 

Rauser's approach, by positing error in difficult texts, struggles to explain their positive contribution to the canon. CVE, incorporating Stump's insights on people-formation and divine pedagogy, interprets these challenging texts (like the conquest narratives) as potentially illustrating the severe consequences of missing crucial divine targets, demonstrating the difficult modes sometimes deemed necessary by God to hit vital intermediate targets (such as covenant preservation against an extreme basis), or serving as part of God's long-term pedagogical strategy of showing what doesn't work to bring about shalom, thus preparing the way for Christ.

Principle 4 (Jesus is the Definitive Revelation)

CVE affirms Christ's centrality but critiques Rauser's framing, which risks creating a false dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus, bordering on Marcionism, and inviting anachronism. 

CVE employs a model of progressive revelation integrated with Christological fulfillment. Jesus, as the ultimate revelation of God (the Word made flesh), definitively clarifies the ultimate divine targets (reconciliation, establishment of the Kingdom of God centered on love) and perfects the normative mode of divine action (self-sacrificial love, enemy love) particularly for the New Covenant field. 

However, CVE insists that Jesus reveals the same complex God described in Exodus 34. He fulfills, rather than negates, the Law and the Prophets, including their testimony to God's Justice, Holiness, and Faithfulness alongside His Mercy. Jesus' own actions and teachings demonstrate Him hitting the targets of both Mercy (healing, forgiving) and Justice (cleansing the Temple, pronouncing woes). 

CVE avoids Rauser's potential hermeneutical circle by grounding interpretation in the full character of God revealed across both testaments, understanding Christ as the perfect embodiment and culmination of that character. Christ provides the ultimate interpretive lens, clarifying the priority of certain targets and the definitive mode for the new era, but He doesn't erase the complexity of the divine character consistently revealed throughout Scripture.

Principle 5 (God is Love)

CVE critiques Rauser's application as potentially reductionistic. By filtering the concept of divine Love heavily through contemporary Western sensibilities, his approach struggles to reconcile God's love with acts of judgment or commands involving severity.

CVE understands divine Love not as a single, simple attribute but as encompassing the entire spectrum of God's perfect character revealed in Exodus 34. Within CVE's framework, actions aimed at hitting Justice's target against a basis of profound evil that threatens the covenant community and God's redemptive purposes can be understood as expressions of God's faithful Love (Hesed) for His people and His commitment to ultimate shalom, even if the mode employed is severe. 

Rauser's suggestion that interpretive truth can be gauged by pragmatic outcomes (whether an interpretation leads to oppression) is rejected by CVE, which grounds interpretive truth in its correspondence to God's revealed character and intended targets within the text's context. Applying contemporary standards univocally to ancient texts ignores the crucial roles of historical context and divine accommodation, through which the mode used to hit Love's targets might legitimately differ across redemptive history.

CVE thus rejects the false dichotomy often drawn between divine love and divine judgment, seeing both as potential, context-dependent expressions of God's multifaceted character aimed at specific, good targets within the covenantal framework.

CVE’s Alternative Approach

CVE provides a more robust framework than Rauser's principles lead to. While Randal Rauser's five principles are motivated by a commendable desire for moral coherence, their application relies too heavily on subjective intuition and employs an insufficiently robust theological and hermeneutical framework, leading unnecessarily to PET's conclusion of textual error. 

CVE provides a more coherent and theologically sound path. It preserves both God's perfect, multifaceted goodness and Scripture's integrity by offering structured, textually grounded principles for interpreting even the most challenging passages. This is achieved through a deep analysis of divine character, covenant context, and the specific field, basis, mode, target, and telos of God's actions within the unfolding drama of redemptive history, culminating in Christ.

Covenant Virtue Ethics' Critique of Views on Biblical Violence

Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE) offers a distinctive and robust approach to the complex issue of biblical violence. This framework provides a unique lens through which to evaluate other common approaches, revealing their respective strengths and, more significantly, their weaknesses.

CVE's Critique of "Genocide Apologists"

CVE critiques the "genocide apologist" position as theologically unbalanced and hermeneutically simplistic. While correctly affirming the reality of divine Justice as revealed in Scripture, this approach often isolates Justice from the broader tapestry of God's character presented in Exodus 34. It frequently fails to maintain the essential creative tension between Justice and God's primary attributes of Mercy, Grace, and Steadfast Love (Hesed), which Lynch emphasizes as central. 

CVE insists that even when contextual reasons heavily weight Justice's target, the chosen mode must still cohere with God's entire character, especially His foundational love and mercy. 

Apologist arguments often neglect the crucial intention/foresight distinction rigorously developed by Murphy and integrated into CVE via DDE. By potentially misidentifying God's primary intended target (which CVE, grounded in Murphy's concept of divine holiness, argues cannot be evil itself), they may wrongly attribute direct divine intent to the devastating consequences that are better understood as foreseen effects of a necessary judgment mode. 

Furthermore, their frequent reliance on overly literal interpretations of the commanded mode ignores the need for sophisticated hermeneutics, such as Swinburne's recognition of multiple levels of meaning and sensitivity to genre conventions like Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. This literalism also often misses the developmental perspective offered by Stump's people-formation framework, which situates these difficult events within a long-term pedagogical telos. 

While CVE avoids dismissing the reality of divine judgment, it insists that understanding divine action requires engaging the full, complex divine character within its specific covenantal field and acknowledging the specific basis that necessitates God hitting certain difficult targets through contextually appropriate, though sometimes severe, modes.

CVE's Critique of "Just War Interpreters"

While CVE acknowledges that Just War theory provides valuable ethical constraints and categories for human conflict, it finds the framework insufficient when applied directly to the unique instances of divinely commanded violence in the Old Testament. 

Just War theory primarily operates within the field of human-to-human conflict and political authority, largely outside the specific covenantal field that frames these biblical narratives. It lacks CVE's detailed analytical tools derived from divine self-revelation, particularly the analysis of God's specific character attributes (Exodus 34) as defining the divine targets being pursued (beyond general categories like 'just cause' or 'legitimate authority'). 

Crucially, Just War theory cannot fully integrate Murphy's concepts of differing dikaiological orders or the metaphysical size-gap, which are essential within CVE for understanding God's unique sovereign authority to command specific modes of judgment that humans could not rightfully initiate. 

Although Just War approaches may acknowledge literary features, they often lack Swinburne's robust multi-layered hermeneutic needed to grasp the deeper theological targets embedded within the narrative beyond the immediate military mode described.

Like the apologists, they may inadequately apply the intention/foresight distinction (DDE) to divine actions. Furthermore, typical Just War frameworks lack the deep Christological integration provided by Adams's horror-defeat perspective, failing to fully situate these troubling historical events within the ultimate redemptive telos where Christ's work transforms the understanding of divine victory, justice, and the overcoming of evil.

CVE's Critique of "Spiritualizers"

CVE appreciates the Spiritualizers' intuition that these texts convey deeper theological meanings beyond the surface narrative. However, it critiques approaches that create a false dichotomy between the historical event and its symbolic meaning, or those that effectively minimize or deny the historical reality referenced in the text. Following Swinburne's principle of multiple complementary levels of meaning, CVE affirms that historical events (representing the mode occurring within a specific field and responding to a specific basis) can indeed serve profound theological targets without necessitating a reduction of the event to "mere fiction" or allegory devoid of historical grounding. 

CVE seeks to maintain the historical dimension while interpreting its significance within the covenant context and the broader redemptive narrative. Simply spiritualizing, however, often fails to adequately address the textual claim that these specific, often harsh, historical modes were commanded or enacted, and why they might have been textually represented as necessary to hit particular divine targets (such as judgment on the specified basis) at that particular stage of Stump's people-formation process.

Excessive allegorization risks detaching the text's theological meaning from the concrete realities of covenant life where divine targets were pursued through specific actions. CVE, therefore, advocates for Swinburne's more balanced approach, recognizing multiple interpretive levels where historical events (understood via context and accommodation) serve deeper theological understanding oriented toward the ultimate telos.

CVE's General Critique of Rauser's Providential Errancy Theory (PET)

CVE offers a fundamental and substantial critique of Randal Rauser's Providential Errancy Theory (PET). PET's core claim—that God inspired biblical texts which contain fundamental errors about His own character and commands (specifically, that God commanded atrocities He did not actually command)—is seen by CVE as fatally undermining Scripture's integrity, trustworthiness, and functional authority as divine revelation. 

This approach raises insoluble theological problems concerning divine truthfulness and wisdom: why would a perfectly good and truthful God providentially inspire the inclusion of profound falsehoods about His own moral nature and will, especially on matters of such gravity? 

PET presents a false dichotomy: either accept the text as endorsing atrocities or declare the text errant regarding God's commands. CVE argues it offers a viable third way (option 'd' in analysis of the dilemma): a sophisticated, theologically grounded interpretation that upholds both divine goodness and textual integrity.

CVE contends that PET wrongly privileges contemporary, often unexamined, moral intuition over structured theological interpretation and careful hermeneutics. PET fails to engage adequately with the resources integrated within CVE, such as Murphy's concepts of the size-gap and differing dikaiological orders (which explain divine prerogative and authority), Swinburne's robust hermeneutics (essential for understanding genre, hyperbole, accommodation regarding the described mode), Stump's developmental framework (situating events within the long-term telos), Adams's Christology (providing the ultimate framework for integrating historical horror), and the detailed TCVE analysis of Field, Basis, Target, and Mode. 

Lacking these tools, PET struggles to explain why God, consistent with His perfect character, might have commanded severe modes to hit necessary divine targets given the specific historical basis and covenantal field, resorting instead to the drastic claim of textual error. This ultimately makes interpretation more subjective, lacking clear, theologically grounded criteria for identifying supposed errors beyond personal moral offense or intuitive dissonance. 

Finally, PET risks creating an unnecessary and potentially damaging conflict between the character of God revealed in the Old Testament and the revelation in Christ, whereas CVE integrates them coherently through a model of progressive revelation and fulfillment, understanding Christ as the culmination and perfect expression of the same complex divine character revealed in Exodus 34.

Where Does CVE Fall as a View?

Covenant Virtue Ethics represents a distinct theological and ethical position that can be described as a "Covenantal Integrationist" approach. Its uniqueness lies in its methodology of synthesizing multiple, powerful streams of thought into a coherent framework centered on God's revealed character within covenant. 

Its core is Virtue Ethics, specifically employing Swanton's TCVE (Field, Basis, Mode, Target) as the analytical engine for understanding divine character and action. This core is then deeply integrated with philosophical and theological resources from thinkers like Murphy (holiness, divine intention, dikaiological orders), Swinburne (hermeneutics, accommodation, benefactor ethics), Adams (horror-defeat Christology), and Stump (people-formation, divine pedagogy, telos). 

CVE maintains a balanced view of God's character, holding all the Exodus 34 attributes in creative tension and using context-weighted reasons to explain their varied expressions through specific targets and modes. It employs sophisticated hermeneutics, recognizing multiple levels of meaning, genre conventions, and divine accommodation, thereby preserving the historical grounding of texts while discerning deeper theological targets and the ultimate telos. Its moral analysis is nuanced, carefully utilizing the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) to distinguish intended divine targets from foreseen consequences of modes. It embraces a developmental perspective on redemptive history, integrating historical events within Stump's framework of people-formation leading towards the ultimate telos. 

Crucially, CVE preserves textual integrity, offering a way to understand even the most difficult passages without resorting to theories of errancy like PET. Finally, it incorporates a robust Christological fulfillment perspective (drawing on Adams), integrating Old Testament narratives within a framework that finds its ultimate resolution and clarification in the person and work of Christ.

Is CVE Something New?

Yes, Covenant Virtue Ethics represents a genuinely new synthesis and contribution to theological ethics. While it draws upon established traditions (virtue ethics, covenant theology, Patristic interpretation) and contemporary thinkers, its distinctiveness lies in the specific method and structure of integration. 

This integrated structure allows CVE to address the core tension between divine goodness and biblical violence in a distinctive way—by focusing on a nuanced reinterpretation of the nature and context of the commanded action (analyzing target, mode, basis, field, telos) through its comprehensive framework. This allows it to preserve both divine perfection and textual integrity, offering an alternative to views that compromise one or the other (like PET or some Apologist positions). 

Furthermore, unlike purely theoretical approaches, CVE offers a structured, practical decision procedure that integrates these complex elements, providing a methodology for interpretation and ethical reasoning applicable to challenging texts and moral dilemmas. 

In conclusion, CVE, understood as a target-centered, covenantal, integrationist view, offers a significant advance, providing a comprehensive theological framework, a sophisticated hermeneutical method, and a nuanced moral analysis grounded in the multifaceted revealed character of God acting purposefully within covenant history.

CVE's Response to Rauser's Four Arguments

Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE) engages directly with Randal Rauser's arguments concerning divinely commanded violence. CVE affirms Rauser's conclusion derived from God's perfection (his C7: Yahweh did not order genocide-as-atrocity, supported by P1, P2, P4, P5, C6). However, CVE fundamentally diverges from Rauser's Providential Errancy Theory (PET) regarding how to resolve the apparent contradiction between this conclusion and the textual claim that seems to support P3 (Yahweh ordered genocide).

Where PET resolves the tension by positing textual error regarding God's commands (Rauser's option 'a'), CVE offers a different path (option 'd'). It argues that P3, as interpreted by Rauser to mean God commanded genocide-as-modern-atrocity, is false.

CVE contends that the actual divine command, when properly contextualized by its unique covenantal field, theological basis, commanded mode (interpreted hermeneutically), divine target, and ultimate redemptive telos, was not "genocide" in the sense P4 rightly condemns as always atrocious.

Response to Argument 1: Bludgeoned Babies

Rauser’s first argument hinges on the power of moral intuition, specifically the Never Ever Bludgeon Babies (NEBB) principle, that killing babies is always a horrific moral atrocity (P4). He argues this intuitive certainty means a perfect God (P1, P2) could never command such an act (P5, C6), thus forcing the rejection of texts claiming He did (P3). Contextual defenses, he suggests, become hypocritical special pleading. 

CVE acknowledges the powerful resonance of the NEBB principle, affirming the profound evil of harming innocents and aligning with the sentiment behind P4. However, CVE challenges the epistemological weight Rauser gives this intuition, questioning its deployment as an absolute, context-transcendent veto over specific divine commands recorded in Scripture. 

While human intuition is valuable as part of the Imago Dei, CVE recognizes its fallibility, its shaping by cultural context, and its susceptibility to sin's noetic effects. Intuition requires calibration by divine revelation and structured theological reason, such as that provided by the CVE decision procedure, which demands careful analysis of the specific Field, Basis, Target, Mode, and Telos of an action. 

Intuition is particularly prone to error when evaluating God's actions, which occur within unique redemptive-historical fields and are grounded in sovereign prerogatives stemming from His unique status as Creator and Judge—concepts captured in Murphy's "metaphysical size-gap" and distinct "dikaiological orders." God's perfect knowledge of the basis for judgment (e.g., the depth and consequence of systemic wickedness) and the necessities of His ultimate telos may lead Him to command a specific mode aimed at a necessary divine target for reasons that transcend our immediate intuitive grasp.

Rauser's analogy to the certainty of logical truths fails because moral judgments, unlike logic, are deeply contextual. 

Furthermore, CVE insists on interpreting the commanded mode critically, employing Swinburne's multi-layered hermeneutic to assess genre and rhetoric. Is the phrase "bludgeoning babies" intended as literal, exhaustive instruction, or as part of the conventional Ancient Near Eastern hyperbolic rhetoric signifying the target of total and irreversible judgment? 

Comparing these ancient commands to modern atrocities like the Rwandan genocide ignores the distinct theological basis claimed in the text (divine judgment on specific, condemned practices threatening the covenant telos) versus modern ethnic hatred. Adams's horror-defeat framework integrates the undeniable horror of such events by situating them within God's ultimate redemptive plan, where Christ's solidarity transforms suffering's meaning. 

Swinburne's Good Benefactor Conditions further suggest God ensures overall positive life value for all individuals within His plan, maintaining His goodness even amidst historically necessary, tragic modes. 

Therefore, CVE resolves the dilemma by upholding God's perfection (P1, P2, P5, C6) and the conclusion that God did not command an atrocity (C7), agreeing with the moral sentiment of P4. It resolves the contradiction with the textual claim (P3) by refuting Rauser's interpretation of it. 

The actual divine command, analyzed through CVE's full framework (considering divine authority, the specific field of corporate judgment, the probable hyperbolic nature of the described mode, the specific divine target of judgment on an irredeemable basis, and the ultimate redemptive telos integrating horror-defeat and benefactor ethics), was not the intrinsic moral atrocity that P4 rightly condemns. C7 holds true via sophisticated interpretation (d), preserving both divine goodness and textual integrity—a solution CVE deems theologically superior to PET's claim of textual errancy (a).

Response to Argument 2: Calley's Corruption (Perpetrator Harm)

Rauser's second argument posits that participating in genocide inevitably corrupts the perpetrators, making it intrinsically immoral (part of P4's definition of atrocity). Therefore, a perfect God could never issue such corrupting commands (P5), meaning the texts claiming He did (P3) must be false. 

CVE acknowledges the validity of the concern for perpetrator corruption. Engaging in brutality undoubtedly carries significant moral and psychological risks. However, applying this concern directly to the Israelite soldiers in the conquest narratives requires the nuance provided by the CVE framework, which highlights crucial differentiating factors. 

The psychological and moral impact of enacting a severe mode of action is profoundly shaped by the perceived authority commanding it (here, the Divine Commander operating from a unique dikaiological order, per Murphy), the understood basis for the action (executing righteous divine judgment against specific, condemned evils, not personal hatred), the intended divine target (achieving covenant faithfulness, establishing God's purposes for the telos), and the specific covenantal field. 

This constellation of factors differentiates the situation fundamentally from modern contexts like the My Lai massacre, where soldiers acted under flawed human command against civilian populations without a clear, overriding divine mandate or theological basis. 

More crucially, CVE challenges the literalist interpretation of the commanded mode that fuels this objection. Utilizing Swinburne's hermeneutics (awareness of genre, multiple levels of meaning, potential hyperbole) and considering textual and archaeological evidence, CVE suggests the descriptions of destruction might function more as theological narrative signifying the completeness of the judgment target rather than as a precise record of universal participation in intimate brutality by every Israelite soldier. 

If the command primarily involved targeted judgment by specific forces, ritual action (herem as devotion of spoils/people to God, signifying removal from profane use), or used hyperbolic language common in ANE conquest accounts, then the premise of inevitable, widespread moral corruption dissolves. 

Integrating Stump's perspective on people-formation, God's pedagogical target within the long-term telos might involve allowing His people to confront the harsh realities of judgment against systemic evil (even if described hyperbolically) to teach essential, difficult lessons about covenant consequences and divine holiness, without God intending the corruption of the agents as His primary goal. Indeed, as Stump notes in her medical analogy, inflicting suffering out of profound care for ultimate well-being can even be seen as potentially "ennobling," not inherently corrupting, when understood within the right framework. 

Therefore, CVE resolves the dilemma by upholding God's perfection (P1, P2, P5, C6) and agreeing that commanding intrinsically corrupting acts would be wrong (P4's concern). It resolves the contradiction by challenging Rauser's interpretation of P3. By arguing that the commanded mode, properly understood through contextual hermeneutics, likely did not involve universal participation in intrinsically corrupting acts as Rauser assumes, CVE demonstrates that God did not command what P5 forbids. CVE employs interpretive refinement (d) regarding the mode, preserving the text (rejecting errancy option 'a') while affirming God's unwavering goodness.

Response to Argument 3: Rationalizing Genocide

Rauser's third argument contends that defending the conquest commands inevitably violates moral universality, requiring the kind of special pleading that mirrors modern genocidal rhetoric ("divide, demonize, destroy"), thus proving that the commands in P3 describe an atrocity (P4) that a perfect God (P5) would not issue. 

CVE vigorously affirms the universality of God's perfect moral character – the attributes revealed in Exodus 34 represent objective, universal standards of goodness. However, CVE argues that universality of divine character does not necessitate uniformity of divine action (or commanded mode) across radically different contexts (fields) and divine roles (Creator/Sovereign Judge versus creature). 

Applying moral universality correctly requires acknowledging God's unique ontological and moral status, as explained by Murphy's concepts of the "metaphysical size-gap" and distinct "dikaiological orders." God acting in His specific role as Sovereign Judge within the unique covenantal field of establishing His redemptive plan, responding to a specific, intractable basis (persistent, abhorrent wickedness like child sacrifice, explicitly condemned in texts like Leviticus 18/20, not ethnicity), to achieve a necessary divine target (preserving the covenant people and the possibility of the ultimate telos), operates under different constraints and possesses different prerogatives than those governing human interactions. 

Recognizing this distinction is not arbitrary special pleading. It is essential theological and historical precision required to avoid anachronism and category errors. CVE fundamentally rejects Rauser's application of the "divide, demonize, destroy" caricature to the biblical commands. The division (mode) mandated was based on allegiance to Yahweh and rejection of condemned practices (basis), explicitly not ethnicity, as proven by the inclusion of figures like Rahab or the Gibeonites who aligned with God's purposes. 

The 'demonization' was a theological condemnation of specific, intrinsically evil practices detailed in the text (the basis for judgment), not a racialized othering characteristic of modern genocide. 

The 'destruction' (mode, which requires careful interpretation regarding hyperbole and scope) was aimed at the target of executing divine judgment and removing an existential spiritual threat to God's redemptive plan, a theological goal distinct from the target of ethnic annihilation central to modern genocide. 

Condemning Canaanite practices like child sacrifice while simultaneously commanding divine judgment upon those practices is not hypocrisy; it reflects God's consistent opposition to unsanctioned killing and intrinsically evil acts (basis) alongside His sovereign right as Judge to enact justice (target/mode) when deemed necessary for His ultimate purposes. 

Therefore, CVE resolves the dilemma by upholding God's perfection (P1, P2, P5, C6), affirming the atrocity of modern ethnic genocide (P4), and concluding God did not command such an atrocity (C7). It resolves the P3/C7 conflict by demonstrating through detailed analysis of the specific theological basis, divine target, covenantal field, and God's unique authority that the commands described in P3, properly understood within their unique context, represent a specific act of divine judgment theologically distinct from the universal moral atrocity P4 rightly condemns. CVE employs sophisticated interpretation (d) to uphold C7 without resorting to PET's textual errancy (a).

Response to Argument 4: The Cost of Genocide

Rauser's fourth argument appeals to the undeniable historical misuse of the conquest narratives to justify later atrocities, suggesting this tragic legacy provides pragmatic grounds to reject the divine origin of these commands (P3). He implies PET's solution (declaring the texts errant about the commands) is safer because it removes the problematic divine endorsement. 

CVE shares Rauser's deep concern over the horrific misuse of these texts and affirms the theological responsibility to actively oppose such misinterpretations. However, CVE argues that PET's proposed solution (option 'a' - textual error) is both theologically perilous and practically ineffective as a safeguard. Declaring Scripture errant regarding specific divine commands fundamentally undermines its overall authority and trustworthiness, leaving no authoritative basis within Scripture itself to correct any interpretation, including the very misuses Rauser rightly decries. 

Paradoxically, PET makes Scripture less safe by weakening its power to normatively guide the community of faith. 

CVE contends that the most effective and theologically sound safeguard against misuse is not textual excision or declaration of error, but rather robust, faithful, and authoritative interpretation (option 'd'). By meticulously analyzing the unique, non-repeatable covenantal field, the specific historical basis for judgment, the limited divine target, the likely non-literal/hyperbolic nature of the commanded mode, and the overarching redemptive telos, CVE demonstrates conclusively from the text itself why these commands are historically specific and non-transferable. This provides zero justification for later violence committed in different contexts for different reasons. 

The CVE decision procedure offers explicit steps for this rigorous contextual analysis precisely to prevent facile and dangerous misapplication. Crucially, CVE's Christological integration is paramount here. As argued within the frameworks of Adams and CVE's understanding of progressive revelation, Christ's life, death, resurrection, and teachings reveal the definitive New Covenant mode (sacrificial love, enemy love, peacemaking) and clarify the ultimate divine target (universal reconciliation, the Kingdom of God). This fulfillment decisively supersedes the Old Covenant conquest mode, rendering it non-normative for believers. 

CVE equips the Church to teach authoritatively against misuse by grounding its critique in both careful exegesis of the original command's specific target/mode within its unique context and the clear fulfillment and transformation brought by Christ. 

Therefore, CVE strongly affirms the moral imperative underlying P4 (preventing atrocities) and C6/C7 (a perfect God wouldn't command them). It argues the best way to honor this imperative practically is through CVE's interpretive solution (d), which faithfully interprets the text within its context and the full scope of revelation, rather than PET's solution (a), which undermines Scripture's ability to guide. 

CVE upholds God's perfection (P1, P2, P5) and C6/C7 by showing that P3, properly interpreted within the full arc of redemptive history culminating in Christ, does not license atrocities today. It thus preserves both God's goodness and the Scriptural authority needed to effectively guide believers away from historical misuse and towards Christ's radically different way.

Summary

In addressing Randal Rauser's four arguments, Covenant Virtue Ethics demonstrates its capacity to engage seriously with profound moral objections to biblical violence while maintaining both the perfection of God's character and the integrity of Scripture. CVE affirms Rauser's conclusion that Yahweh did not command genocide understood as a timeless moral atrocity (C7). However, it fundamentally rejects his path to that conclusion via Providential Errancy Theory (PET), which necessitates declaring Scripture errant regarding divine commands (rejecting P3 via option 'a'). 

Instead, CVE offers a robust interpretive alternative (option 'd'), arguing that Rauser's interpretation of P3 is flawed due to insufficient theological and hermeneutical nuance. By analyzing the commands through the fully integrated CVE lens—considering God's multifaceted character (Exodus 34), the unique covenantal context (Field), the specific theological reasons (Basis), the intended divine aims (Target), the interpreted nature of the action (Mode), and the ultimate redemptive purpose (Telos), utilizing insights from TCVE, Murphy, Swinburne, Adams, and Stump—CVE contends that the actions commanded, properly understood, are theologically distinct from the modern concept of genocide-as-atrocity. 

They represent unique, context-specific acts of divine judgment, enacted under divine authority, within a specific stage of redemptive history, employing accommodated modes directed toward necessary divine targets. This sophisticated interpretive approach preserves both God's perfect goodness and the reliability of Scripture, offering what CVE proponents consider a more coherent, theologically sound, and ultimately faithful path forward than PET.

Possible Objections and CVE’s Replies

Despite the comprehensive nature of Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE), certain powerful objections inevitably arise, particularly concerning the conquest narratives. CVE's integrated framework, however, provides resources for nuanced responses that aim to preserve both divine goodness and scriptural integrity.

Objection 1: The UN Genocide Definition

An objector, perhaps echoing Randal Rauser, might press: Your CVE framework, even with its intricate TCVE additions about targets, modes, and basis, still ultimately describes actions that squarely fit the UN 1948 Convention definition of genocide.

Article II defines genocide as acts committed with 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.' These acts include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction. 

You claim the divine target wasn't ethnic destruction but judgment on religious practices (the basis). But this distinction is meaningless in the Ancient Near East where ethnicity, nationhood, and religion were inextricably linked. Targeting Canaanite religious identity was targeting the groups 'as such.' 

The commands, as written, express clear intent to destroy these groups in part (within the promised land) to prevent religious contamination. The specified mode—'leave nothing alive that breathes' (Deut 20:16)—directly constitutes 'killing members of the group.' Driving them out or destroying their means of life fits 'inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.' 

Your appeals to ANE hyperbole regarding the mode conveniently ignore the explicitly stated divine intent and target articulated in the commands themselves, which align precisely with the UN definition's criteria for genocidal intent against specific religious-national groups. CVE remains an elaborate justification for acts legally defined as genocide.

CVE's Response to Objection 1

This pressing challenge regarding the UN Convention's inclusion of 'religious group' and the crucial 'as such' qualifier deserves a precise response grounded in the full CVE framework. CVE readily acknowledges the profound intertwining of religion, ethnicity, and national identity in the Ancient Near East, and recognizes the severe impact of the commanded actions on the Canaanite peoples and their religious identity. However, CVE maintains that a critical distinction regarding the specified divine intent (the Target) and the stated justification (Basis), derived from a careful reading of the text within its theological and historical context (Field), prevents a simple equation of these commands with genocide under the UN definition's specific criteria.

The UN definition hinges critically on the specific intent – the intent to destroy the group as such, meaning because of its fundamental identity. CVE argues the textual evidence consistently points to a different divine intent (Target) and a different motivating Basis.

The explicit basis cited repeatedly in texts like Leviticus 18 and 20 is not Canaanite ethnicity or religious identity in itself, but the specific content and consequences of their widespread, systemic practices – including child sacrifice, abhorrent sexual rituals, and pervasive idolatry – practices deemed intrinsically evil and an existential threat to the covenant community and God's unfolding redemptive Telos. God's stated Target, therefore, was the eradication of these specific, destructive practices and their corrupting influence from the covenant Field (the Promised Land) to preserve the possibility of shalom and the vehicle of redemption. The condemnation attached to the practice, not the ethnicity, as Leviticus 20 makes clear that Israelites committing the same acts faced the same ultimate sanctions.

Furthermore, Murphy's concept of distinct dikaiological orders adds a crucial theological layer. God, operating from His unique position as Creator and Sovereign Judge, defined by the "metaphysical size-gap," relates to humanity through covenantal structures He establishes. Within this framework, His actions as Judge against what He deems systemic, foundational evil (the Basis) aimed at preserving the covenant (Target) cannot be simply reduced to or equated with human acts driven by ethnic hatred or religious animosity (targeting the group as such). Murphy's emphasis on God's holiness precludes Him intending evil as such; His Target must be understood as rooted in His perfect attributes, primarily Justice and Faithfulness in this context, aimed at preserving the greater good of the covenant Telos.

The textual exceptions, such as the sparing of Rahab and the Gibeonites, remain critical evidence against the charge of targeting the group as such. Their survival and incorporation were based on their demonstrated allegiance to Yahweh and alignment with His purposes, proving that faith and covenant alignment, not ethnicity, were the decisive factors. 

While the commanded Mode (destruction language) was severe, CVE argues, using Swinburne's hermeneutical principles, that it must be interpreted contextually, considering genre conventions like ANE hyperbole signifying the totality of judgment rather than necessarily literal, exhaustive killing. Therefore, CVE concludes that the specific intent required by the UN definition—destruction of the group because of its identity as such—does not align with the text's stated divine Basis and Target when analyzed through the comprehensive CVE framework.

Objection 2: Ethnic Cleansing

A further objector might concede the technical legal definition of genocide but argue: "Even if you contort definitions to evade the specific legal term 'genocide,' the actions commanded and justified by CVE undeniably constitute ethnic cleansing. This involves the forced removal or elimination of an unwanted ethnic or religious group from a specific territory to create ethnic homogeneity. 

Look at the commanded modes and intended targets: destroy the inhabitants of the land (Deut 7:2, 20:16-17), demolish their sacred sites (Deut 7:5), prohibit intermarriage and treaties (Deut 7:2-3), and possess their territory exclusively for Israel. This is a textbook description of ethnic cleansing. Your framework claims the target was 'covenant preservation' or 'judgment on wickedness' (the basis), not ethnicity itself. But the mode chosen to achieve this target was the violent removal and elimination of entire ethno-religious communities from their land. 

You focus on the 'why' (the alleged divine motive or target) while ignoring the 'what' (the horrifying nature of the commanded mode and its consequences). Claiming a noble target doesn't sanitize an atrocious mode. Whether motivated by ethnic hatred or perceived covenantal necessity, the commanded actions aim to violently 'cleanse' the land of its previous inhabitants for the benefit of another group. This is ethnic cleansing, and CVE's sophisticated distinctions are merely semantic games to obscure that reality.

CVE's Response to Objection 2

This objection rightly points out the stark descriptive overlap between the commanded actions in the conquest narratives and the modern concept of ethnic cleansing: dispossession, violence, destruction of cultural sites, and exclusive land possession are indeed common features. CVE acknowledges this descriptive resemblance and the horrific nature of the events described. However, CVE vehemently rejects equating the phenomena based solely on the description of the Mode while ignoring the unique theological Basis, divine Target, covenantal Field, and redemptive Telos presented explicitly and implicitly within the biblical narrative itself.

Modern ethnic cleansing typically targets demographic purity or ethno-national dominance as an end in itself (Target), often driven by racial hatred, nationalist ideology, or resource acquisition (Basis). 

CVE argues the conquest narratives paint a fundamentally different theological picture. The explicitly stated divine Target was the establishment of a unique covenant community, faithful to Yahweh, in a land promised centuries prior as part of God's redemptive plan. This required addressing the Basis: the pervasive, morally condemned practices (detailed in Lev 18/20) that actively threatened the viability of this covenant community and the ultimate Telos. The resulting land possession (Mode) is framed within the text not as ethnic expansionism for its own sake, but as the fulfillment of prior divine promises (Faithfulness's target) and the execution of divine Justice's target against incorrigible wickedness that had reached its culmination (Gen 15:16).

The accusation that CVE ignores the 'what' (the horrifying Mode) by focusing only on the 'why' (Target/Basis) is inaccurate. CVE directly engages the 'what' – the description of the commanded mode – through its integrated hermeneutical principles derived from Swinburne. This involves recognizing the potential for Ancient Near Eastern hyperbolic language and literary conventions which likely shape the description of the mode, signaling theological intent (like total judgment) rather than necessarily demanding a naively literal interpretation of every detail. 

Furthermore, CVE evaluates the morality of the commanded Mode (even if severe) not by modern standards alone, but considering the unique divine Authority (Murphy's size-gap/dikaiological orders), the extreme nature of the theological Basis being addressed (systemic evil threatening redemption), and its perceived necessity within that specific redemptive-historical Field for achieving the crucial divine Target.

The critical exceptions of Rahab and the Gibeonites remain fatal to the charge that the Target was ethnic cleansing aimed at homogeneity. If the goal was ethnic or religious purity as such, these Canaanite individuals and groups, regardless of their actions, would have been eliminated. Their incorporation into the covenant community based on their demonstrated allegiance to Yahweh and His purposes proves that covenant alignment, not ethnicity, was the decisive factor. 

Therefore, applying the modern socio-political category of 'ethnic cleansing' anachronistically flattens the text's unique theological claims about divine judgment, covenant fulfillment, the specific basis for action, and the intended divine target. The distinctions CVE makes, rooted in its integrated theological framework are not 'semantic games' but essential interpretive tools for accurately understanding these events on their own terms within the biblical narrative.

Objection 3: Targeting Innocents / NEBB revisited

Rauser might forcefully press this objection: Let's cut through the theological complexities of targets, modes, basis, and fields. The core moral horror, which CVE ultimately fails to address adequately, is the explicit divine command to target and kill innocent noncombatants – women, children, and infants (e.g., Deut 20:16-17, 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17). My NEBB principle stands: killing innocents, particularly children, is an intrinsic evil. It is a violation of a fundamental moral truth accessible through basic human intuition, reflecting the Image of God. 

Your framework appeals to divine authority, the 'size-gap,' context, or necessary modes to achieve a divine target. But these justifications crumble before the absolute prohibition against murdering the innocent. Even God cannot make what is intrinsically evil morally right or obligatory. Divine authority does not extend to commanding atrocities. Innocents, by definition, are not culpable for the alleged wickedness (basis) of their group, nor do they pose a direct threat. 

Therefore, any commanded mode that includes their intentional killing is definitionally disproportionate and unjust, regardless of the supposed divine target or telos. Any theological system, however sophisticated, that attempts to find loopholes or justifications for God commanding the slaughter of babies is morally bankrupt and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of goodness, love, and God Himself.

CVE's Response to Objection 3

This objection concerning the commanded killing of innocent noncombatants strikes at the very core of our shared moral sensibilities, and CVE approaches it with the utmost seriousness, acknowledging the profound horror such texts evoke. 

The NEBB principle resonates deeply with the value CVE places on reflecting God's character, particularly His Mercy and Justice. However, CVE maintains that resolving this agonizing issue requires engaging the full theological and interpretive framework it offers, rather than allowing even this powerful intuition to function as an absolute, context-independent veto over the possibility of such divine commands within their unique redemptive-historical setting.

First, CVE must reiterate the significance of divine Authority derived from God's unique status as Creator and Sovereign Judge, conceptualized through Murphy's "metaphysical size-gap" and distinct dikaiological orders. CVE does not claim that God makes what is intrinsically evil morally good. Rather, it questions whether our human understanding and application of terms like 'intrinsic evil' or 'murder' apply univocally and without remainder to God acting in His unique role within the specific Field of redemptive history. 

God's perfect knowledge of the Basis (the depth of systemic corruption, its future consequences, its entanglement of all members of the society) and the absolute necessities of His ultimate Telos (preserving the possibility of redemption for all humanity) might require Him, in exceedingly rare and specific circumstances, to command or permit actions (Modes) aimed at righteous Targets (like executing judgment on an irredeemably corrupt system or preserving the covenant lineage) that appear tragically unjust or disproportionate from our limited, creaturely perspective. His relationship to the moral order He created, and His responsibility for the overarching Telos, is necessarily different from ours.

Second, the Ancient Near Eastern context (Field) involving corporate identity and judgment is relevant, as difficult as it is for modern individualistic cultures to grasp. In that world, judgment upon a community or nation deemed systemically corrupt and hostile to divine purposes (the Basis) often encompassed all members, as the community was seen as an interconnected whole, responsible for its ingrained practices and future trajectory. The commanded Mode, tragically, addressed the corrupt corporate entity. This understanding, part of Swinburne's Principle of Accommodation, does not render the deaths of innocents 'good,' but frames them as devastating, inseparable consequences of divine judgment on a societal basis within the socio-moral understanding of that era.

Third, critical interpretation of the commanded Mode itself remains essential. Employing Swinburne's hermeneutics, CVE asks whether commands like 'leave nothing alive that breathes' represent literal, exhaustive instructions for every Israelite soldier regarding every single individual, or whether they function as hyperbolic rhetoric signifying the theological Target of total, irreversible judgment against the condemned Canaanite system and its capacity to spiritually destroy Israel and derail the Telos. Textual nuances (like exceptions) and archaeological evidence urge caution against the most brutal and comprehensive literal interpretation of the described mode.

Fourth, the distinction between the intended Target and the foreseen consequences of the Mode, central to DDE and grounded in Murphy's concept of divine holiness (God cannot intend evil), is theologically critical, however pastorally difficult. If the intended divine Target was righteous judgment against systemic evil or the preservation of the covenant people for the sake of the ultimate Telos, then the deaths of noncombatants, while undeniably horrific, might fall under the category of foreseen (and perhaps, in that specific context, deemed tragically unavoidable or proportionate) consequences of the necessary judgment Mode, rather than being the directly intended Target itself.

Finally, Adams's horror-defeat framework is indispensable here. It does not excuse or minimize the horror but provides the ultimate theological context for understanding it. It places these Old Testament events, which starkly display the devastating reality of sin and its consequences, within God's overarching plan where the ultimate divine Target is the comprehensive defeat of all evil and the redemption of all suffering. This is achieved through Christ's own participation (Mode) in the depths of human horror, including unjust suffering and death. Swinburne's Good Benefactor Conditions similarly point towards God's ultimate aim of ensuring a positive overall life value for every individual, integrating even profound suffering into a narrative that culminates in the good of eternal shalom.

Therefore, CVE is not morally bankrupt. Rather, it refuses simplistic answers to profoundly difficult questions. It employs its full integrated framework to engage seriously with both the claims of the biblical text and our deepest moral concerns, ultimately seeking to uphold the complex goodness of God revealed in Exodus 34 and the integrity of Scripture as divine revelation.

Objection 4: The Problem of Divine Character Attributes

A critic like Rauser might intensify the challenge regarding God's nature: CVE’s appeal to the Exodus 34 portrait doesn't achieve a 'creative tension' between divine attributes; it manufactures an irreconcilably contradictory deity simply to rationalize horror. 

You claim God’s perfection involves flawlessly hitting context-appropriate targets, but this merely provides theological cover, a blank check for divine atrocity. How can a God whose very essence is defined as Love (1 John 4:8) possibly have 'targets' that necessitate the commanded mode of slaughtering infants? This isn't theological complexity; it's depicting moral schizophrenia. 

You invoke 'Justice' and 'Holiness' as if they are separate, competing forces that can arbitrarily override Love, thereby constructing a moral monster from divine attributes selectively emphasized solely to justify the unjustifiable. The 'metaphysical size-gap' you borrow from Murphy becomes a convenient excuse for divine immorality, effectively suggesting God operates beyond the very moral laws He supposedly establishes.

Furthermore, Jesus, whom Scripture calls the perfect image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), revealed a character defined by self-giving, enemy-embracing love – a character utterly incompatible with the deity CVE seems to depict commanding Canaanite extermination. Your framework doesn't uphold Scripture; it twists Scripture to defend the indefensible, sacrificing God's coherent goodness on the altar of contrived theological abstraction and questionable hermeneutics.

CVE's Response to Objection 4

This powerful charge of divine incoherence stems, CVE contends, from a failure to grasp the unified nature of God's perfect character and the necessarily contextual expression of His attributes – a failure CVE's integrated framework is specifically designed to address. 

CVE wholeheartedly affirms that God is perfect Love (1 John 4:8), but insists this Love is inherently and simultaneously Holy, Just, Merciful, Faithful, and Gracious. The attributes revealed in Exodus 34 are not competing departments within God but interwoven facets of His single, perfect divine nature. 

As Lynch emphasizes, these attributes define God's identity. Drawing on Swanton's TCVE, CVE understands God's perfection in action as flawlessly hitting the right Target(s)—those aims appropriate to His full character—with the appropriate Mode(s) of responsiveness, always considering the specific covenantal Field and the concrete historical Basis for action.

Crucially, CVE argues that all specific divine Targets ultimately serve the overarching Telos of Holy Love, even when the Mode required to hit a necessary intermediate target in a fallen world appears severe from our limited perspective. When divine Justice's Target (for example, irrevocably arresting systemic, destructive evil like child sacrifice – the Basis – which threatens the covenant community serving as the conduit for the redemptive Telos) becomes paramount due to context-weighted reasons within a specific historical Field, the severe Mode required to hit that target is not an abandonment of Love. Rather, it can be understood as a necessary expression of Love in its fierce, protective aspect (love for the covenant people and the future blessing for all nations), its faithful aspect (upholding covenant integrity and promises), and its holy aspect (refusing to abide or ignore entrenched, destructive evil). 

Divine Mercy's Target isn't ignored or contradicted; as Lynch notes, it retains primacy in God's self-description and triumphs in the overarching plan (evidenced throughout Scripture and ultimately in Christ) and in specific instances within the narratives (like Rahab). However, Mercy's prominence doesn't negate the necessity of hitting Justice's target when the context (Basis and Field) demands it for the sake of the ultimate Telos.

Furthermore, CVE asserts that Jesus reveals this same complex God of Exodus 34. He perfectly embodies both radical compassion (hitting Mercy's Target) and fierce judgment against hypocrisy and injustice (hitting Justice's Target, e.g., Matthew 23). He fulfills, rather than abolishes or contradicts, the Law and the Prophets and the God they reveal.

Murphy's concepts of the "metaphysical size-gap" and distinct "dikaiological orders" are not invoked as excuses for divine immorality but as acknowledgments of ontological reality. God, as Creator and Sovereign Judge, possesses prerogatives, knowledge, and responsibilities that differ from ours, allowing Him to justly command Modes aimed at righteous Targets that might appear paradoxical or overly severe from our perspective but remain coherent within His perfect nature serving the ultimate redemptive Telos. 

To reduce God solely to gentle attributes risks creating a culturally conditioned idol, ignoring the consistent biblical witness to His awesome holiness and righteous justice as integral components of His perfect Love. CVE utilizes its full framework—analyzing Field, Basis, Target, Mode, and Telos—to uphold God's multifaceted, coherent goodness as revealed across Scripture, without twisting textual evidence or resorting to claims of divine contradiction.

Objection 5: Problematic Use of the Intention-Foresight Distinction (DDE)

The critic might continue: Applying the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) or any similar intention-foresight distinction to the conquest commands is not just philosophical 'sleight-of-hand'; it's a moral evasion that actively contradicts the explicit nature of the commands. The texts don't merely suggest that civilian deaths might unfortunately occur as collateral damage; they command a mode of action—'utterly destroy,' 'leave nothing alive that breathes'—whose direct, unavoidable, and arguably primary result, indeed its stated purpose in the context (removing the entire population to prevent religious influence), is the death of noncombatants, including innocents. You cannot plausibly separate the alleged intended target (like 'judgment' or 'covenant protection') from the commanded mode (total destruction including civilians) when the latter is presented textually as the required means to achieve the former. 

To claim God only 'foresaw' but didn't 'intend' these deaths, when He allegedly commanded the very action that guarantees them, is philosophical sophistry designed solely to absolve God of moral responsibility for the clear content of His supposed commands. Murphy's theological point about God being unable to intend evil is rendered irrelevant if God commands actions whose very nature appears intrinsically evil, such as the deliberate, commanded killing of children.

CVE's Response to Objection 5

This objection rightly demands rigorous scrutiny of divine intention, but CVE contends it misunderstands the application of DDE and related concepts (like Murphy's analysis of divine intention and holiness) within CVE's specific theological framework. 

CVE utilizes Murphy's insight regarding divine intention precisely because it stems foundationally from God's holiness: God, being perfectly good and separate from evil, cannot intend evil as such—either as His ultimate Target or as a Mode chosen because of its evil nature. Doing so would establish an intimate, unfitting relationship with evil itself, fundamentally contradicting His perfect character. Therefore, when Scripture attributes commands involving severe negative consequences to God, His intended Target must be sought in the goods that align with His character (e.g., enacting Justice against the identified Basis of wickedness, upholding Faithfulness to covenant promises, preserving the ultimate redemptive Telos).

The critical interpretive step, then, involves analyzing the commanded Mode. If, as Ancient Near Eastern literary conventions and contextual readings strongly suggest (drawing on Swinburne's hermeneutics), commands like 'utterly destroy' function as hyperbolic victory rhetoric signifying the theological Target of total political and religious supplanting, rather than demanding literal, exhaustive slaughter by every Israelite, then the actual commanded Mode differs significantly from the surface reading. 

In this interpretation, God's command aimed to hit the Target of complete judgment on the corrupt system (the identified Basis) using a Mode of decisive defeat, purification of the land from idolatrous practices, and establishment of covenant boundaries. In this scenario, noncombatant deaths, while tragic consequences of ancient warfare within that Field, were not the specifically intended divine Target nor the essential nature of the commanded Mode.

Even if a more literal interpretation of the commanded Mode is assumed for the sake of argument, the theological distinction between intention and foresight remains vital for maintaining God's holiness. God intends the good Target (e.g., Justice, Purification, Covenant Preservation). 

The DDE framework then helps analyze whether the evil involved in the required Mode constitutes the means by which the good Target is achieved, or if it is a foreseen consequence of the Mode itself. Given that God's holiness precludes Him from intending intrinsically evil means, if the severe mode (understood literally) was deemed tragically necessary, its justification must be understood through the extremity of the Basis, God's unique divine Authority (Murphy's size-gap), and the specific, unrepeatable demands of that redemptive-historical Field serving the ultimate Telos. 

This is not presented as a facile evasion, but as a necessary theological distinction, rooted in God's revealed character, required when interpreting divine commands that involve severe modes aimed at righteous targets within complex historical contexts. It maintains that God wills the good target, even if the only available or appropriate mode in that specific, fallen context tragically involves foreseen, devastating consequences.

Objection 6: The Problem of Progressive Revelation and Divine Accommodation

A critic might press further: The appeal to 'progressive revelation' and 'divine accommodation,' concepts borrowed from Swinburne and others, is perhaps CVE's most dangerous and ultimately self-defeating move. It effectively attributes morally abhorrent commands to God under the guise of divine pedagogy or contextual necessity. 

If, as CVE seems to concede, the mode commanded in the conquest (e.g., killing children) falls short of the 'perfectionist' ethical standard fully revealed in Christ, then you are admitting God commanded actions that are, by His own ultimate standards, morally deficient or suboptimal. Calling this 'permissively right' in context doesn't resolve the issue; it suggests God permits or even commands lesser evils. 

This makes God complicit in moral evil, adapting His commands not merely to limited human understanding but seemingly to sinful 'hardness of heart'—an example CVE itself sometimes uses regarding divorce! This creates an intolerable scenario where God, the ultimate source and standard of morality, appears to compromise His own perfect standards to meet humans where they are. Why wouldn't an omnipotent and perfectly good God simply reveal the higher, true standard from the beginning, as Jesus often did, directly challenging inadequate cultural norms rather than seemingly endorsing or commanding morally compromised modes of action?

CVE's Response to Objection 6

This critique raises vital questions about divine consistency and pedagogy, but CVE argues it misconstrues the nature and function of divine accommodation and progressive revelation within the framework. 

These concepts, as employed by Swinburne and integrated into CVE, do not imply that God commands intrinsic moral evil or that His essential moral character changes. Rather, they recognize that God, in His wisdom and love, reveals His unchanging character and perfect will through commanded Modes and revealed Targets that are appropriate to humanity's developing moral and spiritual capacity within specific historical and cultural Fields. God's ultimate moral Targets, grounded in His perfect Exodus 34 attributes, remain constant. However, the specific Modes permitted or commanded to hit those targets, or intermediate targets necessary for the Telos, are adapted or "accommodated" to human limitations (which constitute part of the Basis for God's pedagogical approach) and the challenging realities of a fallen world. This process guides humanity progressively towards the ideal fully revealed in Christ.

Jesus affirming Moses permitting divorce 'because of your hardness of heart' (Matthew 19:8) serves as a key paradigm, as Swinburne notes. God, through Moses, worked within the existing sinful limitations and cultural realities (the Field and Basis) by permitting a regulated form of divorce (an accommodated Mode) to mitigate worse evils, while simultaneously pointing back toward the original creation ideal (Target). 

Similarly, a command in the Old Testament might involve a Mode that is 'permissively right' – meaning it was the divinely authorized and perhaps, in that fallen context (Field/Basis), necessary way to hit a required intermediate divine Target (e.g., executing judgment, preserving the covenant people from spiritual annihilation) crucial for the ultimate Telos. Such a mode might fall short of the 'perfectionist' standard and Mode fully revealed and made possible in Christ (e.g., enemy love aimed at the Target of reconciliation) not because God lowered His essential moral standard or compromised His character, but because Christ's advent inaugurates a new covenant Field, provides new empowerment (the Holy Spirit), and fully unveils the ultimate divine Target and the supreme Mode for achieving it.

God's pedagogy, as Stump suggests in her people-formation framework, like any effective teaching, necessarily involves stages. Accommodation is not divine moral compromise; it is God's wise, patient, and redemptive engagement with flawed humanity throughout history, using contextually appropriate Modes to guide people toward the ultimate Target. An omnipotent God could theoretically impose the final standard immediately, but doing so might override human freedom and the developmental process necessary for genuine people-formation and willing participation in the covenant relationship, which is central to God's Telos. Accommodation respects human agency and historical reality while steadfastly moving towards the final goal revealed in Christ.

Objection 7: Covenant Hermeneutics and Scriptural Authority

An objector might challenge the methodology itself: CVE’s elaborate hermeneutical system—appealing to shifting covenant contexts, multiple meanings, patristic allegory, divine accommodation, ANE hyperbole—ultimately renders Scripture infinitely malleable and practically unfalsifiable. It creates a 'heads I win, tails you lose' scenario: if a text aligns with CVE's view of God, it's taken straightforwardly. If it depicts morally repugnant divine commands, a suite of interpretive escape hatches (hyperbole, accommodation, metaphorical meaning, inscrutable divine targets) is deployed until the text conforms.

This isn't principled interpretation; it's a predetermined effort to rescue divine goodness at the expense of textual clarity and authority. By what objective criteria do you decide when to invoke 'hyperbole' versus literal meaning, or when a command reflects accommodation versus God's direct will? Without such controls, your hermeneutic allows justifying virtually anything, effectively silencing the text's potential to challenge our theological presuppositions, especially concerning divine violence.

CVE's Response to Objection 7

This charge misrepresents CVE's structured hermeneutic, derived largely from Swinburne and Patristic principles, as arbitrary or infinitely flexible rather than principled and controlled. 

CVE argues these hermeneutical tools are not ad hoc escape hatches but necessary instruments for interpreting complex ancient texts responsibly, especially those claiming divine origin. The principles provide controls, demanding rigorous analysis grounded in textual, historical, literary, and theological evidence to discern the intended divine Target and the function of the commanded or described Mode within its specific Field and Basis. These principles are applied consistently across Scripture, not deployed selectively only when difficulties arise.

The application of specific tools is governed by evidence: identification of hyperbole is based on comparative Ancient Near Eastern literary analysis of warfare rhetoric, internal textual indicators (e.g., tensions between commands for total destruction and narrative presence of survivors), and relevant archaeological findings. 

Recognition of accommodation is triggered when the text itself suggests adaptation to human weakness (like Jesus' explanation of the divorce allowance) or reflects known cultural practices that God regulates rather than originates, always considering the historical context (Field) and human limitations (Basis) of the original audience. The discernment of multiple meanings (historical, canonical, typological, theological) follows established hermeneutical methods, respecting the historical sense while exploring how an event serves deeper divine Targets within the overarching Telos, often illuminated by later revelation (especially Christ).

Identifying the specific Field, Basis, Target, and Mode in any given passage requires close reading, attention to stated reasons within the text, analysis of narrative function, and understanding the operative covenantal setting. CVE interprets all texts contextually; the conquest narratives simply demand heightened attention to genre, ANE context, and their unique redemptive-historical Field/Basis/Target because they describe unique, non-normative events. 

Texts primarily focused on expressing God's love or mercy operate in different contexts (Fields) with different immediate Targets and Modes. The goal of CVE's hermeneutic is not to force conformity to preconceived notions, but to faithfully understand God's communication in its complexity—discerning the specific divine Target and the appropriate or commanded Mode for each unique context within the unified narrative that culminates in Christ. This careful, structured approach, CVE contends, enhances rather than silences the text's authority and its capacity to genuinely challenge and inform our understanding of God.

Objection 8: The Inadequacy of CVE's Five-Step Procedure

Rauser might question the practical outcome: CVE's five-step procedure, while appearing methodical with its integration of TCVE, DDE, and other elements, is ultimately just a complex apparatus designed to justify the predetermined conclusion that God's commands, however harsh, were somehow good or necessary. 

Its criteria – discerning the 'field,' identifying the 'basis,' weighing 'targets,' interpreting 'modes,' assessing 'proportionality' based on hidden divine knowledge or future compensation – remain deeply subjective and open to manipulation. How does one 'objectively' weigh divine attributes in context, or definitively distinguish God's hidden target from foreseen consequences using ancient texts fraught with ambiguity? This complexity obscures rather than clarifies moral reality, creating an 'expert's only' model that contrasts sharply with the straightforward moral revulsion any decent person feels when contemplating commands to kill children. 

PET, while acknowledging textual problems, offers a simpler, more honest, and arguably theologically more plausible account: God is perfectly good as revealed in Jesus, these violent texts reflect the limited, flawed understanding of the human authors (an error God providentially allowed), and God uses even these flawed texts to teach us as we wrestle with them. PET upholds God's perfect character without resorting to CVE's intricate, arguably evasive, justifications for divine commands endorsing violence.

CVE's Response to Objection 8

CVE acknowledges that its five-step decision procedure is detailed, but argues this detail reflects the profound theological and ethical complexity of the biblical texts and the moral issues at stake, particularly concerning divine action and judgment. 

Simplistic solutions, like Rauser's PET, achieve their simplicity only by sacrificing core theological doctrines crucial for a coherent Christian worldview, namely divine truthfulness regarding His own commands and the functional authority and reliability of Scripture as God's Word. If God inspired texts that fundamentally misrepresent His character and commands on matters of such gravity, then the entire biblical witness, including the very portrayal of Jesus upon which PET relies, becomes epistemologically suspect. How can we trust the biblical portrayal of Jesus's goodness if the same inspired source fundamentally errs about God's commands elsewhere?

The CVE procedure, far from being a subjective tool for justifying predetermined conclusions, aims to channel interpretation through textually grounded criteria and established theological principles, promoting transparency and accountability in interpretation. Discerning the contextually weighted attributes requires analyzing the text's explicit rationale (the stated Basis) and narrative focus within its specific Field. Identifying the divine intention (Target) involves examining stated purposes, narrative context, coherence with God's overall revealed character (Exodus 34), and alignment with the redemptive Telos. Analyzing the Mode demands careful attention to genre, literary conventions, and historical context (Swinburne). Assessing proportionality involves weighing the text's own framing of the Basis and Target and considering God's ultimate goodness (Swinburne's GBCs, Adams's horror-defeat). While interpretation always involves judgment, the CVE procedure demands explicit justification based on textual and contextual evidence at each step, making the reasoning process open to scrutiny and debate based on shared principles.

PET's apparent simplicity, CVE contends, masks a deeper subjectivity. It offers no clear, consistent criteria for identifying supposed "errors" beyond alignment with contemporary moral intuition, effectively empowering each individual reader to become the ultimate arbiter of Scripture's validity based on personal moral sensibilities. CVE, instead, engages the interpretive difficulty directly, providing a suite of analytical tools (TCVE, Murphy, Swinburne, Adams, Stump, DDE) to understand the text's claims about divine Targets and Modes within a coherent theological framework that upholds both God's complex goodness (as revealed throughout Scripture) and Scripture's functional authority as God's reliable communication.

Objection 9: Incompatibility with Christ's Nonviolence

Perhaps the most frequent objection relates to Jesus: The attempt to harmonize Old Testament violence with the ethic of Jesus remains CVE's Achilles' heel. Jesus didn't just offer a 'higher mode' of acting; He fundamentally repudiated the 'eye for an eye' logic underlying retributive justice (Matt 5:38-39) and explicitly commanded universal love, forgiveness, and non-retaliation towards enemies—the very antithesis of the conquest commands. 

No amount of contextual gymnastics involving different covenant fields or intermediate targets can bridge this fundamental ethical chasm. Attributing judgment sayings or the temple cleansing to Jesus doesn't equate to Him endorsing the mode of state-sanctioned slaughter of entire populations, including children. 

CVE ultimately presents a dissonant picture: a God whose core revelation of love and nonviolence in Christ stands in stark, irreconcilable opposition to His alleged violent commands in the Old Testament. If Christ is the perfect image of God, the OT commands, as depicted, simply cannot reflect the same divine character or will.

CVE's Response to Objection 9

CVE fully affirms Christ as the ultimate and definitive revelation of God's character and will, and acknowledges His teaching and example of non-retaliatory, enemy love as the normative ethic for His followers in the New Covenant era. However, CVE argues that understanding Christ's relationship to the Old Testament requires a framework of fulfillment (Matthew 5:17) involving transformation within continuity, rather than sheer negation or contradiction. 

The covenantal framework is key to resolving the apparent tension. Christ inaugurates the New Covenant, decisively shifting the primary Field of God's kingdom work from a specific theo-political nation (Israel) to a transnational spiritual community (the Church) and establishing a new primary Mode—spiritual transformation through the Holy Spirit, witness, and sacrificial love—aimed at the ultimate Target of universal reconciliation and the establishment of God's peaceable kingdom.

This perfected Mode and clarified ultimate Target, revealed and enacted by Christ, necessarily supersede the temporary, context-specific Modes (such as divinely commanded warfare functioning as judgment) that were operative within the unique Field of the Old Covenant. Those earlier modes were aimed at necessary intermediate Targets within God's unfolding redemptive plan, such as preserving a specific people and land through whom the Messiah would come, or executing judgment against systemic evils that threatened this plan. 

Jesus challenged misapplications of the Old Testament Law (like using 'eye for an eye' to justify personal vengeance) but explicitly upheld its divine origin and the enduring principles rooted in God's character, including Justice and Holiness. His own pronouncements of judgment against impenitent cities or religious hypocrisy, and His actions like the cleansing of the Temple, demonstrate that hitting the Target of confronting entrenched evil remained essential to His mission, even as His primary redemptive Mode was characterized by grace, teaching, healing, and ultimately, self-sacrifice.

The Old Testament commands, therefore, operated within a unique theo-political Field where God acted directly as Sovereign and Judge over nations in a way He does not in the New Covenant era, employing Modes appropriate (within the principle of Accommodation) to that specific redemptive-historical necessity and aimed at particular intermediate Targets. 

Christ's commands, conversely, operate within the Field of the inaugurated Kingdom of God, calling His followers (empowered by the Spirit) to embody a different, higher Mode aimed at the ultimate Target of drawing all people into that Kingdom through loving witness and suffering love. 

CVE argues both stem from the same complex God revealed in Exodus 34, whose perfect character manifests differently—but not contradictorily—depending on the covenantal context (Field), the stage of progressive revelation (Accommodation), and the specific divine Target being pursued within the overarching Telos fulfilled in Christ.

Objection 10: The Problem of Practical Application (Misuse)

Finally, the practical danger remains a concern: Acknowledging the historical misuse of conquest texts isn't enough; CVE's insistence that these texts describe actual divine commands, however much you contextualize or reinterpret the mode, still leaves the loaded gun on the table. 

Sophisticated CVE interpretations might prevent academic theologians from misusing the texts, but they do little to stop harmful literalist readings by individuals or groups seeking divine justification for violence today. History shows that colonialists, crusaders, and other oppressors weren't interested in nuanced discussions of TCVE targets, Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, or divine accommodation. They saw what they believed was divine precedent for conquering and displacing enemies. 

By defending the divine origin of these commands, however qualifiedly, CVE provides theological cover, however unintentionally, for those who would inevitably weaponize them. Declaring them 'errors,' as PET does, sends a much clearer, safer, and morally unambiguous message: these violent commands do not reflect the will of the God revealed in Jesus and must never be imitated.

CVE's Response to Objection 10

CVE shares the deep concern over the horrific historical misuse of the conquest narratives and affirms the absolute necessity of responsible theological work to prevent such abuse. However, CVE contends that the greatest practical danger lies not in affirming the inspiration and authority of difficult texts, but precisely in failing to provide the robust interpretive tools necessary for understanding them responsibly within their proper context. 

Dismissing texts as errors, as PET proposes (option 'a'), relinquishes the ability of the believing community to authoritatively teach from Scripture itself why these texts are misinterpreted and misused when applied today. It leaves believers vulnerable to aberrant interpretations precisely because it offers no compelling alternative interpretation grounded in the text's own divine authority. If parts of Scripture fundamentally misrepresent God's commands, why trust any of it, including the parts PET relies on?

CVE argues that the most effective safeguard against misuse lies in rigorous, faithful, and authoritative interpretation (option 'd'), demonstrating conclusively why these commands are non-transferable. By meticulously analyzing the unique, non-repeatable covenantal Field (God acting as direct Sovereign in establishing Israel), the specific historical Basis (judgment on particular condemned practices), the limited divine Target (not ethnic annihilation), the likely non-literal or hyperbolic nature of the commanded Mode, and the overarching redemptive Telos, CVE shows from the text itself why these commands cannot legitimately provide justification for later violence committed in different contexts for entirely different reasons. The CVE decision procedure provides explicit steps for this contextual analysis precisely to prevent anachronistic misapplication.

Crucially, CVE's strong Christological integration serves as the ultimate practical safeguard against misuse. As emphasized through Adams's work and the principle of fulfillment, Christ's life, teaching, death, and resurrection definitively establish the New Covenant Mode (enemy love, peacemaking, suffering witness, spiritual warfare) and clarify the ultimate divine Target (universal reconciliation). This New Covenant reality decisively supersedes the Old Covenant conquest Mode, rendering it non-normative for believers. By equipping the Church to understand precisely how Christ fulfills and transforms the Old Testament narrative, including its difficult passages, CVE provides the most authoritative resources possible to actively counter violent misreadings.

Therefore, CVE maintains that upholding textual authority while providing robust interpretive guardrails centered on the original Target/Mode context and, most importantly, Christ's superseding work, is ultimately both theologically sounder and practically safer than declaring inconvenient biblical texts 'errors'.

Objection 11: The Inclination and Inconsistency Objection

The appeal to Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, while acknowledging literary context, fails as a sufficient moral defense for the divinely commanded violence described in the Old Testament. The fundamental problem isn't merely whether every brutal detail was intended literally, but what the choice of such rhetoric signifies about the divine character and intention being portrayed. Even if hyperbolic, employing the language of indiscriminate slaughter, particularly targeting noncombatants and children, seems intrinsically linked to a moral stance that does not find such actions utterly abominable. Rhetoric, especially hyperbole, typically exaggerates a real inclination or value. Why would a perfectly good God, who presumably stands apart from the moral limitations of human warlords, adopt the specific, horrific hyperbole of slaughtering innocents if He found the very concept fundamentally repulsive? Such language choices appear to actively misrepresent a character supposedly defined by perfect love and justice, suggesting the deity portrayed doesn't share our most basic moral revulsion (the NEBB principle) towards these acts.

Furthermore, the hyperbole defense creates significant interpretive incoherence when confronted with narratives like the judgment on Saul regarding Amalek. There, God delivered a severe rebuke and punishment precisely because Saul failed to fully enact the commanded destruction (herem), implying a demand for meticulous, perhaps even literal, fulfillment. If God sometimes requires literal adherence to commands of total destruction, yet other times supposedly intends similar language hyperbolically, how can human agents or later readers reliably discern the divine intent? Invoking hyperbole selectively, precisely when the literal command becomes morally intolerable, while ignoring instances suggesting literalism was demanded, feels less like consistent, principled interpretation and more like "ad hoc squirming" or special pleading designed to shield a particular view of God from the challenging portrayal within the biblical text itself.

CVE's Response to Objection 11

Your concerns highlight why simply saying "it's hyperbole" is inadequate without embedding it in a more comprehensive framework like Covenant Virtue Ethics (CVE).

CVE directly engages your central worry that the rhetoric necessarily reveals problematic divine character. It does this by rigorously distinguishing the communicative function of the language used to describe the Mode from God's actual intended aim (Target), which CVE argues is always grounded in His perfect character revealed in Exodus 34 (Holy, Just, Faithful, Merciful, Loving). While human warlords might use violent hyperbole reflecting their own cruelty, CVE contends a perfectly holy God, who, as Murphy argues, cannot intend evil as such, utilizes accommodated language strategically within the specific historical and cultural Field. He communicates into the existing ANE context, employing its conventional warfare rhetoric, which, as scholars like Webb & Oeste explain, often signified the totality and irreversibility of political and religious supplanting. This isn't because He delights in the literal horror sometimes depicted, but because that familiar rhetoric was the understood means to convey the necessary completeness of His intended Target.

This Target might be righteous judgment against specific, systemic wickedness (the Basis) or the complete establishment/preservation of the covenant boundary crucial for His ultimate redemptive plan (the Telos). Thus, the hyperbolic description of the Mode serves the good Target by emphasizing its required scope and finality within that unique context. It doesn't necessarily reveal a divine inclination toward the described brutality but rather God's commitment to hitting the necessary good Target using language understood by the original audience. The Target remains anchored in Justice, Faithfulness, and ultimately, His overarching Holy Love, even if the accommodated description of the Mode is disturbing.

Regarding the interpretive incoherence you rightly identify with the Saul/Amalek case (1 Samuel 15), CVE doesn't see this as proof of universal literalism but as highlighting obedience within a unique context demanding herem. This specific command was rooted in a prior divine decree against Amalek (the Basis established in Exodus 17) and required total devotion to God as the specific Mode to achieve the Target of executing definitive Justice and Faithfulness. Crucially, herem involved complete removal from profane use, explicitly forbidding personal gain. Saul's sin wasn't merely "misplaced mercy" but a fundamental disobedience. That is, he substituted his own judgment and Targets (personal glory, perceived value of spoils/Agag) and employed a different Mode (partial destruction, keeping spoils) instead of adhering to God's explicit directive for that specific, non-repeatable situation.

This narrative powerfully underscores the necessity of strict obedience when God issues specific commands related to judgment, leveraging His unique sovereign authority. Mark Murphy's insights on the size-gap/dikaiological orders apply here. However, it doesn't automatically require that all other conquest language, operating in different contexts with potentially different Targets, must be interpreted with the same degree of literalism regarding the Mode's physical execution, especially when ANE rhetorical conventions suggest otherwise.

Therefore, CVE's approach resists the charge of being "ad hoc squirming" by applying a consistent interpretive method across texts. It does this by meticulously analyzing the specific Field, Basis, Target, Mode, and Telos for each passage. It uses hermeneutical principles, like genre, accommodation, context, and theological truths, like God's character, authority, as consistent controls. This structured analysis provides principled reasons for discerning meaning, arguing that God's Targets are always good and consistent with His character, even when the culturally-accommodated descriptions of the Modes used to achieve those Targets in specific, fallen, ancient contexts are deeply challenging. It seeks coherence without sacrificing scriptural integrity or divine goodness.

Objection 12: Generational Retribution Problem

Conclusion

This engagement with potential objections highlights the capacity of Covenant Virtue Ethics to address the profound theological and moral dilemmas posed by divinely commanded violence in the Old Testament, particularly the Canaanite conquest narratives. CVE framed the core problem using Randal Rauser's logical structure, acknowledging the apparent contradiction between God's perceived perfection and the textual claims of violent commands. After outlining and critiquing Rauser's Providential Errancy Theory (PET) – which resolves the contradiction by positing textual error – CVE proposed and developed itself as a comprehensive alternative framework.

CVE, as a "Covenantal Integrationist" approach, uniquely synthesizes virtue ethics (specifically TCVE's analysis of Field, Basis, Mode, Target), divine command theory, natural law, and covenant theology, grounding morality in God's revealed character (Exodus 34:6-7). It integrates crucial insights from contemporary thinkers like Murphy (divine holiness, authority, intention), Swinburne (hermeneutics, accommodation, benefactor ethics), Adams (horror-defeat Christology), and Stump (people-formation, divine pedagogy, telos). 

Through detailed application of its five-step decision procedure, CVE analyzed specific conquest narratives, arguing that these commands, when properly understood within their unique covenantal and redemptive-historical context, represent specific acts of divine judgment aimed at righteous targets (like judging specific wicked practices or preserving the covenant), using modes that may be described hyperbolically and are theologically distinct from modern concepts of genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Finally, CVE defended its coherence against significant objections concerning divine character, the intention-foresight distinction, progressive revelation, hermeneutical methodology, procedural subjectivity, compatibility with Christ's ethic, and the potential for practical misuse. In each case, CVE argued that its integrated framework provides the necessary tools to uphold both God's perfect (though complex) moral character and the integrity and reliability of Scripture, without resorting to claims of textual error. 

In summary, CVE offers a path forward that takes seriously the moral challenges of the text, the fullness of God's revealed character, the authority of Scripture, and the ultimate fulfillment found in Jesus Christ, presenting a coherent and theologically robust alternative to PET for navigating the difficult terrain of biblical violence.

Footnotes

(1) In his debate with Paul Copan on the Premier Unbelievable? podcast, Rauser forcefully presses this point: "I can grant that there is hyperbole... still what Paul leaves us with is the Israelite soldiers indiscriminately killing an indeterminate amount or number of Canaanites including probably a disproportionate number of those who are less mobile" (https://youtu.be/NU4UQtuNBl8?si=JXY8NJIdJcM1fWXF). Rauser reiterates this concern in his response to Gavin Ortlund: "The underlying assumption here of Gavin Ortlund is that … if we can just move from having the killing of all civilians to ... not everybody was killed, that will somehow ameliorate significantly the moral conflict … is just fundamentally mistaken" (https://youtu.be/Op4mFaMRltQ?si=pI1mCaSS7tpoi2UH).

(2) For more on Swanton's theory, see Swanton (2003). Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View. Clarendon Press, and Swanton (2021). Target Centred Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.

(3) One of the better treatments of hyperbole is found in the book Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric? by Webb and Oeste (2019).

(4) Rauser 2009: 34.

(5) Calvin's treatment of biblical violence is largely found in his Commentary on the Book of Joshua (2010).

(6) You can find Taylor's treatment of the conquest here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-could-god-command-genocide-in-the-old-testament-2/

(7) For this take see C.S. Lewis's Reflections on the Psalms.

(8) See Origen's Homilies on Joshua.

(9) Douglas Earl, "Joshua and the Crusades," in Holy War in the Bible.

(10) Boyd's take is found in his massive two-volume set The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.

(11) Trust me, this is not virtue signaling. Many times over, I’ve been floored and humbled by the difficulty of resolving the issue of biblical violence. Though i believe in CVE and as of now think it the best approach on the market, I remain open to revision and to a completely different approach. That said, i need to put my oar in the water and start paddling. I could sit at the dock reading books on divine violence forever. But I genuinely feel impelled to push off from the dock and chart my own course, as I find most of the takes on biblical violence deficient in key ways.

(12) See Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027945

(13) Joost Pikkert (2022) also uses Haidt's grid of moral values in critiquing Rauser's view. Though he primarily applies this in critiquing Rauser's intuition-driven inquiry. 

Appendix

Here CVE is applied to three other common texts flagged as problematic.

Deuteronomy 20: Laws of Warfare

1. Covenantal Context Assessment: Deuteronomy 20 operates within the Sinai covenant field of establishing Israel in the land. The distinction between distant/Canaanite cities defines the specific field as covenant boundary establishment and mitigating existential religious threats (the basis), not generic warfare. Israel acts as covenant agent, contrasting with ANE expansionism.
   

2. Character-Based Intention Analysis: God's primary target is establishing secure covenant boundaries and preventing religious corruption (basis of threat, 20:18). The mode varies with the threat level. Context-weighted reasons emphasize Justice (target: judgment on corruption) and Faithfulness (target: securing the inheritance) for Canaanite cities, justifying a severe mode. For distant cities, Mercy's target (minimizing harm) allows a different mode (offering peace). God cannot intend destruction as such (Murphy); the target is the good of covenant security/justice. Stewardship concerns (protecting trees) further constrain the mode, indicating the target isn't wanton destruction.
   

3. Means-End Relationship Analysis: The distinct modes directly serve the target of addressing the specific threat level (basis). Alternatives (peace offers, resource protection) constrain the violence, showing the target is covenant establishment, not destruction itself. The focus on religious practices (basis) confirms the target relates to covenant integrity, not ethnicity. DDE applies: intended good (target) is covenant security/justice; harm in the mode is foreseen.
   

4. Proportionality and Harm Minimization: The severe mode for Canaanite cities is justified textually by the existential threat (basis). Harm minimization elements (peace offers, protections, resource preservation) reflect Mercy's influence, constraining the mode even when Justice/Faithfulness have demanding targets. Swinburne's GBCs apply: God ensures overall positive value, justifying necessary intermediate evils if compensated. The multi-generational target (preventing future corruption) shapes proportionality.
   

5. Redemptive Purpose Alignment: Hitting the target of establishing a secure covenant beachhead serves the divine telos. This represents an early, accommodated stage in people-formation (Stump), employing severe modes necessary then. The tension between Justice and Mercy targets/modes finds resolution in Christ, who achieves the ultimate target (reconciliation) via a different mode (spiritual conflict, sacrifice). Adams' framework integrates the horror within God's ultimate redemptive victory.

Joshua 8: Conquest of Ai

1. Covenantal Context Assessment: Joshua 8 operates within the field of covenant faithfulness and consequence, following Israel's sin-induced failure (basis). The failure-judgment-restoration arc defines the immediate field as didactic and focused on covenant maintenance. The conventional military mode highlights human responsibility.
   
2. Character-Based Intention Analysis: God's primary target is pedagogical: teaching covenant faithfulness through consequences. The basis shifts from Israel's sin (defeat) to repentance/restoration (victory). The narrative demonstrates the targets of both Justice (consequences) and Mercy/Faithfulness (restoration). The mode shifts from allowing defeat to guiding conventional strategy. The overall target is covenant education (Stump's people-formation).
   
3. Means-End Relationship Analysis: The conventional military mode serves the specific target of demonstrating restored blessing after repentance. Permitting spoils (different constraint on mode than Jericho) signals different intermediate targets (devotion vs. provision/lesson). The direct link to covenant renewal (8:30-35) confirms the military mode served the primary target of covenant formation. DDE applies to God's intention (target = restoration/education) versus foreseen consequences of the battle mode.
   
4. Proportionality and Harm Minimization: The judgment mode follows divine guidance (8:2), suggesting proportionality within the didactic target, after Israel addressed the initial basis (Achan's sin). Casualties mentioned (8:25), interpreted via ANE conventions and within this didactic field, primarily serve the theological point about consequences and restoration. Swinburne's GBCs frame the outcome within God's overall beneficent telos.
   
5. Redemptive Purpose Alignment: Hitting the target of teaching covenant consequences serves the telos of forming a faithful people (Stump). The cycle demonstrates divine character dynamics. This pedagogical event prepares for deeper understanding, fulfilled in Christ. While the mode is conflict, the underlying targets (justice, mercy, faithfulness, learning) point to spiritual realities. Adams' framework integrates any horror within the ultimate redemptive victory.

Numbers 31: Judgment Against the Midianites

1. Covenantal Context Assessment: This occurs late in the wilderness wanderings, the field being covenant purity preservation before entering the land. The basis is Midian's recent, deliberate subversion of Israel at Baal Peor (Num 25), causing widespread death and apostasy. Israel acts as agent of divine retributive justice for this specific, severe offense.
   
2. Character-Based Intention Analysis: God's primary target is executing Justice against Midian for the Peor incident (the basis) and achieving Holiness/Purity by removing this source of corruption before land entry. Context-weighted reasons heavily favor these attributes. The initial mode is military vengeance (31:2). Further instructions differentiate the mode based on perceived responsibility for the Peor sin (basis), targeting adult males, boys, and non-virgin women, while sparing virgin females. This modified mode aims to hit the target of removing the specific threat related to Peor's sexualized idolatry. God cannot intend evil; the target is the good of justice/purity.
   
3. Means-End Relationship Analysis: The commanded means (differentiated military killing mode) serves the target of justice for Peor and removing corruption. Moses' rationale (31:15-16) explicitly links the mode to the basis (role in Peor). The sparing of some, while disturbing, fits the logic that the target was specifically tied to Peor. Extensive purification rituals (mode) reinforce the target of covenant purity. DDE applies: intended target = justice/purity; deaths are foreseen effects of the judgment mode.
   
4. Proportionality and Harm Minimization: The severe mode is textually justified by the severe basis (calculated subversion causing mass death). The differentiation in the mode (sparing some) acts as a limited form of harm minimization within the text's brutal logic, suggesting the target was specific, not indiscriminate. Swinburne's GBCs frame the outcome within God's ultimate beneficent telos, ensuring overall positive value. The mode aims precisely, if harshly, at the specified target.
   
5. Redemptive Purpose Alignment: Hitting the target of justice/purity serves the immediate telos of preparing a faithful people for the promised land. This difficult passage (Stump) highlights covenant consequences and the seriousness of leading others into sin. It's an early stage using culturally-bound modes. Adams' framework integrates the horror within Christ's ultimate victory. Christ fulfills the target of purity via a different mode (sacrifice). The tension between Justice and Mercy targets/modes finds resolution in the Cross, achieving God's ultimate telos.

Bibliography

Primary Philosophical Sources

Murphy, Mark C. "God Beyond Justice." In Divine Evil?: The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, 150-167. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Stump, Eleonore. "The Problem of Evil and the History of Peoples: Think Amalek." In Divine Evil?: The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, 179-197. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Swinburne, Richard. "What Does the Old Testament Mean?" In Divine Evil?: The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, 209-225. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Bergmann, Michael, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, eds. Divine Evil?: The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Other Primary Philosophical Sources

Adams, Marilyn McCord. Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Murphy, Mark C. Divine Holiness and Divine Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Rauser, Randal. Jesus Loves Canaanites: Biblical Genocide in the Light of Moral Intuition. 2021.

Biblical Interpretation and Theology

Firth, David G. The Message of Joshua, edited by Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball. The Bible Speaks Today. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2015.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. The Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.

Lynch, Matthew. Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and Divine Justice. London: SCM Press, 2022.

Mariottini, Claude F. and Scot McKnight. Divine Violence and the Character of God. Cascade Books, 2022.

Wells, David F. God in the Whirlwind: How the Holy-Love of God Reorients Our World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014.

Gentry, Peter J. and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Biblical Violence and Ethics

Boyd, Greg. Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017.

Copan, Paul and Matthew Flannagan. Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014.

Jones, Clay (2009). We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites. Philosophia Christi 11 (1):53-72.

Seibert, Eric A. The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament's Troubling Legacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Pikkert, Joost. "Evaluating Providential Errancy Theory: Does God Inspire Moral Errors in the Bible?" The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 26, no. 3 (2022): 156-167.

Rauser, Randal. "'Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive': On the Problem of Divinely Commanded Genocide." Philosophia Christi 11, no. 1 (2009): 27-41.