Why does God give contradictory commands in the Bible?

[Compassionist]

The Bible presents a serious moral contradiction. In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), God explicitly says:

“Thou shalt not kill” (or more accurately in Hebrew, *lo tirtsach* — “you shall not murder”).

Yet, throughout the very same scriptures, this same God commands genocides and mass killings. For example:

Deuteronomy 20:16–17:

“You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Numbers 31:17–18:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”

If “murder” means intentionally taking a human life, then these divine commands directly violate the very moral law God is said to have given.

Apologists often respond in one of three ways:

1. “Killing in war isn’t murder.”
But these passages go far beyond war — they include killing infants and non-combatants. Calling it “warfare” doesn’t make it morally right, especially when commanded by an allegedly all-good being.

2. “Those people were wicked and deserved it.”
But collective punishment of entire populations, including children, contradicts basic moral justice — even within the Bible itself. Ezekiel 18:20 says:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
So how can innocent children deserve death for their ancestors’ actions?

3. “God’s morality is beyond human understanding.”
This argument essentially abandons moral reasoning. If God’s morality can justify genocide, then anything — slavery, rape, torture — could be justified as “God’s higher purpose.” That makes morality arbitrary and destroys the very meaning of good and evil.

In short:
If the command “Thou shalt not murder” is absolute, then the genocidal commands are immoral.
If the genocidal commands are moral because God gave them, then “Thou shalt not murder” has no fixed moral meaning.

Either way, the Bible presents a contradiction that cannot be ethically reconciled without abandoning either moral consistency or divine goodness.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #80]

No, it only shows that moral language, and debates of morality, have nothing to do with the Bible God's word of righteousness.

That claim is self-refuting. To say “God’s word is righteous” already invokes a moral predicate - righteousness. The statement “God is righteous” has meaning only if the term “righteous” carries semantic content that can be understood and evaluated. If moral language “has nothing to do” with God, then to call God righteous is empty noise.

The result of rejecting God's word of righteousness, is that the distinction between good and evil collapses into meaningless moral disputes of people on earth...

But according to your view, the distinction between good and evil depends wholly on divine decree - not on any independently intelligible property. That means “good” merely denotes “whatever God commands.” If tomorrow God commanded genocide, that would be “good.” Such a position annihilates the concept of morality itself, replacing evaluation with obedience. A tyrant could make the same claim.

Of course, the Bible prophets and apostles reject man's morality, and moral arguments, as well as philosophical dialogues...

You’ve quoted verses that warn against vain philosophy, not reasoning itself. Yet Isaiah 1:18 - which you also cited - invites humans to reason together with God. That invitation presupposes that human moral reasoning is capable of grasping moral truths. Otherwise, “reasoning with God” would be an incoherent exercise.

Moreover, many biblical prophets did challenge divine commands on moral grounds. Abraham questioned God’s justice in Genesis 18:25. Moses interceded for the Israelites against God’s declared wrath (Exodus 32:11-14). These narratives assume a shared moral framework by which divine actions can be discussed, not blind submission to authority.

No one said mankind can't understand the reason of God's words... The error is finding reason to fault His righteous judgments according to man's moral arguments...

But the moment you “understand” or “reason about” God’s justice, you are already using human cognitive faculties - moral reasoning included. If moral reasoning is invalid, then understanding God’s justice is impossible. If it is valid, then moral judgments are meaningful and can, at least in principle, question interpretations of divine will.

Words like “moral righteousness” and "moral goodness" are a non sequitur to the Bible God...

If so, then the Bible’s own repeated claim that “the Lord is righteous” (Psalm 145:17) becomes unintelligible. The predicate “righteous” has meaning only within moral discourse. Denying that meaning while using the word commits a category error - akin to saying, “God is loving, but ‘love’ has no humanly understandable meaning.”

Since morality has no meaning apart from man’s will, what does it mean to call God righteous, rather than merely moral?...

That reversal fails logically. Morality does not arise from “man’s will” but from our shared capacity to recognize and evaluate harm, fairness, and well-being - capacities that precede and constrain personal desire. If God is called righteous, it must mean that divine will aligns with these recognizable goods, not that whatever God wills automatically defines them.

Otherwise, “righteousness” is indistinguishable from sheer power - and “God is righteous” reduces to “God does what God does.” That’s not morality; that’s tautology.

In summary:

1. To call God righteous presupposes an intelligible moral standard.
2. If moral reasoning is dismissed, then “righteousness” loses meaning.
3. Biblical figures reasoned morally with God, implying shared moral concepts.
4. Equating goodness with divine will erases the difference between morality and authority.
5. A coherent theism must preserve moral intelligibility - not destroy it.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #74]

Thank you, Capbook. I appreciate your sincerity. But if God’s righteousness and goodness are said to transcend human morality entirely, the words “righteous” and “good” lose all meaning.

“Man undeniably cannot fathom God’s righteousness…”
If that’s so, then calling God “good” or “loving” tells us nothing intelligible. Communication presupposes shared meaning. When Micah 6:8 says, “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God,” it assumes we understand what justice and mercy are. Otherwise, revelation would be unintelligible noise.

“Test everything; hold fast what is good.” - 1 Thess 5:21-22
Testing requires a criterion. If “good” just means “whatever God wills,” the command becomes circular: “Test everything by whatever God wills.” That is obedience, not morality. The very act of testing implies that humans can recognize good and evil through conscience and reason - standards that even divine commands must meet.

If genocide or infanticide could ever count as “good” simply because God orders it, then “good” has lost its moral content. To praise what we cannot comprehend is not faith in moral goodness but submission to power.

If God truly is love and justice, those words must mean what they mean among us - otherwise, they mean nothing at all.

Appreciate you good intentions if being all-knowing and all-powerful.
But even our present inadequate knowledge of what is good or bad depends to each persons viewpoint, why some do bad knowing the consequences of death, sufferings etc.? As theist, "pride" causes all of these, deaths, injustice, sufferings, etc., but an eternal righteous One had prepared a place without those, for those who lived humbly, loving and have faith in God.

Making every allegedly created being e.g. angels, humans, cows, dogs, Venus fly traps, zebras, lions, trees, octopuses, etc. all-knowing and all-powerful would have prevented all suffering, injustice, and death. Please see this post about why I consider the Biblical God to be evil: viewtopic.php?p=1179106#p1179106

As finite being I cannot fully grasp the all-knowing God's eternal righteousness.

As you wish to be all-knowing and all-powerful, let's just take this for an example.
You as a good and upright being having the two "all," knows that a certain family of any reasons hates you and your family, had an unstoppable deceptive plan to kill all members of your family. Would you allow them to fulfill it?

Or if you do bad things ahead to them, the unknowing neighbors would see you then as being the evil one.
Or to be seen good by your neighbors just allow them to eliminate your whole family.
Or to save your family by eliminating them ahead of the time.
The choice is yours Compassionist. The right decision to save the family of an all-knowing or to be good to the unknowing neighbors by letting the hateful family fulfill the plan?

[Kristy Kaushik]

Compassionist, if the moral standard is grounded in the reduction of suffering and the promotion of flourishing (sentient welfare), does this framework provide a consistent basis for any killing—even, say, capital punishment, war in self-defense, or necessary euthanasia? Furthermore, how would you account for the fact that the biblical passages commanding genocide are textually present alongside the moral laws, often in the same legal traditions? Does their inclusion not necessitate a re-evaluation of the Bible’s descriptive (what it says) rather than prescriptive (what we should do) value?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Capbook in post #82]

As finite being I cannot fully grasp the all-knowing God's eternal righteousness.

That’s precisely the problem. If something is unknowable even in principle, then it cannot be meaningfully called “righteous.” The word “righteous” has no content unless it refers to actions or principles that can be assessed as ethical or unethical. Appealing to mystery ends the discussion rather than illuminating it.

As you wish to be all-knowing and all-powerful, let's just take this for an example. You as a good and upright being having the two "all," knows that a certain family of any reasons hates you and your family, had an unstoppable deceptive plan to kill all members of your family. Would you allow them to fulfill it?

Your analogy assumes that violence is the only available solution, but that’s a false dichotomy. I could use my omniscience and omnipotence to make everyone (i.e. all organisms, angels, demons, etc.) equally omniscient and omnipotent, which would protect everyone from harm as it is impossible to harm omniscient and omnipotent beings.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Kristy Kaushik in post #83]

if the moral standard is grounded in the reduction of suffering and the promotion of flourishing (sentient welfare), does this framework provide a consistent basis for any killing—even, say, capital punishment, war in self-defense, or necessary euthanasia?

Yes - but only conditionally and reluctantly, as a lesser-evil concession rather than a moral ideal. If I could make every being that exists omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, I would have done so already.

A Compassionist ethic defines goodness as the minimization of suffering and the maximization of flourishing. Killing can only ever be justified when it reduces total suffering more than it causes.

Capital punishment: totally inconsistent with Compassionist ethics, since the risk of executing the innocent and the perpetuation of retributive cruelty outweigh any deterrent benefit. Ethical societies should quarantine rather than kill violent offenders - prevention of future crimes without being cruel.

War in self-defense: permissible only when all peaceful alternatives are exhausted, and the aim is the protection of sentient life, not revenge or conquest. Even then, only proportional force is justified.

Euthanasia: consistent when performed with informed consent to end incurable suffering. The motive is mercy, not convenience or utilitarian calculus detached from individual experience.

In short, Compassionism seeks preventive ethics: designing societies where no one needs to be killed, because suffering itself is systemically reduced before it escalates to lethal conflict.

Furthermore, how would you account for the fact that the biblical passages commanding genocide are textually present alongside the moral laws, often in the same legal traditions? Does their inclusion not necessitate a re-evaluation of the Bible’s descriptive (what it says) rather than prescriptive (what we should do) value?

Precisely. Their coexistence exposes the Bible as a human cultural anthology, not a flawless moral revelation from an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God.

The same texts that prohibit theft and murder also command the slaughter of infants, enslavement of women, and stoning of apostates. The contrast is not between divine perfection and human fallibility, but between tribal moral evolution and later ethical reflection.

A Compassionist reading distinguishes between:

Descriptive content: ancient human moral codes reflecting survival ethics of specific tribes.
Prescriptive ethics: the timeless moral principle that we should minimize suffering and promote flourishing for all sentient beings.

Once we evaluate scripture descriptively rather than prescriptively, its moral contradictions cease to be paradoxes and become historical data - evidence of how human empathy expanded over time.

True moral progress, then, lies not in defending old commandments, but in transcending them through evidence, reason, empathy and compassion-based reasoning.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

First, the command "You shall not murder" was spoken to Israel so that they would follow God's great value on human life. In addition, the ten commandments are all for individual families in Israel.

Second, God is a just Judge who calls all of his created humans to value life.

Third, God owns all the earth (Leviticus 25:23; Psalm 24:1-2) and gives national groups the areas that he wants them to have, but he can eject them as their divine Landlord.

Fourth, the Canaanites, who lived in Canaan before God gave Israel that land, forfeited their right to life and that area because of their wicked, evil religious practices (for example, sacrificing their children to their false gods).

Fifth, however, at the time of Abraham, when God first makes his covenant with him, God says to him that the Amorites (Canaanites) had not increased their wickedness to the point where they would be exiled and that it would take another 400 years before they would (Genesis 15:16).

Sixth, therefore, God appointed Israel to be his justice agents to carry out the punishments that the people who preceded them deserved.

Seventh, thus, the biblical context explains the reason God required the deaths of the pagans who previously lived in the land before Israel did.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #86]

First, the command "You shall not murder" was spoken to Israel so that they would follow God's great value on human life. In addition, the ten commandments are all for individual families in Israel.

If the commandment “You shall not murder” expresses a great value on human life, then ordering or committing genocide directly violates that value. A command prohibiting murder cannot logically coexist with divine orders to exterminate entire populations, including infants and animals. That contradiction undermines moral coherence, not reinforces it.

Second, God is a just Judge who calls all of his created humans to value life.

A just judge cannot simultaneously command genocide. Justice requires proportionality and due process - not collective punishment of civilians, babies, and sentient animals. If humans did what Yahweh allegedly did in Numbers 31 or 1 Samuel 15, we would rightly call it a war crime, not justice.

Third, God owns all the earth (Leviticus 25:23; Psalm 24:1-2) and gives national groups the areas that he wants them to have, but he can eject them as their divine Landlord.

Ownership does not confer moral entitlement to kill tenants. Even if a deity allegedly exists and “owns” the earth, that ownership does not justify extermination. Moral authority does not flow from power or property; it flows from compassion, fairness, and non-harm. “Might makes right” is a tyrant’s principle, not a moral one.

Fourth, the Canaanites ... forfeited their right to life and that area because of their wicked, evil religious practices (for example, sacrificing their children to their false gods).

If child sacrifice is evil (and I agree it is), then commanding the slaughter of all children is infinitely worse. Punishing one group’s moral crimes with a greater atrocity is not moral correction; it is moral collapse. No child, regardless of their parents’ beliefs, “forfeits” their right to life.

Fifth, however, at the time of Abraham ... it would take another 400 years before they would [be punished].

This claim merely shifts divine cruelty forward in time. Delayed genocide is still genocide. Saying “they will deserve annihilation later” assumes moral guilt can be inherited - a principle utterly incompatible with any just ethic. Collective, transgenerational punishment is never justice.

Sixth, therefore, God appointed Israel to be his justice agents to carry out the punishments that the people who preceded them deserved.

If genocide can be morally justified under divine command, then no atrocity can ever be condemned - because any side could claim divine mandate. This argument destroys the moral foundation of all ethics and law. Justice cannot be delegated mass murder.

Seventh, thus, the biblical context explains the reason God required the deaths of the pagans who previously lived in the land before Israel did.

Explanation is not justification. A text’s internal rationale does not make its commands moral. The Nazi regime also had an “explanatory context” for its exterminations. What matters is whether the act aligns with universal compassion and moral reasoning - and genocide never does.

If Yahweh exists and ordered genocides, then Yahweh’s moral system is self-refuting - condemning murder while commanding mass murder.
If Yahweh did not order genocides, then the Bible contains human-written justifications for atrocities, not divine justice.
Either way, moral consistency lies not with genocide but with compassion for all sentient beings.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #87]

What kind of a God would we have if he merely tolerated violations of his moral laws? God is full of compassion, love, and grace as well as perfectly holy, righteous, and just. Since the human race's rebellion against his authority as their Creator, he must punish their rebellion against him. As a result, we are all guilty before our Judge. He himself provided the solution to the human dilemma by sending the God-man Jesus to die in our place to receive his not-guilty verdict and the reward of living with him because of his resurrection.

The Canaanites had four centuries to turn away from their rebellion and receive his not-guilty verdict, but only Rahab, the prostitute, did and received his forgiveness.

Friend, we will all stand before our divine Judge and receive his not-guilty verdict if we have trusted only in Jesus' death for our eternal joy in his presence; but if we haven't, he will have to exile us from his presence. We will receive either his love or his justice.

You examine the Bible from the viewpoint of human thinking and logic instead of examining it from its own assumptions and information. I hope that you will come to the realization that we need to look at the Bible from its own viewpoint because it's God's book, not from that of human reasoning.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #88]

What kind of a God would we have if he merely tolerated violations of his moral laws? God is full of compassion, love, and grace as well as perfectly holy, righteous, and just. Since the human race's rebellion against his authority as their Creator, he must punish their rebellion against him.

A being that claims to be perfectly loving yet punishes finite creatures for being what he made them to be is not loving but tyrannical.
If God is omniscient, he knew before creating anyone exactly what every person would do. Creating them anyway ensures their rebellion and suffering. That’s not justice - it’s premeditated cruelty. Please see: viewtopic.php?p=1179106#p1179106

He himself provided the solution to the human dilemma by sending the God-man Jesus to die in our place to receive his not-guilty verdict...

Substitutionary punishment doesn’t solve the moral problem - it compounds it. Transferring guilt or innocence between persons is unethical. If a judge declared a murderer innocent because someone else volunteered to be executed, we would call that corruption, not justice.

The Canaanites had four centuries to turn away from their rebellion... but only Rahab, the prostitute, did and received his forgiveness.

Killing infants, the elderly, and animals cannot be excused as “justice.” They had no agency to “repent.” The Canaanite genocide, even if it occurred, is indefensible - moral atrocities don’t become moral by divine decree.
If the same acts were committed today by a modern army claiming divine command, we would call it ethnic cleansing.

Friend, we will all stand before our divine Judge... We will receive either his love or his justice.

Love and justice are not opposites. True justice restores, it does not eternally torment. A god who eternally exiles finite beings for finite actions is not just - he’s vindictive. A morally perfect being would rehabilitate, not torture.

You examine the Bible from the viewpoint of human thinking and logic instead of examining it from its own assumptions and information.

Logic and moral reasoning are not human inventions - they are the only tools we have to distinguish truth from falsehood and good from evil.
To “judge the Bible by its own assumptions” means suspending critical thought - the very process by which we prevent deception and harm.

If we excuse any atrocity because “God commanded it,” we surrender morality itself. Truth must be proven using evidence and reason. Ethics must entail fairness.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #89]

I have only one question: Why are you so angry at the God who is both perfectly loving and fully just? All he does is let the people who live their whole lives without him have their own way after death, as their lives go on without him. I ask again, why are you so vindictive about the God of the Bible, who loves you as your Creator, @Compassionist?