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.

[1213]

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”)....

There is a contradiction only, if murder is the same as killing. In biblical point of view murder is unlawful killing and not the same as just killing. Therefore there is no contradiction in this.

[Haven]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

These contradictions were one of the first things that made me question the faith I was raised in, along with the evidence from neuroscience against a soul. In nearly 20 years I still haven’t seen a satisfactory answer to these basic moral contradictions.

[Haven]

There is a contradiction only, if murder is the same as killing. In biblical point of view murder is unlawful killing and not the same as just killing. Therefore there is no contradiction in this.

Compassionist addressed this in the OP.

Killing non-combatants is not warfare and is recognized as murder / war crimes by all international bodies. Killing children, especially, falls under this. The actions described in 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31 clearly describe murder at the Bible god’s command.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

Thank you for your reply. I understand your distinction between “murder” and “killing,” but that distinction doesn’t resolve the contradiction - it simply redefines the problem.

If the command “You shall not murder” (Hebrew: lo tirtsach) means “You shall not unlawfully kill,” then we must ask: what makes a killing lawful?
In the biblical context, it was lawful when God commanded it - but that means morality becomes whatever God says, even if it involves slaughtering infants (1 Samuel 15:3) or entire tribes (Numbers 31:17). That turns moral law into divine preference, not a universal ethical principle.

If we apply that logic consistently, no action could ever be called “murder” if the killer claims divine sanction. History shows the danger of this reasoning - it has justified holy wars, inquisitions, and terrorism.

Moreover, Exodus 23:7 says:

“Do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.”
Yet many of God’s own commands, such as killing children and non-combatants, do put innocents to death.

Therefore, even within the Bible, the prohibition and the divine orders conflict.
Calling one “lawful” and the other “unlawful” doesn’t reconcile the moral contradiction; it just changes the label.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

These contradictions were one of the first things that made me question the faith I was raised in, along with the evidence from neuroscience against a soul. In nearly 20 years I still haven’t seen a satisfactory answer to these basic moral contradictions.

I had a similar experience to yours. After reading the whole Bible, I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is evil and imaginary. The Bible is not good news. It is fake news.

[1213]

...If the command “You shall not murder” (Hebrew: lo tirtsach) means “You shall not unlawfully kill,” then we must ask: what makes a killing lawful?...

That is a good point. Lawful is what is not forbidden in a law.

In the biblical context, it was lawful when God commanded it - but that means morality becomes whatever God says, even if it involves slaughtering infants (1 Samuel 15:3) or entire tribes (Numbers 31:17). That turns moral law into divine preference, not a universal ethical principle.

God's law is obviously divine preference. And in Bible, law shows death penalty for many things. And that is why killing in certain situations would have been lawful. Is it really from God, that is a matter of belief. I think the law in the Bible is good. And because God has given life, I think He has the right to decide how long it lasts.

The problem with all laws is, in my opinion, are people good enough to judge anyone. I don't think generally so, therefore it would be better not to judge.

What would be a universal ethical principle, that what you say is ethical?

If we apply that logic consistently, no action could ever be called “murder” if the killer claims divine sanction.

Making such a claim, doesn't necessary mean it is true. And for example, if person is a Christians, he should go by the teachings of Jesus, and then he can't say he has right to kill other people.

Moreover, Exodus 23:7 says:
“Do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.”
Yet many of God’s own commands, such as killing children and non-combatants, do put innocents to death.

That can also mean the children were not innocent, otherwise they would not have been killed. And then the problem is, how do we know were they innocent.

I don't know enough to say there was wrong judgment.

But, I believe God judges correctly. And I also believe this "life" is not all. If it would be so that a righteous person would be killed, I believe he would go to eternal life with God. And that is why I don't see death of a body the end. For example Jesus was innocent and got killed, yet I believe he still lives.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #7]

Thank you for engaging thoughtfully. Let me address a few points.

God's law is obviously divine preference… and because God has given life, I think He has the right to decide how long it lasts.

That view raises a fundamental question. Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?
If the former, then morality becomes arbitrary - anything, including genocide, becomes “good” if commanded by God. If the latter, then moral goodness exists independently of divine command, and we can evaluate actions by their ethical consequences rather than who ordered them.

That can also mean the children were not innocent.

Here we face a moral paradox. If killing babies can be called "just" merely because a text claims divine approval, then “innocence” loses meaning entirely. The idea that infants could deserve slaughter undermines the very concept of justice and compassion. It replaces morality with obedience.

What would be a universal ethical principle?

A universal ethical principle would be one that applies equally to all sentient beings, regardless of tribe, faith, or species and including all gods (if they exist). For example: “Help all if you can, harm none if you can avoid it.”
In Compassionist-naturalist terms, moral value arises from the capacity to suffer and flourish, not from divine decree or group identity. Killing an innocent being who can suffer is wrong because it inflicts needless harm, not because of which side of a sacred text the command comes from. All babies are innocent because they are babies, regardless of who their parents were.

I believe God judges correctly.

That's not a fact - that's your belief. It does not make it true. I am convinced that the Biblical God is evil and imaginary, and the events in the Bible (e.g. Adam and Eve's creation and eviction from Eden, Jesus being conceived without sex, the various miracles in the Old and New Testaments) never actually happened. It's a book full of lies. Jesus is never going to return because he was never divine in the first place.

We have to work out what is true and what is moral. Any being - god or human - who commands or commits acts of cruelty cannot be called good by any ethical standard. If morality collapses into “might makes right,” it ceases to be morality at all.

In short, if morality is to mean anything beyond obedience, it must be grounded in empathy, fairness, and the minimization of suffering - principles that can stand whether or not gods exist.

[RBD]

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.

You're not arguing grammatical contradiction, but presuming to argue moral law.

Obviously, the God of the Bible and you do not agree on what is murder.

There are people that presume to conclude all killing is murder. Including killing animals, and even cutting down trees...You agree?

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

Exactly. Your presumption about moral law. Some people also believe all soldiers are murderers on the battlefield, and some were called 'baby killers' in airports. You agree with them too?

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,

So you say. Just to be consistent. Tell everyone, that you are the moral authority.

Jas 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

especially when commanded by an allegedly all-good being.

Are you also the one that is good, to tell everyone what is good, and what is not? Are you the good one?

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?

Here is the first effort to show a factual contradiction. Good job.

The assurance is of God's righteous judgment of the soul for personal sin, is not an injunction against bodily death. It's a spiritual law, not physical commandment.

3. “God’s morality is beyond human understanding.”
This argument essentially abandons moral reasoning.

Agreed. A silly moral copout. Especially since we are to know God's judgments and do the same.

Lev 18:4
Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

And also have His nature and mind:

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1Co 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

If God’s morality can justify genocide, then anything

God doesn't have morality. He's holy, pure, and righteous altogether.

Only people have morality. By which they then presume to judge the righteous, even the holiest of all...

— slavery, rape, torture

I read of slavery approved, but not rape. Nothing about torture at all.

In short:
If the command “Thou shalt not murder” is absolute, then the genocidal commands are immoral.

In short, if the command thou shalt not murder is absolutely what some people presume to say it is, then the Holy God's command to kill all the children, is evil.

Jas 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Since that's not possible, then their presumption about a holy God, that they don't believe in, is wrong.

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

As with your morality, dittoes your personal ethics, vs the LORD's personal holiness and true righteousness.


Credibility time: You believe the Bible, that says the LORD commands His people to kill the children of the enemy. You even quote it. So, do you also believe the Bible, that says that same LORD can't do any evil, nor even tempts anyone with evil, much less commands anyone to do evil?

[POI]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

And the fun does not stop there.... I recently opened a thread in which theists could not 'resolve', regarding another contradiction. (viewtopic.php?t=42592&start=220). See post 224 for the exciting conclusion, thus far...

Anywho, have fun with all the presented mental gymnastics, I mean "Christian apologetics" to come your way... Weee!