Contradiction with Exodus 20:13
"Thou shalt not kill" contradicts the command in Deuteronomy 20:17 to destroy certain nations.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
"Love your enemies" is contrary to the directive in Deuteronomy to annihilate foes.
Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Contradiction with Luke 6:27
"Do good to them which hate you" opposes the annihilation instruction in Deuteronomy 20:17.
Luke 6:27: But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Contradiction with Proverbs 25:21
"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat" conflicts with the order to obliterate enemies.
Proverbs 25:21: If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Contradiction with Romans 12:20
"If thine enemy hunger, feed him" stands against the command in Deuteronomy 20:17 to obliterate groups.
Romans 12:20: Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 20:17 might raise concerns about the morality of divine instructions for violence or warfare, which can seem contradictory to other biblical teachings about love and mercy. This can create tension in understanding the character of God and the application of justice and compassion in biblical teachings.
Paradox #2
Deuteronomy 20:17, which instructs the Israelites to destroy certain nations, might be seen as inconsistent with the broader biblical themes of love, mercy, and forgiveness found elsewhere in the Bible, such as in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where love for enemies and forgiveness are emphasized. This can create tension between the ethic of war and destruction in the Old Testament and the ethic of peace and reconciliation in the New Testament.
Paradox #3
This verse talks about the Israelites being instructed to destroy certain groups of people completely. The contradiction or inconsistency arises because archaeological evidence and historical records do not always show complete destruction of these groups. Some of these groups appear in later historical records, suggesting they were not completely wiped out as described. Additionally, this kind of instruction conflicts with modern ideas about morality and human rights, leading to debates about how these texts should be interpreted in a contemporary context.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or inconsistency could be related to the concept of divinely sanctioned warfare and the complete destruction of certain groups. Modern understandings of ethics and anthropology suggest that cultural groups have intrinsic value and that conflicts often have more complex causes than portrayed in ancient texts. The idea of exterminating entire groups conflicts with contemporary views on human rights and ethical conduct in warfare.
Paradox #5
This verse talks about completely destroying certain groups of people, which can create a contradiction with other parts of the Bible that promote love, forgiveness, and the value of human life. This conflict can arise when trying to reconcile the commands for violence with teachings of compassion and mercy found elsewhere in the scripture.