Contradictions and Paradoxes in Deuteronomy 21:17

Check out Contradictions Catalog of Deuteronomy 21:17 for the comprehensive list of verses that contradicts Deuteronomy 21:17. Some key contradictions and paradoxes are described below.

According to Moses, even if a father likes one child more than another, he must still give a special gift, called a double portion, to his oldest son because being the oldest is very important. This means the oldest son gets a bigger share of what the father owns.

Deuteronomy 21:17: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his. [that...: Heb. that is found with him]

Contradiction with Genesis 25:5-6

This verse describes Abraham giving all he had to Isaac, suggesting a favoritism that contradicts the equal distribution of inheritance indicated in Deuteronomy 21:17.

Genesis 25:5-6: And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

Contradiction with 1 Kings 2:15

Adonijah acknowledges Solomon was favored to be king, a prioritization contrary to the firstborn's rights emphasized in Deuteronomy 21:17.

1 Kings 2:15: And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and [that] all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother's: for it was his from the LORD.

Contradiction with Hebrews 12:16-17

Esau's birthright is despised, presenting a narrative where the firstborn's rights are negated, opposing Deuteronomy 21:17's advocacy for firstborn priority.

Hebrews 12:16-17: Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Contradiction with Romans 9:11-13

God's election of Jacob over Esau, despite their birth order, contrasts with the firstborn preference commanded in Deuteronomy 21:17.

Romans 9:11-13: (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Paradox #1

Deuteronomy 21:17 might seem inconsistent with the concept of equality because it requires giving a double portion of inheritance to the firstborn son, regardless of parental preference. This could be seen as conflicting with the idea that all children should be treated equally and fairly in a family.

Paradox #2

The potential contradiction or inconsistency with Deuteronomy 21:17 could relate to the biblical concept of fairness and partiality. This verse establishes the rule for inheritance rights of the firstborn son, even if he is not the son of the favored wife, to receive a double portion. The inconsistency arises when considering other biblical passages that emphasize equal treatment and impartiality, suggesting a conflict between cultural practices and broader principles of justice.

Paradox #3

Deuteronomy 21:17 discusses inheritance rights, giving preference to the firstborn son. A possible contradiction or conflict here arises when comparing this principle to other biblical narratives, like Jacob blessing Joseph’s younger son over the elder or how Jacob, who was younger, received the blessing over Esau. These stories might seem inconsistent with the instruction to give the firstborn the right of the firstborn.

Paradox #4

The moral conflict in this verse might arise from the fact that it dictates a preference for the firstborn son when dividing an inheritance, which could seem unfair or unequal to other children. This preference seems to go against the idea of treating all children equally and without favoritism.

Disclaimer: The content provided at PolarBible.com is for educational purposes only. Readers have the full right to agree or disagree with the interpretations and conclusions presented. We take no responsibility for any actions or decisions taken based on the information shared as Polar Verses.