Contradiction with John 8:7
The verse suggests not to judge others harshly, contradicting the harsh judgment in Deuteronomy 22:24.
John 8:7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Contradiction with Matthew 7:1
This verse advises against judging others, contrary to the judgment in Deuteronomy 22:24.
Matthew 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Contradiction with Romans 3:23
This verse acknowledges that all have sinned, which contrasts with the severe punishment for one particular sin in Deuteronomy 22:24.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Contradiction with James 2:13
This verse promotes mercy over judgment, which is in contrast to the stoning judgment in Deuteronomy 22:24.
James 2:13: For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. [rejoiceth: or, glorieth]
Contradiction with Matthew 5:7
The Beatitudes bless the merciful, which contradicts the lack of mercy in Deuteronomy 22:24.
Matthew 5:7: Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Contradiction with Luke 6:37
This verse teaches not to condemn, which contrasts with the condemnation to death in Deuteronomy 22:24.
Luke 6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 22:24 might be seen as problematic because it suggests consequences for both parties involved in a specific situation, which may not consider power imbalances or issues of consent. This could be seen as inconsistent with broader biblical themes of justice and compassion.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency could arise from the perceived harshness of the punishment described in the verse compared to the broader biblical themes of mercy and forgiveness. Some may see a conflict between strict justice and the compassion emphasized in other parts of the Bible.
Paradox #3
This verse could be seen as problematic because it describes a situation where both parties involved in an act are punished despite circumstances that might suggest one party is not consenting or unable to act otherwise. The expectation that a person should have called for help assumes conditions were always possible for one to do so, which might not have been the case. This can be at odds with modern understanding of consent and victimization.
Paradox #4
Deuteronomy 22:24 has been criticized for its approach to dealing with issues of sexual conduct, as it prescribes severe punishment for both parties involved in certain situations. The moral conflict arises because it does not take into account consent or the possibility of coercion, particularly for the woman, which conflicts with modern understandings of justice and fairness.