Deuteronomy 22:25 Contradictions and Paradoxes

According to Moses, if a man hurts a girl who is promised to someone and he does something very wrong to her in a field, only he should be punished by being put to death. This teaches that God wants to protect people and make sure those who do bad things are held responsible.

Contradiction with Exodus 20:13

"Thou shalt not kill" contradicts the death penalty for the man in Deuteronomy 22:25.

Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.

Contradiction with Ezekiel 18:20

Emphasizes personal responsibility for sin, deviating from the shared responsibility and punishment in Deuteronomy 22:25.

Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Contradiction with John 8:7

Jesus’s teaching "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" contrasts with the prescribed stoning in Deuteronomy 22:25.

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 Romans 12:19

Teaches personal non-vengeance, leaving vengeance to God, which contradicts the swift justice in Deuteronomy 22:25.

Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Contradiction with Matthew 5:38-39

Jesus overturns the "eye for an eye" principle which is echoed in the immediate retribution of Deuteronomy 22:25.

Matthew 5:38-39: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Paradox #1

Some people point out that the laws in Deuteronomy, including this verse, reflect ancient cultural practices and norms which might seem inconsistent with modern views on justice and human rights. The approach to justice in the verse might conflict with contemporary values, especially regarding how similar situations are handled today.

Paradox #2

The verse addresses a specific situation of sexual violence, and one potential contradiction could be how it emphasizes punishing the perpetrator without addressing the needs or support for the victim. This could suggest an imbalance in focusing solely on punishment rather than also providing justice and care for the victim's welfare.