Contradiction with James 2:9
This verse states that showing partiality is a sin, which is a general principle that does not specify the same groups protected in Deuteronomy 24:17, where it particularly prohibits perverting judgment for the stranger, fatherless, and widow.
James 2:9: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Contradiction with Exodus 23:3
This verse advises against showing favoritism towards the poor in a lawsuit, while Deuteronomy 24:17 emphasizes protecting the rights of the poor, particularly widows, orphans, and foreigners, which may seem like a contradiction in balancing justice.
Exodus 23:3: Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.
Contradiction with Proverbs 22:22-23
This passage indicates not to rob the poor and affirms divine justice for the afflicted, which aligns with Deuteronomy 24:17, yet implies dependence on divine oversight rather than human judicial systems emphasized in Deuteronomy.
Proverbs 22:22-23: Rob not the poor, because he [is] poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
Contradiction with Leviticus 19:15
This commandment provides a general principle of impartiality in judgment, without the specific protections for the stranger, fatherless, and widow mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:17, which could suggest differing levels of advocacy for justice.
Leviticus 19:15: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: [but] in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 24:17 emphasizes justice for the marginalized, such as foreigners and orphans. A possible contradiction arises when compared to Old Testament passages where violence or harsh treatment is sometimes directed toward foreign groups during conquests. This raises questions of consistency regarding the treatment of outsiders.
Paradox #2
Deuteronomy 24:17 emphasizes fairness and justice, particularly for vulnerable groups. Historically, the challenge or inconsistency arises because although the verse promotes equity, there have been times when societies, including those influenced by biblical principles, have not consistently protected these groups, leading to contradictions between religious teachings and actual practices.
Paradox #3
The potential contradiction in this verse could be seen in the broader context of the Bible where there are instances of inequality and different treatment based on ethnicity or nationality. The specific verse advocates for justice and fair treatment, which might conflict with other parts where exclusionary or preferential treatment is observed. This could seem inconsistent when considering the ideal of universal justice.