Contradiction with Leviticus 24:20
Exodus 21:19 suggests compensation for injury, while Leviticus 24:20 prescribes "an eye for an eye," emphasizing equivalent retribution rather than financial compensation.
Leviticus 24:20: Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].
Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
Exodus 21:19 involves recompense for harm, but Matthew 5:39 teaches to "resist not evil" and turn the other cheek, promoting forgiveness over compensation.
Matthew 5:39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Contradiction with Romans 12:17
Exodus 21:19 provides a basis for repayment of injury costs, whereas Romans 12:17 advises against repaying evil for evil, suggesting a non-retaliatory approach.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with 1 Peter 3:9
Exodus 21:19 leans on compensating for loss, while 1 Peter 3:9 advises not to return evil for evil or insult with insult, focusing on blessing instead.
1 Peter 3:9: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
Paradox #1
Exodus 21:19 can raise questions about the moral implications of how justice is applied and how it relates to the teachings of forgiveness and turning the other cheek seen in the New Testament. Some may see a contradiction between the Old Testament laws, which focus on specific legal consequences, and the New Testament's emphasis on mercy and forgiveness. However, interpretations vary widely.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict in this context might arise from the idea of justice and fairness. The verse addresses compensating someone who is injured, which can be seen as a reasonable approach to justice. However, this raises questions about how consistently fair and adequate this compensation is, whether it truly addresses the harm done, and how it lines up with modern views on justice and care for injured parties.