Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
This verse contradicts Exodus 21:24 by teaching to resist not evil and turn the other cheek instead of seeking an eye for an eye.
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
This verse contradicts Exodus 21:24 as it advises to recompense to no man evil for evil, emphasizing forgiveness and peace over retribution.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with Proverbs 20:22
This verse contradicts Exodus 21:24 by instructing not to say "I will recompense evil" but to wait on the Lord for deliverance, opposing the idea of personal revenge.
Proverbs 20:22: Say not thou, I will recompense evil; [but] wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.
Paradox #1
The concept of "eye for an eye" in this verse can seem inconsistent with teachings about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, as emphasized in the New Testament. This might appear contradictory to some, as one promotes retribution, while the other advocates for forgiveness and non-retaliation.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency regarding Exodus 21:24 could be related to the concept of justice and forgiveness. In this verse, the idea of "an eye for an eye" represents a form of retributive justice. However, in the New Testament, Jesus teaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, which is a different approach to handling wrongs. This can create a conflict between Old Testament justice and New Testament teachings on forgiveness and mercy.
Paradox #3
The phrase "eye for an eye" can conflict with teachings that promote forgiveness and turning the other cheek, as seen in other parts of the Bible, such as the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. This can create an inconsistency between the value of strict justice in the Old Testament and the emphasis on mercy and forgiveness in the New Testament.
Paradox #4
The concept of "an eye for an eye" from that verse, which suggests exact retribution, might conflict with modern scientific understanding of neuroscience and psychology. These fields suggest that human behavior and reactions are complex and influenced by a variety of factors, and strict retributive justice may not effectively address the underlying causes of behavior or lead to rehabilitation. Additionally, modern legal systems often focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or conflict with the principle in Exodus 21:24 is that it promotes the idea of "an eye for an eye," which can be seen as promoting revenge or retribution rather than forgiveness and reconciliation. This idea can conflict with other teachings in the Bible, particularly those of Jesus in the New Testament, which emphasize forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and loving one's enemies. This can create tension between justice as retribution and justice as mercy and compassion.
Paradox #6
The contradiction in Exodus 21:24 arises when comparing it to the teachings in the New Testament, specifically passages that advocate for forgiveness and turning the other cheek. The Old Testament passage suggests a retaliatory measure, while the New Testament encourages non-retaliation and mercy, creating an apparent inconsistency in how justice and personal offenses should be addressed.