Contradiction with Matthew 5:38-39
Exodus 21:25 advocates for reciprocal justice ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth"), while Matthew 5:38-39 advises against retaliation, encouraging individuals to turn the other cheek instead.
Matthew 5:38-39: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Contradiction with Romans 12:17-19
Exodus 21:25 discusses the principle of equal retribution, whereas Romans 12:17-19 urges believers to avoid repaying evil for evil and leave vengeance to God.
Romans 12:17-19: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with Proverbs 20:22
Exodus 21:25 supports the idea of retributive justice, but Proverbs 20:22 advises people not to say, "I will recompense evil," and to wait for the Lord to bring salvation instead.
Proverbs 20:22: Say not thou, I will recompense evil; [but] wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.
Contradiction with 1 Thessalonians 5:15
Exodus 21:25 endorses a proportional response to harm, in contrast 1 Thessalonians 5:15 encourages Christians to always seek to do good to others and not to repay wrong for wrong.
1 Thessalonians 5:15: See that none render evil for evil unto any [man]; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all [men].
Contradiction with 1 Peter 3:9
While Exodus 21:25 promotes a "like for like" retributive justice, 1 Peter 3:9 instructs believers not to return evil for evil or insult for insult, but to bless others 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
The potential contradiction or conflict with Exodus 21:25 might arise from contrasting it with New Testament teachings, such as those found in Matthew 5:38-39, which advocate for turning the other cheek instead of seeking retribution. This presents a conflict between the Old Testament's law of retribution and the New Testament's emphasis on forgiveness and non-retaliation.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency with Exodus 21:25 could relate to the concept of "an eye for an eye" or literal retribution, which seems to conflict with teachings about forgiveness and turning the other cheek found in the New Testament, specifically in the teachings of Jesus. This contrast between justice based on retribution and the New Testament's emphasis on forgiveness and mercy can create a tension in interpretation and application of biblical teachings.
Paradox #3
The potential contradiction with "Exodus 21:25" could be regarding the concept of "an eye for an eye" as a method of justice. Scientifically, we understand that harm and injury can have complex impacts on individuals, and physical retribution doesn't account for the psychological, emotional, or broader societal effects of violence. Modern justice systems tend to focus on rehabilitation and deterrence rather than direct retributive justice, which might conflict with the literal interpretation of this verse.
Paradox #4
Exodus 21:25 talks about the idea of "an eye for an eye," meaning that if someone harms you, they should be harmed in the same way. The contradiction here is that this idea of equal retribution conflicts with teachings of forgiveness and turning the other cheek, which appear in other parts of the Bible, like in the New Testament. So, there's a tension between justice as direct retribution and compassion or mercy.