Contradiction with Leviticus 24:20
This verse advocates "eye for eye" retribution, contradicting the leniency in Exodus 21:26 which suggests releasing a servant rather than matching the injury.
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
This verse teaches to "resist not evil" and instead turn the other cheek, contradicting Exodus 21:26 which implies a form of punishment or restitution.
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 advises against repaying evil for evil, contradicting the principle in Exodus 21:26 of compensating a wrong with specific action (freedom).
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with Proverbs 24:29
This verse instructs not to say, "I will do to him as he hath done to me," contradicting the tit-for-tat approach implied in Exodus 21:26 with the compensation for injury.
Proverbs 24:29: Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.
Paradox #1
Exodus 21:26 might be seen as inconsistent with the broader biblical theme of justice and equality. The verse discusses specific penalties for harm caused to a servant, which could be interpreted as reinforcing social inequality by implying that the punishment is connected to the status of the person harmed, in contrast to the Bible's overall principles of fairness and equal treatment for all people.
Paradox #2
Exodus 21:26 discusses laws regarding the treatment of servants, specifically mentioning penalties if a master harms a servant. A potential contradiction might arise when comparing this verse to teachings about love, equality, and the inherent dignity of every person found elsewhere in the Bible, such as in the New Testament's emphasis on loving others and the idea that all are equal before God. Some could see a conflict between the acceptance of servitude in Exodus and the overarching biblical message of love and equality.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency with Exodus 21:26 could be viewed in the context of differing societal norms and legal practices over time. Ancient laws around punishment and compensation, particularly concerning slaves, might conflict with modern views on human rights and equality. This can lead to debates on how such biblical laws align with contemporary ethical standards.
Paradox #4
One potential moral inconsistency with Exodus 21:26 could be that it seems to accept the practice of owning and harming slaves, which conflicts with modern values of equality and human rights. This presents a challenge when trying to reconcile the verse with contemporary ethical standards that oppose slavery and abuse of any person.