Contradiction with Matthew 5:38-39
Exodus 21:30 supports a financial compensation for injury ("ransom"), while Matthew 5:38-39 advocates against the idea of retribution or repayment, emphasizing turning 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 12:19
Exodus 21:30 allows for a financial settlement to atone for harm, whereas Romans 12:19 advises against seeking personal vengeance and encourages leaving retribution to God.
Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Contradiction with Proverbs 17:15
Exodus 21:30 permits a monetary payment in place of punishment, which could be seen as justifying the wicked by payment, contrary to Proverbs 17:15 that condemns justifying the wicked.
Proverbs 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to the LORD.
Paradox #1
Exodus 21:30 might create a theological inconsistency because it suggests that human life can be compensated with a monetary payment, which could clash with the idea in other parts of the Bible that human life is sacred and priceless. This might seem to conflict with teachings that emphasize the inherent value of each person.
Paradox #2
Exodus 21:30 might seem to contradict other biblical themes of justice and punishment by introducing the idea of monetary compensation for a serious offense, which could appear to undermine the moral seriousness of the act. This can create tension with the principle of equal justice or the idea that certain crimes require specific, non-negotiable punishments.
Paradox #3
Exodus 21:30 could show a historical inconsistency if compared to ancient laws on punishment and compensation. In the Bible, certain wrongdoings could be settled with a payment, while in some other ancient cultures, similar offenses always resulted in harsher penalties without compensation options. This difference might illustrate variations in legal practices and values over time and between cultures.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in this verse could revolve around the idea of placing a monetary value on a life. It suggests that a person can pay money as compensation for a life, which may conflict with the belief in the sanctity and intrinsic value of human life that cannot be measured or replaced with money. Some might see this as inconsistent with the broader moral teachings that emphasize life's inherent worth.