Exodus 21:33 Contradictions and Paradoxes

According to Moses, if someone digs a hole and doesn't cover it, and an animal like a cow or donkey falls in, the person who made the hole should take responsibility. This teaches people to be careful and make sure their actions don't cause harm to others or their animals.

Contradiction with Exodus 21:37

It contradicts Exodus 21:33 by issuing a distinct guideline for theft, where restitution is underlined rather than the liability for pit accidents.

Exodus 21:37:

Contradiction with Exodus 21:28

Unlike Exodus 21:33, this verse discusses damages resulting from an ox goring someone, focusing on animal rather than a pit responsibility.

Exodus 21:28: If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.

Contradiction with Leviticus 19:18

Advises against harboring vengeance or grudges, which contrasts with the assignment of liability for damages suggested in Exodus 21:33.

Leviticus 19:18: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

Contradiction with Matthew 5:39

Encourages turning the other cheek in contrast to seeking recompense as indicated in Exodus 21:33.

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 Luke 6:31

Promotes doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, while Exodus 21:33 deals with allocation of blame and responsibility.

Luke 6:31: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Paradox #1

Exodus 21:33 discusses a specific legal instruction that may seem contradictory or inconsistent with modern legal and ethical standards. In historical context, it's a rule about responsibility and compensation related to property and accidents. The potential contradiction comes from how this ancient law contrasts with contemporary views on justice and accountability, where interpretations and applications can vary significantly. The verse represents historical norms that might conflict with today's values around fairness and liability.

Paradox #2

The moral inconsistency in this verse could be the idea of responsibility for harm. It suggests that if someone causes danger or harm through negligence, they should be held accountable. However, elsewhere, the Bible also emphasizes forgiveness and turning the other cheek, which might seem contradictory to the idea of strict accountability and reparation for damages. This creates a tension between the concepts of justice and mercy.