Contradiction with Leviticus 19:18
This verse encourages loving your neighbor as yourself, which may contradict the seemingly strict retribution principle in Exodus 21:35.
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
Advocates for turning the other cheek, contrasting with the reciprocal justice seen in Exodus 21:35.
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
Advises against repaying evil for evil, which differs from the principle of compensation for damages in Exodus 21:35.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with Matthew 6:14-15
Encourages forgiveness of others, diverging from the compensatory justice mentioned in Exodus 21:35.
Matthew 6:14-15: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Contradiction with 1 Peter 3:9
Urges not to repay evil with evil, offering a contrast to the retributive aspect of Exodus 21:35.
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.
Contradiction with Proverbs 25:21
Advises to feed your enemy, standing in contrast to the legal reparation focus in Exodus 21:35.
Proverbs 25:21: If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Paradox #1
Exodus 21:35 deals with property laws in a way that reflects the cultural and legal context of ancient times. A potential theological conflict could arise when comparing these laws to modern views on justice, animal rights, or the intrinsic value of life. Some might find it inconsistent with the broader biblical themes of compassion and human responsibility. However, many interpret such verses as historical context rather than direct commandments for today.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency with this verse could relate to ancient laws about property and ownership. In ancient societies, the way property rights and compensations were handled might differ. Some cultures might have had different rules on how to resolve disputes over damage caused by animals, leading to inconsistencies when comparing these laws with those of the time. However, this is largely speculative without specific historical context.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in Exodus 21:35 could be seen in the way it specifically describes compensation for damage related to animals without addressing broader ethical principles about animal life or justice for all types of harm. It might seem inconsistent to some because it deals more with property and finance rather than the value of life, whether human or animal.