Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
This verse teaches to not resist evil and turn the other cheek, which contradicts the legal retribution described in Exodus 21:36.
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 12:19
This verse advises against seeking vengeance, leaving it to God, unlike the responsibility laid out for an ox owner in Exodus 21:36.
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 Luke 6:29
Encouraging personal sacrifice and forgiveness contradicts the specific reparative justice method in Exodus 21:36.
Luke 6:29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency with the verse could relate to differences in ancient legal practices. In some ancient cultures, laws and punishments for property damage or livestock management differed, so the rules given might conflict with other historical records of similar laws from nearby regions or different time periods.
Paradox #2
This Bible verse deals with the responsibility of an animal owner if their animal causes harm. The moral conflict could arise from the idea that animals, rather than humans, are punished or regulated by human laws, raising questions about fairness, responsibility, and the treatment of animals, especially in modern times when animal rights are more prominent.