Contradiction with Leviticus 24:19-20
This verse calls for a direct "eye for an eye" form of retribution, while Exodus 22:5 addresses compensation rather than equal retaliation.
Leviticus 24:19-20: And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Contradiction with Numbers 35:31
This verse prohibits taking compensation for the life of a murderer, suggesting the non-applicability of monetary compensation in cases of wrongdoing, whereas Exodus 22:5 allows for compensation for damages.
Numbers 35:31: Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which [is] guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. [guilty...: Heb. faulty to die]
Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
This verse advises against resisting an evil person, advocating non-retaliation, contradicting the Exodus 22:5 idea of paying back for damages.
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 12:17-19
These verses discourage recompensing evil for evil and advocate leaving vengeance to God, opposing the Exodus 22:5 principle of compensatory justice.
Romans 12:17-19: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Paradox #1
One possible contradiction in Exodus 22:5 could arise when considering the concept of personal responsibility versus communal welfare. The verse suggests that an individual is directly responsible for any harm their actions cause to another's property. This could conflict with the idea of communal support and forgiveness, where the community might prioritize restoration and reconciliation over strict personal liability. Balancing personal accountability with collective unity can present a moral challenge.