Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
This verse advocates for non-retaliation, in contrast to the restorative justice called for in Exodus 22:9.
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 6:29
Encourages turning the other cheek and not seeking recompense, opposing the principle of restitution in Exodus 22:9.
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.
Contradiction with Romans 12:19
Advises against seeking personal vengeance, differing from the specific restitution process outlined in Exodus 22:9.
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 1 Corinthians 6:7
Suggests accepting wrong or being defrauded instead of seeking judgment, unlike the directive for legal resolution in Exodus 22:9.
1 Corinthians 6:7: Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
Paradox #1
Exodus 22:9 involves laws about property disputes and making someone pay double if found guilty of theft. A potential contradiction could arise when comparing this with New Testament teachings by Jesus about forgiveness and not demanding repayment (e.g., turning the other cheek in Matthew 5:39-42). The conflict is between the Old Testament's emphasis on restitution and the New Testament's emphasis on forgiveness and mercy.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict in Exodus 22:9 can stem from the idea of assigning blame and responsibility without definitive proof. This verse involves judgment about ownership and honesty regarding another person's property. Some people might view the reliance on authoritative or divine judgment in resolving disputes as potentially unfair or inconsistent, especially in situations where evidence is lacking. This could lead to questions about justice and fairness in such resolutions.