Contradiction with Exodus 20:3
This verse commands to have no other gods, while Exodus 32:26 involves a choice for the Lord, highlighting a previous transgression against this command.
Exodus 20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Contradiction with John 8:7
Encourages those without sin to cast the first stone, contradicting the direct call for the righteous to stand with the Lord in Exodus 32:26.
John 8:7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
Instructs to love your enemies, conflicting with Exodus 32:26's depiction of division among people and the call for allegiance.
Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Contradiction with James 4:12
States there is one lawgiver and judge, which contradicts with human judgment implied by the division in Exodus 32:26.
James 4:12: There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Contradiction with Luke 9:50
"He that is not against us is for us," suggests inclusivity versus the exclusivity portrayed in Exodus 32:26.
Luke 9:50: And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Contradiction with Matthew 26:52
Advises putting away the sword, contrasting the potential for conflict seen in taking sides as in Exodus 32:26.
Matthew 26:52: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction or conflict could be related to the concept of loyalty and obedience to spiritual authority. In Exodus 32:26, there is an emphasis on choosing to stand with the Lord, often interpreted as aligning with divine authority above all else. However, this can conflict with other biblical narratives or teachings that emphasize love, mercy, and forgiveness. For instance, it might seem to conflict with ideas about compassion towards others regardless of their actions, as the focus in this verse is on siding with divine commandments potentially against one's own community or family if they are perceived as sinning. This tension between loyalty to divine authority and universal love can be seen as an inconsistency in interpretation or emphasis.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction in Exodus 32:26 could lie in the call for choosing sides, which might conflict with the New Testament's emphasis on forgiveness and unity. In the Old Testament, there is a moment of division where a choice is demanded, whereas the New Testament often promotes reconciliation and inclusive love. This divergence can be seen as a conflict between justice and mercy principles.
Paradox #3
Exodus 32:26 involves Moses calling people to declare their loyalty to the Lord after the incident of the golden calf. A possible contradiction or inconsistency could be the depiction of the Levites' involvement. The Levites are shown as the group that responds to Moses' call, yet other biblical passages depict the tribe at times engaging in idolatry, which raises questions about uniformity in their loyalty. However, interpretations vary, and this is more about differing portrayals rather than a direct contradiction.
Paradox #4
Exodus 32:26 could be seen as having a moral conflict because it involves choosing sides in a situation of disobedience and conflict among the people. The challenge is that it calls for loyalty, but it also leads to a potentially violent confrontation. This can create a tension between the values of loyalty and peace.