Contradiction with Exodus 23:32
It instructs not to make covenants with the inhabitants of the land, which contradicts Jephthah’s claim of rightful possession in Judges 11:27.
Exodus 23:32: Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 20:10-11
It commands offering peace before attacking a city, contrasting Jephthah’s justification for conflict in Judges 11:27.
Deuteronomy 20:10-11: When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
Contradiction with Joshua 11:19-20
It states that no cities made peace with Israel except the Hivites, which contrasts with Jephthah’s argument that Ammon should not dispute Israel’s possession in Judges 11:27.
Joshua 11:19-20: There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all [other] they took in battle.
Contradiction with 2 Kings 18:31-32
Invites surrender and peace under Assyrian rule, conflicting with the defensive stance in Judges 11:27.
2 Kings 18:31-32: Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make [an agreement] with me by a present, and come out to me, and [then] eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern: [Make...: or, Seek my favour: Heb. Make with me a blessing] [cistern: or, pit]
Contradiction with Matthew 5:9
"Blessed are the peacemakers," which opposes the conflict-oriented perspective in Judges 11:27.
Matthew 5:9: Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency regarding Judges 11:27 could involve the differing historical accounts of land ownership and territorial disputes described in the Bible versus what might be known from other historical records or archaeological findings. Sometimes, the biblical narrative may not align perfectly with historical or archaeological evidence concerning who controlled certain lands during specific periods.
Paradox #2
The moral conflict in this verse involves a dispute over land and the justification of war. It presents the challenge of determining rightful ownership and the ethics of using divine justification for conflict, which may contradict the principle of peaceful resolution.