Contradiction with Deuteronomy 24:5
This verse states that a newly married man should not be sent to war or have any business imposed upon him for one year, contradicting the forced marriages in Judges 21:23 by emphasizing a more peaceful and respectful approach to marriage.
Deuteronomy 24:5: When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: [but] he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken. [neither...: Heb. not any thing shall pass upon him]
Contradiction with Matthew 19:6
This verse emphasizes that marriage should be a union established and honored by both parties without interference, contradicting the forced nature of the marriages in Judges 21:23.
Matthew 19:6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Contradiction with Exodus 20:14
Commanding not to commit adultery, this verse indirectly contradicts Judges 21:23 by emphasizing the sanctity of marriage which should not be concluded by force or deceit, unlike the forced unions described.
Exodus 20:14: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:39
This verse states that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, and that she is free to remarry only after his death, contradicting the context of forced marriages without consent in Judges 21:23.
1 Corinthians 7:39: The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:2
This verse advises each man to have his own wife and each woman her own husband to avoid immorality, which emphasizes mutual consent in marriage, contradicting the unilateral taking of wives in Judges 21:23.
1 Corinthians 7:2: Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Paradox #1
The theological conflict in Judges 21:23 may involve issues of morality and ethics. The verse describes the forced abduction of women, which raises questions about consent and the treatment of individuals. This contradicts other parts of the Bible that emphasize love, respect, and justice.
Paradox #2
This verse could present a moral and ethical contradiction or conflict with other parts of the Bible. It describes an act that might be seen as unethical or unjust compared to teachings elsewhere in the scriptures that emphasize love, consent, and justice. Some might see it as conflicting with the broader biblical values of respecting others and following moral principles.
Paradox #3
This verse relates to actions and practices from ancient times that may conflict with modern ethical views and human rights principles, especially relating to consent and the treatment of individuals. Some might find inconsistencies when comparing these actions to contemporary standards of personal freedom and equality.
Paradox #4
This verse might be seen as morally troubling because it describes a situation where women are taken against their will and given as wives. This can conflict with modern views on consent and individual rights, highlighting a moral inconsistency between the practices of the time and contemporary ethical standards.