Contradiction with Matthew 5:38-39
Leviticus 24:20 advocates "an eye for an eye," while Matthew 5:38-39 teaches to "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek," promoting forgiveness over retribution.
Matthew 5:38-39: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Contradiction with Romans 12:17
Leviticus 24:20 suggests equal retaliation, whereas Romans 12:17 advises "Recompense to no man evil for evil," encouraging non-retaliation.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with 1 Peter 3:9
Leviticus 24:20 calls for reciprocal harm, but 1 Peter 3:9 encourages believers to "not render evil for evil," urging blessing instead of vengeance.
1 Peter 3:9: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
Contradiction with Proverbs 20:22
Leviticus 24:20 endorses matching harm for harm, while Proverbs 20:22 advises "Say not thou, I will recompense evil," promoting patience and reliance on the Lord.
Proverbs 20:22: Say not thou, I will recompense evil; [but] wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.
Contradiction with 1 Thessalonians 5:15
Leviticus 24:20 endorses equal retribution, whereas 1 Thessalonians 5:15 commands to "see that none render evil for evil," highlighting a call to pursue good.
1 Thessalonians 5:15: See that none render evil for evil unto any [man]; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all [men].
Paradox #1
Leviticus 24:20 mentions "eye for an eye," which could contradict messages of forgiveness and turning the other cheek found in the New Testament, particularly in the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. This highlights a shift from retributive justice to a more forgiving approach, creating potential inconsistency between Old and New Testament teachings.
Paradox #2
The potential conflict with Leviticus 24:20 is the idea of "an eye for an eye" versus the New Testament teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus advises turning the other cheek and encourages forgiveness over retribution. This can seem like a contradiction between the Old Testament's justice-focused approach and the New Testament's emphasis on mercy and forgiveness.
Paradox #3
The concept of "eye for an eye" in Leviticus 24:20 might seem harsh or contradictory because it clashes with later teachings of forgiveness and turning the other cheek, as mentioned in the New Testament, particularly in the teachings of Jesus. This reflects a shift from justice based on equal retribution to one based on mercy and compassion.
Paradox #4
The idea of "an eye for an eye" might conflict with modern scientific and ethical understandings, especially in psychology and sociology. These fields suggest that rehabilitation, understanding, and compassion can be more effective than retribution in changing behavior and improving societal well-being.
Paradox #5
This verse promotes the idea of "an eye for an eye," which means doing to others what they have done to you. The contradiction here is that it conflicts with later teachings in the Bible, particularly those of Jesus in the New Testament, who preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek instead of seeking revenge. This creates inconsistency between the idea of retribution in the Old Testament and forgiveness in the New Testament.