Contradiction with Exodus 21:24
"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." This verse contradicts Luke 6:29 as it promotes retribution rather than turning the other cheek.
Exodus 21:24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Contradiction with Leviticus 24:20
"Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." This supports retaliatory justice, contrasting the forbearance advised in Luke 6:29.
Leviticus 24:20: Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 19:21
"And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." The directive for strict justice in this verse opposes the message of non-retaliation in Luke 6:29.
Deuteronomy 19:21: And thine eye shall not pity; [but] life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Contradiction with Proverbs 24:29
"Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work." Although advising not to retaliate, the context implies a more balanced justice approach as opposed to complete passivity in Luke 6:29.
Proverbs 24:29: Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:38
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This reference to prior law underscores the ancient principle of retributive justice, which contradicts the call for turning the other cheek in Luke 6:29.
Matthew 5:38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Paradox #1
Luke 6:29 might seem difficult because it suggests responding to harm with kindness. Some people see this as conflicting with other parts of the Bible that talk about justice or defending oneself. On the one hand, the verse teaches about forgiveness and patience. On the other hand, many stories in the Bible show God allowing or even encouraging self-defense or punishment of wrongdoers. This balance between mercy and justice might feel contradictory to some readers.
Paradox #2
The potential doctrinal conflict with this verse might be its apparent contradiction with the human instinct for self-defense. While the verse advises turning the other cheek, other parts of the Bible acknowledge the right to protect oneself and others. This could lead to differing interpretations about when to offer forgiveness versus when to defend oneself.
Paradox #3
Luke 6:29 suggests responding to aggression with non-violence, which could conflict with the natural human instinct to defend oneself or with other teachings that justify self-defense. Some might see it as inconsistent with ensuring personal safety or justice.