Contradiction with Proverbs 25:9
This verse advises handling disputes privately as well but does not specify the step-by-step reconciliation process outlined in Matthew 18:15.
Proverbs 25:9: Debate thy cause with thy neighbour [himself]; and discover not a secret to another: [a secret...: or, the secret of]
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 6:1
Contradicts by advising against taking church disputes to secular courts, whereas Matthew 18:15 focuses on resolving issues privately between individuals within the community.
1 Corinthians 6:1: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
Contradiction with Proverbs 19:11
Suggests overlooking an offense as a sign of wisdom, which contrasts with Matthew 18:15's directive to confront a brother who sins against you.
Proverbs 19:11: The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and [it is] his glory to pass over a transgression. [discretion: or, prudence]
Contradiction with Galatians 6:1
Advises restoring someone caught in transgression gently, which focuses more on the spirit of gentleness rather than the structured approach of Matthew 18:15.
Galatians 6:1: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. [if: or, although]
Contradiction with Luke 17:3
Similar in advising a private confrontation, but includes immediate rebuke and forgiveness upon repentance, potentially bypassing the specific process outlined in Matthew 18:15.
Luke 17:3: Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency might arise from comparing how interpersonal conflicts are handled in different parts of the Bible. In some parts, like in the Old Testament, the approach might involve more immediate or direct forms of justice or retribution, while the guidance in this verse emphasizes a more reconciliatory and private approach. This difference could be seen as a shift in how conflicts should be addressed.
Paradox #2
One potential contradiction in the instruction to address a person's fault privately is that it may conflict with situations where transparency and public accountability are necessary. For example, if the wrongdoing has larger implications or affects many people, handling it privately might not be sufficient or just. This could lead to tensions between protecting privacy and ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.