Contradiction with Matthew 5:16
This verse encourages letting one's good deeds be seen by others, while Matthew 26:12 suggests a private, unacknowledged act of anointing for burial.
Matthew 5:16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Contradiction with Luke 10:38-42
Here, Martha's active service is contrasted with Mary's devotion, highlighting different priorities compared to the costly act of anointment in Matthew 26:12.
Luke 10:38-42: Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
Contradiction with John 12:5
This verse questions the use of expensive ointment for Jesus instead of selling it for charity, conflicting with the approval given in Matthew 26:12.
John 12:5: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Contradiction with Mark 14:7
Indicates that the poor can always be helped, which could undermine the necessity of using resources on Jesus as described in Matthew 26:12.
Mark 14:7: For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
Contradiction with Proverbs 19:17
Suggests blessing those in need as lending to the Lord, contradicting the specific act focused on Jesus in Matthew 26:12.
Proverbs 19:17: He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. [that which...: or, his deed]
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency with Matthew 26:12 might revolve around the idea of priorities in worship and action. Some may see a conflict between showing devotion to Jesus through costly gestures, like anointing, versus the call to prioritize helping the poor and needy, as emphasized in other parts of the Bible. Balancing acts of personal devotion with social responsibility can be seen as a point of tension.
Paradox #2
One possible contradiction in Matthew 26:12 could be the tension between using valuable resources for spiritual or symbolic actions rather than addressing more practical needs, like helping the poor. This might seem conflicting to some, as it raises the question of how best to use resources in line with moral and ethical priorities.