Contradiction with Proverbs 24:29
This verse advises not to say, "I will do to him as he hath done to me," which contrasts with the principle of equal retribution in Matthew 5:38.
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 Romans 12:17
This verse instructs not to repay anyone evil for evil, opposing the notion of "an eye for an eye" presented in Matthew 5:38.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with 1 Thessalonians 5:15
This verse advises to seek not revenge and pursue goodness toward all, contrasting with the retributive justice implied in Matthew 5:38.
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].
Contradiction with Matthew 5:39
This verse directly follows 5:38, suggesting to not resist evil but turn the other cheek, which contradicts the idea of retribution in 5:38.
Matthew 5:39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Contradiction with Luke 6:29
This verse recommends offering the other cheek to someone who strikes you, which contradicts the concept of retribution in Matthew 5:38.
Luke 6:29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or conflict could be that this verse suggests a different approach to justice and retaliation compared to the "eye for an eye" principle found in the Old Testament. While the Old Testament advocates for equal retribution, this verse in the New Testament promotes non-retaliation and forgiveness. This can be seen as inconsistent with earlier teachings on justice.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction or conflict with this verse is that it opposes the Old Testament teaching of "an eye for an eye," which implies retribution or equal retaliation. This idea is challenged in Matthew 5:38 by advocating for non-retaliation and turning the other cheek instead. This shift might seem inconsistent because it advises a more forgiving and non-violent response compared to the earlier law of reciprocal justice.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or conflict with that verse is that it counters the traditional "eye for an eye" justice system found in earlier texts, like in the Old Testament/Torah. While earlier teachings focused on reciprocal justice, this verse introduces the idea of non-retaliation and forgiveness, representing a shift in moral and ethical teachings.
Paradox #4
Matthew 5:38 might seem to contradict the principle of justice, which typically involves fair retribution for wrongdoings. This verse suggests a response that goes beyond strict justice, promoting mercy and forgiveness instead, which can conflict with the idea of equal retaliation. This creates a tension between holding someone accountable and choosing forgiveness.