Contradiction with Exodus 21:24
This verse advocates for a literal "eye for eye" approach, which contradicts the non-retaliation teaching of Matthew 5:39.
Exodus 21:24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Contradiction with Leviticus 24:20
It prescribes a reciprocal justice system ("breach for breach, eye for eye"), contrasting with the idea of turning the other cheek.
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
This endorses a principle of equal retribution that conflicts with the pacifist stance in Matthew 5:39.
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 20:22
Advises not to repay evil, which aligns more closely, but emphasizes waiting on the Lord instead of passivity.
Proverbs 20:22: Say not thou, I will recompense evil; [but] wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.
Contradiction with Romans 12:19
This verse advises against retaliation but emphasizes leaving vengeance to God, which can be seen as a different approach than the immediate non-resistance in Matthew 5:39.
Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Paradox #1
Matthew 5:39 could be seen as contradictory because it suggests responding to aggression with non-retaliation, which might conflict with other biblical passages that advocate justice or self-defense. Some parts of the Bible emphasize justice and defending oneself, so this teaching of turning the other cheek may seem inconsistent with those messages. However, interpretations can vary, and many see it as a call for personal peace over vengeance.
Paradox #2
Matthew 5:39 suggests not resisting an evildoer and turning the other cheek. This could seem to contradict the idea of justice and self-defense found in other parts of the Bible, where justice and standing up against wrongdoing are emphasized. The tension lies in balancing forgiveness and non-retaliation with justice and protection.
Paradox #3
In historical context, "Matthew 5:39" might seem contradictory to the cultural norms of justice and retaliation in ancient times, where "an eye for an eye" was a common principle. This teaching promotes non-retaliation, which could conflict with the established legal and moral standards of the time that emphasized retribution.
Paradox #4
Matthew 5:39 might seem to contradict the idea of self-defense or justice. It suggests offering no resistance to evil, which can be seen as conflicting with the natural human inclination to protect oneself and seek fairness.