Contradiction with Exodus 21:24
This verse supports the idea of taking "an eye for an eye", promoting retribution, which contradicts Romans 12:17 that advises against repaying evil for evil.
Exodus 21:24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Contradiction with Leviticus 24:19-20
These verses advocate for reciprocal justice ("fracture for fracture"), opposing Romans 12:17's message to refrain from repaying wrong with similar actions.
Leviticus 24:19-20: And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Contradiction with Matthew 5:38
This verse references the law of retaliation, suggesting an acceptance of retribution, contrasting with Romans 12:17's guidance to not pay back evil.
Matthew 5:38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 19:21
It prescribes exacting vengeance ("life for life"), which contradicts Romans 12:17’s counsel of not repaying evil with evil.
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
Advises not to seek revenge, aligning with Romans 12:17, yet implies it is a natural tendency, showcasing the contradiction in human nature against the ideal described in Romans.
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.
Paradox #1
Some people might find a conflict between Romans 12:17 and certain Old Testament teachings that advocate for more direct forms of justice or retribution, such as "an eye for an eye." Romans 12:17 advises against repaying evil for evil, which seems to oppose those earlier justice principles. People might find this inconsistent with the idea of justice as taking immediate corrective action. However, others believe this New Testament teaching reflects a deeper emphasis on forgiveness and love.
Paradox #2
One potential doctrinal inconsistency with Romans 12:17 could be compared to some Old Testament teachings that suggest retribution or justice should be enacted, like "an eye for an eye". The verse, however, advises against repaying evil for evil, promoting forgiveness and peace instead. This could seem contradictory to earlier biblical laws that endorse retributive justice.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in this verse could be that it advises not to repay evil with evil, which might seem inconsistent with some Old Testament laws that advocate "an eye for an eye" as a form of justice. This could be seen as conflicting because one promotes forgiveness while the other promotes retribution.