Contradiction with James 2:10
This verse suggests that breaking even one part of the law makes someone guilty of breaking all of it, which contrasts with the idea in Romans 4:15 that the law brings wrath and where there is no law, there is no transgression.
James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Contradiction with Galatians 3:10
This verse states that those who rely on the law are under a curse for not continuing in all things written in the law, contrasting with Romans 4:15, which implies that the absence of law means there is no transgression.
Galatians 3:10: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Contradiction with 1 John 3:4
This verse defines sin as transgression of the law, suggesting that without law, there can be no sin, contrasting how Romans 4:15 indicates wrath comes with the law, not merely the transgression.
1 John 3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:18
Here, it is stated that the law will not pass away, highlighting its enduring nature, which contrasts with the implication in Romans 4:15 that law brings wrath and that the absence of law leads to no transgression.
Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Paradox #1
The verse might seem to conflict with the idea of everyone being under the law because it talks about no transgression where there is no law. Some might wonder how this aligns with other parts of the Bible that emphasize the importance of the law. This perceived inconsistency could cause questions about the role and significance of the law in relation to sin and faith.
Paradox #2
Romans 4:15 might present a contradiction or conflict because it suggests that the law brings wrath, implying that without the law there is no transgression. This could be seen as inconsistent because it raises the question of how moral behavior is determined and judged in the absence of law. If laws define what is wrong, then without them, it might seem that nothing is considered wrong, which could conflict with the idea of inherent moral values.