Contradiction with Proverbs 25:21
This verse advises to treat enemies with kindness, whereas in 1 Samuel 25:7, David is reminding Nabal of his past protection, expecting reciprocation, which contrasts with unconditionally helping enemies.
Proverbs 25:21: If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
Jesus teaches to love enemies and bless those who curse, which contrasts with David's implied expectation of reward for past deeds in 1 Samuel 25:7.
Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Contradiction with Romans 12:20
This verse suggests feeding an enemy if they are hungry, while 1 Samuel 25:7 implies the expectation of reciprocal favor, rather than unconditional benevolence.
Romans 12:20: Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Contradiction with Luke 6:35
Encourages love for enemies without expecting anything in return, in contrast to the expectation of favor as noted in 1 Samuel 25:7.
Luke 6:35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
Contradiction with 1 Peter 3:9
Advises not to repay evil for evil, or insult with insult, which contrasts with the expectation in 1 Samuel 25:7 of getting a reward for past good.
1 Peter 3:9: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
Paradox #1
1 Samuel 25:7 describes a situation where David's men have been protecting Nabal's shepherds and his property without being asked, and later they request kindness or hospitality in return. The potential contradiction or inconsistency here could be the expectation of reward for a good deed, which might conflict with the idea of performing good deeds selflessly, without expecting something in return. This scenario raises questions about the nature of generosity and whether it should come with conditions.