Contradiction with Matthew 20:16
1 Samuel 30:24 promotes equal sharing of spoils, while Matthew 20:16 emphasizes that the last shall be first, suggesting a form of inequality.
Matthew 20:16: So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Contradiction with Luke 19:26
This verse implies that those who have more will receive more, contradicting the equitable distribution of 1 Samuel 30:24.
Luke 19:26: For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
Contradiction with Proverbs 14:23
The idea that profit comes from labor contradicts the equal share given to those who did not fight as mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:24.
Proverbs 14:23: In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips [tendeth] only to penury.
Contradiction with 2 Thessalonians 3:10
Here, it is stated that if anyone is not willing to work, let them not eat, contrasting the equal sharing in 1 Samuel 30:24 regardless of participation in battle.
2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Contradiction with Matthew 25:29
This verse suggests that those who have will be given more, opposing the equal portion to all in 1 Samuel 30:24.
Matthew 25:29: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Paradox #1
1 Samuel 30:24 could be seen as potentially conflicting with other biblical teachings on fairness and reward based on work or effort. In this verse, those who stayed behind to guard supplies received the same share of spoils as those who fought in battle. This might conflict with passages that emphasize reward according to individual effort or actions, suggesting a difference in views on what constitutes a fair distribution of rewards.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction in this verse could be the idea of equal reward for unequal effort. Some might see a conflict between fairness and generosity because those who stayed behind received the same share as those who fought, which might seem unfair to those who risked more.