Contradiction with Galatians 3:28
While Acts 16:21 suggests a division between Jews and Romans, Galatians 3:28 emphasizes that in Christ, such distinctions do not exist.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Contradiction with Romans 10:12
Acts 16:21 highlights the differences in customs between Jews and Romans, but Romans 10:12 states there is no difference between Jew and Greek.
Romans 10:12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Contradiction with Ephesians 2:14
Acts 16:21 speaks of dividing customs, yet Ephesians 2:14 discusses how Christ has broken down the wall of partition between groups.
Ephesians 2:14: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Contradiction with Colossians 3:11
Acts 16:21 implies the importance of national customs, whereas Colossians 3:11 declares there is no Greek or Jew, stressing unity in Christ.
Colossians 3:11: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Contradiction with John 4:9
Acts 16:21 suggests barriers between Jews and others' customs, but John 4:9 begins to bridge that by noting Jesus’ interaction with a Samaritan woman.
John 4:9: Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 12:13
While Acts 16:21 points to separate customs, 1 Corinthians 12:13 promotes the idea of unity in one Spirit for all people.
1 Corinthians 12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. [Gentiles: Gr. Greeks]
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction in Acts 16:21 lies in the tension between Roman laws and early Christian practices. The verse suggests that Christian teachings could be seen as unlawful by Roman standards because they promoted customs not accepted by Roman citizens. This reflects a broader conflict between the new Christian faith and the established Roman legal and social systems of that time.
Paradox #2
In Acts 16:21, a contradiction might arise from the accusation that Paul and Silas were promoting customs unlawful for Romans to accept or practice. The inconsistency could be seen in how religious freedom and tolerance were valued by different groups. While the Roman authorities valued law and order, they often suppressed new faiths, conflicting with the freedom to choose personal beliefs. This tension highlights a conflict between legal adherence and individual religious expression.