Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
Ezra 1:4 encourages support through resources for exiles returning to build the temple, while Matthew 5:44 teaches to love and pray for enemies, highlighting a contrast in interaction with adversaries.
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 Luke 6:29
Ezra 1:4 suggests giving aid to fellow believers for a cause, whereas Luke 6:29 advises turning the other cheek and giving to those who take from you, showing a contrast in the approach to giving.
Luke 6:29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.
Contradiction with Proverbs 25:21-22
Ezra 1:4 asks for voluntary material support for rebuilding, while Proverbs 25:21-22 speaks of feeding and giving drink to enemies, suggesting a different direction for kindness and aid.
Proverbs 25:21-22: If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Paradox #1
Ezra 1:4 could be seen as inconsistent with the idea that worship and service to God should not be influenced by material wealth or incentives. The verse discusses supporting the return to Jerusalem with silver, gold, and other goods, which might seem to put focus on material support rather than purely spiritual devotion. This could conflict with teachings that emphasize faith and worship should come from the heart, without expectation of material gain.
Paradox #2
Ezra 1:4 talks about the Persian king Cyrus allowing the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple and suggests that people around them should support them with silver, gold, goods, and livestock. The contradiction or conflict may arise from the fact that there is limited non-biblical evidence about Cyrus issuing such a decree specifically for the Jewish people. Some historical records, like the Cyrus Cylinder, mention general policies of repatriation and temple restorations for conquered peoples, but do not specifically mention the Jews or Jerusalem. This can cause some debate among historians about the historical accuracy or specificity of the biblical account.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or conflict in that verse could be seen in the way it deals with wealth and resources. On the one hand, it seems to promote generosity and support for others, but on the other hand, this generosity comes from a directive or command, not from free will or personal conviction. This raises questions about the authenticity of such generosity and whether it holds true moral value.