Contradiction with Exodus 12:49
Ezra 7:13 allows for freedom of movement, but Exodus 12:49 establishes the same law for the native-born and foreigner, implying restrictions apply equally.
Exodus 12:49: One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Contradiction with Numbers 15:15
While Ezra 7:13 permits voluntary return, Numbers 15:15 requires consistency in law application for all, which could limit individual freedoms.
Numbers 15:15: One ordinance [shall be both] for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth [with you], an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye [are], so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 17:15
Ezra 7:13 allows Jews to go to Jerusalem voluntarily, while Deuteronomy 17:15 restricts choosing a king who is not a fellow Israelite, indicating limitations on who can lead or inhabit with authority.
Deuteronomy 17:15: Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
Contradiction with Matthew 10:5
Ezra 7:13 endorses freedom to return, but Matthew 10:5 records Jesus instructing His disciples not to go to Gentiles' lands, suggesting a restriction.
Matthew 10:5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Contradiction with Acts 7:4
Ezra 7:13 describes a voluntary journey, but Acts 7:4 cites God's command for Abraham to migrate, indicating obligatory movement under divine instruction.
Acts 7:4: Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency could be that the decree allows anyone who chooses to go to Jerusalem to do so, suggesting freedom and voluntariness. However, this contrasts with other biblical instances where divine laws or commands seem to compel behavior rather than offer a choice, potentially creating tension between free will and divine mandate.