Contradiction with Matthew 11:28
While Genesis 16:9 commands Hagar to return to her mistress and submit, Matthew 11:28 invites those who are burdened to come to Jesus for rest, implying freedom from oppressive situations.
Matthew 11:28: Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Contradiction with Galatians 5:1
Genesis 16:9 instructs Hagar to return to a situation of bondage, but Galatians 5:1 emphasizes standing firm in the liberty given by Christ, which suggests not submitting again to a yoke of bondage.
Galatians 5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Contradiction with Exodus 3:9-10
In contrast to the instruction to return to bondage in Genesis 16:9, Exodus 3:9-10 describes God's plan to deliver the Israelites from slavery.
Exodus 3:9-10: Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.
Contradiction with Acts 5:29
Genesis 16:9 commands obedience to a human authority, whereas Acts 5:29 promotes obedience to God over human commands.
Acts 5:29: Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:21
While Genesis 16:9 directs a return to servitude, 1 Corinthians 7:21 advises slaves to use the opportunity for freedom if available.
1 Corinthians 7:21: Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.
Paradox #1
Genesis 16:9 might be seen as conflicting because it involves an angel instructing Hagar, an oppressed servant, to return and submit to her harsh mistress, Sarai. This could be viewed as contradictory to the broader biblical themes of justice and liberation for the oppressed. It raises questions about why divine intervention would uphold an unjust social order instead of advocating for freedom and dignity.
Paradox #2
The contradiction in this verse could be seen as the instruction to return to a situation of mistreatment or suffering, which conflicts with the general moral principle of personal well-being and freedom from oppression. This may raise questions about the morality of enduring hardship or abuse when other options might exist.