Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
Philemon 1:18 involves settling a debt for someone else, while Matthew 5:44 emphasizes loving your enemies without specific mention of financial restitution.
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 Proverbs 22:7
Philemon 1:18 offers to pay a debt, freeing the debtor, whereas Proverbs 22:7 states that borrowers are servants to lenders, implying a contradiction in resolution of debt.
Proverbs 22:7: The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower [is] servant to the lender. [the lender: Heb. the man that lendeth]
Contradiction with Romans 13:8
Philemon 1:18 acknowledges an existing debt and offers repayment, while Romans 13:8 urges that no debt should remain outstanding, suggesting an ongoing obligation versus complete settlement.
Romans 13:8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Contradiction with Luke 6:30
Philemon 1:18 speaks of repayment of wrongs, whereas Luke 6:30 advises to give freely and not demand repayment, creating a contradiction in expectation of settling obligations.
Luke 6:30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again.
Contradiction with Proverbs 3:27
Philemon 1:18 emphasizes settling a debt when wronged, while Proverbs 3:27 advises giving when it is in your power to do so, not specifying repayment of debts.
Proverbs 3:27: Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do [it]. [them...: Heb. the owners thereof]
Paradox #1
The verse shows a contradiction in terms of forgiveness and justice. It suggests forgiving and absorbing another person's debt or wrongdoing, which may conflict with the idea of justice and accountability. People might question whether it is fair or just to overlook someone's debt and responsibility for their actions in favor of mercy and forgiveness.
Paradox #2
The contradiction could arise from the issue of forgiving and taking responsibility. On one hand, the verse suggests accepting and forgiving any debt or wrong done by someone else. On the other hand, it raises the question of whether this approach might allow the wrongdoer to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions. This tension between forgiveness and accountability could be seen as a moral conflict.