Contradiction with Proverbs 19:17
This verse suggests that lending to the poor is akin to lending to the Lord, implying that generosity towards the less fortunate does not result in servitude or domination.
Proverbs 19:17: He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. [that which...: or, his deed]
Contradiction with Matthew 5:42
This verse encourages giving to those who ask and not turning away a borrower, presenting a perspective of generosity without concern for the power dynamics of lender and borrower.
Matthew 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Contradiction with Luke 6:35
Here, lending is encouraged without expecting anything in return, which contradicts the idea of borrowers being servants to lenders.
Luke 6:35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
Paradox #1
Proverbs 22:7 may present a conflict with the biblical themes of justice and compassion. The verse acknowledges a power dynamic where the rich have control over the poor, which could contradict the Bible's teachings on helping the poor and seeking economic justice and kindness for all. This might seem inconsistent with the idea of a loving and fair community as promoted in other parts of the Bible.
Paradox #2
Proverbs 22:7 may seem to contradict the principle of compassion and generosity toward others. While it highlights the power dynamics between the rich and the poor, other verses in the Bible emphasize helping those in need and promoting equality. This could appear inconsistent with teachings that encourage caring for one another regardless of wealth.
Paradox #3
Some people point out a contradiction between the idea in this verse, which suggests a negative view of debt, and other parts of the Bible where lending or borrowing is mentioned without a negative implication. For instance, there are rules about lending and borrowing in the laws given to the Israelites, indicating that it was an accepted practice in certain contexts. This can seem inconsistent with the strong warning against debt in this verse.
Paradox #4
The possible contradiction in this verse might be the acceptance of power imbalance. It suggests that wealthy people have control over those in debt, which may seem at odds with other teachings that advocate for equality, fairness, and helping those in need. This could be seen as conflicting with the broader message of compassion and support for the less fortunate.