Contradiction with Leviticus 24:9
Leviticus 24:9 states that the showbread is for Aaron and his sons to eat in a holy place, suggesting it should not be given to a non-priest like David.
Leviticus 24:9: And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it [is] most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.
Contradiction with Matthew 12:4
Matthew 12:4 refers to how it was not lawful for David to eat the showbread, which was only for the priests, highlighting a contradiction in who was permitted to eat it.
Matthew 12:4: How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction in 1 Samuel 21:6 is related to the fact that the holy bread, or showbread, was meant only for the priests to eat according to the law in Leviticus. However, David and his men ate it when they were hungry. This raises questions about the flexibility of religious laws and whether human need can override ceremonial regulations.
Paradox #2
One potential doctrinal inconsistency with 1 Samuel 21:6 is related to the rules about eating consecrated bread (showbread) in the Old Testament. According to the Law of Moses, this bread was reserved only for priests to eat. However, in this verse, David and his men eat the consecrated bread when they are hungry. This could appear to contradict the strict rules about the holiness of the bread. Jesus later refers to this event in the New Testament in Matthew 12:3-4 to illustrate that human need can override ceremonial law, which might be seen as resolving the apparent conflict.
Paradox #3
1 Samuel 21:6 might be seen as inconsistent with the rules stated in Leviticus 24:9. Leviticus describes specific guidelines for who can eat the consecrated bread, typically reserved for priests. In 1 Samuel, David and his men eat the bread, which creates a possible contradiction with Levitical law.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in 1 Samuel 21:6 could relate to the rules of food consumption: the verse describes an event involving eating bread that was not typically allowed for general consumption. Scientifically, there is no natural basis for such a restriction, as bread is a common food. This reflects a cultural or religious rule rather than a scientific one.
Paradox #5
The contradiction in this verse could be seen in the aspect of religious law versus human need. The verse describes a situation where sacred bread, which was normally reserved for priests, was given to David and his men because they were hungry. The conflict arises from breaking religious tradition to meet immediate human needs, highlighting the tension between strict adherence to religious laws and the compassionate consideration of human welfare.