Contradiction with Hebrews 10:12
Ezekiel 45:22 describes the prince making a sin offering, while Hebrews 10:12 states that Jesus made one sacrifice for sins forever, implying no further offerings are needed.
Hebrews 10:12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:18
This verse suggests that there is no longer any offering for sin because forgiveness has been granted, which contradicts Ezekiel 45:22, where a sin offering is still required.
Hebrews 10:18: Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.
Contradiction with John 1:29
John speaks of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, which implies a completed action, contradicting the continued sin offerings described in Ezekiel 45:22.
John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [taketh away: or, beareth]
Contradiction with Hebrews 9:26
Hebrews explains that Jesus appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, which contradicts Ezekiel 45:22, where repeated sacrifices are indicated.
Hebrews 9:26: For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Contradiction with Hebrews 9:12
This verse states that Jesus entered once into the holy place, securing eternal redemption, contradicting the ongoing sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 45:22.
Hebrews 9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Contradiction with Romans 6:10
This verse indicates that Christ died to sin once, contrasting Ezekiel 45:22's prescription of repeated sin offerings by the prince.
Romans 6:10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Paradox #1
Ezekiel 45:22 might appear to have a theological inconsistency because it mentions a prince offering a sin offering for himself. This can seem to conflict with the understanding that Jesus, often seen as the ultimate-prince or king in Christian theology, is sinless and doesn't need to offer sacrifices for himself. However, interpretations suggest this passage may refer to a symbolic or representative figure rather than a literal or direct reference to Jesus, thus depending on the theological perspective, this might not be a contradiction.
Paradox #2
Some people see a contradiction or conflict in Ezekiel 45:22 because it suggests that a leader (often understood as the Messiah) will offer a sacrifice for himself. This seems inconsistent with the New Testament idea that Jesus, the Messiah, is sinless and doesn't need to offer sacrifices for himself. This raises questions about how to interpret the role of the Messiah or leader in this context.
Paradox #3
Ezekiel 45:22 might seem inconsistent because it talks about a prince making a sin offering for himself, which raises questions. This is because, in some other parts of the Bible, leaders or priests were not always required to make offerings for themselves in the same way, especially when considering some Christian interpretations of Jesus being sinless. This could seem contradictory or inconsistent with the broader theological view that some hold about sin offerings and roles of leaders in religious practices.