Contradiction with Matthew 5:17
Jesus states that he did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it, which could be seen as contradicting the idea that the law is superseded by the new covenant.
Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Contradiction with Romans 3:31
Paul affirms that faith does not void the law, suggesting a continuation rather than a replacement, which differs from the interpretation of Galatians 3:17.
Romans 3:31: Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Contradiction with Hebrews 7:18-19
This discusses the disannulling of the commandment, which may seem contradictory if Galatians 3:17 implies continuity of promises irrespective of the law.
Hebrews 7:18-19: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Contradiction with James 2:10
James emphasizes adherence to the whole law, suggesting its ongoing relevance, which contrasts with the message of Galatians 3:17 on the primacy of the promise.
James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Paradox #1
Galatians 3:17 might appear to contradict the idea that the Law of Moses is necessary for salvation since it emphasizes that God's promise came before the law and cannot be changed by it. This could seem inconsistent with other parts of the Bible that stress following the law. However, the broader context clarifies that faith, rather than law, is central to the relationship with God.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency could be related to the interpretation of law and promise. Some might see a conflict between relying on following religious laws and the idea of faith or promise being more important. This can seem contradictory if one emphasizes strict adherence to laws while another emphasizes faith and promise without it.