Contradiction with Matthew 5:17
Hebrews 10:9 states that God takes away the first covenant to establish the second, while Matthew 5:17 indicates that Jesus did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them, suggesting continuity rather than replacement.
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
Hebrews 10:9 speaks of taking away the first to establish the second, while Romans 3:31 affirms the law by stating faith does not void the law, suggesting the law remains intact rather than being replaced.
Romans 3:31: Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Contradiction with Galatians 3:24-25
Hebrews 10:9 describes the removal of the first covenant for the second, whereas Galatians 3:24-25 explains the law as a tutor leading to Christ but doesn't mention its outright removal, indicating a guiding role rather than replacement.
Galatians 3:24-25: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Contradiction with Psalm 119:160
Hebrews 10:9 implies a transition from the first covenant, but Psalm 119:160 declares the entirety of God's word as truth, suggesting permanence and consistency.
Psalm 119:160: Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever. [Thy word...: Heb. The beginning of thy word is true]
Contradiction with Luke 16:17
Hebrews 10:9 introduces the establishment of a new way, yet Luke 16:17 emphasizes the enduring nature of the law, conveying that it's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one stroke of the law to fail.
Luke 16:17: And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Paradox #1
Hebrews 10:9 could raise questions about the change from old sacrifices to new ways of relating to God, which might seem inconsistent with the idea of an unchanging divine plan. Some might see this as a shift in how God's will is understood or practiced, which could suggest a contradiction in theological continuity.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict could arise from the idea of replacing old practices or rules with new ones, which some might see as inconsistent or conflicting with the notion of an unchanging truth or law. It suggests that previous practices were inadequate or temporary, which might confuse those who believe in the eternal validity of all divine instructions.