Contradiction with Romans 3:28
This verse suggests that a person is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, which seems to contrast with Hebrews 9:15's emphasis on a new covenant for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant.
Romans 3:28: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Contradiction with James 2:24
This verse states that a person is justified by works and not by faith only, which appears to contradict the idea in Hebrews 9:15 of Jesus' mediated new covenant being the primary means of redemption.
James 2:24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Contradiction with Galatians 2:16
This verse asserts that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ, which might oppose the notion in Hebrews 9:15 of redemption from transgressions under the first covenant.
Galatians 2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Contradiction with Ephesians 2:8-9
These verses convey that salvation is by grace through faith and not a result of works, which may contrast with Hebrews 9:15's implication of a need for redemption under the law.
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Contradiction with Hebrews 7:19
This verse claims that the law made nothing perfect, suggesting a different view from Hebrews 9:15, which implies that there was a necessity for redemption from the transgressions under the first covenant.
Hebrews 7:19: For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [the bringing...: or, it was the bringing in]
Paradox #1
Hebrews 9:15 could be seen as inconsistent with certain interpretations of the Old and New Testaments. Some people might argue that it suggests a need for the New Covenant to replace the Old Covenant, which could be viewed as contradictory to the idea that God’s covenants are eternal. Others might see a conflict in the way this verse relates to the role of Jesus as the mediator compared to earlier Jewish traditions and laws.
Paradox #2
Hebrews 9:15 could present a doctrinal conflict with some viewpoints that emphasize salvation based on works rather than faith in Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant. The verse highlights Jesus' role in redemption through His death, which may differ from teachings that do not fully acknowledge faith in Christ as central to receiving eternal inheritance.
Paradox #3
Hebrews 9:15 may face a contradiction or inconsistency when considering differing interpretations of the role of Jesus as a mediator of a new covenant versus the existing Jewish law and covenant. Some may see a conflict between the claims of a new covenant and the historical adherence to the original covenant found in the Old Testament, potentially creating tension regarding continuity and fulfillment of the law.