Contradiction with Matthew 8:3
Jesus touched and healed the leper, unlike Leviticus 13:45, which prescribes isolation and avoidance of lepers.
Matthew 8:3: And Jesus put forth [his] hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Contradiction with Mark 1:40-42
Jesus showed compassion and healed the leper, contradicting the isolation mandate in Leviticus 13:45.
Mark 1:40-42: And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Contradiction with Luke 5:12-13
Jesus willingly touched and healed a leper, while Leviticus 13:45 demands separation from lepers.
Luke 5:12-13: And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on [his] face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Contradiction with Numbers 5:2-3
Both verses command isolation of the unclean, but Jesus' actions in healing lepers reveal a different approach.
Numbers 5:2-3: Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
Contradiction with 2 Kings 5:1-14
Naaman, a leper, was healed by Elisha’s instructions, contrasting with the isolation prescribed in Leviticus 13:45.
2 Kings 5:1-14: Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, [but he was] a leper. [with: Heb. before] [honourable: or, gracious: Heb. lifted up, or, accepted in countenance] [deliverance: or, victory]
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction could be related to the emphasis on purity laws, which may conflict with New Testament teachings about love and compassion. In the New Testament, Jesus often reached out to and healed those considered unclean, suggesting a shift from strict adherence to purity laws to a focus on grace and inclusion. This might seem inconsistent with the Old Testament's approach to handling impurity and separation.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 13:45 is about people with skin diseases being required to show they are unclean in a specific way. A possible historical inconsistency is that while the Bible sets specific rules for dealing with diseases, archaeological and historical evidence from ancient cultures suggests that practices and understandings of disease varied widely across regions and time periods. These differences might not align with the specific biblical instructions, leading to potential conflicts in how disease was historically understood and managed.
Paradox #3
This verse gives instructions related to those with infectious skin diseases, like possibly leprosy. A scientific inconsistency could arise from the misunderstanding of disease transmission and treatment. In ancient times, the directive was to isolate affected individuals, which aligns partially with modern quarantine practices. However, the lack of understanding about the actual causes of diseases, such as bacteria or viruses, and the absence of appropriate medical treatment, would be inconsistent with contemporary scientific knowledge about infectious diseases and their management.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in Leviticus 13:45 could be seen in how it mandates the isolation and public shaming of those with leprosy. This could conflict with more compassionate teachings that emphasize kindness, care, and inclusion. While the verse dictates separation, other biblical teachings promote love and care for the marginalized.