Contradiction with Proverbs 19:17
Leviticus 19:10 encourages leaving gleanings for the poor, while Proverbs 19:17 suggests that acting kindly to the poor is like lending to the Lord, implying differing approaches to caring for the poor.
Proverbs 19:17: He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. [that which...: or, his deed]
Contradiction with 2 Thessalonians 3:10
Leviticus 19:10 advocates for giving without expecting anything in return, contrasted with 2 Thessalonians 3:10, which states that if anyone will not work, neither should they eat, suggesting the need for labor to receive sustenance.
2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Contradiction with Matthew 7:6
Leviticus 19:10 discusses leaving food for the needy, while Matthew 7:6 advises not giving what is holy unto dogs, implying caution in giving indiscriminately.
Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Contradiction with 2 Corinthians 9:7
Leviticus 19:10 leaves provisions for the poor as a commandment, whereas 2 Corinthians 9:7 emphasizes individual choice in giving, suggesting a voluntary rather than mandated approach.
2 Corinthians 9:7: Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, [so let him give]; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Paradox #1
One possible contradiction with Leviticus 19:10 could be regarding the treatment of the poor and marginalized. This verse emphasizes leaving parts of a harvest for the needy, which could conflict with other Bible passages that seem to suggest self-reliance or the prosperity of those who work hard. This might raise questions about the balance between charity and personal responsibility.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency might involve the practice of leaving food for the poor and strangers, which could differ from the practices of neighboring cultures or economic systems that did not require landowners to leave portions of their harvest for others. This could create a conflict with societies that prioritized different forms of wealth distribution or property rights.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in this context could be that while the verse promotes generosity and care for the poor and strangers, other parts of the text contain strict rules and harsh punishments that may not align with this compassionate approach. This inconsistency might be seen as conflicting messages about how to treat others.