Contradiction with Galatians 3:28
Emphasizes equality and unity among believers, contradicting the exclusion of certain individuals in Leviticus 21:17.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Contradiction with Acts 10:34-35
Highlights that God shows no partiality and accepts anyone who fears Him, opposing the restrictions in Leviticus 21:17.
Acts 10:34-35: Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Contradiction with Romans 2:11
States that there is no respecter of persons with God, conflicting with the specific requirements in Leviticus 21:17.
Romans 2:11: For there is no respect of persons with God.
Contradiction with James 2:1-4
Warns against showing favoritism, which contradicts the exclusionary guidelines in Leviticus 21:17.
James 2:1-4: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons.
Contradiction with Colossians 3:11
Declares that in Christ there is no distinction, opposing the conditions set in Leviticus 21:17.
Colossians 3:11: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Paradox #1
This verse could be seen as inconsistent with the idea that all people are equal in worth and dignity, which is presented elsewhere in the Bible. It might seem to conflict with the message of inclusion and compassion for all individuals regardless of their physical condition.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 21:17 discusses certain restrictions regarding who can perform priestly duties, specifically mentioning that people with physical defects cannot serve as priests. This can be seen as inconsistent with the broader biblical themes of compassion and inclusion, as it seems to discriminate against individuals based on physical appearance or conditions outside of their control. This inconsistency might raise questions about fairness and the interpretation of religious leadership criteria.
Paradox #3
The verse implies that people with physical defects are not suitable for certain religious roles. This can be seen as conflicting with modern scientific understanding and ethical views that emphasize equality and non-discrimination regardless of physical appearance or ability. It suggests a bias that isn't supported by contemporary values of inclusivity.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in this verse could be seen as discrimination. It may be viewed as unfairly excluding certain individuals from certain roles or blessings based solely on their physical condition, which seems inconsistent with messages of equality and acceptance.