Leviticus 27:33 Contradictions and Paradoxes

According to traditional Christian understanding, this verse means that when someone gives a gift to God, they shouldn't try to switch it for something they like better; if they do, both gifts belong to God and can't be taken back. It's like when you give a toy to someone, you can't change your mind later and take it back.

Contradiction with Matthew 5:17-18

These verses state Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, suggesting continuity rather than change or contradiction in laws like those in Leviticus.

Matthew 5:17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15

Peter is told to kill and eat animals previously considered unclean, showing a shift from Levitical laws about animals.

Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

Contradiction with Hebrews 7:18-19

Discusses the setting aside of a former commandment (like Levitical laws) for the better hope offered through Jesus.

Hebrews 7:18-19: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Contradiction with Galatians 3:23-25

Explains how the law was a guardian until Christ came, suggesting a shift away from the old laws.

Galatians 3:23-25: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Contradiction with Romans 6:14

Paul states believers are not under the law but under grace, indicating a departure from Old Testament laws like those in Leviticus.

Romans 6:14: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Paradox #1

Leviticus 27:33 deals with rules about tithes and offerings, specifically related to livestock. A potential contradiction could arise when comparing this practice to later religious or historical contexts where tithing and offerings were reinterpreted or changed. For instance, as religious practices evolved, the specifics of these rules might not have been consistently applied, leading to variations in how people understood and practiced these laws. Additionally, historical records outside the Bible might not always match these biblical prescriptions, leading to questions about their implementation in ancient times.

Paradox #2

This verse might seem to clash with ideas of fairness. The rule about not checking the quality when selecting animals for an offering could seem unfair because it doesn't consider the actual value or condition of the animal being given. This might feel inconsistent with the idea of offering something valuable or meaningful.