Contradiction with Matthew 5:17
Jesus states that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, suggesting an evolving understanding of religious practices that might contradict the specific ordinance of Leviticus 7:15.
Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, undermining previous dietary and sacrificial laws, including those in Leviticus 7:15 regarding consuming a peace offering.
Mark 7:18-19: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15
Peter’s vision instructs him to eat what was previously considered unclean, reflecting a shift from Levitical food laws, including those about consumption timelines for offerings.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Hebrews 8:13
By calling the covenant "new," the text suggests that the old laws, possibly including Leviticus 7:15, are becoming obsolete.
Hebrews 8:13: In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul states that no food is unclean in itself, which contradicts the specific consumption rules of Leviticus 7:15.
Romans 14:14: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. [unclean: Gr. common]
Contradiction with Colossians 2:16-17
This passage advises against being judged over religious festivals or dietary laws, potentially opposing the specific time-based commandment in Leviticus 7:15.
Colossians 2:16-17: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: [in meat...: or, for eating and drinking] [respect: or, part]
Paradox #1
Leviticus 7:15 talks about eating a sacrificial offering on the same day it is offered, without leaving any for the next day. A potential doctrinal conflict could arise when compared to parts of the New Testament that emphasize a shift away from strict dietary laws and religious rituals, focusing more on faith and spiritual practices instead. For instance, Jesus and later apostles taught that the spirit of the law and faith in God were more important than following specific ceremonial laws. This shift might seem inconsistent with the strict regulatory focus of Leviticus.Overall, this might create discussion or debate about the relevance and application of Old Testament ceremonial laws in the context of New Testament teachings.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict with the instructions in Leviticus 7:15 might arise when compared to later Jewish traditions or different practices mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, which sometimes allowed for longer periods of consumption or different handling of offerings. This inconsistency in ritual instructions could be seen in the varying guidelines provided for different types of offerings in other passages.
Paradox #3
This verse requires the meat of a fellowship offering to be eaten on the same day. The potential contradiction might relate to food waste, as any uneaten portion must be discarded rather than stored for later, which could be seen as wasteful.