Legal verses can raise questions about the relationship between an earlier and a later command. Without knowing that relationship, a reader may misstate the legal force of a passage even after understanding its wording.
Grasping the words and establishing the ruling’s continuing legal status are not always the same step. Apparent tension alone does not prove abrogation; reconciliation and reliable evidence must be examined first.
Claims of abrogation require examining chronology, the relevant passages, and reliable evidence. This is why comparative legal interpretation sometimes matters.