The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Purification after Childbirth
Leviticus 12:1–8 — Purification after Childbirth. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
1Then the LORD said to Moses,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
Yah·weh way·ḏab·bêr ’el- mō·šeh lê·mōr
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-spoke Yahweh to Moses, saying:
Where the English smooths the original
As the reason why God graciously addressed the regulation about the clean and unclean animals to Moses and Aaron conjointly (see Leviticus 11:1 ), no longer operates here, the Lord now addresses the laws of purification to the Lawgiver alone. The laws of defilement contracted from without by eating or coming in contact with unclean objects are naturally followed by precepts about defilement arising from within the human body itself.
From uncleanness contracted by the touching or eating of external things, he now comes to that uncleanness which ariseth from ourselves.
R. Semlai remarks, that as the creation of man was after that of the beasts, fowls, fishes, &c. so the laws concerning the uncleanness of men are after those relating to beasts, &c, and they begin with the uncleanness of a new mother, because, as Aben Ezra observes, the birth is the beginning of man
Man imparts his depraved nature to his offspring, so that, excepting as the atonement of Christ and the sanctification of the Spirit prevent, the original blessing, Increase and multiply, Ge 1:28, is become to the fallen race a direful curse, and communicates sin and misery.Henry's whole-chapter note; the line states plainly the theological key the bare law only implies — childbirth-impurity images inherited fallenness, not the mother's fault.
2“Say to the Israelites, ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be unclean for seven days, as she is during the days of her menstruation.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dab·bêr ’el- bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl lê·mōr kî ’iš·šāh ṯaz·rî·a‘ wə·yā·lə·ḏāh zā·ḵār wə·ṭā·mə·’āh šiḇ·‘aṯ yā·mîm kî·mê nid·daṯ də·wō·ṯāh tiṭ·mā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Speak to the sons-of Israel, saying: When a woman brings-forth-seed and bears a male, then she-shall-be-unclean seven days; as the days of the separation of her sickness she-shall-be-unclean.
Where the English smooths the original
She shall be unclean; not for any filthiness which was either in the conception or in bringing forth, but to signify the universal and deep pollution of man’s nature even from the birth, and from the conception.
נדּה, from נדד to flow, lit., that which is to flow, is applied more especially to the uncleanness of a woman's secretions ( Leviticus 15:19 ). דּותהּ, inf. of דּוה, to be sickly or ill, is applied here and in Leviticus 15:33 ; Leviticus 20:18 , to the suffering connected with an issue of blood.
The fact that reference is here made to the regulations about the periodical impurity of women which have not as yet been laid down shows that, like other laws, this law was already known to and generally practised by the Jews before it was finally fixed in the Levitical code.
The mother of a boy was ceremonially unclean for a week, at the end of which the child was circumcised (Ge 17:12; Ro 4:11-13); the mother of a girl for two weeks (Le 12:5)—a stigma on the sex (1Ti 2:14, 15) for sin, which was removed by ChristThe JFB phrase “a stigma on the sex” reflects a nineteenth-century reading of the male/female doubling that Barnes and Keil treat far more cautiously; weigh it against v. 5.
3And on the eighth day the flesh of the boy’s foreskin is to be circumcised.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
haš·šə·mî·nî ū·ḇay·yō·wm bə·śar ‘ā·rə·lā·ṯōw yim·mō·wl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-on-the-day the eighth shall-be-circumcised the flesh of his foreskin.
Where the English smooths the original
Which law is here repeated, because the woman’s uncleanness lasting for seven days, was one, though not the only, reason why the child’s circumcision was put off till the eighth day.
When the seven days had passed by during which the mother remained un clean, the boy is to be circumcised, since on the eighth day the first period of her extreme state of impurity ceases, and she no more imparts defilement to whomsoever or to whatsoever she touches.
The circumcision of a male child on the eighth day was religiously observed, and even was not omitted on account of the sabbath, when the eighth day happened to be on that; see Gill on John 7:22 , John 7:23 .
4The woman shall continue in purification from her bleeding for thirty-three days. She must not touch anything sacred or go into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are complete.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tê·šêḇ ṭā·ho·rāh biḏ·mê ū·šə·lō·šîm ū·šə·lō·šeṯ yō·wm yā·mîm lō- ṯig·gā‘ bə·ḵāl qō·ḏeš ṯā·ḇō wə·’el- ham·miq·dāš lō ‘aḏ- yə·mê ṭā·ho·rāh mə·lōṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-thirty-three days she-shall-remain in the blood of purification; no holy-thing she-shall-touch, and to the sanctuary she-shall-not come, until are-full the days of her purification.
Where the English smooths the original
Better, continue in the blood of purification, that is, pure blood. Though the discharge consequent upon the birth ceases after two or three weeks, the period in this case, as in the former instance, is nearly doubled, to include exceptional cases. During these thirty-three days, which constituted the second stage, the mother was only debarred from touching holy things
She shall then continue, Heb. sit , i.e. abide, as that word is oft used, as Genesis 22:5 34:10 , or tarry at home, nor go into the sanctuary. In the blood of her purifying; in her polluted and separated estate; for the word blood or bloods signifies both guilt, as Genesis 4:10 , and uncleanness, as here and elsewhere.
The Levitical law ascribed impurity exclusively to the mother, in no degree to the Child.
she shall touch no {c} hallowed thing, nor come into the {d} sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. (b) Besides the first seven days. (c) As sacrifice, or such like. (d) That is, into the court gate till after forty days.The Geneva glosses (a–d) are the marginal notes of the 1599 edition, quoted with their lettered keys intact; they fix the concrete scope — the 33 days are additional to the first seven, the "holy thing" is sacrificial food, and the barred "sanctuary" is the court gate.
5If, however, she gives birth to a daughter, the woman will be unclean for two weeks as she is during her menstruation. Then she must continue in purification from her bleeding for sixty-six days.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’im- ṯê·lêḏ nə·qê·ḇāh wə·ṭā·mə·’āh šə·ḇu·‘a·yim kə·nid·dā·ṯāh tê·šêḇ ‘al- ṭā·ho·rāh də·mê wə·šiš·šîm yō·wm wə·šê·šeṯ yā·mîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-if a female she-bears, then-she-shall-be-unclean two-weeks as in her separation; and-sixty-six days she-shall-remain in the blood of purification.
Where the English smooths the original
The distinction between the seven (or fourteen) days of the "separation for her infirmity," and the thirty-three (or sixty-six) days of the "blood of her purifying," had a natural ground in the bodily secretions connected with child-birth, which are stronger and have more blood in them in the first week (lochia rubra) than the more watery discharge of the lochia alba
Others, however, suppose that this difference was made to put an honour on the ordinance of circumcision, which, being administered to the males, put an end to that pollution sooner than otherwise would have been the case.
the uncleanness attached to the child as well as to the mother, but as the boy was placed in a state of ceremonial purity at once by the act of circumcision, which took place on the eighth day, he thereupon ceased to be unclean, and the mother's uncleanness alone remained; whereas in the case of a girl, both mother and child were unclean during the period that the former was "in the blood of her purifying," and therefore that period had to be doubly long.
6When the days of her purification are complete, whether for a son or for a daughter, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
yə·mê ṭā·ho·rāh ū·ḇim·lōṯ lə·ḇên ’ōw lə·ḇaṯ tā·ḇî ’el- hak·kō·hên ’el- pe·ṯaḥ ’ō·hel- mō·w·‘êḏ ben- šə·nā·ṯōw ke·ḇeś lə·‘ō·lāh ū·ḇen- yō·w·nāh ’ōw- ṯōr lə·ḥaṭ·ṭāṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-when are-full the days of her purification, for-a-son or for-a-daughter, she-shall-bring a son-of-his-year lamb for-a-burnt-offering and a son-of-a-dove or a turtledove for-a-sin-offering, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest.
Where the English smooths the original
But as this purification had reference, not to any special moral guilt, but only to sin which had been indirectly manifested in her bodily condition, a pigeon was sufficient for the sin-offering, that is to say, the smallest of the bleeding sacrifices; whereas a yearling lamb was required for a burnt-offering, to express the importance and strength of her surrender of herself to the Lord after so long a separation from Him.
the burnt offering, symbolizing self-devotion, is far more costly and important than the sin offering, which had not to be offered for any individual personal sin, but only for human sin, "which had been indirectly manifested in her bodily condition" (Keil); and secondly, that in this one case the sin offering appears to succeed the burnt offering instead of preceding it.
The alternative of a pigeon for the lamb of the Burnt-Offering is allowed in Leviticus 1:14 and also in the Sin-Offering ( Leviticus 5:7-10 ), but the further alternative of a Meal-Offering ( Leviticus 5:11-13 ) is not found here. The Virgin Mary ( Luke 2:24 ) offered the sacrifices of one whose ‘means suffice not for a lamb.’
7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hiq·rî·ḇōw lip̄·nê Yah·weh wə·ḵip·per ‘ā·le·hā wə·ṭā·hă·rāh mim·mə·qōr dā·me·hā zōṯ tō·w·raṯ hay·yō·le·ḏeṯ laz·zā·ḵār ’ōw lan·nə·qê·ḇāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-shall-present-it before Yahweh and-make-atonement for-her, and-she-shall-be-clean from the fountain of her blood. This is the law of her-who-bears, for-the-male or for-the-female.
Where the English smooths the original
For though there was a difference in the time of her uncleanness for the one and for the other, yet both were to be purl fled one and the same way; to note, that though all sins and sinners were not equal, yet all were to be cleansed by the same means, to wit, by Christ, and by faith.Poole’s “purl fled” is an OCR artifact for “purified” in the source text; quoted here verbatim as it appears in the public-domain transcription.
and make an atonement for her; for whatsoever sin in connection with or that attended childbearing; as typical of the atonement by Christ both for sin original and actual: and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood; in a ceremonial sense, and according to that law be pure and clean
Though two sacrifices were brought—a burnt offering and a sin offering—yet stress is laid on the sin offering, for on it depended the purification and atonement of the mother.
8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’im- lō ṯim·ṣā dê yā·ḏāh śeh wə·lā·qə·ḥāh šə·tê- ṯō·rîm ’ōw šə·nê bə·nê yō·w·nāh ’e·ḥāḏ lə·‘ō·lāh wə·’e·ḥāḏ lə·ḥaṭ·ṭāṯ hak·kō·hên wə·ḵip·per ‘ā·le·hā wə·ṭā·hê·rāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-if her-hand finds-not enough for a lamb, then-she-shall-take two turtledoves or two sons-of-a-dove, one for-a-burnt-offering and one for-a-sin-offering; and-the-priest shall-make-atonement for-her, and-she-shall-be-clean.
Where the English smooths the original
It was therefore the poor woman’s sacrifice which the mother of our Lord offered, when, in accordance with this commutation, she offered a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons, on presenting herself for purification at the Temple with the child Jesus, on the expiration of the prescribed term of uncleanness ( Luke 2:24 ), and the priest, after sprinkling her with the blood of the humble sacrifice, declared her cleansed.
A lamb - Rather, one of the flock; either a sheep or a goat; it is not the same word as in Leviticus 12:6 . Two turtles, or two young pigeons - See the note at Leviticus 1:14 . The Virgin Mary availed herself of the liberty which the Law allowed to the poor, and offered the inferior burnt-offering Luke 2:24 .
The morality of this law obliges women who have received mercies from God in child-bearing, with all thankfulness to acknowledge his goodness to them, owning themselves unworthy of it, and (which is the best purification) to continue in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobriety.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The chapter turns a corner that the ancient readers all noticed. Having legislated the clean and unclean among the animals (ch. 11), the LORD now addresses defilement that rises not from without but from within. Benson states the hinge in one line: “From uncleanness contracted by the touching or eating of external things, he now comes to that uncleanness which ariseth from ourselves.” Ellicott sees the same seam and adds the textual detail that ch. 11 was spoken “to Moses and Aaron conjointly,” while here the address narrows to “the Lawgiver alone” — the Hebrew preposition אֶל governs Moses only (v. 1). Gill, citing R. Semlai and Aben Ezra, reports the rabbinic reading that the very order of the laws mirrors creation: “as the creation of man was after that of the beasts… so the laws concerning the uncleanness of men are after those relating to beasts,” beginning with the new mother “because… the birth is the beginning of man.” The opening verb of v. 2, תַזְרִיעַ (taz·rî·a‘), is itself a seed-word — “bring forth seed” — quietly placing human conception under the same creating word that made the plants yield seed in Genesis 1.
The law sets two distinct stages, which the Pulpit Commentary draws out by comparison with Leviticus 15: in the first (seven days for a son), “she made all that she touched unclean”; in the second (thirty-three days), “she was only required to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, as she was progressing towards cleanness.” The blood of this second stage is, on Ellicott’s reading, “pure blood” — דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה — set against the defiling dam niddāh of the first. Why every term doubles for a daughter (v. 5) the text never says, and the voices honestly diverge: Keil grounds it partly in physiology (the longer lochia) but finally in “the significance of the numbers… more especially the number forty”; Benson records the alternative that the shorter male term was an “honour” put upon circumcision, which “put an end to that pollution sooner”; and Poole and JFB reach for a moral reason — “a stigma on the sex… for sin, which was removed by Christ” (JFB). Held honestly: that last is the commentators’ theology read back into a verse that states only the number, and Cambridge notes the same doubling among “very many different nations.” The bare datum is the dual שְׁבֻעַיִם — “a doubled seven.”
Into the heart of a chapter about uncleanness the LORD plants one positive command: on the eighth day the boy is circumcised (v. 3). The verb is the rare Niphal יִמּוֹל (yim·mōl, from mûl), the covenant rite of Genesis 17. Poole ties the timing to the mother’s state: the seven days of her severest uncleanness were “one, though not the only, reason why the child’s circumcision was put off till the eighth day.” Ellicott agrees — on the eighth day “the first period of her extreme state of impurity ceases.” Gill notes how immovable the day was: circumcision “was not omitted on account of the sabbath.” So the sign of belonging is cut into the flesh at the exact hinge where the mother passes from contagious defilement to mere separation — grace inscribed in the middle of impurity.
The end of the days brings sacrifice. Two offerings are named, and Ellicott and the Pulpit Commentary both flag the unusual order: the costly burnt offering — עֹלָה, the offering that “rises” whole — comes before the sin offering, where elsewhere the sin offering leads. Gratitude is foregrounded; the sin offering, says Keil, atones “not… any special moral guilt, but only… sin which had been indirectly manifested in her bodily condition.” Then v. 8 bends the whole law toward poverty: “if her hand find not sufficiency of” a lamb (Cambridge’s literal rendering), two birds suffice. The voices converge here on a single historical fact: Cambridge, Ellicott, Barnes, and JFB all observe that this is precisely the offering “the mother of our Lord offered” (Ellicott) — “incontestable proof,” says JFB, “of the poor and humble condition of the family” (Luke 2:24). Poole draws the cord taut to the cross: rich and poor alike “were to be cleansed by the same means, to wit, by Christ, and by faith.” And Benson turns it pastoral — the abiding “morality of this law” is that mothers who have received mercy should answer “with all thankfulness,” which “is the best purification.”
Set against the rule that Scripture alone is the final authority, four things stand out in this chapter — offered as a reading to be tested, not a verdict to be trusted.
Uncleanness here is status, not shame. The text never calls birth sinful; Barnes notes the impurity “exclusively” touches the mother, “in no degree… the Child,” and Poole insists it is “not for any filthiness which was either in the conception or in bringing forth.” What the chapter teaches is a structural truth — that life itself comes wrapped in the blood and frailty of a fallen world, so that even the most natural and blessed human act, obeying “be fruitful and multiply,” requires drawing near to God through sacrifice. The law reads sin as a condition of nature, not merely a list of deeds.
The holy and the unholy cannot simply mix. For forty or eighty days the mother “shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary” (v. 4). The barrier is real, and it is removed only one way — by atonement (כָּפַר, “to cover,” v. 7). Access to God is never assumed; it is granted.
And the door is built low enough for the poor. The single most striking pastoral move in the chapter is v. 8: the same cleansing, the same “she shall be clean,” for two birds as for a lamb. The God who legislates the sanctuary will not let its threshold be a wall against the poor — the truth the Gospel makes flesh when the mother of the Lamb brings two birds.
The law that names the new mother unclean is the same law that, eighty days later, declares her clean — and the God who drew the line is the God who built the door.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The dove-and-pigeon provision of vv. 6 and 8 is not unique to childbirth; it is a fixed, repeated clause of the sacrificial system. The same pair of rare bird-words — תֹּר (tôr, turtledove) and בֶּן־יוֹנָה (ben-yônāh, young pigeon) — appears in the general law of the burnt offering (Leviticus 1:14), in the graduated sin offering for the poor (Leviticus 5:7), and in the cleansing of the leper of small means (Leviticus 14:22). The Verifier confirms the link as verbal: tôr occurs in only 14 verses of the Hebrew Bible and yônāh in only 31 — rare enough that their co-occurrence is a genuine lexical chain, not common vocabulary. Cambridge names the parallel directly: the pigeon-for-lamb option “is allowed in Leviticus 1:14 and also in the Sin-Offering (Leviticus 5:7–10).”
Leviticus 12:6 · Leviticus 12:8 · Leviticus 1:14 · Leviticus 5:7 · Leviticus 14:22
basis: Verifier: shared rare lexemes H8449 tôwr (only 14 vv) and H3123 yôwnâh (only 31 vv), plus H176 ʼôw and H5930 ʻôlâh — the low frequency of tôr/yônāh makes this a genuine verbal chain across the sacrificial laws.
Verse 3’s command — “on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” — is a deliberate re-citation of the covenant charter given to Abraham: “He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations” (Genesis 17:12). The link runs on the rare verb מוּל (mûl, “to circumcise”), which the Verifier finds in only 33 verses. Ellicott sends the reader straight to “Genesis 17:10; 17:13” for the rite, and Gill reads v. 3 as itself explaining the eighth-day timing. The thread reaches forward, too: the same verb governs the obedience of the holy family, who circumcised the child Jesus on the eighth day (Luke 2:21).
Leviticus 12:3 · Genesis 17:12 · Luke 2:21
basis: Verifier (Lev 12:3 ↔ Gen 17:12): shared lexeme H4135 mûwl (33 vv) — the circumcision verb. The Luke 2:21 leg is cross-Testament (Greek) and so rests on the shared rite, not a shared Strong's number; held as structural, not verbal, for that leg.
Twice (vv. 2, 5) the new mother’s first stage is measured “as in the days of her niddāh” — her menstrual separation. The chapter assumes a law it has not yet stated; Ellicott notes this proves the regulation “was already known to and generally practised” before it was “finally fixed.” That fuller law stands in Leviticus 15:19–33, and the Verifier confirms the verbal tie on the rare noun נִדָּה (niddāh, only 24 verses) together with the verb dāwāh (“to be sick / faint,” v. 2’s דְּוֺתָהּ), which Keil traces to Leviticus 15:33 and 20:18. Childbirth-impurity is, by design, read through the grammar of the monthly separation.
Leviticus 12:2 · Leviticus 12:5 · Leviticus 15:19 · Leviticus 15:33
basis: Verifier (Lev 12:2 ↔ Lev 15:19): shared H5079 niddâh (24 vv) with H2930 ṭâmêʼ and H7651 shebaʻ; Keil cross-references dāwāh (v. 2) to Lev 15:33 and 20:18. Thematic/structural — the chapter borrows the niddāh law's framework.
The 33-day (and 66-day) span is named four times in this chapter (vv. 4, 5, 6) by the noun טָהֳרָה (ṭohorāh, “purification”). It is a genuinely rare word — the Verifier finds it in only fourteen verses of the whole Hebrew Bible — and outside Leviticus 12 its principal homes are the very places where uncleanness is most acute and cleansing most longed for: the eight-day rite for the cleansed leper (“this shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing,” Leviticus 14:2, 32) and Ezekiel’s vision of the restored sanctuary, where a defiled priest must “reckon unto himself seven days” for his cleansing (Ezekiel 44:26). The same word that measures the new mother’s return to the holy measures the leper’s and the temple’s. The thread is structural, not a quotation: ṭohorāh is shared, but the link is a common pattern of staged return-to-the-holy, not a citation of one verse by another.
Leviticus 12:4 · Leviticus 12:6 · Leviticus 14:2 · Ezekiel 44:26
basis: Verifier (Lev 12:4 ↔ Lev 14:2 and ↔ Ezek 44:26): shared rare lexeme H2893 ṭohŏrâh (only 14 vv) plus H3117 yôwm. The rarity makes the shared word a real lexical anchor, but the connection is a shared motif of staged purification (childbirth / leprosy / temple-restoration), not a quotation of one text by another — so tiered structural, not verbal.
Verse 7 cleanses the woman “from the fountain of her blood” — מְקֹר דָּמֶיהָ (məqôr dāmehā). māqôr (“spring, fountain”) is a rare word (17 verses), and the Verifier confirms it is shared, together with dām (“blood”), with the parallel law of the issue in Leviticus 20:18 — a true verbal anchor on the rare noun. Keil renders the phrase “fountain of bleeding” and adds his own cross-reference backward to Genesis 4:10, where Abel’s blood cries from the ground. Held honestly: the Genesis 4:10 leg does not share māqôr with this verse — the Verifier finds only the common word dām in common there (in 295 verses, far too frequent to anchor a link) — so the Genesis tie is Keil's image-association, not a lexical chain, and is named here on his authority alone. The picture is of a source, a spring of life and of mortality both, that must be covered (kāpar) before its bearer may again approach the holy.
Leviticus 12:7 · Leviticus 20:18 · Genesis 4:10
basis: Verifier (Lev 12:7 ↔ Lev 20:18): shared rare lexeme H4726 mâqôwr (17 vv) plus H1818 dâm — a real verbal anchor on the rare 'fountain' word, held structural because it is a shared image-law, not a quotation. The Genesis 4:10 leg shares ONLY H1818 dâm (295 vv, common), NOT mâqôr; it rests on Keil's own cross-reference, not on the Verifier's lexical index, and is flagged as such in the body.
Luke 2:22–24 records the mother of Jesus completing exactly this chapter: “when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,” she came to the Temple and offered “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons” — the v. 8 provision for the poor. The voices are unanimous that this is the deliberate fulfillment of Leviticus 12: Ellicott (“the poor woman’s sacrifice which the mother of our Lord offered”), Cambridge, Barnes, and JFB all make the identification. Held honestly: this is a cross-Testament link — Luke is Greek, Leviticus Hebrew — so it cannot rest on a shared Strong’s number and is not a “verbal” thread; it is a structural/typological fulfillment, the Law observed in the flesh by the family of the One who came to fulfill it. Flagged only to mark that the tier rests on argued fulfillment, not on lexical identity.
Leviticus 12:6 · Leviticus 12:8 · Luke 2:22-24
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek Luke ↔ Hebrew Leviticus): no shared Strong's lexeme is possible, so this cannot be tiered 'verbal.' The fulfillment is asserted by the named PD voices (Ellicott, Cambridge, Barnes, JFB) and by Luke's own citation of 'the law of Moses,' not by the Verifier's lexical index — flagged so the basis (argued fulfillment) is shown, not asserted as verbal.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The chapter’s mercy-clause — two birds for those who cannot afford a lamb (v. 8) — is the very sacrifice Mary brought (Luke 2:24). The fathers read a quiet irony the text invites: the mother who “could not afford a lamb” was carrying in her arms the Lamb of God (John 1:29). Ellicott, Barnes, JFB, and Cambridge all anchor the historical identification; the typological turn — that the true Lamb was present where the legal lamb was lacking — is the reading the scene has long drawn from the Church and is offered here as widely held.
Leviticus 12:8 · Luke 2:22-24 · John 1:29
The whole apparatus of this chapter — circumcision on the eighth day (v. 3), purification, the sin offering — was undergone by the holy family for the child Jesus. The Pulpit Commentary makes the point explicitly, reading Luke 2:22 as the deliberate echo of this law: “For eight days the infant Saviour submitted to legal uncleanness in ‘fulfilling all righteousness’ (Matthew 3:15), and therefore the whole forty days were spoken of as ‘the days of their purification.’” Gill, on the same scene, draws the inference that the family “were both under the law, and obedient to it.” Paul names the truth they enact: “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Galatians 4:4–5). The One who would cleanse the unclean first submitted, in the person of his mother and in his own circumcised flesh, to the law of purification — a reading the named voices attest, not this tool's invention.
Leviticus 12:3 · Leviticus 12:6 · Galatians 4:4-5
The chapter resolves only by כָּפַר (kāpar, “to cover,” vv. 7–8): the priest makes atonement, and “she shall be clean.” Gill reads the bird sin offering as “typical of the atonement by Christ both for sin original and actual,” and Poole presses that rich and poor alike “were to be cleansed by the same means, to wit, by Christ.” Offered as this tool’s own reading, to be tested: the ceremonial law could declare a mother clean but could not touch the deeper uncleanness of nature it pointed at; what Leviticus 12 covered with two birds, Hebrews says the blood of Christ at last takes away — purifying the conscience, not merely the body (Hebrews 9:13–14). The shadow named the problem; the Substance solved it.
Leviticus 12:7 · Leviticus 12:8 · Hebrews 9:13-14
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
The base text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). The named voices (✦) are quoted verbatim from public-domain commentaries on BibleHub — Ellicott, Benson, Henry, Barnes, Jamieson–Fausset–Brown, Poole, Gill, Geneva, Cambridge, Pulpit, and Keil & Delitzsch — each attributed in place. One quotation (Poole on v. 7) preserves an OCR artifact (“purl fled” for “purified”) from the source transcription; it is flagged in its editorial_note and left unaltered to keep the voice a true substring of the source.
The literal renderings, the “where the English smooths the Hebrew” notes, the parses-as-read, and all synthesis (⚙) are this tool’s own fallible work; check them against a lexicon (BDB, HALOT) and a standard grammar. Two interpretive points are held with extra honesty: (1) the moral readings of the male/female doubling in v. 5 — “a stigma on the sex” (JFB), or an honor to circumcision (Benson) — are the commentators’ theology read onto a verse that states only the numbers, and Cambridge documents the doubling as a widespread ancient custom; weigh them accordingly. (2) The Mary/Luke 2 fulfillment is a flagged, cross-Testament link: because Luke is Greek and Leviticus Hebrew, no shared Strong’s number can carry it, so it is tiered on argued fulfillment (and the unanimous testimony of the named voices), never on lexical identity. This unit contains no Joshua 1:5, so the Joshua→Hebrews 13:5 flag rule does not apply here. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)