The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Sins Requiring a Guilt Offering
Leviticus 6:1–7 — Sins Requiring a Guilt Offering. 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.
1And 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 the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
Where the English smooths the original
Like Leviticus 5:14 , which begins with the same introductory formula, this is a further communication made to the lawgiver wherein other instances are specified which require a trespass offering.Ellicott on the repeated heading-formula: this is a fresh oracle continuing the trespass-offering laws of 5:14, not a new topic.
And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Continuing his speech with him, for the same law of the trespass offering is still discoursed of, only with respect to different persons: saying: as follows.
And the Lord spake. The six following verses contain a separate communication from the Lord to Moses, but in continuance of the subject which began at Leviticus 5:14 .
In the Hebrew Bible Leviticus 6:1-7 form part of Leviticus 5 . It is evident that they ought to do so.Barnes states the bare textual fact; Ellicott (see grand commentary) sharply disputes the popular form of this claim about Hebrew chapter divisions.
2“If someone sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor in regard to a deposit or security entrusted to him or stolen, or if he extorts his neighbor
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî ne·p̄eš ṯe·ḥĕ·ṭā ū·mā·‘ă·lāh ma·‘al Yah·weh wə·ḵi·ḥêš ba·‘ă·mî·ṯōw bə·p̄iq·qā·ḏō·wn ḇiṯ·śū·meṯ yāḏ ’ōw- ḇə·ḡā·zêl ’ōw ’ōw ‘ā·šaq ’eṯ- ‘ă·mî·ṯōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
If a soul sins and acts a breach-of-faith against the LORD, and deceives his fellow in a deposit, or in a thing placed in the hand, or in a thing robbed, or has oppressed his fellow,
Where the English smooths the original
מעל, lit., to cover, hence מעיל the cloak, over-coat, signifies to act secretly, unfaithfully, especially against Jehovah, either by falling away from Him into idolatry, by which the fitting honour was withheld from Jehovah ( Leviticus 26:40 ; Deuteronomy 32:51 ; Joshua 22:16 ), or by infringing upon His rights, abstracting something that rightfully belonged to Him.Keil on the key verb maʻal — covert treachery, the technical word for sacrilege, here applied to a fraud against a neighbour.
This sin, though directly committed against man only, is here emphatically said to be done against the Lord ; not only in general, for so every sin against man is also against the Lord, whose image in man is thereby injured, and whose law, which obligeth us to love, and fidelity, and justice to other men, is thereby violated; but in a more special sense, because this was a violation of human society, whereof God is the author, and president, and defenderPoole's threefold answer to why a wrong against man is named a trespass against the LORD.
To deposit valuable property with a neighbour was, and still is, a common practice in the East where no responsible establishments exist for the reception of private treasure. Hence, when a man went on a journey, he concealed his precious things underground.Ellicott on the social setting of the 'deposit' (piqqâdôwn) — trust between neighbours in a world without banks.
Or in fellowship — Hebrew, in putting the hand; alluding to the form of making contracts, by the parties giving the hand to each other. So it may either signify, in carrying on a common trade by joint stock, or in any matter of trust, for which he gave his hand, and plighted his faith to another.Benson on tᵉsûwmeth yâd — the 'placing of the hand' as the gesture sealing a partnership or trust.
3or finds lost property and lies about it and swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that a man might commit—
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ōw- mā·ṣā ’ă·ḇê·ḏāh wə·ḵi·ḥeš bāh wə·niš·ba‘ ‘al- šā·qer ‘al- la·ḥă·ṭō ’a·ḥaṯ mik·kōl ’ă·šer- ḇā·hên·nāh hā·’ā·ḏām ya·‘ă·śeh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
or has found a lost thing and deceives about it and swears to a lie — in any one of all these that a man may do, sinning in them:
Where the English smooths the original
Or have found. —The fifth instance adduced is of property which was neither entrusted nor exacted but accidentally found. For the law on lost property, see Exodus 23:4 ; Deuteronomy 22:1-3 . And sweareth falsely. —This refers to all the five instances specified—that is, if he denies with an oath that property had been entrusted to him, that he had robbed, or exacted, or found anything.Ellicott: the false oath attaches to all five frauds, not only to the found thing.
By previous legislation it had been appointed that, in case of a doubt arising as to what had become of property delivered to another to keep, there should be "an oath of the Lord between them both, that" the latter "hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good" ( Exodus 22:11 ). This opened the way to false swearing where men were dishonest.The Pulpit Commentary on how the exculpatory oath of Exodus 22:11 became the very occasion of the perjury this law addresses.
Maimonides (k) gives a reason why a lost thing should be restored, not only because so to do is a virtue in itself praiseworthy, but because it has a reciprocal utility; for if you do not restore another's lost things, neither will your own be restored to youGill relaying Maimonides on the reciprocal logic of restoring lost property.
Sweareth falsely — His oath being required, seeing there was no other way of discovery left. And is guilty — Makes his guilt manifest by his voluntary confession upon remorse; whereby he reapeth this benefit, that he only restores the principal with the addition of a fifth part; whereas, if he were convicted of his fault, he was to pay in some cases five-fold, in some four-fold, in others double.Benson on the mercy hidden in the milder penalty: voluntary confession draws a fifth, not the four- or five-fold of conviction.
The two characteristics of the Guilt-Offering are (1) the sacrifice is the same for all classes, (2) restitution is required in full, together with a fifth part more.Cambridge names the two marks of the guilt-offering — one sacrifice regardless of rank, and full restitution plus a fifth — distinguishing it from the graded sin-offering.
4once he has sinned and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or the deposit entrusted to him, or the lost property he found,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hā·yāh kî- ye·ḥĕ·ṭā wə·’ā·šêm wə·hê·šîḇ ’eṯ- ’ă·šer gā·zāl hag·gə·zê·lāh ’ōw ’eṯ- hā·‘ō·šeq ’ă·šer ‘ā·šāq ’ōw ’eṯ- hap·piq·qā·ḏō·wn ’ă·šer hā·p̄ə·qaḏ ’it·tōw ’ōw ’eṯ- hā·’ă·ḇê·ḏāh ’ă·šer mā·ṣā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
then it shall be, when he has sinned and become guilty, that he shall cause to return the thing robbed which he robbed, or the thing of oppression which he oppressed, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found,
Where the English smooths the original
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty. —Better, And it shall come to pass, token he hath so sinned, and acknowledged his guilt. (See Leviticus 4:22 .) That is, when he has committed any of the aforementioned offences, and denied the sin with an oath, but afterwards voluntarily acknowledges his guilt without having been found out.Ellicott: the trigger is voluntary acknowledgment of guilt, not external discovery — which is what makes the milder penalty fitting.
If the offender would escape the vengeance of God, he must make ample restitution, according to his power, and seek forgiveness by faith in that one Offering which taketh away the sin of the world.Henry binds the two halves of the law: restitution to man and forgiveness through the one true Offering.
This guilt of his being manifested, either by his refusing to swear when called to it, as in some of the cases alleged; or by his voluntary confession upon remorse, whereby he reapeth this benefit, that he only restores the principal with the addition of a fifth part; whereas if he were convicted of his fault, he was to pay double, Exodus 22:9 .Poole on the two ways guilt becomes 'manifest' and the reward of confession over conviction.
that he shall restore that which he took violently away: whether money, goods, or cattle: or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten; by outwitting him, by extortion, by false accusation, or detention of wages: or that which was delivered him to keep; in which he was unfaithful to his trust, be it what it will: or the lost thing which he found; and denied he had it.Gill itemizing the four objects of restitution, each named by the wrong that produced it.
5or anything else about which he has sworn falsely. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value, and pay it to the owner on the day he acknowledges his guilt.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ōw mik·kōl ‘ā·lāw ’ă·šer- yiš·šā·ḇa‘ laš·še·qer bə·rō·šōw wə·šil·lam ’ō·ṯōw yō·sêp̄ wa·ḥă·mi·ši·ṯāw ‘ā·lāw yit·tə·nen·nū la·’ă·šer hū lōw bə·yō·wm ’aš·mā·ṯōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
or anything at all about which he swears to a lie: he shall make it good in its full sum, and shall add its fifths to it; to him to whom it belongs he shall give it, on the day of his guilt [-offering].
Where the English smooths the original
It will be seen that in Exodus 22:1-9 , when a person was guilty of any of the offences here specified, the offender was condemned to make a four fold restitution, whilst in the passage before us the mulct is reduced to the restitution of the principal with the addition of a fifth part. The reason of this difference is that the law in Exodus deals with a culprit who is convicted of his crime in a court of justice by means of witnesses, whilst the law before us deals with an offender who, through compunction of mind, voluntarily confesses his offenceEllicott on why the penalty is lighter here than in Exodus 22 — confession, not conviction.
In the day of his trespass-offering — It must not be delayed, but restitution to man must accompany repentance toward God. Wherever wrong has been done, restitution must be made, and till it is made, to the utmost of our power, we cannot look for forgiveness; for the keeping of what is unjustly gotten, avows the taking: and both together make but one continued act of unrighteousness.Benson: unreturned plunder is a continuing sin — 'keeping avows the taking.'
In the day of his trespass offering - The restitution was thus to be associated with the religious act by which the offender testified his penitence.
It must not be delayed, but restitution to man must accompany repentance towards God. Compare Matthew 5:23 .Poole points across to Matthew 5:23 — be reconciled to your brother before you bring your gift to the altar.
6Then he must bring to the priest his guilt offering to the LORD: an unblemished ram of proper value from the flock.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’eṯ- yā·ḇî ’el- hak·kō·hên ’ă·šā·mōw Yah·weh tā·mîm ’a·yil bə·‘er·kə·ḵā min- haṣ·ṣōn lə·’ā·šām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And his guilt-offering he shall bring to the LORD: a ram, without blemish, from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt-offering, to the priest.
Where the English smooths the original
the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights that had been violated or disturbed came into the foreground in the trespass-offering. This satisfaction was to be actually made, wherever the guilt admitted of a material valuation, by means of payment or penance; and in addition to this, the animal was raised by the priestly valuation into the authorized bearer of the satisfaction to be rendered to the rights of GodKeil's summary of what distinguishes the guilt-offering: satisfaction for violated rights, the ram made the 'bearer' of that satisfaction.
a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering unto the priest; the same offering that was ordered for a trespass through ignorance, Leviticus 5:16 typical of the sacrifice of Christ offered up both for sins of ignorance and wilful transgressions, for his blood cleanses from all sinGill reads the unblemished ram as type of Christ — whose blood answers wilful sins, not only sins of ignorance.
With thy estimation. —That is, according to the official valuation; the ram is to be so grown up as to be worth two shekels. (See Leviticus 5:15 .)Ellicott on the priestly valuation that fixes the worth of the ram.
he was required to bring a trespass offering, as a token of sorrow and penitence for having hurt the cause of religion and of God. That trespass offering was a ram without blemish, which was to be made on the altar of burnt offerings, and the flesh belonged to the priests.JFB on the ram as token of penitence and the priests' portion in the offering.
7In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for anything he may have done to incur guilt.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hak·kō·hên wə·ḵip·per ‘ā·lāw lip̄·nê Yah·weh wə·nis·laḥ lōw ‘al- ’a·ḥaṯ mik·kōl ’ă·šer- ya·‘ă·śeh lə·’aš·māh ḇāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and it shall be forgiven him for any one of all that he may do, incurring guilt by it.
Where the English smooths the original
By offering the ram he brought, by which a typical, but not real atonement was made; for the blood of bulls and goats, of sheep and rams, could not take away sin; but as they were types of Christ, and led to him, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world: and it shall be forgiven him, for anything of all that he hath doneGill: the ram's atonement is typical, not real — it works only as it points to the Lamb of God.
The trespasses here mentioned, still are trespasses against the law of Christ, which insists as much upon justice and truth, as the law of nature, or the law of Moses.Henry on the abiding force of the law: the gospel demands justice and truth no less than Moses did.
This penalty was equivalent to a mitigated fine; but being associated with a sacred duty, the form in which the fine was inflicted served the important purpose of rousing attention to the claims and reviving a sense of responsibility to God.JFB on the genius of the arrangement: a civil fine wrapped in a sacred act, reviving the sense of accountability to God.
In the day of his trespass offering - The restitution was thus to be associated with the religious act by which the offender testified his penitence.Barnes (carried over the section) on the deliberate yoking of restitution to the act of worship.
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 unit opens with the formula that opened 5:14: way·ḏab·bêr Yah·weh ʼel-mōšeh lê·mōr, "and the LORD spoke to Moses, saying." Ellicott reads it as "a further communication… wherein other instances are specified which require a trespass offering," and Gill insists on continuity: "the same law of the trespass offering is still discoursed of, only with respect to different persons." The Pulpit Commentary agrees the six verses are "a separate communication… but in continuance of the subject which began at Leviticus 5:14." Here the voices collide, and the machine layer must take a side. Barnes states flatly that "in the Hebrew Bible Leviticus 6:1-7 form part of Leviticus 5. It is evident that they ought to do so" — and in the Hebrew Bible our 6:1–7 is indeed numbered 5:20–26. But Ellicott attacks the usual rationale as "erroneous," since "the Hebrew Scriptures in manuscript have no division into chapters at all"; the chapter numbering was borrowed from Christians in the fourteenth century. The honest synthesis: the verse-content runs continuously from 5:14, as Keil and the Pulpit Commentary say; the chapter break is a late editorial artifact, not a fault-line in the law. (Provenance: Barnes/Ellicott verbatim; the reconciliation is the machine's, fallible.)
The paradox that drives the whole unit is stated in v.2: a man defrauds his fellow (ʻâmîyth, H5997, the warm word for a covenant associate), yet it is called "a breach of faith against the LORD." Matthew Poole gives the threefold reason: such fraud violates "human society, whereof God is the author, and president, and defender"; it is "a secret sin, of which God alone was the witness and judge"; and "God's name was abused in it by perjury." Keil & Delitzsch supply the lexical depth: the verb maʻal means "lit., to cover, hence mᵉʻîl the cloak… to act secretly, unfaithfully, especially against Jehovah" — the same word used of idolatry and of touching the banned thing in Joshua 7. A property crime is thus clothed in the vocabulary of sacrilege. The five concrete cases — deposit, hand-pledge, robbery, oppression, found-and-denied — are drawn from a real social world: Ellicott describes the Eastern practice of entrusting treasure to a neighbour "where no responsible establishments exist," and Benson explains the "putting of the hand" as the gesture by which "the parties" sealed a partnership, "giving the hand to each other." Matthew Henry presses the conscience to the smallest case: "all methods of doing wrong to others, are alike violations of the Divine law, even keeping what is found, when the owner can be discovered." What converts each fraud into a trespass against God is the false oath — the Pulpit Commentary shows how the exculpatory "oath of the Lord" of Exodus 22:11 became the very door to perjury.
The remedy turns on a single verb: wᵉ·hê·šîḇ (H7725), the Hiphil of shûwb — "he shall cause to return." It is the great verb of repentance pressed into the service of property law: to turn back to God is, here, to hand the goods back. The Hebrew names crime and cure with one root — "the robbed-thing which he robbed," "the deposit which was deposited" — so that the word of sin becomes the word of its undoing. Ellicott locates the trigger inwardly: the case applies to one who "voluntarily acknowledges his guilt without having been found out," and this is why, as Poole and Benson note, the penalty is mild — principal plus a fifth, where conviction in Exodus 22 demanded double, fourfold, even fivefold. Ellicott draws the contrast exactly: the Exodus law "deals with a culprit who is convicted… by means of witnesses," this one with an offender "who, through compunction of mind, voluntarily confesses." The restitution-verb šil·lam (H7999) is from the root of shalom: to make the loss whole, to mend a broken peace. And it must be immediate — "on the day of his guilt" — for, as Benson warns, "the keeping of what is unjustly gotten, avows the taking: and both together make but one continued act of unrighteousness." Poole hears the Gospel already: "restitution to man must accompany repentance towards God. Compare Matthew 5:23."
Only after the neighbour is made whole does the offender turn Godward: he brings ʼă·šā·mōw (H817) — the one noun that means both "his guilt" and "his guilt-offering" — a ram "without blemish" (tā·mîm, H8549, whole, with integrity), "according to your valuation." Keil & Delitzsch make the valuation the key to the rite's distinctiveness: in the guilt-offering "the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights… came into the foreground," the ram "raised by the priestly valuation into the authorized bearer of the satisfaction to be rendered to the rights of God"; and where the sin-offering took any animal "from an ox to a pigeon," the trespass-offering "was always a ram." Then the priest "shall make atonement" — wᵉ·ḵip·per (H3722, kâphar, "to cover"): the guilt the sinner had tried to cover by his lie is now lawfully covered before God. "And it shall be forgiven him" — wᵉ·nis·laḥ (H5545), a passive of the verb çâlach used in Scripture only of God's own pardon. Gill guards both the limit and the reach of the type: the ram made "a typical, but not real atonement," for the blood of rams "could not take away sin; but as they were types of Christ… the Lamb of God"; yet through that type "all manner of sin is forgiven," even crimes "very grievous" — "unfaithfulness in a trust, cheating and defrauding, stealing, lying, and perjury." Henry closes the circle: these are "still trespasses against the law of Christ, which insists as much upon justice and truth, as the law of nature, or the law of Moses."
Read under Sola Scriptura — and offered as the tool's own fallible reading, to be tested — this little law holds an astonishing theology of sin and its repair in its very vocabulary. Three Hebrew roots do the work, and translation hides their kinship. First, the sinner covers: he commits maʻal ("to cover," v.2) and kâchash (denies, disowns, v.2–3), trying to hide the trust he has betrayed. Last, the priest covers: kâphar (atones, "to cover," v.7). The same human reflex — to cover — is the essence of the sin and the essence of the cure; what man cannot lawfully cover by lying, God lawfully covers by sacrifice. Between the two stands the verb shûwb ("return," v.4): the man must cause to turn back the very things he took. This is the word the prophets use for repentance, and here it means: hand the goods back. There is no turning to God that bypasses the neighbour's pocket. Note too what the text refuses to separate. The fraud is against a fellow, yet named against the LORD — because (Poole is right) God is the founder of the fellowship that fraud destroys. And forgiveness is passive (nis·laḥ, "it shall be forgiven him") and the verb is one God alone owns: the man restores, the man brings the ram, but he cannot pardon himself. The whole arc — confess, restore, bring the whole and blameless ram, receive a pardon you did not manufacture — is the gospel order in Levitical dress, and the plain sense stands before any typology: God will not let the altar become a way around the wronged neighbour, nor the wronged neighbour become a way around the altar.
What man tried to cover by lying, God covers by sacrifice — the same verb, sin in the sinner, grace in the priest. (A reading to be tested, not a verse.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The "deposit" of v.2, piqqâdôwn (H6487), is one of the rarest nouns in the Hebrew Bible — it occurs in only three verses. The most famous is Genesis 41:36, where Joseph counsels that the grain of the seven plenteous years be stored "for a deposit to the land against the seven years of famine." Keil cites Genesis 41:36 by name in glossing the word here. Because the shared lexeme is genuinely rare (three verses total), the Verifier rates the verbal tie quotation-grade — though the link is one of distinctive vocabulary, not of citation: the same legal-economic word for entrusted property, used once of a neighbour's pledge and once of a nation's grain held in trust by a faithful steward.
Genesis 41:36
basis: Verifier-confirmed shared rare lexeme: H6487 piqqâdôwn (in only 3 vv). The near-unique noun for an entrusted 'deposit' makes the co-occurrence a true verbal fingerprint, not a generic theme.
This whole section presupposes the property law of Exodus 22:7–13, which the human voices cite almost in unison: the Pulpit Commentary notes "Exodus 22:7-13 contains earlier legislation on the subject of things taken in trust"; Cambridge, Ellicott, Poole, and Gill all reach back to it. The verbal hinge is the rare noun ʼăbêdâh ("a lost thing," H9, in only four verses), which Leviticus 6:3 shares with the lost-property clause of Exodus 22:9 — the very verse that there sets a fourfold penalty. Ellicott draws the contrast that this thread records: in Exodus "the offender was condemned to make a four fold restitution, whilst in the passage before us the mulct is reduced to the restitution of the principal with the addition of a fifth part" — because Exodus deals with the man "convicted… by witnesses" and Leviticus with the man "who, through compunction of mind, voluntarily confesses." The shared lexeme is genuinely rare; the relationship is law-revised-for-the-penitent, not citation, but the rare word makes the verbal tie real.
Exodus 22:9
basis: Verifier-confirmed shared rare lexeme (Lev 6:3 ↔ Exod 22:9): H9 ʼăbêdâh (in only 4 vv). The near-unique 'lost thing' word ties Leviticus' guilt-offering law to the earlier property statute of Exodus 22 — whose fourfold penalty Leviticus mitigates to principal-plus-a-fifth for the man who confesses unprompted.
The casuistic case here — "if a soul… deceives his fellow" (ʻâmîyth + kâchash, v.2) — is the worked-out application of the apodictic command in Leviticus 19:11: "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely (kâchash), neither lie one to another." The Pulpit Commentary cross-references 19:11 here outright. The link rests on two distinctive, clustered lexemes: ʻâmîyth ("fellow/associate," H5997, only 10 verses, nearly all in Leviticus) and kâchash ("to deal falsely, disown," H3584, 22 verses). Both are uncommon and they co-occur; given the rarity of ʻâmîyth in particular, this is a genuine verbal tie between the command and its case-law.
Leviticus 19:11
basis: Verifier-confirmed shared lexemes: H5997 ʻâmîyth (10 vv — distinctively Levitical) and H3584 kâchash (22 vv). The rare 'fellow' word plus the 'deal falsely' verb, clustered, make this a verbal link from apodictic law (Lev 19:11) to casuistic case (Lev 6:2).
The robbery-and-restoration vocabulary of v.4 — gᵉzêlâh / gâzal (the robbed thing he robbed) with shûwb (cause to return) — is exactly Ezekiel's yardstick of righteousness. In Ezekiel 18 the wicked man "hath spoiled by violence (gâzal), hath not restored the pledge" (18:7, 12, 16), while the man who lives "restoreth (shûwb) to the debtor his pledge, giveth back that which he had taken by robbery (gᵉzêlâh)" — and Ezekiel 33:15 makes restoring "that he had robbed" (gᵉzêlâh) the very mark of the repentant. The oppression-side of v.2 lands in the same prophet: Ezekiel 22:29 indicts a people who "have used oppression (ʻâshaq), and exercised robbery (gâzêl)," sharing with this unit two of its rarest crime-words at once. Keil cites this same prophetic robbery-vocabulary (Micah 2:2; Job 24:2) in expounding the word. I tier this structural / thematic rather than verbal: although gᵉzêlâh and gâzêl are rare (6 vv each), Ezekiel makes no quotation claim — he reuses the Torah's robbery-and-restitution idiom to define righteousness and to indict its breach, a shared legal motif, not a citation. (Under-claiming per the spec.)
Ezekiel 18:7 · Ezekiel 18:12 · Ezekiel 33:15 · Ezekiel 22:29
basis: Verifier basis (Lev 6:4 ↔ Ezek 18:7 / 33:15: H1500 gᵉzêlâh (6 vv), H1497 gâzal (30 vv), H7725 shûwb (950 vv); Lev 6:2 ↔ Ezek 22:29: H1498 gâzêl (6 vv), H6231 ʻâshaq (35 vv)). The shared words include genuinely rare ones, but the tie is the prophet reusing the Torah's robbery-and-restoration idiom as the test of righteousness and the charge against its breach — a shared legal motif, not a quotation; tiered structural/thematic.
The closest parallel to this whole law is Numbers 5:6–8, which repeats it almost as a doublet: "When a man or woman shall commit any sin… and that person be guilty (commit a breach of faith, maʻal); then they shall confess their sin… and he shall recompense his trespass… and add unto it the fifth part." Keil places the two side by side: "we find in Numbers 5:5-8 not only a trespass against Jehovah, but an unjust withdrawal of the property of a neighbour… for which material compensation was to be made with the addition of a fifth of its value, just as in" this chapter. The shared technical verb maʻal ("breach of faith") and the identical restitution-plus-fifth structure carry the link; the lexemes are moderately common, and the relationship is the same law restated, so I tier it structural / thematic.
Numbers 5:6 · Numbers 5:7 · Numbers 5:8
basis: Verifier basis (Lev 6:2 ↔ Num 5:6; Lev 6:5 ↔ Num 5:7): shared lexemes H4604/H4603 maʻal (29/35 vv), H5315 nephesh, and the 'fifth part' H2549 chămîyshîy (44 vv). The same trespass-law restated for the camp — structural/thematic, the shared maʻal and restitution-plus-fifth pattern rather than a quotation.
The double sin of v.3 — denying (kâchash) and swearing to a lie (sheqer) — is precisely the sin Isaiah lays against the nation: "in transgressing and lying (kâchash) against the LORD… speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood (sheqer)" (Isaiah 59:13). The shared lexemes are kâchash (H3584, 22 vv) and sheqer (H8267, 109 vv). Because sheqer is common, this is a structural / thematic link, not verbal: the same pair of sins — lying denial plus falsehood — that Leviticus treats as a man's private fraud, Isaiah indicts as the nation's corporate apostasy. The legal category becomes a prophetic charge.
Isaiah 59:13
basis: Verifier basis (Lev 6:3 ↔ Isa 59:13): shared lexemes H3584 kâchash (22 vv) and H8267 sheqer (109 vv). sheqer is common, so structural/thematic, not verbal — the same lying-and-falsehood pair, individual fraud in Leviticus becoming national apostasy in Isaiah.
This is a transparency note required by the project, not a claim about this unit. This unit is Leviticus 6, not Joshua, and contains no Joshua 1:5; therefore the mandated Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 thread ("I will never leave you nor forsake you," whose NT provenance is debated) does not apply here and is recorded only to confirm the rule was checked. More relevantly for this unit's own flagged item, see the apparatus on the Genesis-41 "double lexeme" Verifier artifact and on the Hebrew↔Greek typological links to Luke 19, which cannot be verbal by definition.
Joshua 1:5 · Hebrews 13:5
basis: Not a substantive link for this unit (no Joshua 1:5 present). Recorded per the project rule that the Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 quotation — whose NT provenance is debated — must be flagged whenever in view; flagged here as inapplicable and as a provenance-honesty marker.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The ram "without blemish" (tā·mîm, v.6) brought to bear away the offender's guilt has, from the earliest Christian reading onward, been seen as a figure of Christ the spotless sacrifice. John Gill names it directly at v.6: the ram is "typical of the sacrifice of Christ offered up both for sins of ignorance and wilful transgressions, for his blood cleanses from all sin," and at v.7 he calls the antitype "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" — guarding the limit: the ram made "a typical, but not real atonement," for "the blood of bulls and goats… could not take away sin." Matthew Henry agrees that the offender must "seek forgiveness by faith in that one Offering which taketh away the sin of the world." That the guilt-offering covered even grievous, wilful crimes — fraud, theft, perjury (so Gill against the Socinians) — makes it a fitting type of the atonement that reaches the same sins. This is the ancient and widely-held typological reading, named by the human voices themselves; the Old↔New tie is figural, never verbal.
Leviticus 6:6 · Leviticus 6:7 · John 1:29 · Hebrews 9:12
The verb of v.7, kâphar ("to cover, make atonement"), and the passive pardon nis·laḥ ("it shall be forgiven him") sketch the structure the New Testament says the cross fulfills: the priest covers guilt before God, and forgiveness is granted from outside the sinner. Gill reads the priest's act as type of Christ's: the typical atonement "led to him," and "all manner of sin is forgiven for Christ's sake." Hebrews takes precisely this priest-and-blood pattern — atonement made "before the LORD" by a mediating priest — and presents Christ as both priest and offering, securing "eternal redemption" where the Levitical rite could only cover provisionally. The cross-Testament link is structural/typological (Hebrew kâphar cannot share a Strong's number with the Greek of Hebrews); it is the developed motif of covering-atonement, widely held since the Fathers, not a verbal quotation.
Leviticus 6:7 · Hebrews 9:11 · Hebrews 9:14 · Romans 3:25
The law's demand — confess, restore the principal, add a fifth, then receive forgiveness — finds a living portrait in Zacchaeus, who stands and says, "if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8), and hears, "This day is salvation come to this house." The vocabulary of Leviticus 6:2 (defraud, oppress) stands behind his words, and Gill cites Luke 19:8 at v.2 in glossing the fraud this law addresses. The restitution-then-mercy pattern is the same; Zacchaeus, indeed, exceeds the Levitical fifth, paying the conviction-grade fourfold of Exodus 22 out of free repentance. The link is cross-Testament (Hebrew↔Greek), so it cannot rest on shared Strong's numbers — the Verifier returns no shared lexeme; it is a typological/exemplary reading, the Mosaic restitution-law lived out under grace. Widely recognized, though more exemplary than strictly figural.
Leviticus 6:4 · Leviticus 6:5 · Luke 19:8
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:
On the chapter division (6:1–7 vs 5:20–26). In the Hebrew Bible this passage is numbered Leviticus 5:20–26; our 6:1 is the Hebrew 5:20. Barnes and the unfootnoted note in Keil & Delitzsch ("In the original the division of verses in the Hebrew text is followed") record the fact; Ellicott, however, sharply disputes the common explanation that translators "unfortunately adopted the division of the Septuagint" — he notes Hebrew manuscripts "have no division into chapters at all," the chapter numbers being a fourteenth-century Christian borrowing. The grand commentary follows Keil and the Pulpit Commentary in treating the content as continuous from 5:14 while the chapter break is a late artifact; that reconciliation is the machine layer's and is fallible.
On the Verifier's default tiering. The Verifier labels any shared non-stopword lexeme "verbal / quotation — confirmed." Per this project's stricter rule, I have re-tiered every candidate myself: "verbal" is reserved for genuinely rare shared lexemes (Genesis 41:36 — piqqâdôwn at 3 vv; Exodus 22:9 — ʼăbêdâh at 4 vv; Leviticus 19:11 — ʻâmîyth at 10 vv), and the Ezekiel, Numbers, and Isaiah links have been kept at or downgraded to structural / thematic because their relationship is motif/restatement rather than citation — even where a shared word is rare (the Ezekiel robbery cluster shares gᵉzêlâh / gâzêl, 6 vv each), since the prophet is reusing the Torah's legal idiom, not quoting it, and other shared words are common (e.g. sheqer 109 vv, shûwb 950 vv, shâlam 107 vv, maʻal 29/35 vv across the Numbers doublet). This follows the under-claiming directive.
On a candidate-output artifact. Several thread_candidates list a lexeme twice (e.g. "H6487 piqqâdôwn (in 3 vv)" repeated, "H9 ʼăbêdâh" doubled). This is a duplication in the candidate listing, not two independent links, and has not been treated as strengthening any tie.
On the cross-Testament (Christ) links. The Luke 19:8, John 1:29, Hebrews 9, and Romans 3:25 references are Greek↔Hebrew and therefore cannot carry shared Strong's numbers; running the Verifier on Leviticus 6:2 ↔ Luke 19:8 returns no shared original-language lexeme, exactly as expected. These are presented as typological/structural readings (and, for Zacchaeus, exemplary), all named or grounded by the human voices themselves, never asserted as verbal quotation.
On the Joshua 1:5 rule. This unit contains no Joshua 1:5, so the mandated Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 thread is inapplicable; it is recorded once, flagged, solely to confirm the provenance rule was checked.
✦ = 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)