The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
The Grain Offering
Leviticus 6:14–23 — The Grain 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.
14Now this is the law of the grain offering: Aaron’s sons shall present it before the LORD in front of the altar.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·zōṯ tō·w·raṯ ham·min·ḥāh ’a·hă·rōn bə·nê- haq·rêḇ ’ō·ṯāh lip̄·nê Yah·weh ’el- pə·nê ham·miz·bê·aḥ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And this [is] the tôrâh of the grain offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it near before the face of Yahweh, unto the face of the altar.
Where the English smooths the original
The sons of Aaron shall offer it. —Though in the chapter before us it literally means Aaron’s own sons, the phrase is intended to comprise his lineal descendants who succeeded to the priestly office. They, and they only, shall offer the sacrifices, but not a layman.
This law, delivered Le 2 , is here repeated for the sake of some additions here made to it; as it is a common practice of law-makers, when they make additional laws, to recite such laws to which such additions belong.Poole names the literary structure of chs. 6–7: a re-statement of the earlier law (ch. 2) carrying new, priest-facing additions.
The regulations in Leviticus 6:14 , Leviticus 6:15 , are merely a repetition of Leviticus 2:2 and Leviticus 2:3 ; but in Leviticus 6:16-18 the new instructions are introduced with regard to what was left and had not been burned upon the altar.
15The priest is to remove a handful of fine flour and olive oil, together with all the frankincense from the grain offering, and burn the memorial portion on the altar as a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hê·rîm bə·qum·ṣōw mim·men·nū mis·sō·leṯ ham·min·ḥāh ū·miš·šam·nāh wə·’êṯ kāl- hal·lə·ḇō·nāh ’ă·šer ‘al- ham·min·ḥāh wə·hiq·ṭîr ’az·kā·rā·ṯāh ham·miz·bê·aḥ nî·ḥō·aḥ rê·aḥ Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And he shall lift up from it, with his fist, from the fine flour of the grain offering, and from its oil, and all the frankincense that [is] upon the grain offering, and he shall turn [it] into smoke on the altar — a soothing aroma, its memorial-portion, to Yahweh.
Where the English smooths the original
And he shall take of it. —That is, one of the sons of Aaron mentioned in the preceding verse, whose rotation it is to serve at the altar.
It was the priests' share of the firings of Jehovah (see Leviticus 1:9 ), and as such it was most holy (see Leviticus 2:3 ), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering
16Aaron and his sons are to eat the remainder. It must be eaten without leaven in a holy place; they are to eat it in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’a·hă·rōn ū·ḇā·nāw yō·ḵə·lū wə·han·nō·w·ṯe·reṯ mim·men·nāh tê·’ā·ḵêl maṣ·ṣō·wṯ qā·ḏōš bə·mā·qō·wm yō·ḵə·lū·hā ba·ḥă·ṣar ’ō·hel- mō·w·‘êḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the remainder from it Aaron and his sons shall eat; unleavened it shall be eaten in a holy place; in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.
Where the English smooths the original
With unleavened bread shall it be eaten - This should be, it (the remainder) shall be eaten unleavened.A textual correction the modern BSB has adopted: the word ‘with’ is absent from the Hebrew.
His sons — The males only might eat these, because they were most holy things; whereas the daughters of Aaron might eat other holy things. In the court — In some special room appointed for that purpose.
for it cannot well be thought that bread of any sort should be eaten with this offering, which, properly speaking, was itself a bread offering, and so it should be called, rather than a meat offering
17It must not be baked with leaven; I have assigned it as their portion of My food offerings. It is most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō ṯê·’ā·p̄eh ḥā·mêṣ nā·ṯat·tî ’ō·ṯāh ḥel·qām mê·’iš·šāy hî qō·ḏeš qā·ḏā·šîm ka·ḥaṭ·ṭāṯ wə·ḵā·’ā·šām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
It shall not be baked [with] leaven; [as] their portion I have given it from my fire-offerings. It [is] most holy, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering.
Where the English smooths the original
It was ordained that those who ministered at the altar should live of the altar; hence the priests had no portion or inheritance in the land.
It is God's will that his ministers should be provided with what is needful.Henry draws the pastoral principle out of the priestly portion: the ‘nāṯattî — I have given it’ of v. 17 is God’s own provision for those who serve the altar.
It shall not be baked with leaven,.... Which, as it was a type of Christ, may denote his sincerity both in doctrine, life, and conversation; and as it may respect the offerer, may signify his uprightness and integrity, and his being devoid of hypocrisy and insincerity
18Any male among the sons of Aaron may eat it. This is a permanent portion from the food offerings to the LORD for the generations to come. Anything that touches them will become holy.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kāl- zā·ḵār biḇ·nê ’a·hă·rōn yō·ḵă·len·nāh ‘ō·w·lām ḥāq- mê·’iš·šê Yah·weh lə·ḏō·rō·ṯê·ḵem kōl ’ă·šer- yig·ga‘ bā·hem yiq·dāš
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it — a perpetual due from the fire-offerings of Yahweh throughout your generations. Everything that touches them shall become holy.
Where the English smooths the original
There is, however, another view of the passage which is of equal, if not of anterior, date. That is, whoso or whatsoever toucheth them shall become holy. Any layman or any ordinary utensil, &c., becomes sacred by touching one of the higher order of sanctity.
Holiness is here regarded as a contagious quality; contact with holy things must be avoided, just as contact with things that are considered unclean is forbidden.Cambridge frames the verse’s logic: holiness, like uncleanness, transmits by contact — an ancient mode of thought the text preserves.
The touch of the offering conveys the character of holiness to the thing touched, which must, therefore, itself be treated as holy.The Pulpit Commentary states the ‘contagion’ reading of yiqdāš plainly — holiness passes to the toucher — the same side K&D takes; quoted from its note covering vv. 14–18.
Whatsoever toucheth them, as suppose the dish that receives them, the knife, or spoon, &c. which is used about them, those shall be taken for holy, and not employed for common uses.
19Then 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 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying:
Where the English smooths the original
The new law, which is here introduced with this special formula (see Leviticus 6:8 ), gives directions about the meat offering which the high priest is to bring on his consecration to the pontifical office
They are not introduced by the words ‘This is the law of …,’ and addressed through Moses to Aaron and his sons, but are spoken directly to Moses (note the verbs in the 2nd person in Leviticus 6:21 ).Cambridge marks the formal seam: a change of address-formula sets the high-priestly offering (vv. 20–23) apart as a distinct law.
20“This is the offering that Aaron and his sons must present to the LORD on the day he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
zeh qā·rə·ban ’a·hă·rōn ū·ḇā·nāw ’ă·šer- yaq·rî·ḇū Yah·weh bə·yō·wm him·mā·šaḥ ’ō·ṯōw ‘ă·śî·riṯ hā·’ê·p̄āh sō·leṯ tā·mîḏ min·ḥāh ma·ḥă·ṣî·ṯāh bab·bō·qer ū·ma·ḥă·ṣî·ṯāh bā·‘ā·reḇ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
This [is] the offering of Aaron and his sons which they shall bring near to Yahweh on the day he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering continually, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.
Where the English smooths the original
The ordinary priest, however, only offered it once on the day of his consecration, whilst the high priest was bound to offer it every day after the regular holocaust, with its meat offering and before the drink offering ( Ecclesiasticus 45:14 , with Josephus, Antiq. III. 10 § 7). It is to this practice that the apostle refers when he says, “For such a high priest became us . . . who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins, &c.” ( Hebrews 7:27 ).Ellicott reads the daily high-priestly minchah as the very practice Hebrews 7:27 contrasts with Christ, who offered once for all.
This was designed to keep him and the other attendant priests in constant remembrance, that though they were typically expiating the sins of the people, their own persons and services could meet with acceptance only through faith, which required to be daily nourished and strengthened from above.
perpetually ] Heb. tâmîd , a term applied to the daily Burnt-Offering ( Exodus 29:38-42 where it is translated continually in Exodus 29:38 , continual in Exodus 29:42 ) and to the lamp ( Leviticus 24:2-3 continually ), though how the epithet is suitable for an offering brought on one occasion is not made clear.
the more probable opinion is that it was only made on the day of consecration, that is, on the first day that he was qualified to act as high priest.The Pulpit Commentary takes the opposite side of the tāmîḏ crux from Ellicott and JFB: not a daily lifelong rite but a one-time consecration offering — the very tension Cambridge says ‘is not made clear.’
21It shall be prepared with oil on a griddle; you are to bring it well-kneaded and present it as a grain offering broken in pieces, a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tê·‘ā·śeh baš·še·men ‘al- ma·ḥă·ḇaṯ tə·ḇî·’en·nāh mur·be·ḵeṯ taq·rîḇ min·ḥaṯ tu·p̄î·nê pit·tîm nî·ḥō·aḥ rê·aḥ- Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
On a griddle with oil it shall be made; well-soaked you shall bring it; as a grain offering of baked pieces, in fragments, you shall present [it] — a soothing aroma to Yahweh.
Where the English smooths the original
In a pan - See Leviticus 2:5 note.
The first word is uncertain, and is left blank. The Oxf. Lex. suggests, with a slight change of letters and vocalisation, to render ‘ thou shalt break ’ (it into a Meal-Offering of pieces and offer etc.), thus making the word a verbCambridge candidly registers that the key term is so uncertain the lexicon leaves it blank — a rare admission of irreducible obscurity.
this may have respect to the body of Christ being broken for us, whereby he became fit food for faith, and an offering of a sweet smelling savour to God.
22The priest, who is one of Aaron’s sons and will be anointed to take his place, is to prepare it. As a permanent portion for the LORD, it must be burned completely.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hak·kō·hên mib·bā·nāw ham·mā·šî·aḥ taḥ·tāw ya·‘ă·śeh ’ō·ṯāh ‘ō·w·lām ḥāq- Yah·weh tā·qə·ṭār kā·lîl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the priest, the anointed one from among his sons in his place, shall make it; [as] a perpetual due to Yahweh it shall be wholly turned to smoke.
Where the English smooths the original
the high priest could not eat of this mincha because he presented it himself, since it would be unseemly both to offer it to God and at the same time eat it himself.
It shall be wholly burnt - literally, "it shall ascend in fire as a whole burnt-offering."
The successors of Aaron in the high priestly office are to be anointed.
23Every grain offering for a priest shall be burned completely; it is not to be eaten.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḵāl min·ḥaṯ kō·hên tih·yeh kā·lîl lō ṯê·’ā·ḵêl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And every grain offering of a priest shall be wholly [burned]; it shall not be eaten.
Where the English smooths the original
partly to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priests, who could not bear their own iniquity; for the priest’s eating part of the people’s sacrifice did signify his typical bearing of the people’s iniquity
but the priests might not eat their own sacrifices, to show that they could not bear their own sins, and make atonement for them; and this proves the insufficiency of the legal sacrifices, and the need there was for one to arise of another order to take away sinGill draws the whole-burnt priest’s offering toward the ‘one of another order’ — the priest after Melchizedek who can both bear and take away sin.
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 section opens not with new revelation but with a re-statement: ‘wəzōṯ tôraṯ hamminḥâh — and this is the tôrâh of the grain offering.’ The lay-facing law was already given in Leviticus 2; here it returns aimed at the priests. Poole names the method exactly — ‘this law, delivered Le 2, is here repeated for the sake of some additions here made to it’ — and Keil & Delitzsch concur that vv. 14–15 ‘are merely a repetition of Leviticus 2:2 and Leviticus 2:3,’ while vv. 16–18 carry the genuinely new instructions. The Hebrew verbs guard the act’s reverence against the staleness of routine: the priest does not merely take the handful but lifts it (wəhērîm, ‘raise high’) and does not merely burn it but turns it into fragrant smoke (wəhiqṭîr). What ascends is the ’azkārâh, the ‘memorial’ from zākar, ‘to remember’ — a rare term (the verifier counts it in only seven verses) that, with qōmeṣ (the ‘fistful,’ four verses) and ləḇônâh (frankincense), forms the tight verbal weld back to Leviticus 2:2. The savor is nîḥōaḥ, ‘restful’ — God is not fed but pleased.
The remainder belongs to the priests, and the law presses three things: it is eaten unleavened, eaten in a holy place, eaten only by Aaron’s male line. The voices converge on a quiet textual correction here. The AV’s ‘with unleavened bread’ smuggles in words the Hebrew lacks; Barnes, Ellicott, Poole, and Gill all insist the sense is simply ‘unleavened it shall be eaten,’ and the modern BSB has adopted exactly that. Then comes the new first-person note Cambridge flags: ‘nāṯattî — I have given it’; the priestly living is God’s own grant from His ’iššeh, His fire-gifts, ‘most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering.’ Ellicott draws the social consequence — ‘those who ministered at the altar should live of the altar; hence the priests had no portion or inheritance in the land.’ Verse 18 ends on the strangest clause in the unit: ‘everything that touches them yiqdāš.’ Cambridge reads holiness as ‘a contagious quality,’ behaving like uncleanness in reverse; Keil & Delitzsch insist the verb means the layman ‘became holy through the contact,’ anchoring it to Isaiah 65:5, ‘touch me not, for I am holy.’ Whether yiqdāš communicates holiness or merely commands that only the holy may touch is, as Ellicott concedes, a question with ‘another view…of equal, if not of anterior, date.’
A new formula — ‘wayḏabbēr YHWH…lē’mōr, and Yahweh spoke…saying’ — sets vv. 20–23 apart. Ellicott marks it as ‘the new law…introduced with this special formula,’ and Cambridge presses the grammatical seam: this section is not headed ‘This is the tôrâh of…’ and is spoken directly to Moses. The offering itself is the high priest’s — a tenth of an ephah, half at dawn, half at dusk, presented ‘tāmîḏ, continually,’ on the day he is anointed (himmāšaḥ, the very root of mâšîaḥ). Two honest difficulties surface in the voices and in the lexicon. First, the word tāmîḏ: Cambridge admits ‘how the epithet is suitable for an offering brought on one occasion is not made clear,’ and reports that Dillmann would treat either ‘continually’ or ‘in the day when he is anointed’ as a later addition. Second, the cookery terms murbeḵeṯ and especially tup̄înê are so rare — the latter a hapax legomenon — that K&D leaves its meaning ‘hardly…decided with certainty’ and Cambridge reports the lexicon ‘is left blank.’ The decisive feature is theological: unlike the lay offering, the priest’s own minchah is wholly (kālîl) turned to smoke and ‘not eaten.’ Ellicott explains the propriety — he could not both offer it and eat it; Benson and Gill press the deeper point, that ‘the priests might not eat their own sacrifices, to show that they could not bear their own sins.’
Read under the rule that Scripture alone is the final authority, three things in this unit stand out — offered as a reading to be tested, not a verdict to be trusted.
The priest who serves the altar must himself approach it. The same family that brings near (haqrēḇ) the people’s offering must also bring its own qorbān on the day of anointing. The mediator is not above the need to draw near; he stands inside the system he administers.
The Levitical priest cannot bear his own sin. The single most telling rule here is that the priest’s own grain offering is wholly burned and ‘not eaten.’ Benson and Gill both read the silence rightly: because eating the people’s offering signified bearing their iniquity (Leviticus 10:17), the priest’s inability to eat his own confesses, in the very structure of the law, that he cannot bear his own. The text itself testifies to its own insufficiency and points beyond.
Holiness is God’s, communicated on God’s terms. The grain that touches the altar becomes ‘most holy’; what touches the most holy is itself drawn into holiness. Holiness here is not earned but transmitted from a holy God outward — a logic the New Testament will turn inside out when the truly Holy One touches the unclean and makes them clean.
These are this tool’s readings, not verses. Weigh them against the text; keep what the Word supports.
The priest who may not eat his own offering is the law confessing, in its own grammar, that it cannot take away the sin it handles.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Verses 14–15 repeat the lay law of the grain offering, now for the priests. The link is not thematic but lexical and tight: the verifier records the rare qômeṣ (‘fistful,’ only 4 verses), ’azkārâh (‘memorial,’ 7 verses), ləḇônâh (frankincense), and nîḥōaḥ shared between Leviticus 6:15 and Leviticus 2:2. Keil & Delitzsch and Poole both name this as deliberate repetition-with-additions.
Leviticus 6:14 · Leviticus 6:15 · Leviticus 2:2 · Leviticus 2:9
basis: shared rare lexemes (verifier): H7062 qômets (4 vv), H234 ʼazkârâh (7 vv), H3828 lᵉbôwnâh (21 vv), H5207 nîychôwach — same fistful/memorial/frankincense formula as Leviticus 2:2
The same gesture and vocabulary — a qômeṣ taken, the ’azkārâh ‘memorial’ turned to smoke, the frankincense burned — recurs in the impoverished sin offering (5:12) and on the bread of the Presence (24:7). The shared rare terms (the verifier flags qômeṣ, 4 vv, and ’azkārâh, 7 vv) make these one cultic idiom: a token part stands, by ‘remembrance,’ for the whole gift before God.
Leviticus 6:15 · Leviticus 5:12 · Leviticus 24:7
basis: shared rare lexemes (verifier): H7062 qômets (4 vv) + H234 ʼazkârâh (7 vv) with Lev 5:12; H234 ʼazkârâh (7 vv) + H3828 lᵉbôwnâh (21 vv) with Lev 24:7
The obscure cooking word murbeḵeṯ (‘well-soaked/-mixed’) and the vessel maḥăḇaṯ (‘griddle’) reappear in the Chronicler’s roster of Levitical duties, which lists ‘that which is baked in the pan’ and ‘that which is soaked.’ Both are rare (the verifier counts râbak in 3 verses, machăbath in 5), so the connection is genuinely verbal — the same prescribed preparation, carried into the temple’s standing order of service. Cambridge notes the cognate noun ḥǎbittîm (1 Chronicles 9:31) is from the same root, the technical name for ‘the minchah of baked pieces.’
Leviticus 6:21 · 1 Chronicles 23:29 · Leviticus 2:5
basis: shared rare lexemes (verifier): H7246 râbak (3 vv), H4227 machăbath (5 vv) — the ‘well-soaked’ griddle-offering of Lev 6:21 named again in 1 Chr 23:29
The rare baking-plate maḥăḇaṯ of the priest’s offering (only 5 verses) reappears in Ezekiel’s enacted prophecy, where the prophet sets ‘an iron griddle’ (maḥăḇaṯ barzel) as a wall between himself and the besieged city. The link is genuinely verbal — the same uncommon vessel-word — but the contexts are sharply opposed: the cultic plate that bakes a fragrant gift of approach becomes, in Ezekiel, an iron barrier of judgment. Held honestly: this is a single rare shared lexeme with no thematic continuity, offered as a verbal curiosity, not a typological claim.
Leviticus 6:21 · Ezekiel 4:3
basis: shared rare lexeme (verifier): H4227 machăbath (5 vv) — the only other occurrence is Ezekiel’s ‘iron griddle’ of siege; same word, opposite use (acceptance vs. judgment)
The clause ‘everything that touches them shall become holy’ (v. 18) is part of a wider Levitical-Exodus pattern: the altar (Exodus 29:37), the holy vessels (Exodus 30:29), the sin offering (Leviticus 6:27) all transmit holiness by contact. Keil & Delitzsch interpret the verb by Isaiah 65:5, ‘touch me not, for I am holy.’ The links share the actual verbs of the clause — nâgaʿ (‘touch’) and qâdash (‘be holy’) — but these are common words, so the connection is patterned, not a quotation.
Leviticus 6:18 · Exodus 29:37 · Haggai 2:12 · Isaiah 65:5
basis: shared but common lexemes (verifier): H5060 nâgaʻ (142 vv) + H6942 qâdash (152 vv) with Exodus 29:37 and Haggai 2:12; H6942 qâdash alone with Isaiah 65:5 — a shared motif of holiness-by-contact, not a verbal citation
The high priest’s grain offering is presented ‘tāmîḏ, continually’ (v. 20), the very word that governs the daily burnt offering of the morning and evening (Exodus 29:38–42) and the perpetually-tended lamp (Leviticus 24:2–3). Cambridge draws the connection and presses the puzzle in the same breath: ‘how the epithet is suitable for an offering brought on one occasion is not made clear.’ The shared term tāmîḏ (verifier: 103 vv) is common, so this is a patterned link, not a quotation — the priest’s gift is folded into the tāmîḏ-rhythm of Israel’s standing worship. Held honestly: the voices split on whether the offering was in fact daily (Ellicott, JFB) or once at consecration (Pulpit), so the badge claims only the shared vocabulary, not a settled practice.
Leviticus 6:20 · Exodus 29:38 · Leviticus 24:2
basis: shared but common lexeme (verifier): H8548 tâmîyd (103 vv) with Exodus 29:38 (also zeh, yôm) — a shared ‘continual-offering’ motif binding the high priest’s minchah to the daily cult and the lamp, not a verbal citation
Verse 22 names the successor ‘the anointed (priest)’ — hammāšîaḥ — who serves taḥtāw, ‘in his stead.’ The same title-word ties this to the ‘anointed priest’ of Leviticus 4:3 (verifier: shared mâšîaḥ, 38 vv, and kôhēn). The shared mâšîaḥ is moderately rare (38 vv), but because kôhēn is among the most common cultic words (653 vv) and the motif here is succession rather than a fixed phrase, the honest tier is structural, not verbal. Hebrews 7:23–27 presses the ‘in his stead’ logic to its end: those priests ‘were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing,’ whereas Christ ‘holds his priesthood permanently.’ Held honestly: the Hebrews link is cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew), so it shares no Strong’s lexeme and is offered as thematic, not verbal.
Leviticus 6:22 · Leviticus 4:3 · Hebrews 7:23-27
basis: Lev 6:22↔Lev 4:3 shares H4899 mâshîyach (38 vv) + H3548 kôhên (653 vv) per verifier — moderately rare title-word in a succession motif, tiered structural not verbal; the Hebrews 7 link is cross-Testament with no shared Strong’s — thematic only (the ‘in his stead’ succession of mortal priests vs. Christ’s permanent priesthood)
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The sharpest pointer to Christ in this unit is a prohibition: the priest’s own grain offering is wholly burned and ‘not eaten’ (v. 23). Benson reads it as signifying ‘the imperfection of the Levitical priests, who could not bear their own iniquity,’ and Gill that it ‘proves the insufficiency of the legal sacrifices, and the need there was for one to arise of another order to take away sin.’ Where the Levitical priest’s own gift can only ascend in smoke, never atone, the priest after the order of Melchizedek both bears and removes sin (Hebrews 7:26–27).
Leviticus 6:23 · Hebrews 7:26-27
Ellicott connects the high priest’s perpetual daily minchah (v. 20) directly to Hebrews 7:27: such a high priest ‘needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins.’ The tāmîḏ rhythm of the offering — half in the morning, half in the evening, day upon day — is itself the argument: what must be repeated is never finished. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown read the daily gift as a standing confession that the priests’ ‘own persons and services could meet with acceptance only through faith, which required to be daily nourished and strengthened from above.’ Hebrews answers the rhythm with a single act: where ‘every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins’ (10:11), Christ ‘did this once for all when he offered up himself’ (7:27). Held honestly: this is a New-Testament theological reading, drawn by Ellicott from v. 20 and reinforced by JFB, not a verbal link in the Hebrew.
Leviticus 6:20 · Hebrews 7:27 · Hebrews 10:11-12
Gill sees in the grain offering ‘broken in pieces’ (v. 21) a figure of ‘the body of Christ being broken for us, whereby he became fit food for faith, and an offering of a sweet smelling savour to God.’ The unleavened, oil-soaked, fire-touched bread that ascends as a rêaḥ nîḥōaḥ anticipates the One whom Paul names ‘a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God’ (Ephesians 5:2). Held honestly: this typology rests on the ‘broken pieces’ reading of the hapax tup̄înê, which is itself uncertain (see v. 21); it is offered tentatively.
Leviticus 6:21 · Ephesians 5:2
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 biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). The named voices are quoted verbatim from public-domain commentaries on Leviticus 6 at BibleHub: Ellicott, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Poole, Gill, Geneva Study Bible, Cambridge Bible, Benson, the Pulpit Commentary, and Keil & Delitzsch. Two voices (the Pulpit Commentary on v. 18 and Matthew Henry on v. 17) are quoted from their notes covering the whole block vv. 14–18; the relevant clause is identified in each editorial note. Spurgeon’s Treasury of David is not represented because this is a Leviticus (not a Psalms) unit and he left no verse-by-verse work here.
The transliterations, literal renderings, divergence notes, and word-notes (⚙) are this tool’s own work — careful but fallible; verify against a lexicon (BDB, HALOT) and grammar. Two Hebrew obscurities in this unit are flagged honestly rather than papered over: murbeḵeṯ (v. 21, a near-hapax whose sense ranges from ‘soaked’ to ‘mixed’) and the hapax legomenon tup̄înê (v. 21), which Keil & Delitzsch leave undecided and which the Oxford lexicon, per Cambridge, ‘is left blank.’ The reading of yiqdāš in v. 18 (holiness communicated by contact vs. a command that only the holy may touch) is genuinely disputed among the voices and is presented as such.
Cross-references carry a verifier-computed badge. In-canon Hebrew↔Hebrew links cite shared Strong’s lexemes as their recorded basis; rare shared lexemes (e.g. qômeṣ, 4 vv; ’azkārâh, 7 vv; râbak, 3 vv) earn ‘verbal — confirmed,’ while common shared lexemes (nâgaʿ, qâdash) earn only ‘structural/thematic.’ One within-canon link rests on a single rare lexeme with no thematic continuity (maḥăḇaṯ, 5 vv, shared between Lev 6:21 and Ezekiel’s ‘iron griddle’ of siege); it is labeled verbal but flagged as a bare word-overlap with opposite meaning, not a typology. The New-Testament links to Hebrews 7 and Ephesians 5 are cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew) and therefore share no Strong’s number; they are tiered thematic/typological and labeled accordingly, never ‘verbal.’ ✦ marks a human public-domain voice; ⚙ marks machine synthesis to be weighed. ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good.’ (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
✦ = 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)