The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
The Guilt Offering
Leviticus 7:1–10 — The 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.
1“Now this is the law of the guilt offering, which is most holy:
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·zōṯ tō·w·raṯ hā·’ā·šām hū qō·ḏeš qā·ḏā·šîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And this is the law of the guilt offering; holy of holies it [is]:
Where the English smooths the original
Likewise this is the law . . . . — Better, and this is the law:, &c. Just as Leviticus 6:24-30 contains additional regulations addressed to the priest about the rites of the sin offering, so Leviticus 7:1-10 gives more precise instructions about the trespass offering, supplementing Leviticus 5:1-13 , also designed for the guidance of the priest.Ellicott on the opening waw: this is supplementary priest-facing instruction, the third layer after 5:1–13 and 6:24–30.
it is most holy; wholly devoted for sacred use, either to the Lord, or to his priests; there were some things the Jews call light holy things, and others most holy in the highest degree, of this sort was the trespass offering.Gill names the rabbinic grade-distinction (light holy vs. most holy) that the Hebrew superlative encodes.
The similarity between the Guilt-Offering and the Sin-Offering is very close (see Leviticus 7:7 ). Both are ‘most holy’ and to be killed in the same place ( Leviticus 6:25 , cp. Leviticus 7:1-2 ).Cambridge states the thesis of the unit: identity of grade ("most holy") drives identity of rite.
The Law of the Trespass-Offering embraces first of all the regulations as to the ceremonial connected with the presentation.
2The guilt offering must be slaughtered in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, and the priest shall splatter its blood on all sides of the altar.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’ā·šām wə·’eṯ- yiš·ḥă·ṭū ’eṯ- bim·qō·wm ’ă·šer hā·‘ō·lāh yiš·ḥă·ṭū ’eṯ- yiz·rōq dā·mōw sā·ḇîḇ ‘al- ham·miz·bê·aḥ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
In the place where they slaughter the burnt offering they shall slaughter the guilt offering, and its blood he shall dash on the altar all around.
Where the English smooths the original
Shall they kill the trespass offering. —That is, the people who bring these sacrifices shall kill them, since the offerers themselves slaughtered the victim. (See Leviticus 1:5 .) The blood thereof shall he sprinkle. —Better, throw the blood. (See Leviticus 1:5 .)Ellicott assigns the slaughter to the offerer and corrects "sprinkle" to "throw" — two of the verse's three divergences in one note.
The blood shall he sprinkle round about — This is a different rule from that observed in the sin-offering, the blood of which was to be put upon the horns of the altar, Leviticus 4:25 ; but this was to be sprinkled round about it, as was ordered respecting the whole burnt-offerings.Benson draws the contrast that the divergences turn on: guilt-offering blood is dashed (like the burnt offering), not daubed (like the sin offering).
The slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood were the same as in the case of the burnt-offering ( Leviticus 1:5 ); and therefore, no doubt, the signification was the same.Keil reasons from identity of rite to identity of meaning — the engine of the whole unit's cross-references.
shall he sprinkle ] or scatter, as in the Burnt-Offering. See note on Leviticus 1:5 .
In Leviticus 7:2 "sprinkle" should rather be cast Leviticus 1:5 . All the details regarding the parts put on the altar are repeated for each kind of sacrifice, because the matter was one of paramount importance.Barnes flags the same correction ("cast," not "sprinkle") and explains why these blood- and fat-rites are spelled out anew for every sacrifice: their importance, not editorial redundancy.
3And all the fat from it shall be offered: the fat tail, the fat that covers the entrails,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’êṯ kāl- ḥel·bōw mim·men·nū ’êṯ yaq·rîḇ hā·’al·yāh wə·’eṯ- ha·ḥê·leḇ ham·ḵas·seh ’eṯ- haq·qe·reḇ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And all its fat he shall offer from it: the fat tail, and the fat that covers the entrails,
Where the English smooths the original
The rump in verse 3 should be translated tail , as in chapter Leviticus 3:9.Pulpit fixes the older "rump" to "tail" — the BSB has already adopted the correction.
and the rump, or tail, which of sheep and rams, for the trespass offering, was very large and fat in those countries; See Gill on Exodus 29:22 , Leviticus 3:9 , and the fat that covereth the inwards; called the "omentum".Gill on the fat tail and the omentum — and he himself cross-references Exodus 29:22 and Leviticus 3:9, the same verbal threads the Verifier surfaces.
The fat portions only were to be burned upon the altar, viz., the same as in the sin and peace-offerings (see Leviticus 4:8 and Leviticus 3:9 ); but the flesh was to be eaten by the priests, as in the sin-offering ( Leviticus 6:22 ), inasmuch as there was the same law in this respect for both the sin-offering and trespass-offeringKeil states the principle: fat to the altar, flesh to the priest, by the same law that governs the sin offering.
4both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the lobe of the liver, which is to be removed with the kidneys.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’êṯ šə·tê hak·kə·lā·yōṯ wə·’eṯ- ha·ḥê·leḇ ’ă·šer ‘ă·lê·hen ’ă·šer ‘al- hak·kə·sā·lîm wə·’eṯ- hay·yō·ṯe·reṯ ‘al- hak·kā·ḇêḏ yə·sî·ren·nāh ‘al- hak·kə·lā·yōṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the lobe on the liver, with the kidneys he shall remove it.
Where the English smooths the original
So this is another fat, as may seem probable from the mention of the several parts, the kidneys and the flanks. For it seems preposterous after a plain and exact description of the very particular place of the fat, the kidneys, to add another more dark and doubtful description of it from the flanks . And the Hebrew writers, whose common practice of these things makes them the best interpreters of it, make these divers kinds or parts of fat.Poole on the grammatical crux of the flanks: he posits an elided conjunction so that "the flanks" names a further fat, not a restatement.
And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them,.... Which are usually covered with fat: which is by the flanks: or rather that which is "upon" them (y); for this respects not the situation of the kidneys, nor the fat upon them, but the fat which is upon the flanks, as distinct from that, and where there are great collops of it, see Job 15:27 , and the caul that is above the liver; the lobe upon the liver, according to the Septuagint: with the kidneys, it shall he take awayGill on the anatomy and the verb of removal; cites Job 15:27 for the "collops" of flank-fat.
The fat portions only were to be burned upon the altar, viz., the same as in the sin and peace-offerings (see Leviticus 4:8 and Leviticus 3:9 ); but the flesh was to be eaten by the priests, as in the sin-offering ( Leviticus 6:22 )Keil ties the itemized fat back to the sin and peace offerings — the verbal cluster the threads record.
5The priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering to the LORD; it is a guilt offering.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hak·kō·hên wə·hiq·ṭîr ’ō·ṯām ham·miz·bê·ḥāh ’iš·šeh Yah·weh hū ’ā·šām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar, a fire offering to the LORD; it [is] a guilt offering.
Where the English smooths the original
And the priest shall burn. —These fat pieces he shall burn, as in the case of the sin offering and peace offering ( Leviticus 4:26 ; Leviticus 4:31 ).Ellicott aligns the fat-burning with the sin and peace offerings — the same disposal across rites.
which were to be for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; and was acceptable to him, being typical of the offering of Christ, which is a sweet smelling savour, bearing the fire of divine wrath in the room and stead of his people: it is the trespass offering; an offering for a trespass committed, to make atonement for itGill reads the ascending smoke as a type of Christ's substitutionary, wrath-bearing sacrifice.
And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering.Geneva preserves the older "offering made by fire" rendering of ’iššeh that the divergence weighs against BSB's "food offering."
6Every male among the priests may eat of it. It must be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kāl- zā·ḵār bak·kō·hă·nîm yō·ḵə·len·nū yê·’ā·ḵêl qā·ḏō·wōš bə·mā·qō·wm hū qō·ḏeš qā·ḏā·šîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Every male among the priests may eat it; in a holy place it shall be eaten; it [is] holy of holies.
Where the English smooths the original
it shall be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle, in some apartment in it, for that purpose, as afterwards in the temple; it was not to be carried home to their houses, for all in the family to partake of, only the priests and their sons were to eat of it: it is most holy; and therefore none but such who were devoted to holy services might eat of itGill: the geography and the personnel of the meal are both governed by the offering's "most holy" grade.
Every male supposing him not to have any uncleanness upon him, Leviticus 7:20 , or other impediment.Poole qualifies "every male": ritual cleanness is presupposed (anticipating the warning of 7:20).
In the sin-offering and the trespass-offering, the sacrifice was divided between the altar and the priest; the offerer had no share, as he had in the peace-offerings. The former expressed repentance and sorrow for sin, therefore it was more proper to fast than feastHenry on the division: the worshiper eats nothing of the guilt offering — sorrow for sin fasts; only fellowship (the peace offering) feasts.
7The guilt offering is like the sin offering; the same law applies to both. It belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kā·’ā·šām ka·ḥaṭ·ṭāṯ ’a·ḥaṯ tō·w·rāh lā·hem yih·yeh hak·kō·hên ’ă·šer yə·ḵap·per- bōw lōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
As the sin offering, so the guilt offering: one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, to him it shall be.
Where the English smooths the original
There is one law for them. —That is, the same rule, as stated in Leviticus 6:27-28 , applies to both the sin offering and the trespass offering; hence what is omitted in the regulation of the one must be supplied from the directions given in the other.Ellicott on "one law": the two offerings are mutually completing — the heart of the unit's cross-referencing logic.
there is one {d} law for them: the priest that maketh atonement {e} therewith shall have it . (d) The same ceremonies, even though this word trespass signifies less then sin. (e) Meaning, the rest which is left and not burnt.Geneva distinguishes the lesser weight of "trespass" from "sin" while affirming the identical ceremony.
the priest … shall have it ] Cp. 2 Kings 12:16 , where both Guilt-and Sin-Offerings are assigned to the priest. At the close of the injunctions concerning the ‘most holy’ sacrifices, a short summary ( Leviticus 7:8-10 ) of the priests’ dues from such sacrifices is given.Cambridge ties the priestly portion to 2 Kings 12:16 and frames vv.8–10 as the summary of priestly dues.
the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it; who by offering it made atonement for the trespass of the person that brings it, as typical of the atonement by the sacrifice of ChristGill binds atoning-service to priestly portion, and reads the whole as typical of Christ's atonement.
8As for the priest who presents a burnt offering for anyone, the hide of that offering belongs to him.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hak·kō·hên ham·maq·rîḇ ’eṯ- ‘ō·laṯ ’îš ‘ō·wr hā·‘ō·lāh ’ă·šer hiq·rîḇ lak·kō·hên lōw yih·yeh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the priest who presents a man's burnt offering — the hide of the burnt offering that he presented, to the priest, to him it shall be.
Where the English smooths the original
The priest shall have to himself the skin — The note of Bishop Patrick is worth transcribing here: “All the flesh of the burnt-offerings being wholly consumed, as well as the fat upon the altar, there was nothing that could fall to the share of the priest but the skin, which is here given him for his pains. It was observed upon Genesis 3:21 , that it is probable Adam himself offered the first sacrifice, and had the skin given him by God, to make the garments for him and his wife.Benson (via Patrick) connects the priest's skin to Eden — the figural thread to Genesis 3:21 (see christ/threads).
According to the rule which obtained during the second Temple, all the skins of the most holy things belonged to the officiating priests— i.e., those of the trespass offering, the sin offerings of the laity, &c.—whereas those of the holy things— i.e., those of the peace offerings—belonged to the owners of the victims. These skins, which accumulated during the week, the priests whose course it was to serve divided between them every Sabbath evening.Ellicott on Second-Temple practice: skins of the most-holy offerings to the priests, divided weekly.
In the case of the burnt-offering, the skin of the animal was to fall to the lot of the officiating priest, viz., as payment for his services. הכּהן is construed absolutely: "as for the priest, who offereth - the skin of the burnt-offering which he offereth shall belong to the priest" (for "to him").Keil explains the casus pendens grammar and the rationale: the skin is the priest's wage.
The skin of the burnt offering - It is most likely that the skins of the sin-offering and the trespass-offering also fell to the lot of the officiating priest.Barnes extends the rule beyond the burnt offering: the hides of the sin and guilt offerings most likely went to the officiant too — the Second-Temple practice Ellicott documents.
9Likewise, every grain offering that is baked in an oven or cooked in a pan or on a griddle belongs to the priest who presents it,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḵāl min·ḥāh ’ă·šer tê·’ā·p̄eh bat·tan·nūr wə·ḵāl na·‘ă·śāh ḇam·mar·ḥe·šeṯ wə·‘al- ma·ḥă·ḇaṯ ṯih·yeh lōw lak·kō·hên ham·maq·rîḇ ’ō·ṯāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And every grain offering that is baked in the oven, and all prepared in a pan or on a griddle, to the priest who presents it, to him it shall be.
Where the English smooths the original
All the meat or meal- offering shall be the priest’s — Except the part reserved by God, ( Leviticus 2:2 ; Leviticus 2:9 ,) these being ready dressed, and hot, and to be eaten presently. And the priest who offered it was, in reason, to expect something more than his brethren who laboured not about itBenson explains why the cooked minḥâh goes to the single officiant: it is perishable, hot, and earned by his labor.
and all that is dressed in the frying pan; such as we call pancakes: and in the pan; which was different from the frying pan; it seems to be what was set upon an hearth made hot, and soon baked; See Gill on Leviticus 6:21 of these three different ways of dressing the meat offering, see Leviticus 2:4Gill distinguishes the three vessels — the rare marchesheth among them — and cross-references 2:4 and 6:21.
And all the meat offering. —Better, every meat offering. That is, dressed in whichever of the three ways here mentioned. (See Leviticus 2:4-7 .) Shall be the priest’s. —With the exception of the memorial part, which was burnt upon the altar (see Leviticus 2:4-10 ), the whole was to go to the particular priest who offered it.Ellicott corrects "all" to "every" and ties the three methods to 2:4–7 — the verbal thread the Verifier confirms.
10and every grain offering, whether dry or mixed with oil, belongs equally to all the sons of Aaron.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḵāl min·ḥāh wa·ḥă·rê·ḇāh ḇə·lū·lāh- ḇaš·še·men ’îš kə·’ā·ḥîw tih·yeh lə·ḵāl bə·nê ’a·hă·rōn
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And every grain offering, dry or mixed with oil, to all the sons of Aaron it shall be, each like his brother.
Where the English smooths the original
One as much as another. —Literally, a man as his brother; that is, every man alike. From the expression man, which, as it will thus be seen, is used in the original but does not appear in the Authorised Version, the rule obtained in the time of Christ that neither a child nor woman, though of priestly descent, could partake of this offering; but a priest who was disqualified from officiating through a physical blemish had a share in it, as he comes under the designation of man.Ellicott recovers the literal "a man as his brother" and the halakhic rule the word ’îš generated.
others were the common share of all the priestly order, who lived upon them as their provision, and whose meetings at a common table would tend to promote brotherly harmony and friendship.JFB on the social end of the shared portion: a common table forging brotherhood — fitting for the verse that ends on the word "brother."
That these were to be equally divided among all the priests. And there was manifest reason for this difference, because these were in greater quantity than the former; and being raw, might more easily and commodiously be divided and reserved for the several priests to dress it in that way which each of them best liked.Poole explains the v.9/v.10 split: cooked offerings to the officiant, raw and storable to all — a practical, not arbitrary, division.
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 a single, untranslatable word: hā·’ā·šām (H817), the guilt that is also its own reparation. Ellicott shows this is the third layer of a single body of instruction — "Just as Leviticus 6:24-30 contains additional regulations addressed to the priest about the rites of the sin offering, so Leviticus 7:1-10 gives more precise instructions about the trespass offering, supplementing Leviticus 5:1-13." The grade is fixed first: qō·ḏeš qā·ḏā·šîm, "holiness of holinesses," the Hebrew superlative BSB renders "most holy." Gill locates the rabbinic distinction the idiom carries: "there were some things the Jews call light holy things, and others most holy in the highest degree." Everything that follows — where the blood is dashed, who eats the flesh, where, by whom — is deduced from that one grade. As Cambridge states the unit's thesis, the guilt and sin offerings are alike because "both are 'most holy' and to be killed in the same place," so that, in Ellicott's words on v.7, "what is omitted in the regulation of the one must be supplied from the directions given in the other." The ’a·ḥaṯ tō·w·rāh, the "one law" of v.7, is the hermeneutical key the chapter hands to its own reader.
The rite is assembled from older rites, and the seams are deliberate. The blood is dashed (yiz·rōq, H2236) "round about" (sā·ḇîḇ) the altar — Barnes and Cambridge both correcting the soft "sprinkle" to "cast"/"scatter." Benson marks the alignment precisely: "This is a different rule from that observed in the sin-offering, the blood of which was to be put upon the horns of the altar... but this was to be sprinkled round about it, as was ordered respecting the whole burnt-offerings." So the blood-rite follows the burnt offering. The fat, by contrast, follows the sin offering: Keil lists "the fat tail, and the fat that covers the entrails," the two kidneys and the liver-lobe, "the same as in the sin and peace-offerings... but the flesh was to be eaten by the priests, as in the sin-offering, inasmuch as there was the same law in this respect for both." The verb over the fat is wə·hiq·ṭîr (H6999) — not destructive burning but turning-into-fragrant-smoke; Gill hears in it the type, "a sweet smelling savour, bearing the fire of divine wrath in the room and stead of his people." Blood and fat, drawn from two different prior rites, converge on one altar.
The closing summary divides the spoil. The officiant alone receives the most personal dues: the flesh of the guilt offering, eaten in a holy place by priestly males only (Gill: "it was not to be carried home"); the skin of the burnt offering (‘ō·wr, H5785), the one part the fire spared — which Benson, citing Bishop Patrick, traces all the way to Eden, where "it is probable Adam himself offered the first sacrifice, and had the skin given him by God, to make the garments"; and the cooked grain offerings, hot and perishable, which Poole says fell to him "because these were ready drest and hot... and the priest who offered it was in reason to expect and have something more than his brethren who laboured not about it." But the raw, storable grain is shared by the whole house — ’îš kə·’ā·ḥîw, "a man like his brother." Ellicott recovers the buried word: "Literally, a man as his brother; that is, every man alike." JFB sees the providence in it — meals at "a common table would tend to promote brotherly harmony and friendship." The chapter that opens on guilt closes on the word brother.
Read under Sola Scriptura and tested against the text alone: this passage refuses to let atonement be private. The guilt offering is built by quotation — its blood borrowed from the burnt offering (1:5), its fat from the sin offering (3:9), its flesh-rule from 6:25 — as if the Spirit were teaching Israel that no single sacrifice is self-contained; each interprets the others, and "one law" (v.7) binds them. And the offering does not return to the worshiper. Where the peace offering let the offerer feast, the guilt offering gives him nothing: his portion is repentance, the altar's portion is the ascending fat, and the priest's portion is the body and the skin. Henry caught the asymmetry — "the offerer had no share, as he had in the peace-offerings... it was more proper to fast than feast." The sinner watches his guilt go up in smoke under another's hand. That is the shape of the gospel before the gospel: the guilty man brings the victim, the mediating priest both atones and is fed by the atoning, and the same word, ʼâshâm, names both the crime and its covering — the word Isaiah will lay on the Servant's soul (Isa 53:10). This reading is the tool's own and fallible; weigh it against the verses, not against its confidence.
The guilt offering gives the sinner nothing back but a cleared conscience — his only portion is the smoke he watches rise. (a synthesis reading, not Scripture)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Leviticus 7:2 reproduces the slaughter-and-blood procedure of the burnt offering verbatim in its key verbs: shâchaṭ (slaughter), zâraq (dash), the blood (dâm) thrown sā·ḇîḇ (round about) on the altar (mizbêach). Benson and Keil both read the guilt offering's blood-rite as identical to the burnt offering's, not the sin offering's; "the signification was the same" (Keil). This is a shared procedural formula, not a quotation claim, so it is tiered structural.
Leviticus 1:5
basis: Verifier (Lev 7:2 ↔ Lev 1:5): shared lexemes H7819 shâchaṭ (70 vv), H2236 zâraq (33 vv), H1818 dâm (295 vv), H5439 çâbîyb (282 vv), H4196 mizbêach (338 vv); a shared ritual procedure, no quotation claimed.
The catalogue of fat in 7:3–4 (fat tail, suet over the entrails, two kidneys, liver-lobe) is the fixed liturgical inventory of the peace, sin, and ordination offerings. Its signature word is ʼalyâh (the fat tail, H451), which occurs in only five verses of the entire Hebrew Bible — so its recurrence at 3:9 and 8:25 is a genuine verbal tie, not a generic theme. Gill himself cross-references Exodus 29:22 and Leviticus 3:9 on this very word.
Leviticus 3:9 · Leviticus 8:25 · Exodus 29:22
basis: Verifier (Lev 7:3 ↔ Lev 3:9 / 8:25): shared RARE lexeme H451 ʼalyâh (only 5 vv) with H2459 cheleb (69 vv) and H7130 qereb (220 vv); the low-frequency ʼalyâh makes this a verbal link, not a thematic one.
Leviticus 7:9 re-uses the exact three preparation-methods of the grain offering from 2:4–7. The decisive word is marchesheth (stewpan, H4802), which appears in only two verses in the whole Bible — here and at 2:7. Ellicott and Gill both point the reader back to 2:4–7. The vanishingly rare shared term makes this a verbal citation of the earlier grain-offering law, now re-applied to the priests' dues.
Leviticus 2:7 · Leviticus 2:5
basis: Verifier (Lev 7:9 ↔ Lev 2:7): shared RARE lexeme H4802 marchesheth (only 2 vv) with H4503 minchâh (194 vv); the two-verse word is effectively a quotation of the 2:4–7 grain-offering law.
Verse 7's claim — "as the sin offering, so the guilt offering: one law for them" — is anchored verbally to the sin-offering legislation by the shared nouns tôwrâh (law/instruction) and chaṭṭâʼâh (sin offering). Ellicott draws the practical inference: what is missing in one rite "must be supplied from the directions given in the other" (esp. 6:25–30). Both words are common, and no quotation is claimed, so this is tiered structural rather than verbal.
Leviticus 6:25
basis: Verifier (Lev 7:7 ↔ Lev 6:25): shared lexemes H8451 tôwrâh (214 vv) and H2403 chaṭṭâʼâh (271 vv); both high-frequency — a shared legal pattern ("one law"), not a verbal quotation.
The rule of v.7 — that the guilt offering (ʼâshâm) belongs to the atoning priest — surfaces again centuries later under Jehoash: "The money of the guilt offering and the money of the sin offering was not brought into the house of the LORD; it belonged to the priests" (2 Kings 12:16). Cambridge draws the comparison: there "both Guilt- and Sin-Offerings are assigned to the priest." The link rests on the shared cultic vocabulary ʼâshâm (H817), chaṭṭâʼâh (H2403, sin offering), and kôhên (H3548, priest), all common words — so this is a shared legal pattern persisting across the canon, not a verbal quotation.
2 Kings 12:16
basis: Verifier (Lev 7:7 ↔ 2 Kings 12:16): shared lexemes H817 ʼâshâm (41 vv), H2403 chaṭṭâʼâh (271 vv), H3548 kôhên (653 vv); all high-frequency cultic terms — the same priestly-portion law applied in the monarchy, a structural continuity, not a quotation.
Benson (citing Bp. Patrick) and JFB both connect the priest's right to the burnt-offering's skin (‘ō·wr, H5785) to Genesis 3:21, where God clothes Adam and Eve in "coats of skins" — proposing the patriarchal sacrifice of Adam as the precedent. The link is real but rests on a single common lexeme (the ordinary word for "skin"); it is an old commentators' figural reading, not a demonstrable verbal citation. Tiered structural and flagged as a tradition to be weighed.
Genesis 3:21
basis: Verifier (Lev 7:8 ↔ Gen 3:21): one shared common lexeme H5785 ʻôwr (82 vv); the Eden connection is a traditional figural argument (Patrick, JFB), not a quotation — under-claimed accordingly.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The single word that governs this whole unit — ʼâshâm (H817), guilt-and-its-reparation — is the very word Isaiah lays on the Suffering Servant: "when you make his soul an ʼâshâm" (Isa 53:10). The guilt offering of Leviticus 7, in which the offerer brings a victim that bears his guilt and ascends in his place, is the rite Isaiah reaches for to name what the Servant is. Gill already reads the burning fat as "typical of the offering of Christ... bearing the fire of divine wrath in the room and stead of his people." Because both texts are Hebrew, this link genuinely shares the same lexeme (H817), unlike the cross-Testament links below; but ʼâshâm is a moderately common cultic word (41 verses), not a rare signature, so the connection is tiered typological rather than "verbal" — Isaiah is reaching for an established sacrificial category, not quoting Leviticus 7. The figural reading of the Servant as guilt-offering is ancient and widely held.
Isaiah 53:10
Leviticus 7:6–7 binds atonement to portion: "the priest who makes atonement (yə·ḵap·per, H3722) with it — to him it shall be." The one who covers another's guilt is sustained by the offering he presents. Gill reads the atoning priest as "typical of the atonement by the sacrifice of Christ," and the priestly eating points forward to Christ as the altar from which believers, made "priests unto God," feed (Heb 13:10). Because this reaches from a Hebrew text to a Greek one, no shared Strong's lexeme can carry it; the link is figural and structural, not verbal — Christ is both the atoning priest and the offering on which his people are nourished.
Hebrews 13:10
The burnt offering leaves only its skin (7:8), the priest's due — the covering left when all else has ascended. Benson and JFB trace the skin to Eden's "coats of skins" (Gen 3:21), the first covering God gave the guilty by means of a slain creature. Read forward, the pattern is figural: a death provides the covering the sinner cannot make for himself, fulfilled in Christ whose offering clothes his people in a righteousness not their own. This is a novel synthetic reading drawing the Eden–altar–cross line together; it is offered as typology to be tested, not as a verbal proof.
Genesis 3:21 · Hebrews 13:10
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:
This unit (Leviticus 7:1–10) is Hebrew-only, so all "verbal — confirmed" threads rest on shared Strong's lexemes within the Hebrew canon; the strongest are carried by genuinely rare words — ʼalyâh (H451, 5 verses) and marchesheth (H4802, 2 verses). Where the shared words are common (tôwrâh, chaṭṭâʼâh, dâm, cheleb), the link is downgraded to structural even though the parallel is real, to avoid overclaiming.
Two cross-Testament links here (to Hebrews 13:10) cannot use shared Strong's numbers — Hebrew and Greek lexica do not intersect — so they are presented in the Christ section as figural/structural, never "verbal." The Verifier confirms no shared original-language lexeme exists for Lev 7:6 ↔ Heb 13:10; the connection is one Gill argues, not one the index can assert. The Isaiah 53:10 link, by contrast, is Hebrew↔Hebrew and shares the actual lexeme ʼâshâm (H817), which is why it carries more weight than the Greek links — though that lexeme is moderately common (41 verses), so it is tiered typological, not verbal: Isaiah invokes the guilt-offering category, he does not quote this chapter.
The Genesis 3:21 "skin" thread is a centuries-old commentators' tradition (Bishop Patrick, Benson, JFB), not a textual demonstration; it rests on the ordinary word for skin and is flagged as a figural reading to be weighed, not a proof. Translation honesty: BSB's "food offering" for ’iššeh (v.5) is interpretive — Geneva, KJV, and Gill read "offering made by fire"; the rendering is contested and noted in the divergences. The parses follow Berean/Strong's and have not been altered.
✦ = 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)