The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
The Peace Offering
Leviticus 7:11–21 — The Peace 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.
11Now this is the law of the peace offering that one may present to the LORD:
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·zōṯ tō·w·raṯ ze·ḇaḥ haš·šə·lā·mîm ’ă·šer yaq·rîḇ Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And this is the tôrâh of the slaughter-sacrifice (zebach) of the shelāmîm — that one shall bring-near to YHWH:
Where the English smooths the original
This common Hebrew idiom of using a verb with he in it without an antecedent is better expressed in English by the impersonal, which one shall offer, or by the passive, which shall be offered.
In Leviticus 7:12 and Leviticus 7:16 three classes of shelamim are mentioned, which differ according to their occasion and design, viz., whether they were brought על־תּודה, upon the ground of praise, i.e., to praise God for blessings received or desired, or as vow-offerings, or thirdly, as freewill-offerings
The Peace-Offering comes in this collection of toroth after the Sin and Guilt-Offerings, either because the ‘most holy’ things are placed first, or because the Peace-Offering is treated at greater length than the others.Cambridge flags that the text here ‘is not above suspicion’ and notes the LXX omission in v. 12; we record the textual caution in the apparatus.
votive offerings were made in fulfillment of a vow previously taken, that such offering should be presented if a terrain condition were fulfilled. Voluntary offerings differ from votive offerings by not having been previously vowed, and from thank offerings by not having reference to any special mercy received.‘terrain’ is an OCR corruption of ‘certain’ in the source text; we quote it verbatim and flag the typo rather than silently emend.
12If he offers it in thanksgiving, then along with the sacrifice of thanksgiving he shall offer unleavened cakes mixed with olive oil, unleavened wafers coated with oil, and well-kneaded cakes of fine flour mixed with oil.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’im yaq·rî·ḇen·nū ‘al- tō·w·ḏāh ‘al- ze·ḇaḥ hat·tō·w·ḏāh wə·hiq·rîḇ maṣ·ṣō·wṯ ḥal·lō·wṯ bə·lū·lōṯ baš·še·men maṣ·ṣō·wṯ ū·rə·qî·qê mə·šu·ḥîm baš·šā·men mur·be·ḵeṯ ḥal·lōṯ wə·sō·leṯ bə·lū·lōṯ baš·šā·men
Literal — word-for-word from the original
If upon tôdâh (thanksgiving) he brings it near, then he shall bring near, upon the slaughter-sacrifice of the thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with the oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and fine flour soaked, cakes mixed with oil.
Where the English smooths the original
If he offer it for a thanksgiving — Hebrew, על תודה , gnal todah, for confession, it being accompanied with a public confession or acknowledgment of the mercies and deliverances which the offerer had received from God. And to this the apostle alludes, ( Hebrews 13:15 ,) exhorting Christians to offer to God continually, through Christ, the sacrifice of praiseBenson’s claim that Heb 13:15 ‘alludes’ to this verse is a debated NT-provenance link; see the flagged thread.
cakes made of fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil (on the construction, see Ges. 139, 2; Ewald 284 a). This last kind of cakes kneaded with oil is also called oil-bread-cake ("a cake of oiled bread," Leviticus 8:26 ; Exodus 29:23 )
and unleavened wafers anointed with oil; these were a thinner sort of cakes, made without leaven as the others, but the oil was not mixed with the flour in the making of them, but put upon them when made, and therefore said to be anointed with it
That is, acknowledgment of special mercies received from God, such as deliverance in travels, by land or sea, redemption from captivity, restoration to health, &c., enumerated in Psalms 107.Ellicott anchors the four occasions of the tôdâh to the fourfold ‘then they cried to the LORD’ of Psalm 107 (sea, captivity, sickness, wandering) — a thematic link, not a lexical one.
13Along with his peace offering of thanksgiving he is to present an offering with cakes of leavened bread.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
‘al- ‘al- ze·ḇaḥ šə·lā·māw tō·w·ḏaṯ yaq·rîḇ qā·rə·bā·nōw ḥal·lōṯ ḥā·mêṣ le·ḥem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Upon cakes of leavened bread (ḥāmēṣ leḥem) he shall bring near his offering (qorbān), upon the slaughter-sacrifice of the thanksgiving of his peace-offerings.
Where the English smooths the original
Leavened bread; partly, because this was a sacrifice of another kind than those in which leaven was forbidden, this being a sacrifice of thanksgiving for God’s blessings, among which leavened bread was one; partly, to show that leaven was not so strictly forbidden in other sacrifices, as if it were evil in itself, but to teach us wholly to rest in the will of God in all his appointments
According to Amos 4:5 , leaven was brought with a thanksgiving offering, and the two wave loaves offered at the Feast of Weeks ( Leviticus 23:17 ) were ‘baken with leaven.’
For his offering - The leavened bread was a distinct offering.
Besides the usual accompaniments of other sacrifices, leavened bread was offered with the peace offerings, as a thanksgiving, such bread being common at feasts.
14From the cakes he must present one portion of each offering as a contribution to the LORD. It belongs to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace offering.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
mim·men·nū wə·hiq·rîḇ ’e·ḥāḏ mik·kāl qār·bān tə·rū·māh Yah·weh yih·yeh lōw lak·kō·hên haz·zō·rêq ’eṯ- dam haš·šə·lā·mîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And he shall bring near from it one from each offering, a contribution (tərûmâh) to YHWH; to the priest who dashes the blood of the peace-offerings — to him it shall belong.
Where the English smooths the original
‘ Tĕrûmah ,’ ‘heave-offering,’ does not, however, indicate throwing, as the English word suggests, but something lifted or ‘taken off from a larger mass, and so separated from it for sacred purposes,’ and hence dedicated to God through His ministers.
Better, and he shall offer of it one out of each. That is, the officiating priest waves one of each of the four kinds of cakes before the Lord as a heave offering
Out of the whole oblation - Rather, out of each offering. That is, one loaf or cake out of each kind of meat-offering was to be a heave-offering Leviticus 7:32 for the officiating priest.
15The meat of the sacrifice of his peace offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day he offers it; none of it may be left until morning.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·ḇə·śar ze·ḇaḥ šə·lā·māw tō·w·ḏaṯ yê·’ā·ḵêl bə·yō·wm qā·rə·bā·nōw lō- mim·men·nū yan·nî·aḥ ‘aḏ- bō·qer
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the flesh (bāsār) of the slaughter-sacrifice of his peace-offerings of thanksgiving — on the day he brings it near it shall be eaten; he shall not leave any of it until morning.
Where the English smooths the original
This was partly that none of it might be exposed to corruption, (for by the third day it might easily, in those hot countries, putrefy,) and partly that the offerer might not be sordidly saving of this sacred banquet, but be taught to show his piety to God by his love to his fellow-creatures, forthwith inviting his friends to partake of it with him
This limitation of time was designed both to encourage liberality to the poor, and to impress upon those who partook of it that it was a sacrificial and sacred feast, so as to prevent its being turned into unseemly conviviality.
according to the Jewish canons, they might eat it no longer than midnight; by that time it was to be all consumed; and it is said (k), the wise men made an hedge to the law to keep men from sin.
16If, however, the sacrifice he offers is a vow or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day he presents his sacrifice, but the remainder may be eaten on the next day.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’im- ze·ḇaḥ qā·rə·bā·nōw ne·ḏer ’ōw nə·ḏā·ḇāh yê·’ā·ḵêl bə·yō·wm haq·rî·ḇōw ’eṯ- ziḇ·ḥōw wə·han·nō·w·ṯār yê·’ā·ḵêl mim·men·nū ū·mim·mā·ḥo·rāṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And if a vow (neḏer) or a freewill offering (nəḏāḇâh) is the slaughter-sacrifice of his offering, on the day he brings near his sacrifice it shall be eaten, and on the next day the remainder of it may be eaten.
Where the English smooths the original
A vow ( nēdēr ) is an obligation voluntarily imposed upon oneself with the formula, “Behold, I take it upon myself to bring a bullock, &c., for a peace offering.” This undertaking is binding upon the person till he fulfils it. Hence, if the bullock in question dies, or is stolen, or becomes disqualified for a sacrifice, he must bring another. A free-will offering ( nedabah ) simply pledges voluntarily a certain animal for a peace offering
The vow-offering appears to have been a peace-offering vowed upon a certain condition; the voluntary-offering, one offered as the simple tribute of a devout heart rejoicing in peace with God and man offered on no external occasion
The reason of which is to be fetched only from God’s good pleasure and will, to which he expects our obedience, though we discern not the reason of his appointments.
In the East, butcher-meat is generally eaten the day it is killed, and it is rarely kept a second dayJFB grounds the time-limit in Near-Eastern food custom — a cultural-historical observation supplementing the theological reasons (Benson, Ellicott).
17But any meat of the sacrifice remaining until the third day must be burned up.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
mib·bə·śar haz·zā·ḇaḥ wə·han·nō·w·ṯār haš·šə·lî·šî bay·yō·wm bā·’êš yiś·śā·rêp̄
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the remainder of the flesh of the slaughter-sacrifice on the third day — in the fire (bā’ēš) it shall be burned up.
Where the English smooths the original
That it might neither putrefy, and thereby be exposed to contempt; nor yet be reserved either for superstitious abuse, or for the priest’s domestic use, which would savour of covetousness, and of distrust of God’s care for their future provisions.
perhaps some respect may be had in the type to the resurrection of Christ on the third day, having seen no corruption.Gill himself marks this typological reading as conjecture (‘perhaps’); we record it as a novel/uncertain figural suggestion, not an ancient consensus.
as a prohibition was issued against any of the flesh in the peace offerings being used on the third day, it has been thought, not without reason, that this injunction must have been given to prevent a superstitious notion arising that there was some virtue or holiness belonging to it.
18If any of the meat from his peace offering is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted. It will not be credited to the one who presented it; it shall be an abomination, and the one who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’im hê·’ā·ḵōl mib·bə·śar- ze·ḇaḥ šə·lā·māw yê·’ā·ḵêl haš·šə·lî·šî bay·yō·wm lō yê·rā·ṣeh lō yê·ḥā·šêḇ lōw ham·maq·rîḇ ’ō·ṯōw yih·yeh pig·gūl wə·han·ne·p̄eš hā·’ō·ḵe·leṯ mim·men·nū tiś·śā ‘ă·wō·nāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And if the flesh of his peace-offerings is at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted (yērāṣeh); to the one who brings it near it shall not be reckoned (yēḥāšēḇ) — it shall be piggûl (a stench/abomination); and the soul that eats of it shall bear its iniquity.
Where the English smooths the original
it was "an abomination." פּגּוּל, an abomination, is only applied to the flesh of the sacrifices ( Leviticus 19:7 ; Ezekiel 4:14 ; Isaiah 65:4 ), and signifies properly a stench
Heb. piggûl , a word which occurs here and in Leviticus 19:7 of the flesh of the Peace-Offering which is eaten on the third day, and elsewhere only in Isaiah 65:4 , broth of abominable things (Heb. piggûlim ); Ezekiel 4:14 , abominable flesh (Heb. flesh of Piggûl ).
the soul that eateth of it shall {i} bear his iniquity. (i) The sin for which he offered shall remain.
19Meat that touches anything unclean must not be eaten; it is to be burned up. As for any other meat, anyone who is ceremonially clean may eat it.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hab·bā·śār ’ă·šer- yig·ga‘ bə·ḵāl ṭā·mê lō yê·’ā·ḵêl bā·’êš yiś·śā·rêp̄ bā·śār wə·hab·bā·śār kāl- ṭā·hō·wr yō·ḵal
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the flesh that touches (yiggaʻ) anything unclean (ṭāmē) shall not be eaten; in the fire it shall be burned. And as for the flesh — everyone who is clean (ṭāhôr) may eat flesh.
Where the English smooths the original
Not only does the sacrificial flesh become desecrated when left by itself beyond the prescribed period, but when it comes in contact with what is unclean, man, woman, or animal, which might happen whilst it is carried from the altar to the place where it is eaten, it becomes defiled, and must be burnt
Leviticus 7:19 , which is not found in the Septuagint and Vulgate, reads thus: "and as for the flesh, every clean person shall eat flesh," i.e., take part in the sacrificial meal.
as all that are clean in an evangelic sense, through the blood and righteousness of Christ, may, by faith, eat his flesh and drink his blood.
20But if anyone who is unclean eats meat from the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, that person must be cut off from his people.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·han·ne·p̄eš ’ă·šer- wə·ṭum·’ā·ṯōw tō·ḵal bā·śār miz·ze·ḇaḥ haš·šə·lā·mîm ’ă·šer Yah·weh ‘ā·lāw ha·hi·w han·ne·p̄eš wə·niḵ·rə·ṯāh mê·‘am·me·hā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
But the soul (nephesh) that eats flesh from the slaughter-sacrifice of the peace-offerings that belongs to YHWH, with his uncleanness upon him — that soul shall be cut off (wəniḵrəṯâh) from his people.
Where the English smooths the original
The soul that eateth knowingly; for if it were done ignorantly, a sacrifice was accepted for it, Leviticus 5:2 . Having his uncleanness upon him, i.e. not being cleansed from his uncleanness according to the appointment
cut off from his people—that is, excluded from the privileges of an Israelite—lie under a sentence of excommunication.
so those that eat and drink unworthily in the supper of our Lord, where his flesh is eaten and his blood drank, eat and drink damnation to themselves, 1 Corinthians 11:29 .Gill’s 1 Cor 11:29 parallel is thematic (worthy/unworthy eating of holy food), not a verbal/lexical link across the Testaments.
21If one touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any unclean, detestable thing, and then eats any of the meat of the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, that person must be cut off from his people.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî- wə·ne·p̄eš ṯig·ga‘ bə·ḵāl ṭā·mê ’ōw ’ā·ḏām bə·ṭum·’aṯ ṭə·mê·’āh biḇ·hê·māh ’ōw bə·ḵāl ṭā·mê še·qeṣ wə·’ā·ḵal mib·bə·śar- ze·ḇaḥ haš·šə·lā·mîm ’ă·šer Yah·weh ha·hi·w han·ne·p̄eš wə·niḵ·rə·ṯāh mê·‘am·me·hā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And when a soul touches anything unclean — whether the uncleanness of a man, or an unclean animal, or any unclean detestable thing (šeqeṣ) — and eats from the flesh of the peace-offerings that belongs to YHWH, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Where the English smooths the original
abomination ] detestation , Heb. shéḳeẓ : the word is used in ch. Leviticus 11:10-12 of things without fins and scales that move in the waters, and in Leviticus 11:13; Lev 11:20; Lev 11:23; Lev 11:41-42 of birds of prey and creeping (swarming) things.
The uncleanness of man, or, of women, for the word signifies both; and that there were such things coming from men or women, the touch whereof did pollute men and things, may be seen Le 15 , and elsewhere.
Unclean beast - that is, carrion of any kind. See Leviticus 11 . Shall be cut off - See the Exodus 31:14 note.
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 seventh and last ritual heading of the offering manual: “wə·zōṯ tôraṯ zebach haš·šelāmîm” — ‘and this is the instruction of the slaughter-sacrifice of the peace-things’ (v.11). Cambridge observes that the peace-offering stands last ‘either because the “most holy” things are placed first, or because the Peace-Offering is treated at greater length than the others’ (1880s). The Hebrew names three motions of one heart at peace: Keil & Delitzsch read the prepositional phrase ‘al-tôdâh as ‘upon the ground of praise,’ distinguishing ‘whether they were brought…to praise God for blessings received or desired, or as vow-offerings, or thirdly, as freewill-offerings’ (1860s). Ellicott sharpens the legal difference between the latter two: a vow (neḏer) ‘is an obligation voluntarily imposed upon oneself…binding upon the person,’ so that if the animal dies ‘he must bring another’; a freewill offering (nəḏāḇâh) merely ‘pledges…a certain animal,’ and if it dies ‘the obligation ceases’ (1878). The vocabulary of tôdâh itself is, as Benson presses from the Hebrew, ‘gnal todah, for confession’ — thanksgiving that openly acknowledges God’s mercy (1810s).
The bread-gift carries a deliberate surprise. Three unleavened kinds are prescribed (v.12) — cakes mixed with oil, wafers anointed with oil (the verb māshach, used of consecrating priests), and the obscure murbeḵeṯ, which Keil & Delitzsch render ‘fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil’ (1860s) while Cambridge prefers ‘soaked’ or ‘well stirred together,’ frankly admitting the description ‘does not clearly distinguish it’ from the first. Then, against the altar-rule of Lev 2:11, leavened bread is commanded (v.13). Poole resolves the tension: the prohibition ‘concerned only things offered and burnt upon the altar, which this bread was not,’ and the exception teaches us ‘wholly to rest in the will of God in all his appointments, without too scrupulous an inquiry into the particular reasons of them’ (1685). Cambridge notes the verbal echo in Amos’ irony: ‘According to Amos 4:5, leaven was brought with a thanksgiving offering’ (1880s). Of all this bread the priest receives a tərûmâh — which, Cambridge (following Driver) insists, ‘does not…indicate throwing…but something lifted or “taken off from a larger mass, and so separated…for sacred purposes”’ (v.14).
The peace-offering is the one sacrifice the worshipper chiefly eats, and the law disciplines that joy by the clock. The thanksgiving-flesh must be eaten the same day (v.15); vow and freewill flesh may stretch to the morrow (v.16); none may survive to the third day, when it must be burned (v.17). Benson gives the pastoral logic: the limit was set ‘that the offerer might not be sordidly saving of this sacred banquet, but be taught to show his piety to God by his love to his fellow-creatures, forthwith inviting his friends’ (1810s), while Ellicott adds it served ‘to impress upon those who partook of it that it was a sacrificial and sacred feast, so as to prevent its being turned into unseemly conviviality’ (1878). Cross the third-day line and the offering turns: Keil & Delitzsch note it is then ‘not well-pleasing’ (yērāṣeh), ‘not reckoned to the offerer,’ and becomes piggûl, a word ‘only applied to the flesh of the sacrifices…and signifies properly a stench’ (1860s). What was a sweet savour becomes literally foul before God. Geneva draws the sting: to ‘bear his iniquity’ means ‘the sin for which he offered shall remain’ (1599).
The unit closes by guarding the table on every side — against defiled flesh and defiled eaters. Flesh that touches anything unclean must be burned (v.19); Ellicott notes this defilement ‘might happen whilst it is carried from the altar to the place where it is eaten’ (1878). But ‘every one that is clean may eat’ — a clause Keil & Delitzsch flag as ‘not found in the Septuagint and Vulgate’ (1860s), an honest textual seam. Then two parallel kareth sentences fall: on the soul who eats with internal uncleanness ‘upon him’ (v.20) and on the soul who contracts uncleanness by touch (v.21). Poole distinguishes them — v.20 ‘speaks of uncleanness from an internal cause…for what was from an external cause is spoken of in the next verse’ — and limits the penalty to knowing sin: ‘The soul that eateth knowingly; for if it were done ignorantly, a sacrifice was accepted for it’ (1685). Cambridge declines to overstate the sentence: ‘It has been debated whether this expression means death or outlawry. Probably the latter’ (1880s). Gill hears the New-Covenant echo — those ‘that eat and drink unworthily in the supper of our Lord…eat and drink damnation to themselves’ (1 Cor 11:29) — a thematic resonance, not a lexical one (1746–63).
Read whole, Leviticus 7:11–21 is the law of the one sacrifice that ends at a table. Sin and guilt offerings dealt with the breach; the peace-offering (shelāmîm, from shālēm, ‘whole, paid-in-full’) celebrates the breach already healed — and so God, who is exacting about atonement, is generous about fellowship: He even commands leaven, the everyday bread of a real meal (v.13). Yet the generosity is fenced. The joy is time-bound (eat it fresh, vv.15–17), and the table is holiness-bound (only the clean may sit, vv.19–21). The terrible word is piggûl (v.18): the very sacrifice meant to be a ‘sweet savour’ can, by delay and contempt, become a stench before God, ‘not reckoned’ to the offerer, leaving his sin to ‘remain’ (Geneva). The whole unit thus enacts a gospel grammar the commentators keep reaching toward but cannot prove from the Hebrew alone: fellowship with God is His free gift, spread as a feast, received with thanksgiving (tôdâh) and a confessing heart — but it is fellowship at His table, on His terms of cleanness, and it cannot be hoarded, deferred, or approached with defilement ‘upon him.’ This reading is the tool’s own and is offered to be tested against the text, not in place of it.
The sin-offering removes the stench of guilt; the peace-offering, neglected, becomes a stench of its own. — a synthesis reading, not Scripture
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The bread-gift of v.12 is verbally tied to the other great fellowship-meals of the Torah. Cambridge tabulates the overlap with the consecration meal of Aaron and his sons: ‘On the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:2; Exodus 29:23; Leviticus 8:26) three kinds of cakes are ordered…the second and third of these are identical with the first and second of those here prescribed.’ The same bread-vocabulary reappears in the Nazirite’s peace-offering (Numbers 6:15), where the cluster is even tighter: that verse shares with Lev 7:12 not only challâh (H2471, only 11 vv) but the still-rarer râqîyq (H7550, ‘wafer,’ 8 vv), together with matstsâh and bālal. Across all four passages the table of unleavened cakes, mixed and anointed with oil, marks every occasion where Israel eats in God’s presence.
Leviticus 7:12 · Exodus 29:2 · Leviticus 8:26 · Numbers 6:15
basis: Verifier: shared rare lexeme H2471 challâh (11 vv) with H4682 matstsâh (42 vv), H5560 çôleth and H8081 shemen across Lev 7:12, Exod 29:2, Lev 8:26; Lev 7:12 ↔ Num 6:15 adds the rarer H7550 râqîyq (8 vv) + H1101 bâlal — a genuine cross-passage verbal cluster of shared technical ritual vocabulary, not a quotation.
The obscure baking-term murbeḵeṯ (v.12, BSB ‘well-kneaded’) occurs in only three verses of all Scripture. Cambridge notes it bluntly: ‘The Heb. word murbeketh (here, Leviticus 6:21 and 1 Chronicles 23:29 only)’. The Verifier confirms the rarity: râbak (H7246) appears in just 3 vv, and Lev 7:12 shares with 1 Chr 23:29 both râbak and the equally rare râqîyq (H7550, 8 vv) — about as strong a verbal fingerprint as the Hebrew Bible offers.
Leviticus 7:12 · Leviticus 6:21 · 1 Chronicles 23:29
basis: Verifier: shared H7246 râbak (only 3 vv total) plus H7550 râqîyq (8 vv) link Lev 7:12 to 1 Chr 23:29; H7246 also links Lev 6:21. The extreme rarity of the lexeme makes this a confirmed verbal link.
The technical word piggûl (v.18, BSB ‘abomination’) is one of the rarest cult-terms in Scripture. Keil & Delitzsch and Cambridge agree it ‘occurs here and in Leviticus 19:7…and elsewhere only in Isaiah 65:4…Ezekiel 4:14’ and ‘signifies properly a stench.’ The Verifier confirms piggûwl (H6292) is found in just 4 verses, binding Lev 7:18 to Lev 19:7 (the parallel command), and to the prophets’ pictures of foul, unclean food in Isaiah 65:4 and Ezekiel 4:14.
Leviticus 7:18 · Leviticus 19:7 · Isaiah 65:4 · Ezekiel 4:14
basis: Verifier: shared H6292 piggûwl — a rare lexeme present in only 4 verses total — links Lev 7:18, Lev 19:7, Isa 65:4, and Ezek 4:14. Rarity confirms a verbal thread (shared distinctive term), not an explicit citation.
The command to bring leavened bread (ḥāmēṣ) with the thanksgiving (tôdâh) peace-offering (v.13) is echoed, with prophetic irony, in Amos’ indictment of cultic excess. Cambridge notes: ‘According to Amos 4:5, leaven was brought with a thanksgiving offering.’ The Verifier confirms the pairing of two relatively distinctive lexemes — châmêts (H2557, 13 vv) and tôwdâh (H8426, 30 vv) — recurring together in both verses.
Leviticus 7:13 · Amos 4:5
basis: Verifier: shared lexeme pair H2557 châmêts (13 vv) + H8426 tôwdâh (30 vv) recurs in Lev 7:13 and Amos 4:5. The co-occurrence of two uncommon terms (leaven + thanksgiving) is a confirmed verbal link; Amos plays on the law ironically rather than quoting it.
The two lesser-sanctity classes of v.16 — the vow (neḏer) and the freewill offering (nəḏāḇâh) — are paired again in the acceptability law of Leviticus 22:21, where the same offering is required to be ‘perfect to be accepted.’ The two terms travel together as a fixed legal pair: the volitional spectrum of peace-offering worship, from a binding promise to a wholly spontaneous gift. Barnes draws the same line within our unit — the freewill offering is ‘the simple tribute of a devout heart…offered on no external occasion’ — distinguishing it from the conditional vow. The Verifier confirms a genuine verbal link: both verses share the relatively distinctive pair nᵉdâbâh (H5071, 25 vv) and neder (H5088, 57 vv) alongside zebach.
Leviticus 7:16 · Leviticus 22:21
basis: Verifier: shared lexeme pair H5071 nᵉdâbâh (25 vv) + H5088 neder (57 vv), plus H2077 zebach and H7126 qârab, links Lev 7:16 ↔ Lev 22:21. The co-occurrence of the two uncommon class-terms (vow + freewill) is a confirmed verbal link — shared technical legal vocabulary, not a quotation.
The thanksgiving peace-offering (zebach…tôdâh, vv.12–15) reappears as the sign of a restored heart in the narrative of Manasseh: after his repentance the king ‘sacrificed peace-offerings and thank-offerings’ on the rebuilt altar (2 Chr 33:16). The same three nouns of our unit — shelem, zebach, tôdâh — recur there, but as common cultic terms the link is one of shared rite and pattern, not a rare verbal fingerprint: the Levitical law is being obeyed in the Chronicler’s scene, the law-of-thanksgiving turned into a king’s testimony.
Leviticus 7:15 · 2 Chronicles 33:16
basis: Verifier returns ‘structural / thematic’ for Lev 7:15 ↔ 2 Chr 33:16: shared lexemes H8426 tôwdâh (30 vv), H8002 shelem (84 vv), H2077 zebach (153 vv) are all common cultic terms, so the connection is the same rite/pattern (the law obeyed in narrative), not a distinctive verbal quotation.
This chapter expands the peace-offering rite first given in Leviticus 3. Nearly every commentator opens by pointing back: Barnes simply heads his note ‘See Leviticus 3:1-17,’ and the Pulpit Commentary refers to ‘the note on chapter Leviticus 3:1.’ The Verifier finds the shared vocabulary is the standard peace-offering trio — shelem, zebach, qârab — all common terms, so the link is one of shared subject and pattern, not a distinctive verbal fingerprint.
Leviticus 7:11 · Leviticus 3:1 · Leviticus 3:6
basis: Verifier returns ‘structural / thematic’ for Lev 7:11 ↔ Lev 3:1: shared lexemes H8002 shelem (84 vv), H2077 zebach (153 vv), H7126 qârab (260 vv) are all common, so the connection is shared rite/pattern, not a rare verbal quotation.
Benson claims the thanksgiving peace-offering (tôdâh, v.12) is what ‘the apostle alludes’ to in Hebrews 13:15, ‘exhorting Christians to offer to God continually, through Christ, the sacrifice of praise.’ The connection is theologically attractive and ancient in spirit, but it is a cross-Testament Greek↔Hebrew link: there can be no shared Strong’s lexeme, and the Verifier returns no shared original-language term (‘connection, if any, is thematic/structural and must be argued, not asserted’). The Hebrews author does not name Leviticus, and the provenance of the allusion is disputed; we therefore flag it.
Leviticus 7:12 · Hebrews 13:15
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew): no shared Strong’s lexeme is possible and the Verifier found none. The Heb 13:15 ‘sacrifice of praise’ allusion to the tôdâh peace-offering is asserted by Benson but is a debated, unstated NT-provenance claim — recorded as flagged, to be argued thematically, not asserted as verbal.
The vow-class of v.16 (neḏer) has a New-Testament after-life: The Pulpit Commentary, surveying the three peace-offering types, observes simply that ‘St. Paul joined in a votive offering ( Acts 21:26 ).’ In Jerusalem Paul paid the charges of four men under a Nazirite vow and entered the temple for the days of purification — a vow-offering in continuity with this very law. The connection is historical and structural, not lexical: it is a Greek narrative invoking the Hebrew rite, so no shared Strong’s lexeme is possible, and whether Acts 21 describes precisely the neḏer peace-offering of Lev 7:16 (rather than the Nazirite ordinance of Num 6) is itself debated. We therefore tier it structural and flag the identification.
Leviticus 7:16 · Acts 21:26
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew): no shared Strong’s lexeme is possible. The link is structural — a NT narrative (Paul fulfilling a vow-offering) standing in continuity with the Levitical neder peace-offering. The Pulpit Commentary asserts it; the precise rite Paul joined (Lev 7 vow vs. Num 6 Nazirite) is debated, so the connection is recorded as structural and the identification noted as uncertain.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The peace-offering (shelāmîm, from shālēm, ‘whole, paid-in-full’) is the one sacrifice that ends in a shared meal between God, priest, and worshipper — fellowship enjoyed at a table. Matthew Henry reads the whole offering-system as figural: the atonement-sacrifices show ‘the necessity of the great Propitiation,’ and their use ‘being figurative, had its end in Christ, who by his death and blood-shedding caused the sacrifices to cease.’ The peace-offering’s logic — atonement first (blood dashed, v.14), then communion (the feast, vv.15–21) — is the New Testament order: ‘having made peace through the blood of his cross’ (Col 1:20), believers are called to the Lord’s table. This reading of the peace-offering as a figure of reconciliation enjoyed in fellowship is widely held in the Christian tradition.
Leviticus 7:11 · Leviticus 7:14 · Leviticus 7:15
The thanksgiving sub-type (tôdâh, ‘confession,’ v.12) became, in the early Christian reading, the type of the believer’s continual eucharistia. The bridge is laid already within the Old Testament: Ellicott reads the rite against Psalm 107, where the redeemed of the LORD ‘gathered out of the lands’ respond to rescue by sacrificing ‘the sacrifices of thanksgiving’ (Ps 107:22) — the tôdâh is, by its own canon, the offering of the saved who must testify. Benson and Ellicott then draw the line to the New Covenant: this is what the apostle means by ‘the sacrifice of praise to God continually…the fruit of our lips, giving thanks’ (Heb 13:15) — ‘It is to this sacrifice that the apostle alludes.’ This is the widely-held patristic-to-Reformation reading; we note honestly (see the flagged thread) that Hebrews does not cite Leviticus by name and the lexical link cannot be verified across the Testaments.
Leviticus 7:12 · Psalm 107:22 · Hebrews 13:15
John Gill ventures a typological reading of the third-day burning (v.17): ‘perhaps some respect may be had in the type to the resurrection of Christ on the third day, having seen no corruption.’ The peace-offering flesh must not pass into corruption on the third day; Gill hears in this an anticipation of the body that ‘did not see corruption’ (Acts 2:27, Ps 16:10) and rose the third day. Gill himself marks it ‘perhaps’ — a tentative, novel figural suggestion rather than an established consensus, and we record it as such.
Leviticus 7:17
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 is entirely Hebrew (Leviticus 7:11–21); all cross-references to other Hebrew verses rest on shared Strong’s lexemes computed by the Verifier, with tier set by lexeme rarity. Three textual cautions are recorded verbatim from the sources rather than smoothed over: (1) Cambridge reports that the text of vv.11–13 ‘is not above suspicion,’ citing Wellhausen’s suspicion that v.12 and the first ‘al of v.13 are later interpretive insertions, and noting the LXX omission in v.12. (2) The clause closing v.16 (‘the morrow…’) is, per Cambridge, omitted in the LXX. (3) Keil & Delitzsch note that the second half of v.19 (‘every clean person shall eat flesh’) is ‘not found in the Septuagint and Vulgate.’ The rare-word murbeḵeṯ (v.12) is genuinely obscure: K&D render it ‘roasted…mixed,’ Cambridge ‘soaked / well stirred,’ and Cambridge concedes the description ‘does not clearly distinguish it’ from the first bread — we report the disagreement rather than choosing a winner. On cross-Testament links: the Hebrews 13:15 ‘sacrifice of praise’ connection (Benson, Ellicott) is theologically strong and traditional but cannot be lexically verified Greek↔Hebrew and is asserted by the commentators without an explicit NT citation of Leviticus; it is therefore tiered ‘flagged — verify source.’ The Pulpit Commentary’s note that ‘St. Paul joined in a votive offering (Acts 21:26)’ is likewise cross-Testament and lexically unverifiable; it is tiered structural, with the identification of the Acts 21 rite (Lev 7 vow vs. Num 6 Nazirite) honestly flagged as debated. The intra-Hebrew threads added in this pass were checked by the Verifier: Lev 7:16 ↔ Lev 22:21 is a confirmed verbal link on the rare class-pair nᵉdâbâh (H5071, 25 vv) + neder (H5088, 57 vv); Lev 7:12 ↔ Numbers 6:15 strengthens the consecration-bread cluster with the rare râqîyq (H7550, 8 vv); Lev 7:15 ↔ 2 Chronicles 33:16 is structural/thematic (the law of the thanksgiving peace-offering obeyed in the Manasseh narrative; shared terms are all common). Gill’s third-day resurrection typology (v.17) and his 1 Corinthians 11:29 parallel (v.20) are his own thematic suggestions, marked as such. Note: this unit (Leviticus 7) does not contain a verse 1:5, so the mandatory Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 flag does not apply here.
✦ = 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)