Leviticus15:19–27

The man and the woman under one law — zôwb across Leviticus 15 verbal / quotation — confirmed

Leviticus 15 is built as a diptych: the male discharge (vv. 2–18) and the female (vv. 19–30), framed by a single rare word. zôwb ("flux," H2101) occurs in only 10 verses of the whole Bible, and the chapter clusters them — v. 2 (the man), v. 19 (the woman's menses), v. 25 (her chronic flux), vv. 28, 30. Gill marks the hinge ("now the Scripture begins with the female"), and Poole notes the same euphemism — "flesh" for the body's intimate parts — governs both halves "as the word flesh is taken Leviticus 15:2." The Verifier confirms the verbal dependence: Leviticus 15:19 ↔ 15:2 share zôwb (10 vv) and zûwb (41 vv); Leviticus 15:25 ↔ 15:33 share zôwb, niddâh, zûwb, and ṭâmêʼ. The rarity of zôwb makes the link a near-fingerprint binding the chapter's two cases into one symmetrical law.

Leviticus 15:19 · Leviticus 15:25 · Leviticus 15:2 · Leviticus 15:33

basis: Verifier-computed rare shared lexemes: H2101 zôwb (in only 10 vv) for Lev 15:19 ↔ 15:2 and Lev 15:25 ↔ 15:33, with H2100 zûwb (41 vv) and H2931/H2932 ṭâmêʼ/ṭumʼâh. The 10-verse frequency of zôwb, confined almost entirely to this chapter, makes the verbal link certain — the same keyword frames the male and female discharge laws.

Touch, wash, and unclean till evening — the red-heifer water (Numbers 19) structural / thematic — confirmed

The machinery of contagion in this unit — whoever touches (nâgaʻ) becomes unclean (ṭâmêʼ), must wash his clothes (kâbaç) and remain unclean until the evening (ʻereb) — is the same machinery that governs the water of purification made from the red heifer's ashes in Numbers 19. The Verifier confirms a dense structural overlap: Leviticus 15:21 ↔ Numbers 19:21 share kâbaç (48 vv), ʻereb (125 vv), ṭâmêʼ (142 vv), and nâgaʻ (142 vv); Leviticus 15:19 ↔ Numbers 19:13 share niddâh, nâgaʻ, and ṭâmêʼ. Strikingly, Numbers 19 also uses niddâh — "the water of separation" (mê niddâh) — turning the very word for the woman's impurity into the name of the water that removes impurity. The link is a shared ritual grammar of touch-defilement and cleansing, not a rare-word quotation, so it is tiered structural — but the recurrence of niddâh on both the defilement and the remedy is worth seeing.

Leviticus 15:19 · Leviticus 15:21 · Numbers 19:13 · Numbers 19:21

basis: Verifier-computed shared lexemes (all mid-to-high frequency): H5060 nâgaʻ (142 vv), H2930 ṭâmêʼ (142 vv), H3526 kâbaç (48 vv), H6153 ʻereb (125 vv) for Lev 15:21 ↔ Num 19:21; plus H5079 niddâh (24 vv) for Lev 15:19 ↔ Num 19:13. The lexemes are common, so the link is the shared ritual grammar of touch-defilement and washing — structural, not a verbal quotation.

Niddâh becomes a word for sin — Ezekiel and Ezra structural / thematic — confirmed

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown says the defilement here "typified a moral impurity," and the later Scriptures prove the claim by taking the word itself. niddâh ("separation/impurity," H5079, 24 vv) and ṭumʼâh ("uncleanness," H2932, 31 vv) — both keywords of this unit — are lifted by the prophets to name Israel's moral defilement. Ezekiel 36:17: "the house of Israel... defiled it by their own way... their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman" (niddâh). Ezra 9:11 calls the land "an unclean land with the filthiness (niddâh) of the peoples." The Verifier scores Leviticus 15:25 ↔ Ezekiel 36:17 high on the shared niddâh + ṭumʼâh — rare enough that its raw computation reads "verbal." We deliberately downgrade it. This is not a quotation of Leviticus by Ezekiel but a metaphorical reuse of its vocabulary: the ritual word is borrowed to picture sin. The shared lexemes are real and the Verifier's computation is recorded, but the honest tier for a figural borrowing of a keyword is structural/thematic, not a quotation-claim.

Leviticus 15:25 · Ezekiel 36:17 · Ezra 9:11 · Leviticus 18:19

basis: Verifier-computed shared lexemes: H5079 niddâh (24 vv) + H2932 ṭumʼâh (31 vv) for Lev 15:25 ↔ Ezek 36:17 (the Verifier's raw computation reads "verbal"); H5079 niddâh alone for Lev 15:19 ↔ Ezra 9:11 and Lev 15:24 ↔ 18:19. Downgraded to structural by editorial judgment: this is the prophets' metaphorical reuse of a ritual keyword to picture moral sin, not a quotation of the law — under-claiming as the rule directs.

The deliberate sin behind the accidental — Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 structural / thematic — confirmed

Verse 24 legislates an inadvertent defilement during conjugal intercourse; the voices are nearly unanimous (K&D, Barnes, Benson) that the deliberate act lies elsewhere and is treated far more severely. Ellicott on v. 24: "For committing this gross act presumptuously, both parties to it were visited with death (See Leviticus 18:19; Leviticus 20:18)." Leviticus 18:19 forbids approaching a woman "to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness" (niddâh), and 20:18 imposes karet — being cut off. The shared word is niddâh (24 vv); the Verifier confirms it for Leviticus 15:24 ↔ 18:19. The link is the same keyword spanning an accidental case (ch. 15) and the capital prohibition (chs. 18, 20) — a structural, thematic relationship built on a single mid-rare lexeme, not a quotation, and so tiered structural. Cambridge flags the genuine scholarly question of whether the three passages even describe the same act.

Leviticus 15:24 · Leviticus 18:19 · Leviticus 20:18

basis: Verifier-computed shared lexeme: H5079 niddâh (in 24 vv) for Lev 15:24 ↔ Lev 18:19. A single mid-rare keyword links the accidental defilement of ch. 15 to the capital prohibition of chs. 18 and 20 — the shared niddâh-motif of intercourse-during-separation, tiered structural rather than verbal since one lexeme does not constitute a quotation.

The woman with the issue of blood — Leviticus 15:25 in the Gospels flagged — verify source

Four of the unit's voices — Ellicott, Gill, The Pulpit Commentary, and Cambridge — independently identify the chronic case of v. 25 with the woman of the Synoptic Gospels who "had a flow of blood for twelve years" (Matt 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43). Ellicott: "This is the kind of complaint from which the woman suffered who came to Christ." Under Leviticus 15:25–27, that woman was perpetually niddâh — defiling everyone and everything she touched, barred (Gill) from "her husband's bed" and "the house of God." When she touched the hem of Christ's garment, the law's logic should have made Him unclean; instead, power went out from Him and she was healed. Held honestly: this is a New Testament Greek text and a Hebrew one — the Verifier confirms they share no original-language lexeme (Greek and Hebrew cannot share a Strong's number), so the connection cannot be called verbal. It is a genuine and ancient interpretive identification, drawn explicitly by four PD commentators here, and left flagged for the reader to weigh.

Leviticus 15:25 · Matthew 9:20 · Mark 5:25 · Luke 8:43

basis: Verifier reports no shared original-language lexeme (Greek↔Hebrew cannot share Strong's numbers) — the connection is thematic, not verbal. It is the explicit, repeated identification by Ellicott, Gill, Pulpit, and Cambridge of the chronic zôwb of Lev 15:25 with the Gospel woman's twelve-year flow; flagged so the reader weighs the cross-Testament reading.

The current reversed — the unclean woman who touched Him ancient/widely-held

The whole law of this unit runs one direction: uncleanness flows out from the afflicted person and contaminates whatever she touches. The chronic case of v. 25 makes a woman a lifelong source of defilement — barred, as Gill says, from "her husband's bed" and "the house of God," "a very deplorable" condition. Ellicott, Cambridge, and The Pulpit Commentary all identify her with the woman of the Gospels who, ill twelve years, "came to Christ" (Matt 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43). Here the type breaks open. By every rule of Leviticus 15, her touch should have rendered Christ unclean "until the evening." Instead the contagion ran backwards: "power had gone out from Him" (Luke 8:46), and she was made whole. The one whom no impurity could defile met the one whom every impurity had exiled, and cleanness flowed in. The ancient reading sees in this the law's intended terminus — a Holy One stronger than uncleanness, in whom contact heals rather than contaminates. This is a Greek↔Hebrew, typological reading — no shared lexeme, drawn by the unit's own voices and by the Gospel scene itself.

Leviticus 15:25 · Mark 5:25 · Luke 8:43

A fountain opened for niddâh — the cleansing the law could only point to ancient/widely-held

The unit's keyword niddâh ("separation/impurity," H5079) is, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown says, a ceremonial defilement that "typified a moral impurity" — and the prophets confirm it, turning the word for the woman's monthly state into the word for Israel's sin (Ezek 36:17; Ezra 9:11). Leviticus offered water and a sunset to clear the ritual niddâh; it had no remedy for the moral one the word foreshadowed. Zechariah names what the law withheld: "On that day a fountain will be opened... for sin and for impurity (niddâh)" (Zech 13:1) — the same word, now the object of a promised cleansing the ashes-and-water of the old order could never reach. The typological reading hears this fountain opened at the cross: where the law could only manage and bound the unclean state, the blood of Christ "cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7), the moral niddâh finally washed away. Honestly held: the Zechariah link is Hebrew↔Hebrew on niddâh; the 1 John link is Greek↔Hebrew and shares no lexeme — both are read typologically, the image of cleansing-for-impurity carried from law through prophet to fulfillment.

Leviticus 15:19 · Zechariah 13:1 · 1 John 1:7

Unclean till evening — and a cleansing that does not run out ancient/widely-held

Every defilement in this unit is bounded but recurring: wash the clothes, bathe the body, wait for the evening — and tomorrow the same contact will defile again. The law's purifications, Matthew Henry says over this very chapter, are "ceremonial and burdensome," and their great mercy is that under the gospel believers "need fear no defilement, except that of sin, nor need ceremonial and burdensome purifications." The repeated washing till evening points, by its very repetition, to its own insufficiency — a cleansing that must be redone is not a finished one. The New Testament reads the figure exactly so: the old order's washings "can never... take away sins" because they are repeated (Heb 10:1–4), whereas Christ "by one offering... has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Heb 10:14). The sunset that cleared the toucher was a daily, partial mercy; it pointed past itself to a single cleansing no evening needs to renew. This is a Greek↔Hebrew, doctrinal-typological reading, drawn from Henry's own gospel-contrast, not a shared-lexeme claim.

Leviticus 15:27 · Hebrews 10:1 · Hebrews 10:14