Leviticus6:1–7

The deposit entrusted — a near-unique word verbal / quotation — confirmed

The "deposit" of v.2, piqqâdôwn (H6487), is one of the rarest nouns in the Hebrew Bible — it occurs in only three verses. The most famous is Genesis 41:36, where Joseph counsels that the grain of the seven plenteous years be stored "for a deposit to the land against the seven years of famine." Keil cites Genesis 41:36 by name in glossing the word here. Because the shared lexeme is genuinely rare (three verses total), the Verifier rates the verbal tie quotation-grade — though the link is one of distinctive vocabulary, not of citation: the same legal-economic word for entrusted property, used once of a neighbour's pledge and once of a nation's grain held in trust by a faithful steward.

Genesis 41:36

basis: Verifier-confirmed shared rare lexeme: H6487 piqqâdôwn (in only 3 vv). The near-unique noun for an entrusted 'deposit' makes the co-occurrence a true verbal fingerprint, not a generic theme.

The earlier law revised — Exodus 22 and the mercy of confession verbal / quotation — confirmed

This whole section presupposes the property law of Exodus 22:7–13, which the human voices cite almost in unison: the Pulpit Commentary notes "Exodus 22:7-13 contains earlier legislation on the subject of things taken in trust"; Cambridge, Ellicott, Poole, and Gill all reach back to it. The verbal hinge is the rare noun ʼăbêdâh ("a lost thing," H9, in only four verses), which Leviticus 6:3 shares with the lost-property clause of Exodus 22:9 — the very verse that there sets a fourfold penalty. Ellicott draws the contrast that this thread records: in Exodus "the offender was condemned to make a four fold restitution, whilst in the passage before us the mulct is reduced to the restitution of the principal with the addition of a fifth part" — because Exodus deals with the man "convicted… by witnesses" and Leviticus with the man "who, through compunction of mind, voluntarily confesses." The shared lexeme is genuinely rare; the relationship is law-revised-for-the-penitent, not citation, but the rare word makes the verbal tie real.

Exodus 22:9

basis: Verifier-confirmed shared rare lexeme (Lev 6:3 ↔ Exod 22:9): H9 ʼăbêdâh (in only 4 vv). The near-unique 'lost thing' word ties Leviticus' guilt-offering law to the earlier property statute of Exodus 22 — whose fourfold penalty Leviticus mitigates to principal-plus-a-fifth for the man who confesses unprompted.

Lie not, deal not falsely with your fellow verbal / quotation — confirmed

The casuistic case here — "if a soul… deceives his fellow" (ʻâmîyth + kâchash, v.2) — is the worked-out application of the apodictic command in Leviticus 19:11: "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely (kâchash), neither lie one to another." The Pulpit Commentary cross-references 19:11 here outright. The link rests on two distinctive, clustered lexemes: ʻâmîyth ("fellow/associate," H5997, only 10 verses, nearly all in Leviticus) and kâchash ("to deal falsely, disown," H3584, 22 verses). Both are uncommon and they co-occur; given the rarity of ʻâmîyth in particular, this is a genuine verbal tie between the command and its case-law.

Leviticus 19:11

basis: Verifier-confirmed shared lexemes: H5997 ʻâmîyth (10 vv — distinctively Levitical) and H3584 kâchash (22 vv). The rare 'fellow' word plus the 'deal falsely' verb, clustered, make this a verbal link from apodictic law (Lev 19:11) to casuistic case (Lev 6:2).

The wicked who keeps the pledge, the righteous who restores it structural / thematic — confirmed

The robbery-and-restoration vocabulary of v.4 — gᵉzêlâh / gâzal (the robbed thing he robbed) with shûwb (cause to return) — is exactly Ezekiel's yardstick of righteousness. In Ezekiel 18 the wicked man "hath spoiled by violence (gâzal), hath not restored the pledge" (18:7, 12, 16), while the man who lives "restoreth (shûwb) to the debtor his pledge, giveth back that which he had taken by robbery (gᵉzêlâh)" — and Ezekiel 33:15 makes restoring "that he had robbed" (gᵉzêlâh) the very mark of the repentant. The oppression-side of v.2 lands in the same prophet: Ezekiel 22:29 indicts a people who "have used oppression (ʻâshaq), and exercised robbery (gâzêl)," sharing with this unit two of its rarest crime-words at once. Keil cites this same prophetic robbery-vocabulary (Micah 2:2; Job 24:2) in expounding the word. I tier this structural / thematic rather than verbal: although gᵉzêlâh and gâzêl are rare (6 vv each), Ezekiel makes no quotation claim — he reuses the Torah's robbery-and-restitution idiom to define righteousness and to indict its breach, a shared legal motif, not a citation. (Under-claiming per the spec.)

Ezekiel 18:7 · Ezekiel 18:12 · Ezekiel 33:15 · Ezekiel 22:29

basis: Verifier basis (Lev 6:4 ↔ Ezek 18:7 / 33:15: H1500 gᵉzêlâh (6 vv), H1497 gâzal (30 vv), H7725 shûwb (950 vv); Lev 6:2 ↔ Ezek 22:29: H1498 gâzêl (6 vv), H6231 ʻâshaq (35 vv)). The shared words include genuinely rare ones, but the tie is the prophet reusing the Torah's robbery-and-restoration idiom as the test of righteousness and the charge against its breach — a shared legal motif, not a quotation; tiered structural/thematic.

The same law, restated for the wilderness camp structural / thematic — confirmed

The closest parallel to this whole law is Numbers 5:6–8, which repeats it almost as a doublet: "When a man or woman shall commit any sin… and that person be guilty (commit a breach of faith, maʻal); then they shall confess their sin… and he shall recompense his trespass… and add unto it the fifth part." Keil places the two side by side: "we find in Numbers 5:5-8 not only a trespass against Jehovah, but an unjust withdrawal of the property of a neighbour… for which material compensation was to be made with the addition of a fifth of its value, just as in" this chapter. The shared technical verb maʻal ("breach of faith") and the identical restitution-plus-fifth structure carry the link; the lexemes are moderately common, and the relationship is the same law restated, so I tier it structural / thematic.

Numbers 5:6 · Numbers 5:7 · Numbers 5:8

basis: Verifier basis (Lev 6:2 ↔ Num 5:6; Lev 6:5 ↔ Num 5:7): shared lexemes H4604/H4603 maʻal (29/35 vv), H5315 nephesh, and the 'fifth part' H2549 chămîyshîy (44 vv). The same trespass-law restated for the camp — structural/thematic, the shared maʻal and restitution-plus-fifth pattern rather than a quotation.

False oath, false words — the prophet's indictment structural / thematic — confirmed

The double sin of v.3 — denying (kâchash) and swearing to a lie (sheqer) — is precisely the sin Isaiah lays against the nation: "in transgressing and lying (kâchash) against the LORD… speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood (sheqer)" (Isaiah 59:13). The shared lexemes are kâchash (H3584, 22 vv) and sheqer (H8267, 109 vv). Because sheqer is common, this is a structural / thematic link, not verbal: the same pair of sins — lying denial plus falsehood — that Leviticus treats as a man's private fraud, Isaiah indicts as the nation's corporate apostasy. The legal category becomes a prophetic charge.

Isaiah 59:13

basis: Verifier basis (Lev 6:3 ↔ Isa 59:13): shared lexemes H3584 kâchash (22 vv) and H8267 sheqer (109 vv). sheqer is common, so structural/thematic, not verbal — the same lying-and-falsehood pair, individual fraud in Leviticus becoming national apostasy in Isaiah.

If the unit were in Joshua: the 1:5 / Hebrews 13:5 flag flagged — verify source

This is a transparency note required by the project, not a claim about this unit. This unit is Leviticus 6, not Joshua, and contains no Joshua 1:5; therefore the mandated Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 thread ("I will never leave you nor forsake you," whose NT provenance is debated) does not apply here and is recorded only to confirm the rule was checked. More relevantly for this unit's own flagged item, see the apparatus on the Genesis-41 "double lexeme" Verifier artifact and on the Hebrew↔Greek typological links to Luke 19, which cannot be verbal by definition.

Joshua 1:5 · Hebrews 13:5

basis: Not a substantive link for this unit (no Joshua 1:5 present). Recorded per the project rule that the Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 quotation — whose NT provenance is debated — must be flagged whenever in view; flagged here as inapplicable and as a provenance-honesty marker.

The unblemished ram and the Lamb who takes away sin widely-held

The ram "without blemish" (tā·mîm, v.6) brought to bear away the offender's guilt has, from the earliest Christian reading onward, been seen as a figure of Christ the spotless sacrifice. John Gill names it directly at v.6: the ram is "typical of the sacrifice of Christ offered up both for sins of ignorance and wilful transgressions, for his blood cleanses from all sin," and at v.7 he calls the antitype "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" — guarding the limit: the ram made "a typical, but not real atonement," for "the blood of bulls and goats… could not take away sin." Matthew Henry agrees that the offender must "seek forgiveness by faith in that one Offering which taketh away the sin of the world." That the guilt-offering covered even grievous, wilful crimes — fraud, theft, perjury (so Gill against the Socinians) — makes it a fitting type of the atonement that reaches the same sins. This is the ancient and widely-held typological reading, named by the human voices themselves; the Old↔New tie is figural, never verbal.

Leviticus 6:6 · Leviticus 6:7 · John 1:29 · Hebrews 9:12

Atonement that covers: kâphar fulfilled widely-held

The verb of v.7, kâphar ("to cover, make atonement"), and the passive pardon nis·laḥ ("it shall be forgiven him") sketch the structure the New Testament says the cross fulfills: the priest covers guilt before God, and forgiveness is granted from outside the sinner. Gill reads the priest's act as type of Christ's: the typical atonement "led to him," and "all manner of sin is forgiven for Christ's sake." Hebrews takes precisely this priest-and-blood pattern — atonement made "before the LORD" by a mediating priest — and presents Christ as both priest and offering, securing "eternal redemption" where the Levitical rite could only cover provisionally. The cross-Testament link is structural/typological (Hebrew kâphar cannot share a Strong's number with the Greek of Hebrews); it is the developed motif of covering-atonement, widely held since the Fathers, not a verbal quotation.

Leviticus 6:7 · Hebrews 9:11 · Hebrews 9:14 · Romans 3:25

Restitution embodied: Zacchaeus and the law of the fifth widely-held

The law's demand — confess, restore the principal, add a fifth, then receive forgiveness — finds a living portrait in Zacchaeus, who stands and says, "if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8), and hears, "This day is salvation come to this house." The vocabulary of Leviticus 6:2 (defraud, oppress) stands behind his words, and Gill cites Luke 19:8 at v.2 in glossing the fraud this law addresses. The restitution-then-mercy pattern is the same; Zacchaeus, indeed, exceeds the Levitical fifth, paying the conviction-grade fourfold of Exodus 22 out of free repentance. The link is cross-Testament (Hebrew↔Greek), so it cannot rest on shared Strong's numbers — the Verifier returns no shared lexeme; it is a typological/exemplary reading, the Mosaic restitution-law lived out under grace. Widely recognized, though more exemplary than strictly figural.

Leviticus 6:4 · Leviticus 6:5 · Luke 19:8