Leviticus6:14–23

The grain offering re-stated — Leviticus 2 → Leviticus 6 verbal / quotation — confirmed

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 memorial handful across the offerings — Leviticus 5:12; 24:7 verbal / quotation — confirmed

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 high priest’s baked offering — Leviticus 6:21 ↔ 1 Chronicles 23:29 verbal / quotation — confirmed

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 griddle, turned to a sign of siege — Leviticus 6:21 ↔ Ezekiel 4:3 verbal / quotation — confirmed

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)

Contagious holiness — ‘whatever touches them becomes holy’ structural / thematic — confirmed

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

‘Continually’ — the high priest’s minchah and the perpetual cult — Leviticus 6:20; Exodus 29:38; Leviticus 24:2 structural / thematic — confirmed

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

The anointed priest, replaced in his stead — Leviticus 4:3; Hebrews 7 structural / thematic — confirmed

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)

The priest who could not eat his own offering widely-held

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

The high priest who needed no daily offering for himself widely-held

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

Broken bread, a soothing aroma novel

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