Though this trespass is directly involved with another person, yet it is “against the Lord,” for He is Creator and concerned about how His creatures are treated. One may have lied to his neighbor in reference to something that had been entrusted to him to keep or as to a pledge he had made, or he may have actually cheated his neighbor in some way. Or he may have found what was lost and instead of restoring it to its owner, he had sworn falsely about it. This could not be said to be a sin of ignorance, but he may have resorted to lying because of fear or weakness. Yet he must then not cover the matter over, but confess his sin and fully restore anything that the neighbor had lost and add one-fifth to the value of it.
The offering he must make also was the same as in the case of trespass in sacred things, a ram without blemish. Thus people would be restrained from such trespass by knowing they would lose by it when it came to light. But the offering was intended to direct men's hearts to something higher, though they could not realize its symbolical significance until Christ Himself was offered for our sins. Yet many must have realized that there was in the offerings a significance higher than they understood. They would recognize this in the measure in which they believed that God was wiser than they. For the time being also the offering gave a governmental forgiveness, but not the eternal forgiveness that is found only in the one sacrifice of Christ.
THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING (vv. 8-13)
In contrast to the sin offering which was to be offered once a year, except for specific occasions of sin, the burnt offering was to be continual. There was an evening and morning sacrifice, and the fire on the altar was never to be put out. The significance of this is plain. There is never a time when God does not receive honor from the value of the sacrifice of Christ. For we have seen that the burnt offering all ascended to God in fire, so that it speaks of that aspect of the sacrifice of Christ that is all for the glory of God.
Evidently every morning the priest must put on his linen garments, (which emphasize the moral purity of the Lord Jesus as Great High Priest) and remove the ashes from the altar and put these beside the altar. Even that which was burned was not to be treated carelessly. For then the priest changed his garments and carried the ashes outside the camp to a clean place. What remained was only the reminder that the sacrifice had done its work. Thus the sacrifice of Christ will never be forgotten.
THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING (vv. 14-23)
We have seen that the meal offering is a virtual appendix to the burnt offering. It speaks of Christ, not in His atoning sufferings, but in the purity of sinless Manhood in all His life on earth. Any meal offering, voluntarily brought by one of the people must have a handful of the meal taken, with its oil and all its incense, by the priest, and burned on the altar as a sweet aroma to the Lord. No incense was left for the priest.
The offering must not be baked with leaven, and the remainder was given to the priests to eat. Also anyone who touched this offering was thereby sanctified (or holy). This illustrates the sanctifying power of a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus.
THE DAILY MEAL OFFERING (vv. 19-23)
This deals with the meal offering on behalf of the priests. Beginning from the day the priests were anointed, they were to bring a meal offering of one tenth of an ephah of fine flour, offering one half of it in the morning and one half at night. Thus it was offered along with the continual burn offering (vv. 9-12). This was made in a pan with oil, and offered as a sweet savor to the Lord, which seems to infer that incense was offered with it. But the priests could not partake of this offering: it was to be wholly burned (vv. 22-23)
THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING (vv. 24-30)
Verse 25 is a repetition of what has before been said of the sin offering. It was to be killed in the same place as the burnt offering, before the Lord. It was most holy. But verse 26 adds what had not been said before: the priest who offered it was to eat its flesh in the holy place. This would be in the case of the sin of a ruler or one of the people, for in the cases where the blood of the sin offering was taken into the sanctuary, nothing was to be eaten by the priest.
The eating of the sin offering by the priest signifies his entering into and feeling the seriousness of the sin as though it had been his own, just as the Lord Jesus confessed Israel's sins as though He had been responsible for them (Psalms 40:12; Psalms 69:5-6). Whatever touched the flesh of the animal would be holy, which speaks of any personal connection with the sacrifice of Christ being the means of sanctifying us from the guilt of sin, for the touching speaks of the touch of faith.
As well as everyone being constituted holy through touching the flesh of the sin offering, we are told that any garment on which the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled was to be washed with water (v. 27). Garments speak of habits, and if our habits are brought in contact with the truth of the blood-shedding of Christ, these habits must be cleansed from defilement by the washing of water by the Word of God.
If the offering was boiled in an earthen vessel, the vessel was to be broken, never used again. But if boiled in a copper pot, the pot was to be scoured afterwards and rinsed in water. Then scripture adds that all the males among the priests may eat the flesh. For even wives of the priests were not considered priests under law. Today, under grace, all believers, male and female, are priests (1 Peter 2:5), so that there is no select class of priests in any official position.
Verse 30, however, insists that no sin offering was to be eaten if its blood was brought into the sanctuary: it was to be burned.
Bibliographical Information Grant, L. M. "Commentary on Leviticus 6". Grant's Commentary on the Bible. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/lmg/leviticus-6.html. 1897-1910.
Verses 1-30
TRESPASS MANWARD (vv. 1-7).
Though this trespass is directly involved with another person, yet it is “against the Lord,” for He is Creator and concerned about how His creatures are treated. One may have lied to his neighbor in reference to something that had been entrusted to him to keep or as to a pledge he had made, or he may have actually cheated his neighbor in some way. Or he may have found what was lost and instead of restoring it to its owner, he had sworn falsely about it. This could not be said to be a sin of ignorance, but he may have resorted to lying because of fear or weakness. Yet he must then not cover the matter over, but confess his sin and fully restore anything that the neighbor had lost and add one-fifth to the value of it.
The offering he must make also was the same as in the case of trespass in sacred things, a ram without blemish. Thus people would be restrained from such trespass by knowing they would lose by it when it came to light. But the offering was intended to direct men's hearts to something higher, though they could not realize its symbolical significance until Christ Himself was offered for our sins. Yet many must have realized that there was in the offerings a significance higher than they understood. They would recognize this in the measure in which they believed that God was wiser than they. For the time being also the offering gave a governmental forgiveness, but not the eternal forgiveness that is found only in the one sacrifice of Christ.
THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING (vv. 8-13)
In contrast to the sin offering which was to be offered once a year, except for specific occasions of sin, the burnt offering was to be continual. There was an evening and morning sacrifice, and the fire on the altar was never to be put out. The significance of this is plain. There is never a time when God does not receive honor from the value of the sacrifice of Christ. For we have seen that the burnt offering all ascended to God in fire, so that it speaks of that aspect of the sacrifice of Christ that is all for the glory of God.
Evidently every morning the priest must put on his linen garments, (which emphasize the moral purity of the Lord Jesus as Great High Priest) and remove the ashes from the altar and put these beside the altar. Even that which was burned was not to be treated carelessly. For then the priest changed his garments and carried the ashes outside the camp to a clean place. What remained was only the reminder that the sacrifice had done its work. Thus the sacrifice of Christ will never be forgotten.
THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING (vv. 14-23)
We have seen that the meal offering is a virtual appendix to the burnt offering. It speaks of Christ, not in His atoning sufferings, but in the purity of sinless Manhood in all His life on earth. Any meal offering, voluntarily brought by one of the people must have a handful of the meal taken, with its oil and all its incense, by the priest, and burned on the altar as a sweet aroma to the Lord. No incense was left for the priest.
The offering must not be baked with leaven, and the remainder was given to the priests to eat. Also anyone who touched this offering was thereby sanctified (or holy). This illustrates the sanctifying power of a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus.
THE DAILY MEAL OFFERING (vv. 19-23)
This deals with the meal offering on behalf of the priests. Beginning from the day the priests were anointed, they were to bring a meal offering of one tenth of an ephah of fine flour, offering one half of it in the morning and one half at night. Thus it was offered along with the continual burn offering (vv. 9-12). This was made in a pan with oil, and offered as a sweet savor to the Lord, which seems to infer that incense was offered with it. But the priests could not partake of this offering: it was to be wholly burned (vv. 22-23)
THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING (vv. 24-30)
Verse 25 is a repetition of what has before been said of the sin offering. It was to be killed in the same place as the burnt offering, before the Lord. It was most holy. But verse 26 adds what had not been said before: the priest who offered it was to eat its flesh in the holy place. This would be in the case of the sin of a ruler or one of the people, for in the cases where the blood of the sin offering was taken into the sanctuary, nothing was to be eaten by the priest.
The eating of the sin offering by the priest signifies his entering into and feeling the seriousness of the sin as though it had been his own, just as the Lord Jesus confessed Israel's sins as though He had been responsible for them (Psalms 40:12; Psalms 69:5-6). Whatever touched the flesh of the animal would be holy, which speaks of any personal connection with the sacrifice of Christ being the means of sanctifying us from the guilt of sin, for the touching speaks of the touch of faith.
As well as everyone being constituted holy through touching the flesh of the sin offering, we are told that any garment on which the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled was to be washed with water (v. 27). Garments speak of habits, and if our habits are brought in contact with the truth of the blood-shedding of Christ, these habits must be cleansed from defilement by the washing of water by the Word of God.
If the offering was boiled in an earthen vessel, the vessel was to be broken, never used again. But if boiled in a copper pot, the pot was to be scoured afterwards and rinsed in water. Then scripture adds that all the males among the priests may eat the flesh. For even wives of the priests were not considered priests under law. Today, under grace, all believers, male and female, are priests (1 Peter 2:5), so that there is no select class of priests in any official position.
Verse 30, however, insists that no sin offering was to be eaten if its blood was brought into the sanctuary: it was to be burned.