Leviticus Chapter 6
Instructions for the Priests
A. More instances for performing the guilt offering.
1. (Leviticus 6:1–3) Stealing from one’s neighbor made a guilt offering necessary.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: (Leviticus 6:1–3, KJV)
When the LORD spoke to Moses, He continued the instruction concerning the guilt offering, showing that it applied not only to offenses directly related to the tabernacle or holy things but also to wrongs committed between individuals. Yet even when a person wronged another, it was counted as a trespass against the LORD. Sin against man is always first and foremost sin against God because His moral law defines what is right and wrong.
To lie or steal from one’s neighbor, whether by deceit or open robbery, was not merely a civil offense, but a spiritual one that violated divine law. God’s standard made no distinction between acts of direct theft and acts of fraud, deceit, or negligence that resulted in another’s loss.
The text provides several examples: lying about what was entrusted for safekeeping, deceiving about a pledge or deposit, committing robbery, or extorting one’s neighbor. Even finding something lost and then lying about it or swearing falsely to retain it was enough to require a guilt offering. The common thread through all these actions is dishonest gain at another’s expense.
The passage stresses that such a trespass is against the LORD. This indicates that every moral failure toward another person is also rebellion against the holiness and justice of God. David recognized this principle when he said, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight” (Psalm 51:4).
The commandment in Exodus 20:15 states, “Thou shalt not steal.” This simple but absolute decree establishes the divine right of private property. The right to personal ownership is not a human invention; it is ordained by God Himself. Therefore, to violate another’s property is to resist the moral order that God has established upon the earth.
Scripture also declares, “The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1). All ownership is ultimately delegated stewardship under God’s authority. He allows individuals to manage resources, land, and possessions as trustees of what belongs to Him. For this reason, any system of governance or economy that denies the right of private property stands in opposition to God’s order.
When nations or ideologies such as socialism or communism attempt to abolish private ownership in favor of collective control, they deny the biblical foundation of stewardship and the moral agency of man. These systems inevitably collapse under their own corruption and inefficiency because they contradict the moral and spiritual structure that God ordained for human society.
This law, then, is not merely about restitution for theft; it upholds divine justice, moral responsibility, and the sanctity of personal integrity. The guilt offering served as a tangible acknowledgment that sin damages relationships both with man and with God, and that forgiveness and restitution were required to restore peace and righteousness.
2. (Leviticus 6:4–6) Restitution for the theft had to be made, then the guilt offering.
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest. (Leviticus 6:4–6, KJV)
When a person had sinned by theft, fraud, or deception, it was not enough merely to feel remorse or bring a sacrifice before the LORD. God required that restitution first be made to the one who was wronged. The sinner was commanded to restore what was taken, whether it was stolen outright, obtained through extortion, mishandled when entrusted for safekeeping, or even something lost and falsely claimed. The restoration was to be of equal value to the item taken, plus one-fifth (20%) as an added penalty. This ensured that sin carried both a moral and a material cost, reminding Israel that true repentance must always include restitution when others have been harmed.
a. “He shall restore what he has stolen.”
A sacrifice alone could not erase the wrongdoing if restitution was ignored. The guilt before God and the debt before man were connected, and both had to be addressed. True repentance was demonstrated not by words but by actions—by restoring what was stolen. The Lord required this to maintain justice and to heal the relationship between the offender and the offended.
Matthew Poole observed that the phrase “for safekeeping” might also refer to business dealings or partnerships. In such arrangements, one man might place something in another’s hands, not to guard it, but to use it for their mutual benefit. This opened the door for deceit or manipulation, so God made provision in the law to ensure honesty and equity even in matters of commerce.
b. “He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering.”
Restitution was not only full repayment, but an additional fifth was required as a form of moral compensation. This one-fifth penalty reminded Israel that sin causes damage beyond the initial act and that repentance must go beyond returning what was taken—it must also repair the harm caused. The command that this be done “on the day of his trespass offering” shows that reconciliation with man and reconciliation with God were inseparable.
In the New Testament, the same principle continues. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Ephesians 4:28). The true evidence of repentance is transformation: from a taker to a giver, from deceit to honesty, from self-interest to generosity.
c. “And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD.”
Only after restitution was made could the guilty person bring his offering to the LORD—a ram without blemish, signifying innocence and perfection. The sacrifice symbolized atonement for sin, but restitution demonstrated the sincerity of repentance. This revealed the moral order of God: reconciliation with Him must include making right the wrongs done to others.
This principle echoes in the teaching of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:23–24). God will not accept worship or offering that comes from a heart unwilling to make peace with those it has wronged.
3. (Leviticus 6:7) The certainty of forgiveness when the sacrifice is made.
And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein. (Leviticus 6:7, KJV)
After restitution and sacrifice, forgiveness was assured. The priest made atonement on behalf of the offender, and God promised complete pardon. This was a powerful comfort for a guilty conscience. It was not a vague hope but a definite declaration: “It shall be forgiven him.” The sinner could walk away with the confidence that his guilt had been covered, and fellowship with God restored.
The Apostle John reiterates this same assurance under the New Covenant: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Forgiveness is not dependent on the strength of one’s repentance but on the faithfulness and justice of God, who honors His promise to forgive those who come through the appointed means of atonement.
“For any one of these things that he may have done.”
This emphasizes the sufficiency of the atonement. No sin was too severe to be covered by the sacrifice God prescribed. Before the cross, the atonement through animal sacrifice provided temporary covering and pointed forward to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The writer of Hebrews explains this truth: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Yet those sacrifices foreshadowed the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
Therefore, Leviticus 6:1–7 not only outlines the requirements of restitution and sacrifice but also prefigures the work of Christ, in whom full restitution, full atonement, and full forgiveness are found. The moral law was satisfied, justice was upheld, and grace was extended—all through the righteousness of God’s provision.
B. Specific Instructions for the Priests Regarding the Offerings
1. (Leviticus 6:8–13) The Burnt Offering
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings. The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out. (Leviticus 6:8–13, KJV)
This section gives the priests specific instructions for maintaining the burnt offering, an offering of total consecration. The animal sacrifice symbolized complete devotion to God, with the entire body consumed upon the altar. The offering was to remain burning throughout the night until morning, showing the unbroken nature of worship and dedication to the LORD.
a. “This is the law of the burnt offering.”
The burnt offering had already been described in Leviticus chapter 1, where the emphasis was on the person bringing the offering. Here, the emphasis is on the priest who administered it. The offering was to be continually tended upon the altar, signifying that devotion to God is not a fleeting emotion but a steady, enduring commitment.
The priest was commanded to keep the offering burning through the night: “The burnt offering shall be on the hearth upon the altar all night until the morning.” This required diligence and vigilance, for the altar fire represented the ongoing communion between God and His people. Adam Clarke observed, “We may therefore reasonably conclude that the priests sat up by turns the whole night, and fed the fire with portions of this offering till the whole was consumed.” The continual tending of the flame illustrated the constancy required in spiritual service—there is no pause in consecration.
The instructions also included specific garments: “The priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh.” These garments were holy and symbolic of purity, as described in Exodus 28:39–43. Linen was light, clean, and free from sweat, representing righteousness and holiness in the service of God. Before carrying the ashes outside the camp, the priest was to remove these garments and put on others, indicating the separation between sacred and common work. Even the handling of ashes was done with reverence and order, underscoring the holiness of everything connected to the altar.
b. “And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it.”
This continuous fire upon the altar served as a picture of perpetual devotion. Just as the fire was never to go out, the believer’s heart must remain aflame with love and zeal for God. The burnt offering represented complete surrender—the continual burning expressed a life wholly yielded to the LORD.
Clarke’s devotional question captures this well: “Does the perpetual fire burn on the altar of thy heart? Art thou ever looking unto Jesus, and beholding by faith the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world?” The believer’s inner altar must remain kindled with holy fire, sustained by daily communion with God through His Word and prayer.
c. “The priest shall burn wood on it every morning.”
The priests were commanded to add wood every morning. This simple but vital duty sustained the altar’s perpetual flame. The wood symbolized fresh dedication and renewed worship. Spiritual life likewise requires daily renewal. The Book of Nehemiah later records how the people were organized to ensure the continual provision of wood for the altar: “We cast the lots among the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, after the houses of our fathers, at times appointed year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law” (Nehemiah 10:34; cf. 13:31).
The daily maintenance of the altar fire is a picture of spiritual discipline. A believer cannot rely upon yesterday’s devotion to sustain today’s faith. Each day requires fresh fuel—the wood of prayer, the kindling of Scripture, and the breath of the Spirit—to keep the fire burning.
d. “A fire shall always be burning on the altar; it shall never go out.”
This command is emphatic and central: the fire was to burn continually. The priests bore the sacred duty of ensuring its permanence. The altar’s fire was first kindled by God Himself: “And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces” (Leviticus 9:24). Since the fire was of divine origin, it was to be perpetually maintained as a visible token of God’s presence.
John Trapp drew a moral application from this command: “No more should our faith, love, zeal (that flame of God, as Solomon calls it, Song of Solomon 8:6–7), that should never go out; the waters should not quench it, nor the ashes cover it.” The continual flame thus serves as a symbol of steadfast faith, constant devotion, and unquenchable love.
F. B. Meyer noted that the perpetual fire symbolized three divine realities:
The Love of God — His love is eternal and unchanging. There was never, and there will never be, a time when God ceases to love His people.
The Prayers of Jesus Christ — The flame represents Christ’s unceasing intercession, for “He ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).
The Ministry of the Holy Spirit — The fire kindled at Pentecost still burns within the Church, purifying, empowering, and sanctifying believers for service.
The perpetual flame also reminds us of the distinction between the continual sacrifices of the Old Covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The priestly fire never ceased because sin was never fully atoned for by animal blood. But Christ, our Great High Priest, offered Himself once for all. As it is written, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Hebrews 7:27).
Thus, the ever-burning altar pointed forward to Calvary, where divine justice and mercy met. The continual flame prefigured the eternal efficacy of the one perfect sacrifice that would never need repeating.
2. (Leviticus 6:14–18) The Ceremony of the Grain Offering
And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar. And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD. And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy. (Leviticus 6:14–18, KJV)
The LORD again gave instruction concerning the grain offering, here referred to as the “meat offering” in the King James Version (the term “meat” in older English meaning food in general, not animal flesh). This section reaffirms much of what had been said in Leviticus chapter 2 but with additional emphasis on the priestly responsibilities and the holiness required in handling the offering.
a. “This is the law of the grain offering.”
The offering of fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense symbolized thanksgiving, devotion, and the fruit of one’s labor presented before the LORD. The priest would take a handful from it—along with the oil and all the frankincense—and burn it upon the altar as a “memorial” before God, producing a sweet aroma unto the LORD. The remainder of the grain was not discarded but eaten by Aaron and his sons as part of their holy provision from the altar.
The fact that it was to be eaten “with unleavened bread… in a holy place” signified that this was not a common meal. Leaven symbolized corruption, so the absence of leaven underscored purity and separation from sin. Eating it in the court of the tabernacle of meeting emphasized that priestly provision was inseparable from priestly service—their sustenance came only within the context of obedience and holiness.
b. “Everyone who touches them must be holy.”
This requirement was new compared to the earlier instructions in Leviticus 2. It made clear that only those who were ceremonially clean and consecrated could partake of this offering. Holiness was not optional; it was essential. To touch what belonged to God’s altar required purity of body and heart.
This teaches a spiritual truth that continues under the New Covenant: those who serve and partake in the things of God must do so in holiness. As Peter wrote, “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation” (1 Peter 1:15). Just as the priests could not eat of the offering unless they were clean, so the believer cannot truly enjoy fellowship with God while harboring sin.
The grain offering therefore illustrated fellowship with God through purity, thanksgiving, and obedience. It reminded Israel that worship involved both giving and receiving—man’s offering to God became God’s provision to the priest.
3. (Leviticus 6:19–23) The Grain Offering at the Anointing of the Priests
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night. In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD. And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt. For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten. (Leviticus 6:19–23, KJV)
Here the LORD commanded a special grain offering to be made when a priest was anointed. This was distinct from the ordinary grain offering brought by the people. It was a personal offering required of Aaron and his sons at their consecration, signifying that even the priests—though set apart for holy service—needed to dedicate themselves fully to the LORD.
a. “Beginning on the day when he is anointed.”
The consecration ceremony for Aaron and his sons was first outlined in Exodus 29 and would later be enacted in Leviticus 8. On the day of anointing, the new priest was required to offer “one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour” as a daily grain offering—half in the morning and half at night. The fine flour represented the purity of service and the consistency of devotion expected of God’s priests.
Matthew Poole notes that the phrase “baked pieces” refers to portions prepared in a pan, “fried, so that it swells and bubbles up.” This detail reflects the careful preparation required of the offering, showing that even the smallest acts of worship had to be done with reverence and precision.
b. “For every grain offering for the priest shall be wholly burned.”
Unlike other grain offerings, of which the priests ate a portion, this one was not to be eaten. It was to be “wholly burnt” upon the altar. This symbolized that the priest, in his anointing, belonged entirely to the LORD. Nothing from his offering could be taken for personal use or benefit.
The burning of the whole portion illustrated total consecration—everything given, nothing withheld. Just as the fire consumed the entire offering, the life of the priest was to be entirely devoted to the service of God. The priest could not serve God with divided loyalty or seek personal gain from sacred duties.
This act foreshadowed the believer’s call under the New Covenant to complete surrender. The Apostle Paul expressed this truth in Romans 12:1: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” The anointed priest’s continual offering in the morning and evening also anticipates the believer’s daily walk of devotion and prayer before God.
Thus, this ceremony taught that priestly ministry required a heart fully yielded to the LORD, renewed each day in worship and faithfulness.
4. (Leviticus 6:24–30) The Sin Offering
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire. (Leviticus 6:24–30, KJV)
In this passage, God gives Aaron and his sons specific instructions for administering the sin offering. The sin offering was already explained in Leviticus chapter 4, but these verses provide additional ceremonial details regarding where it was to be sacrificed, how it was to be handled, and who could partake of it. Every element of the ritual underscored the seriousness of sin and the holiness required of those who ministered in the tabernacle.
a. “This is the law of the sin offering.”
The sin offering addressed unintentional sins—acts committed in ignorance that nevertheless violated God’s law. In chapter 4, various sin offerings were outlined for the priest, the congregation, the ruler, and the common person. Here, the focus is on the priestly administration of those offerings and the sanctity required in handling them. The offering was to be slain “in the place where the burnt offering is killed,” meaning at the north side of the altar (Leviticus 1:11). This maintained uniformity and order in the sacrificial system. The sin offering, like the burnt offering, was described as “most holy,” emphasizing that it dealt directly with sin and atonement before the LORD.
b. “The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it.”
In certain cases—specifically those not involving the high priest or the whole congregation—the officiating priest was permitted to eat part of the sacrificial meat. This was not a common meal but a sacred participation in the atoning work of God. By consuming part of the offering, the priest symbolically bore the sin of the people before God, identifying himself with the sinner and acting as a mediator. The act of eating thus carried deep spiritual meaning: it was a representation of fellowship restored through atonement.
The meal was to be eaten “in a holy place,” within the court of the tabernacle. This requirement reinforced the sanctity of the priest’s role and the separation between the holy and the profane.
c. “In a holy place it shall be eaten… Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy.”
The Lord required absolute holiness in all that pertained to the sin offering. Every part of the ceremony—the place, the person, the blood, and even the vessels used—had to reflect the sanctity of the sacrifice.
The place was holy — “in the court of the tabernacle of meeting.”
The person had to be holy — “Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy.”
The blood was holy — “When its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place.”
The vessel was holy — “The earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken… if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water.”
These strict instructions show that holiness was not an abstract idea but a practical requirement touching every aspect of worship. Holiness was contagious in the sense that anything that came into contact with what was consecrated became sanctified for God’s use—or, if unsuitable, had to be cleansed or destroyed.
i. “Anything touched by the meat of the sin offering or its blood had to be holy.”
The idea here is that the sin offering absorbed the guilt of the sinner. Anything that came into contact with it was considered to have come into contact with sin itself and thus had to be treated as holy, separated for divine use or cleansing. If it touched something incapable of being sanctified—such as porous clay—it had to be destroyed. The breaking of an earthen vessel symbolized that sin corrupts and permeates whatever it touches. Such a vessel could not be purified, and therefore had to be discarded entirely.
However, a bronze vessel could be scoured and cleansed because metal could endure fire—it had already been tempered and purified. This serves as a profound spiritual illustration: when sin “soaks into” the human heart, it cannot be cleansed apart from judgment. The unredeemed man, like the clay pot, must face destruction. But the believer, like the metal vessel, has already passed through judgment in Christ and can be cleansed and restored. As Peter wrote, “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:7).
This distinction between what must be broken and what can be cleansed reveals a deep truth about redemption and judgment. Those who are in Christ can be refined through fire, while those who reject Him will be consumed by it.
d. “But no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of meeting, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten.”
This command distinguishes between the various types of sin offerings. In Leviticus chapter 4, the sin offering for the priest or for the whole congregation required that the blood be brought into the Holy Place and sprinkled before the veil and upon the horns of the altar of incense. Because of its direct connection to atonement for the nation or for the high priest himself, none of its flesh was to be eaten—it had to be entirely burned.
This distinction preserved the reverence and separation between offerings made for individuals and those made for the corporate atonement of Israel. It also foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, whose blood was not offered in an earthly tabernacle but in the heavenly one. As the writer of Hebrews declares, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24).
The priests could eat of lesser sin offerings because they pointed to partial and temporary atonement. But the sacrifice for the whole nation pointed forward to the once-for-all offering of the Lamb of God, whose blood alone could truly cleanse sin.
