Leviticus 6:10
And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put on his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire has consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
Jump to: BarnesBensonBICalvinCambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsJFBKDKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWParkerPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBWESTSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
(10) And the priest shall put on his linen garment.—The officiating priest was to put on his sacerdotal garments, which consisted of four pieces—viz., (1) the tunic, which was a long close robe of fine linen, with sleeves but without folds, covering the whole body, and reaching down to the feet; (2) linen breeches—better, linen drawers—which, according to the authorities during the second Temple, reached to the knees and were fastened by ribbons above the flanks; (3) a linen girdle, which, according to the same authorities, was three fingers wide and thirty-two cubits. long, and, like the veil of the court and of the sanctuary, was embroidered with figures; and (4) a mitre, or better, turban, which was likewise of fine linen, and was fastened to the head by means of ribbons, to prevent its falling off (Exodus 28:4; Exodus 28:40; Exodus 29:5-10; Leviticus 8:13). Though the second and third only are here mentioned, there can hardly be any doubt that all the four garments were meant, and that the third and fourth are either omitted for the sake of brevity, or because they are included in the first term, which is the reason why some of the ancient versions have it in the plural.

Take up the ashes which the fire had consumed with the burnt offering.—Better, take up the ashes into which the fire had consumed the burnt offering. That is, the ashes into which the consuming fire had converted the victim.

He shall put them beside the altar.—During the second Temple, a priest was appointed by lot to take off from the altar every morning at least a shovelful of ashes and carry it without the camp, and when the ashes accumulated they were entirely removed to the same place.

Leviticus 6:10. The ashes which the fire hath consumed — As the word אֶשׁרasher, rendered which here, also signifies when, and is so translated chap. Leviticus 4:22; Genesis 30:38; Numbers 5:29, and in many other places, it is evident the passage here ought to have been translated, And take up the ashes when the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering.6:8-13 The daily sacrifice of a lamb is chiefly referred to. The priest must take care of the fire upon the altar. The first fire upon the altar came from heaven, ch. 9:24; by keeping that up continually, all their sacrifices might be said to be consumed with the fire from heaven, in token of God's acceptance. Thus should the fire of our holy affections, the exercise of our faith and love, of prayer and praise, be without ceasing.Ashes ... with the burnt-offering - Rather, the ashes to which the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering. 9. Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This … law of the burnt offering—In this passage Moses received instructions to be delivered to the priests respecting their official duties, and first the burnt offering—Hebrew, "a sacrifice, which went up in smoke." The daily service consisted of two lambs, one offered in the morning at sunrise, the other in the evening, when the day began to decline. Both of them were consumed on the altar by means of a slow fire, before which the pieces of the sacrifice were so placed that they fed it all night. At all events, the observance of this daily sacrifice on the altar of burnt offering was a daily expression of national repentance and faith. The fire that consumed these sacrifices had been kindled from heaven at the consecration of the tabernacle [Le 9:24], and to keep it from being extinguished and the sacrifices from being burned with common fire, strict injunctions are here given respecting not only the removal of the ashes [Le 6:10, 11], but the approaching near to the fireplace in garments that were not officially "holy." His linen garment, i.e. his linen coat, of which see Exodus 28:39,40. The ashes are said to be consumed improperly, When the wood is consumed into ashes; as meal is said to be ground, Isaiah 47:2, when the corn is ground into meal; and the naked to be stripped of their clothing, Job 22:6, when by being stripped they are made naked. And the priest shall put on his linen garment,.... "His measure" (q), as the word signifies, a garment that was just the measure of his body, and exactly fitted it; it was a sort of a shirt, which he wore next his body, and reached down to his feet; and in this he always officiated, and was an emblem of the purity and holiness of Christ our high priest, who was without sin, and so a fit person to take away the sin of others, by offering up himself without spot to God:

and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; to cover his nakedness; that indecency might be prevented, and that he might not be exposed to ridicule; and though these two garments are only mentioned, yet the wise men say the word "put on" includes the bonnet and the girdle; for the removing of the ashes from the altar, which is the thing he was to be thus clothed to do, was done in the four garments, though the Scripture mentions but two (r):

and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed, with the burnt offering on the altar; this was the first thing the priests did in a morning, and which in later times they cast lots for, and the first lot was for this service, and which was performed very early (s);"every day they cleansed or swept the altar, at cockcrowing or near it, whether before or after, and on the day of atonement at midnight, and at the feasts from the time of the first watch:"

and he shall put them beside the altar: without, at the corner of the altar, as Aben Ezra, on the east side of it; so says Jarchi, the priest takes a full censer of the innermost consumptions (that is, of the innermost parts of the sacrifice reduced to ashes), and puts them in the east of the rise of the altar; or, as by another (t) expressed, he takes the ashes in a censer, more or less, and lays them down at the east of the rise of the altar, and there leaves them, and this is the beginning of the morning service: and we are told by another writer (u), that there was a place called the house of ashes, and it was at the east of the rise of the altar, at a distance from the foot of it ten cubits and three hands' breadth; where the priest, before they began to sacrifice, laid the ashes of the sacrifices, and of the candlestick, and of the altar of incense, and of the offering of the fowl that were cast out.

(q) "est" "proprie vestis commensurata corpori", Munster; so Jarchi. (r) Maimon. in Misn. Tamid, c. 5. sect. 3.((s) Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 8. (t) Bartenora in ib. (u) Jacob. Jud. Leo. Tabnitid Hecal, No. 90. apud Wagenseil. Sotah, p. 426.

And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon {e} 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 {f} altar.

(e) Upon his secret parts, Ex 28:42.

(f) In the ash pans appointed for that use.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
10. the priest shall put on] in the morning.

his linen garment] Perhaps the ‘coat of (in) chequer work’ mentioned Exodus 28:4; Exodus 28:39.

his linen breeches] Exodus 28:42.

and he shall take up] The removal of the ashes was regarded as the completion of the sacrifice of the preceding day, and for it priestly garments were necessary: the Heb. verb is hçrîm (see note on Leviticus 7:14). The Jewish commentators, taking the word as implying a heave offering, have based on this word a ceremony observed in the second temple. The priest took a handful of the ashes as in the Meal-Offering (Leviticus 2:2) and laid it aside as a memorial of the preceding day’s service. This was called tĕrûmath haddéshçn, the heave offering of the ashes, and was part of the daily ritual. But this action would be described by ‘he shall take up from’ as in Leviticus 2:9.(Ch. 5:14-6:7)

(Note: In the original the division of verses in the Hebrew text is followed; but we have thought it better to keep to the arrangement adopted in our English version. - Tr.)

The Trespass-Offerings. - These were presented for special sins, by which a person had contracted guilt, and therefore they are not included in the general festal sacrifices. Three kinds of offences are mentioned in this section as requiring trespass-offerings. The first is, "if a soul commit a breach of trust, and sin in going wrong in the holy gifts of Jehovah." מעל, lit., to cover, hence מעיל the cloak, over-coat, signifies to act secretly, unfaithfully, especially against Jehovah, either by falling away from Him into idolatry, by which the fitting honour was withheld from Jehovah (Leviticus 26:40; Deuteronomy 32:51; Joshua 22:16), or by infringing upon His rights, abstracting something that rightfully belonged to Him. Thus in Joshua 7:1; Joshua 22:20, it is applied to fraud in relation to that which had been put under the ban; and in Numbers 5:12, Numbers 5:27,it is also applied to a married woman's unfaithfulness to her husband: so that sin was called מעל, when regarded as a violation of existing rights. "The holy things of Jehovah" were the holy gifts, sacrifices, first-fruits, tithes, etc., which were to be offered to Jehovah, and were assigned by Him to the priests for their revenue (see Leviticus 21:22). חטא with מן is constructio praegnans: to sin in anything by taking away from Jehovah that which belonged to Him. בּשׁגגה, in error (see Leviticus 4:2): i.e., in a forgetful or negligent way. Whoever sinned in this way was to offer to the Lord as his guilt (see Leviticus 5:6) a ram from the flock without blemish for a trespass-offering (lit., guilt-offering), according to the estimate of Moses, whose place was afterwards taken by the officiating priest (Leviticus 27:12; Numbers 18:16). שׁקלים כּסף "money of shekels," i.e., several shekels in amount, which Abenezra and others have explained, no doubt correctly, as meaning that the ram was to be worth more than one shekel, two shekels at least. The expression is probably kept indefinite, for the purpose of leaving some margin for the valuation, so that there might be a certain proportion between the value of the ram and the magnitude of the trespass committed (see Oehler ut sup. p. 645). "In the holy shekel:" see Exodus 30:13. At the same time, the culprit was to make compensation for the fraud committed in the holy thing, and add a fifth (of the value) over, as in the case of the redemption of the first-born, of the vegetable tithe, or of what had been vowed to God (Leviticus 27:27, Leviticus 27:31, and Leviticus 27:13, Leviticus 27:15, Leviticus 27:19). The ceremony to be observed in the offering of the ram is described in Leviticus 7:1. It was the same as that of the sin-offerings, whose blood was not brought into the holy place, except with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, and in this the trespass-offering resembled the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.

The second case (Leviticus 5:17-19), from its very position between the other two, which both refer to the violation of rights, must belong to the same category; although the sin is introduced with the formula used in Leviticus 4:27 in connection with those sins which were to be expiated by a sin-offering. But the violation of right can only have consisted in an invasion of Jehovah's rights with regard to Israel, and not, as Knobel supposes, in an invasion of the rights of private Israelites, as distinguished from the priests; an antithesis of which there is not the slightest indication. This is evident from the fact, that the case before us is linked on to the previous one without anything intervening; whereas the next case, which treats of the violation of the rights of a neighbour, is separated by a special introductory formula. The expression, "and wist it not," refers to ignorance of the sin, and not of the divine commands; as may be clearly seen from Leviticus 5:18 : "the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his error, which he committed without knowing it." The trespass-offering was the same as in the former case, and was also to be valued by the priest; but no compensation is mentioned, probably because the violation of right, which consisted in the transgression of one of the commands of God, was of such a kind as not to allow of material compensation. The third case (Leviticus 6:1-7) is distinguished from the other two by a new introductory formula. The sin and unfaithfulness to Jehovah are manifested in this case in a violation of the rights of a neighbour. "If a man deny to his neighbour (כּחשׁ with a double ב obj., to deny a thing to a person) a pikkadon (i.e., a deposit, a thing entrusted to him to keep, Genesis 41:36), or יד תּשׂוּמת, "a thing placed in his hand" (handed over to him as a pledge) "or גּזל, a thing robbed" (i.e., the property of a neighbour unjustly appropriated, whether a well, a field, or cattle, Genesis 21:25; Micah 2:2; Job 24:2), "or if he have oppressed his neighbour" (i.e., forced something from him or withheld it unjustly, Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14; Joshua 12:8; Malachi 3:5), "or have found a lost thing and denies it, and thereby swears to his lie" (i.e., rests his oath upon a lie), "on account of one of all that a man is accustomed to do to sin therewith:" the false swearing here refers not merely to a denial of what is found, but to all the crimes mentioned, which originated in avarice and selfishness, but through the false swearing became frauds against Jehovah, adding guilt towards God to the injustice done to the neighbour, and requiring, therefore, not only that a material restitution should be made to the neighbour, but that compensation should be made to God as well. Whatever had been robbed, or taken by force, or entrusted or found, and anything about which a man had sworn falsely (Leviticus 6:4, Leviticus 6:5), was to be restored "according to its sum" (cf. Exodus 30:12; Numbers 1:2, etc.), i.e., in its full value; beside which, he was to "add its fifths" (on the plural, see Ges. 87, 2; Ew. 186 e), i.e., in every one of the things abstracted or withheld unjustly the fifth part of the value was to be added to the full amount (as in Leviticus 5:16). "To him to whom it (belongs), shall he give it" אשׁמתו בּיום: in the day when he makes atonement for his trespass, i.e., offers his trespass-offering. The trespass (guilt) against Jehovah was to be taken away by the trespass-offering according to the valuation of the priest, as in Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 5:16, and Leviticus 5:18, that he might receive expiation and forgiveness on account of what he had done.

If now, in order to obtain a clear view of the much canvassed difference between the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings,

(Note: For the different views, see Bhr's Symbolik; Winer's bibl. R. W.; Kurtz on Sacrificial Worship; Riehm, theol. Stud. und Krit. 1854, pp. 93ff.; Rinck, id. 1855, p. 369; Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.)

we look at once at the other cases, for which trespass-offerings were commanded in the law; we find in Numbers 5:5-8 not only a trespass against Jehovah, but an unjust withdrawal of the property of a neighbour, clearly mentioned as a crime, for which material compensation was to be made with the addition of a fifth of its value, just as in Leviticus 5:2-7 of the present chapter. So also the guilt of a man who had lain with the slave of another (Leviticus 19:20-22) did not come into the ordinary category of adultery, but into that of an unjust invasion of the domain of another's property; though in this case, as the crime could not be estimated in money, instead of material compensation being made, a civil punishment (viz., bodily scourging) was to be inflicted; and for the same reason nothing is said about the valuation of the sacrificial ram. Lastly, in the trespass-offerings for the cleansing of a leper (Leviticus 14:12.), or of a Nazarite who had been defiled by a corpse (Numbers 6:12), it is true we cannot show in what definite way the rights of Jehovah were violated (see the explanation of these passages), but the sacrifices themselves served to procure the restoration of the persons in question to certain covenant rights which they had lost; so that even here the trespass-offering, for which moreover only a male sheep was demanded, was to be regarded as a compensation or equivalent for the rights to be restored. From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass-offering,

(Note: Even in the case of the trespass-offering, which those who had taken heathen wives offered at Ezra's instigation (Ezra 10:18.), it had reference to a trespass (cf. vv. 2 and 10), an act of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, which demanded satisfaction. And so again the Philistines (1 Samuel 6:3.), when presenting gifts as a trespass-offering for Jehovah, rendered satisfaction for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the covenant.)

and the ritual also points to this. The animal sacrificed was always a ram, except in the cases mentioned in Leviticus 14:12. and Numbers 6:12. This fact alone clearly distinguishes the trespass-offerings from the sin-offerings, for which all kinds of sacrifices were offered from an ox to a pigeon, the choice of the animal being regulated by the position of the sinner and the magnitude of his sin. But they are distinguished still more by the fact, that in the case of all the sin-offerings the blood was to be put upon the horns of the altar, or even taken into the sanctuary itself, whereas the blood of the trespass-offerings, like that of the burnt and peace-offerings, was merely swung against the wall of the altar (Leviticus 7:2). Lastly, they were also distinguished by the fact, that in the trespass-offering the ram was in most instances to be valued by the priest, not for the purpose of determining its actual value, which could not vary very materially in rams of the same kind, but to fix upon it symbolically the value of the trespass for which compensation was required. Hence there can be no doubt, that as the idea of the expiation of sin, which was embodied in the sprinkling of the blood, was most prominent in the sin-offering; so the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights that had been violated or disturbed came into the foreground in the trespass-offering. This satisfaction was to be actually made, wherever the guilt admitted of a material valuation, by means of payment or penance; and in addition to this, the animal was raised by the priestly valuation into the authorized bearer of the satisfaction to be rendered to the rights of God, through the sacrifice of which the culprit could obtain the expiation of his guilt.

Links
Leviticus 6:10 Interlinear
Leviticus 6:10 Parallel Texts


Leviticus 6:10 NIV
Leviticus 6:10 NLT
Leviticus 6:10 ESV
Leviticus 6:10 NASB
Leviticus 6:10 KJV

Leviticus 6:10 Bible Apps
Leviticus 6:10 Parallel
Leviticus 6:10 Biblia Paralela
Leviticus 6:10 Chinese Bible
Leviticus 6:10 French Bible
Leviticus 6:10 German Bible

Bible Hub






Leviticus 6:9
Top of Page
Top of Page