Leviticus 2 gives the grain offering from the offerer's perspective; Leviticus 6 adds priestly eating rules and distinguishes the priest's own wholly burned grain offering. Reading both sections together shows one offering from two angles: what the worshiper brings and what the priests do with the memorial and remaining portion.

Genesis 4:3 calls Cain's produce gift a minchah; Leviticus 2 uses the same broad Hebrew offering/gift term as the technical label for its grain-offering instructions. This is strong lexical continuity without claiming the two rituals were identical.

Exodus 29 already coordinates the regular burnt offering with flour and oil, while Leviticus 2 gives detailed procedures for grain offerings within the same sanctuary system. The later law therefore develops an offering category already embedded in Exodus worship.

Leviticus 2 repeatedly uses pleasing-fragrance sacrificial language; Ephesians 5:2 applies fragrant-offering language to Christ's self-offering. This is strong reuse of broader sacrificial vocabulary, not proof that every ingredient in Leviticus 2 predicts Christ.

Both passages use flour and a memorial/token handful, but Leviticus 5 explicitly forbids oil and frankincense because this flour functions as a purification offering rather than an ordinary grain offering.