Probably, or definitely, that it is baseless to speak about freewill in Leviticus.
A very specific, potentially much rarely used, word – “Command” appears in Leviticus 6:9. Here, The Lord said to Moses to “command” Aarons etc. etc. This specific word is rarely used in the Old Testament in so far that it was used very specifically in a directive “do this” kind of speech.
As we move on to Leviticus 6:24-25, again, the Lord said to Moses, and that Moses’ audience would be Aaron and his sons. The word used here is “speak”.
In simplistic comparison of the two words, command gives the receivers little room for negotiation, let alone acceptance. “Speak” sounds like passing on information, it might convey a sense of conversation and dialogue taking place. And “speak” can also convey intention to find out responses, where “speak” has the embedded fuller meanings of “speak to find out”. “Speak” is not as far as “ask”. “Speak” is its own aim, its agenda already set, there is either space and time for feedback, or even negotiation on the terms of the agenda.
Does use of “speak” imply less of “command”, between verse 25 and verse 9? That is difficult to say, whether the presence of change of sentencing or word indicates change of meaning, and whether this change of meaning indeed portrays a different intention is probably a purely academic venture that only the author of Leviticus can explain.
The change of wording, however, has some significance. Why use “command” earlier, and now “speak”, when the instructions are of the same nature (burnt offering, sin offering).
I do think it’s worth pondering that perhaps the context indeed differed between v9 and v25.
Alternatively, I might have over-read the text.
Pursueing the likely intention of a change of tone from “command” to “speak”, the uncertainty is where there is room for “negotiate”, what that “room” is. It cannot be the instructions and principles of the sin offering.
It also cannot be that the “command” one is more serious, less so the “speak” one. So, the change should not be about the steps and principle of the ritual.
Perhaps there is no prescribed “terms of negotiation”. Of all the “free” will that we have, it is still under the created order of God’s design for us as human. Some of what we do and say will grief God the Father intensely, but that is not beyond our capacity as human, God can be “surprised” but in fullness of who he is, he is “not surprise”.
With only the original text to work from, and with no further material to back back the proposal here, I would suggest that there is a sense of freewill – for us humans – to obey the fullness of the rituals. “Commands” can be undertaken grudgingly. Instructions given via “speak” can also be done in the same way, grudgingly. However, freewill is tested that we deliberately willingly undertake what is desired from God.
