John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 6:25

"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 Jehovah: it is most holy." — Leviticus 6:25 (ASV)

Speak unto Aaron. We see everywhere how carefully God provided that the people should have no doubts about anything. And certainly, true religion is distinguished from false imaginations by this distinctive mark: that God Himself prescribes what is to be done. Nor can certainty, though religion ought to be based upon it, be derived from any other source than His own mouth.

Now, because there was a difference between burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, it would have been natural to kill them separately in different places, unless this potential error had been anticipated. But all doubt is removed when God assigns the same place to them both. From this, too, we gather that one law is sufficient for the proper worship of God, if people are not wise in their own conceits but depend on His mouth.

For how did it happen that, while these two kinds of offerings differed from each other, the rule concerning them was the same on this point, except because it so pleased God? This passage, therefore, sufficiently reminds us with how great sober-mindedness and modesty we should follow what is pointed out to us in God’s word.

A reason, however, is at the same time added, which may invite reverence to be paid to the sin-offerings, when special sanctity is attributed to them, which, according to the idiom of the Hebrew language, is called “holiness of holinesses.”

Moreover, Moses begins to distinguish between חטאה, chateah,²⁸¹ and אשם, asham, which the Latins translate peccatum and delictum, though he had previously used them indifferently to express the same thing. What the difference was, I confess, I do not know; I see the guesses of others, but nothing certain.

²⁸¹ A. V., “The sin-offering and the trespass-offering.” Michaelis has affirmed that the former was a sacrifice for sins of commission, and the latter for sins of omission: but the Hebrew lexicographer, J. Simons, has observed that this distinction is by no means compatible with the text in all instances. Professor James Robertson, “Clavis Pentat.,” in a note on ., “The sin-offering and the trespass-offering.” Michaelis has affirmed that the former was a sacrifice for sins of commission, and the latter for sins of omission: but the Hebrew lexicographer, J. Simons, has observed that this distinction is by no means compatible with the text in all instances. Professor James Robertson, “Clavis Pentat.,” in a note on Leviticus 4:3, gives other opinions about the distinction, but expresses himself as most approving of that which supposes the first to be an offering for offenses against the First Table of the Decalogue: the second for those against the Second Table. — , gives other opinions about the distinction, but expresses himself as most approving of that which supposes the first to be an offering for offenses against the First Table of the Decalogue: the second for those against the Second Table. — W..