"wickedness" leaves us with no doubt as to its meaning. When the priests, in

II Chron. 29: 24, killed the goats and "made reconciliation with their blood upon the

altar", exactly the same word is used. Now you may be foolish enough to allow someone

to say, "Therefore the offering partakes of the nature of sin", but you will not allow them

to act upon this principle should they attempt to do so with the words "lend" and

"borrow". In the light of the examples already considered, are we not compelled to say

that these Hebrew words must represent two ideas instead of one?

In each case the truth is that instead of being identical the second word is exactly

A.--This is very puzzling; what is the explanation?

B.--You say this superficial fact is puzzling and ask for the explanation, and yet without

evidently the ability or the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue to test these rash statements,

you swallow these libels upon the God of all grace.

A.--I must confess that I know nothing of Hebrew; what I did was to verify the

statement that "sin" and "sin offering" were the same in the Hebrew. I now perceive

that the revolutionary doctrines I embraced may not rest upon such a solid basis as I had

B.--It is hardly a fitting time to attempt to initiate you into the composition of the

Hebrew verb, but you will appreciate something of its peculiarity when you know that

every Hebrew verb may have three forms: simple, intensive, and causative. They are

know as kal, piel, hiphil--why, I cannot here explain. They all have an active voice, and

may each have a corresponding passive and reflexive. Hence the scheme of the Hebrew

verb is:--

In this scheme two forms are wanting. They are made up by employing one of the

existing forms, but this need not trouble us just now.

I believe you possess Young's "Analytical Concordance", and if so you will find that

Dr. Young draws particular attention to the need for distinguishing these various parts of

the verb, saying:--