Fuller and Choi’s Invitation to Biblical Hebrew

Russell T. Fuller and Kyoungwon Choi, Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: A Beginning Grammar, Invitation to Theological Studies. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006. 364 pp. $49.00.

Warning: the use of this grammar could revolutionize the study of Hebrew. Follow all instructions. Use only if the desire is to learn the language. Mix with diligence to achieve desired result: ability to read Hebrew.

Kregel is to be congratulated, and Russell Fuller is to be praised for this pioneering approach to the study of Hebrew. Kregel has published not only the text of Invitation to Biblical Hebrew produced by Fuller and Choi, but also a set of six DVDs containing two semesters’ worth of lectures through the grammar. What ignites the use of the grammar and the DVDs, however, is undoubtedly the workbook. The grammar gives the student the raw data. The DVDs present Fuller lecturing through the grammar. And the workbook—if used—will drill students on the material until the fundamentals of the language are instinctive for them. Grammar, DVDs, workbook: an explosive combination.

Fuller and Choi honed this material through years of classroom use. This reviewer studied under Fuller and Choi as they were perfecting the material, and the method they use is the method that I now use to take my own students through the first year of Hebrew. The procedure looks like this: before coming to class, students are to read the chapter on their own. Having read the chapter, they then watch Fuller lecture on the material on the DVD. At that point, the student is ready to review the chapter. At the end of each chapter is a series of carefully crafted questions. In order to answer these questions, the student must not only regurgitate but be able to use the information presented in the chapter. Questions like these are priceless. They put information into action. Once the student can answer the questions, there is a set of drills waiting at the end of the chapter in the text of the grammar. These drills strategically review material from previous chapters, while pounding home the material from the present chapter. The student comes to class with a working knowledge of the material, hears the professor lecture on the material again, and then moves to the workbook. In the workbook is another set of drills designed to reinforce the material.

Working through the material this way takes the student again and again through the material. Basketball players who do their dribble drills over and over find that the basketball becomes an extension of their hand. Students of Hebrew who faithfully work through this material find that the fundamentals of the Hebrew language become part of the furniture of their minds.

The process may seem extensive and demanding, but the process gives students a real shot at learning a very foreign, very difficult language. Moreover, this process, however intense, is much less painful than the stress produced by other methods which do not drill the material enough for the student to actually learn what is necessary to be able to read.

Theoretically, this method could be used by those not enrolled in a Hebrew course at an institution. Everything necessary to learn the language on one’s own is provided. Thanks to Fuller and Choi, anyone with the time and discipline to consistently go after the material can learn to read Hebrew.

There are all manner of debates among Hebrew grammarians as to the best approach to learning the language: should students proceed inductively or be forced to memorize a bevy of paradigms, does modern linguistics provide a magic potion or is the older approach that compares Hebrew to Arabic and other ancient languages more reliable, and on and on. Fuller and Choi dedicate their work to Isaac Jerusalmi of Hebrew Union College, which will alert those aware of these things to the school of thought to which they belong. The student who comes to this grammar will neither be daunted by a bevy of paradigms nor thrown over the cliff of sheer induction. Rather, by combining the fundamentals of the language with a core of memorization, the student comes to understand how the vowel system works in both nouns and verbs. Whatever one’s perspective on the various debates among Hebrew grammarians, for the student, the method of this grammar, with its brilliant drills, make it the best approach to learning Hebrew. These drills were produced by a beautiful mind and reflect the greatness of a teacher who cares enough for his students to push them to understand the material. Thus, the drills, as with the questions at the end of the chapters, challenge students not only to reproduce the material but master it.

Great teachers, like great coaches, emphasize the fundamentals. Russell Fuller and Kyoungwon Choi understand the fundamentals of the Hebrew language, and their grammar presents these fundamentals in systematic detail. With the systematic detail come an array of pithy mnemonic devices that make the learning of a difficult language fun. One is tempted to call Russell Fuller the John Wooden of Hebrew teachers.

Graham A. Cole, He Who Gives Life

Graham A. Cole’s new book, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, arrived on my doorstep just a few minutes ago.

Given my work on this topic, I went straight to his Excursus where he asks, “Were OT Believers Regenerate?,” and I was pleased to find that he holds the position that “OT saints were regenerated but not indwelt by the Spirit” (145). This is exactly the position that I argue for, though it seems my argument appeared too late for him to interact with the book length treatment (he cites only my Trinity Journal article, a short version of which became chapter 2).

It’s extremely encouraging to find that I agree with this important book, and I’m eager to read his excursus on whether the gifts have ceased. You’ll want to get a copy for yourself.

May this book help you know the Spirit who indeed gives life!

Interview with Preston Sprinkle on Leviticus 18:5

Mike Bird recently alerted us to Preston Sprinkle’s dissertation, which will soon appear in the WUNT series.

Preston is an outfielder who loves to hit the fastball, who left the paradise of the baseball field to do his BA and MDiv at the Master’s College and Seminary. From there he went to the University of Aberdeen for a PhD under Simon Gathercole. Dr. Sprinkle now teaches at Cedarville University. He graciously answered these questions for us.

Before we get into your dissertation, could you briefly describe how you came to faith, how you were led to Master’s and Aberdeen, and how you landed on your dissertation topic?

I was one of those typical quasi church kids that had one foot in the world and the other in church. I maintained this posture until I went to San Diego to play college ball (baseball). College ball + 18 years old + away from home, living on my own with a bunch of guys = well, a life of sin. I spiraled down this sinful path for a couple of years until a friend of mine said, “Preston, you say you’re a Christian but you sure don’t act like it! This cut me hard and deep. So I left San Diego and returned to Fresno (where I was from) and started over, as a Christian.

After a year in Fresno, I was able by God’s grace to attend the Master’s College (I came in as a junior). I had listen to MacArthur on the radio a lot during that last year, so I was thrilled to go to Master’s. My two years there were some of the best years of my life, ending with a semester in the land of Israel studying the land and the Bible. After college, I knew I wanted to teach at the college level, so I went to Seminary (in the Master’s culture, there really is only one Seminary, so there wasn’t much of a choice—I didn’t even know of other Seminaries except the Master’s Seminary). I enjoyed 3 ½ years at Master’s Seminary. I got sick of course-work but I LOVED to research and write. So I went on to Aberdeen University for my PhD, mainly because 1) it was research driven, and 2) I really wanted to study under Simon Gathercole.

As for my dissertation topic, I really wanted to do something on Paul and the Law, but it seemed that there was nothing left to do. So I emailed Tom Schreiner and he suggested Lev 18:5. Simon gave it a thought, and—against the advice of Graham Stanton—he said, “It’s a go.” I was not disappointed; it was a wonderful topic that kept my interest for 3 years.

What question did your dissertation ask and answer?

My dissertation was more of a descriptive pursuit. That is, I sought to describe how early Judaism (200BC-AD100) understood Lev 18: 5 [ESV Leviticus 18:5 “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.”], how Paul understood it, then compare the two. I didn’t set out with a conclusion in mind, nor was I seeking to even prove/find a certain answer. I just wanted to understand Early Judaism and its attraction to this verse, and why Paul opposed it without elaboration.

Do you see a distinction between what Leviticus 18:5 means in Leviticus and how it is interpreted later in the Old Testament?

Yes, sort of. The verse is actually very difficult to understand in Leviticus (Anyone who thinks there is a clear-cut meaning has not really understood the issues, in my opinion!) I think that in Leviticus, to “live by them” (18:5) means to enjoy the covenantal blessing of life as a result of doing the “statutes and ordinances” of the LORD (18:3-4).

This would be the general understanding of Ezekiel (20:11, 13, 21), but for him “life” is connected to the dry bones passage in Ezek 37, where the Spirit (of life!) breathes life into the dead nation and brings them back into the land. What is significant in Ezekiel is that Lev 18:5, according to the prophet, focuses on human agency, “which if a person does, he will have life by them.” But this is not how eschatological life is attained. Life comes through divine agency, through the Spirit of life who revives a dead nation. (NOTE: I don’t think Ezekiel is speaking of an afterlife at this point).

Do you see a distinction between what Leviticus 18:5 means in the Old Testament and how it is interpreted in extra-biblical Jewish literature?

There is no “one” view of Lev 18:5 in Jewish Lit, though in the majority of texts the passage is understood as referring to eternal life, which is gained as a result of doing the commandments (whether it be the law of the Lord [Pss.Sol. 14:2-3] or the sectarian halachah of Qumran [CD 3:15-16, et al.]). Other than this aspect of eternal life, instead of just the covenant blessing of life (which is more earthly and temporal), the focus on human agency remains: it is the person/man who does these things who will gain life as a result/reward.

Some interpreters conclude that Paul is not disputing a misinterpretation of the law but with the law itself. Would you agree?

Not sure if these are the only options. I would say it’s a bit of both. I guess the simplest way to put it is this: Paul believed that Lev 18:5 was an expression of the Old Covenant (which as a conditional, “if…then” structure), while the Gospel of Christ (the New Covenant, if you will) is more unilateral—I will circumcise your hearts (Deut 30:6); “I will breathe life into you, though you are dead” (Ezek 36-37). So I would say that Paul’s opponents understood the unilateral Gospel through a more conditional framework. Moreover, in Galatians, the emphasis on the temporality of the law is at the forefront (more than in Rom 10). So not only is the Old Covenant framework inadequate, but it is also outdated.

If Paul is disputing with the law itself (for instance, when he says “the law is not from faith” in Gal 3:12), does this imply that Moses taught salvation by works to Israel?

“If you don’t do these things, you will not enjoy the covenant blessing of life.” This is pretty standard Deuteronomic teaching (cf. Deut 30). But I’m not sure if I would equate the covenant blessing of “life” with our modern understanding of “salvation.” This would take a lot of time to tease out so let me just describe it like this. When the prophets looked forward to God’s restoration (His eschatological salvation, if you will) they looked beyond the Deuteronomic “if…then” paradigm: God will unilaterally and unconditionally redeem Israel. So to foist the old “if…then” (Old Covenant) paradigm upon the newness of God’s eschatological act would be going against the grain of not only the prophets but against the very structure of the Gospel itself.

In your view, does Leviticus 18:5 require that a member of the old covenant remnant achieve perfect obedience to the law? What role does the sacrificial system play?

No. I think that the “perfect obedience” view is extremely hard to hold. I would say, rather, “comprehensive” or “blameless” obedience. For instance, in 1 Kings we read that, “…David walked in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded” (1 Kgs 9:4), that David’s heart was “fully devoted to the LORD his God” (1 Kgs 11:4), and that he “followed the LORD fully” (1 Kgs 11:6). So, according to the Bible, you can lust after a woman who is not your wife, have sex with her, kill her husband, then be confronted, repent and confess your sin to the LORD, and then be described as having walked in integrity of heart, having done all that the LORD commanded, and have been fully devoted to the LORD.

You get the point. I just think that the perfect obedience view has just not understood what it means to be “blameless” and “upright” in OT terms. And, of course, Paul never says that the law required perfect (sinless) obedience, just comprehensive obedience.

Are perfect obedience and the sacrificial system misunderstood in the extra-biblical Jewish literature you studied? If so, what do you think led to the misunderstandings?

I don’t think that the majority of Early Jewish literature understood that the law required perfect obedience either. At least in Pss.Sol. you’ve got a lot of talk about the righteous who backslide into sin, and then the LORD pricks them and gets them back on track. Yet they are still righteous.

In Romans 10 and Galatians 3, is Paul describing what the law demanded before Christ came or what it demands now that Christ has been crucified and raised? Is this “salvation historical” distinction a helpful way to approach the question?

I think to some extent yes. But I think that the one flaw of a purely salvation-historical view is that it sees the problem as merely a temporal one—the clock strikes twelve, so it’s time to move on to something new. Paul seems to see the difference between faith and law more in terms of the inherent soteriological structure of each program. Again, I would put this in terms of the different paradigms of Deuteronomic (“you circumcise your hearts”) and prophetic (“I will circumcise your hearts”) (most would read this last phrase, which comes from Deut 30:6, as an expression of prophetic, not typical Mosaic, theology).

Can you describe how your conclusions relate to the work of E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright?

And this, of course, is the question isn’t it! In my thesis—which if you can gather is not, for the most part, in agreement with the NPP—the main thing that I found is that there is more discontinuity between the soteriological framework of early Judaism and Paul than what these scholars allow (esp. Dunn). I think that it is quite trendy in the wake of Sanders and Dunn to want to stitch together Paul and Judaism in a way that one can slide from one to the other very easily. Now I do think that there is much more similarity between Paul and Judaism than, say, what Bultmann and others have said. But I do think that Paul’s doctrine of the “Justification of the ungodly” would not have been looked upon very positively by even the Qumranites (who are often attributed as having the same framework as Paul). And their respective interpretations of Lev 18:5 is proof. Lev 18:5 was the “John 3:16 of Early Judaism,” but for Paul it expressed a soteriological framework that was much different (to say the least) than Hab 2:4 and others.

Can you describe how your conclusions relate to the work of Francis Watson, Mark Seifrid, and Seyoon Kim?

My work comes very close to Francis Watson. In fact, his book, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, comes to virtually the same conclusions. Seifrid seems much more Lutheran than I am, though he has given me a lot to wrestle with, especially in regards to Early Judaism. And Kim? There is really not much in Kim that I would agree with, at least with regard to the law. He’s a strong advocate of the perfect obedience view, which is fine I guess, but he just doesn’t argue it persuasively. Also, I might add Stephen Westerholm. His work is also very close to mine. I would say that my dissertation is a blend of Watson, Westerholm, with a shot of Gathercole here and there, of course!

Can you describe how your conclusions relate to the work of Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and Simon Gathercole?

Closest to Gathercole. Moo would be next, though he still holds to a more classic “legalism” and “perfect obedience” view that neither I (nor Gathercole, Watson, Westerholm) do. But a vigorous scholar indeed! I would say that Schreiner is about where Moo is at on most issues. But I find it so hard to say anything that can be even remotely negative about Schreiner and his work, since he is the godliest scholar I have ever met. At the end of the day, he gets it. He REALLY gets it, and I’m not talking about just views on Paul and the law…

Will your work appear in the (much more affordable) series from Baker where some WUNT volumes have been published?

I sure hope so. If anyone knows how to go about this, please let me know!

————–
Hearty thanks, Preston!

Preston has graciously given me permission to post his email in case anyone wants to follow up with him on any of these issues. You can reach him at prestonsprinkle@cedarville.edu.

Anyone interested in my own take on these issues can check out this short essay.

Amen to Moore on Schreiner’s Commentary and Character

Dr. Russ Moore pays a nice tribute to my Ph.D. mentor, Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner, with which I couldn’t agree more. I often say that I think I learned more from Dr. Schreiner listening to his preaching at Clifton Baptist Church and interacting with him there than I did at SBTS. Not that I didn’t learn a ton from him at school, it was just so heartening to hear this famous New Testament scholar preach the Bible–he really believes it! And through all his work shines a sincere love for the Lord and his people.

Some scholars dispute almost everything they hear, but Dr. Schreiner often demonstrates the humility necessary to agree with and learn from other people. Sometimes people like to maintain a certain mystique, but Dr. Schreiner is disarmingly approachable, often insisting that he is just an ordinary person. Some scholars pursue their work without reference to the church, not so with Schreiner.

I could go on and on, but I praise God for everything I learned about doing scholarship and life for the glory of God from Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner.

Interview with Wellum on Infant Baptism

I have heard nothing but great things about Steve Wellum’s chapter in Believer’s Baptism. Perhaps the most rave review of it that I personally heard was from one of the stay-at-home moms in our church!

I don’t know that a theologian could get a higher compliment than that: a stay-at-home mom devoured what he had written and loves to talk about how that piece of theological writing helped her understanding. Praise God!

Anyway, Justin Taylor has now interviewed Dr. Wellum on these issues, and I commend both the chapter and this interchange to you for your careful consideration.

The Cross Centered Life

If you’re near Oak Ridge Baptist Church here in the Houston area, you might be interested in coming out this Friday night for some dessert and coffee. After the refreshments, I’ll be preaching on “The Cross Centered Life” from 1 Corinthians 1:17-31.

If you plan to go, please give them a call at (281) 367-9721 or email Brad Heller (bheller@orbchurch.org) so they’ll know how much dessert to prepare. The church is located at 26569 Hanna Road, Oak Ridge North TX 77385. Dessert will be served at 6:30pm, Friday, September 7, 2007, and I’ll speak after dessert.

Hope to see you there!

The Heaven Book

What would it be like to have a grandfather who, as a drew near to death, had virtually everything the Bible indicates about the next life on the tip of his tongue?

What would it be like to listen to an aged man with so much Bible flowing from his lips help his grandson understand the death of his wife (his grandson’s grandmother)?

What would it be like to listen to this man prepare his grandson for the day when he (his grandson’s grandfather) draws near to death?

What would it be like to hear him tell his grandson that he’s ready to stand before the Lord because Christ is his only hope in life and in death?

Now, in a sense, you don’t have to wonder what that would be like. Randy Alcorn has given us a book that depicts just such a grandfather having these kinds of conversations with his grandson.

Tell Me About Heaven is classified as “juvenile fiction,” so my three year old son no doubt missed much of the book’s rich content. Nevertheless, as we made our way through it, every night he was eager to read “The Heaven Book.”

As the years go by, we’ll revisit this one, and I hope that when I come to die I can speak so freely on what the Bible says about heaven as the grandfather in this book does.

What a God! What a gospel! What a Savior! Hallelujah!

Thanks to Randy Alcorn for this moving story, and thanks to Ron DiCianni for the beautiful illustrations that held my three year old’s attention!

Articular Infinitives, Ontological Equality, and Functional Subordination

The second to last paragraph of my review of Denny Burk’s book now reads like this:

Burk shows the crucial difference a right understanding of articular infinitives makes using five texts as examples: Mark 9:10, Acts 25:11, Romans 13:8, Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 10:31. Among these examples, Philippians 2:6 bears the most theological weight, so the fruit of Burk’s study for understanding this text will be briefly considered here. N. T. Wright follows BDF in the opinion that the article with the infinitive in the final phrase of Philippians 2:6, “the being equal with God,” is an anaphoric article pointing back to the initial phrase of the verse, “the form of God.” On this understanding, “being equal with God” is equivalent to or synonymous with “the form of God.” But if, as Burk argues, the article is not anaphoric but appears as a grammatical necessity, marking the components of the double accusative construction, “equality with God” is not connected to “the form of God.” Rather, the articular infinitive designates “the being equal with God” as the object, whose complement is “a thing to be grasped” in the double accusative construction. Burk thus renders the sense of the verse as, “Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God as something he should go after also” (139). The payoff, then, of Burk’s careful grammatical investigation is that Philippians 2:6 affirms the ontological equality of Father and Son while maintaining the functional subordination of the Son, even in his pre-existent state (cf. 139–40 n. 46).

Denny Burk on Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament

Denny Burk, Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament: On the Exegetical Benefit of Grammatical Precision, New Testament Monographs, 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. 179 pp. $55.00, cloth.

A. T. Robertson, perhaps the most learned Greek Grammarian ever to trod American soil, once roamed the hallowed halls of Southern Seminary. Though long dead, his book still speaks, and by the grace of God, his Baptist descendants still care about the language he loved. Denny Burk, who now teaches at The Criswell College, has given testimony to the verse inscribed on the dedication page of the volume under review here: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). This conviction drove Burk to write a doctoral dissertation at Southern Seminary on Articular Infinitives, and a revised version of that dissertation has appeared under the title, Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament. 

Having studied under Dan Wallace at Dallas Seminary, Burk completed this work under the careful supervision of Tom Schreiner. The book was subsequently published in a series edited by Stanley Porter, who oversaw the process of revision for publication. There is something of a debate in grammatical circles between the Wallace/Fanning and Porter/Carson camps, and Burk’s work benefits from input from both sides. Burk begins with a simple, elegant, even fun(!) introduction to modern linguistics. When he describes the history of research, Burk shows that the use of the article with infinitives has been overestimated when one considers its semantic value (the way it adds to the meaning of the word) and underestimated when one considers its structural meaning (the syntactic contribution the article makes to a phrase). His statement of methodology should be read by anyone who plans to argue a thesis. 

In chapter 2 Burk explains what his thesis means. He argues that the article is a function word, not a content word, and that it is used with the infinitive to mark the infinitive’s case and function, not to substantivize the infinitive or have semantic value as a “determiner.” That is, to use one of Burk’s illustrations, the article is part of the mortar that holds the bricks of the sentence together. When the article is used with the infinitive, its only significance is syntactic: it makes explicit a grammatical or structural relation, but it does not substantivize the infinitive or determine it as definite. Burk observes that the 324 articular infinitives in the New Testament fall into two broad categories: 200 of these are governed by a preposition, and 124 of them are not governed by a preposition. Chapter 3 deals with those that do not follow prepositions, and chapter 4 examines those that do. In chapter 3 the argument is that the article with the infinitive “marks” two grammatical features: the case of the infinitive and/or its particular syntactical function. With nominatives and accusatives, the article marks the infinitive’s case, designating it as either the subject or the object. With genitives and datives, the article marks the infinitive with meanings associated with these cases. Chapter 4 shows that “the article is grammatically obligatory when an infinitive serves as the object of the preposition” (77). Burk holds that the cases control the use of prepositions, and the articles used with infinitives mark the case of those prepositions. Having tested his thesis against every occurrence of the articular infinitive in the New Testament, in chapter 5, Burk tests his conclusions from the New Testament against the Greek of the Septuagint. Burk’s ability to explain all apparent exceptions to his thesis makes his work particularly compelling. 

The exegetical significance of this study is presented in chapter 7, where Burk first discusses the implications his work has for the study of Greek grammar, then demonstrates its benefit for the interpretation of the New Testament. Helpful visual aids are scattered throughout the volume, and the study concludes with an important set of Tables organizing the articular infinitives found in the New Testament and other Greek literature. 

Burk shows the crucial difference a right understanding of articular infinitives makes using five texts as examples: Mark 9:10, Acts 25:11, Romans 13:8, Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 10:31. Among these examples, Philippians 2:6 bears the most theological weight, so the fruit of Burk’s study for understanding this text will be briefly considered here. N. T. Wright follows BDF in the opinion that the article with the infinitive in the final phrase of Philippians 2:6, “the being equal with God,” is an anaphoric article pointing back to the initial phrase of the verse, “the form of God.” On this understanding, “being equal with God” is equivalent to or synonymous with “the form of God.” But if, as Burk argues, the article is not anaphoric but appears as a grammatical necessity, marking the components of the double accusative construction, “equality with God” is not connected to “the form of God.” Rather, the articular infinitive designates “the being equal with God” as the object, whose complement is “a thing to be grasped” in the double accusative construction. Burk thus renders the sense of the verse as, “Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God as something he should go after also” (139). The payoff, then, of Burk’s careful grammatical investigation is that Philippians 2:6 affirms the ontological equality of Father and Son while maintaining the functional subordination of the Son, even in his pre-existent state (cf. 139–40 n. 46). 

This is a profoundly significant book born out of devotion to the Scriptures and sound theology. All future study of this issue will benefit from Burk’s work, and every Greek grammar written from this day forth will stand on the shoulders of this slim volume that makes a giant contribution. Perhaps more significant than the precision in understanding that this book gives to grammarians and scholars is the fruit it will bear in the preaching of the word. Thanks to the patient, careful study done by Denny Burk, anyone who wants to understand this feature of the Greek language need only take up his book and read.