James D. Smart

Book Review: Interpreting the Gospels for PreachingInterpreting the Gospels for Preaching, by SmithD. Moody. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1980. 119 pp.

in this persecution. To make the Law the central focus is to import a Reformation theme where it does not belong and to force the sources to conform. This myopia about the Law is not, however, characteristic of the rest of Hengels work; and on balance it must be said to be a clear, even courageous, piece of writing which should encourage future study in this vein. We hope that the lack of argument for many of the positions taken in the book is a promise of fuller treatment at a later time.

4.50 (paper).

“Again and again in the history of the church, men have fallen into the rabbinic error of failing to distinguish between the word itself and the Scriptural witness and always with the same result, that some one interpretation of Scripture is regarded as final and mens ears are closed against any further word from God that might disturb or overturn their established viewpoint … God must have his freedom to judge all our interpretations and to point the way forward for his church.”

Scripture and the Confession of 1967

N SETTING Hebraism and Hellenism in contrast with each other, the primary intention is not to make a historical study of the differences between two ancient forms of faith and life but to clarify the significance of two all-important factors in the life of modern man. By Hebraism is meant not merely the faith and life of certain Hebrews in Old Testament times but also the consummation of that faith and life in Christianity. The preference for the term Hebraism instead of Christianity is because it is in its peculiarly Hebraic characteristics that Christianity stands most sharply contrasted with Hellenism, and it is when these, which are not accidental but essential characteristics, are allowed to fall into the background that the contradictions between Christianity and Hellenism are no longer clearly seen and confusion sets in. The effect of this fusion and confusion is what might be expected from the union of contradictories; the sharpness and uniqueness of both the Hebraic and the Hellenic tradition are lost, each being compromised with the other; truths are set forth in clothing which does not belong to them with a resultant hollowness and loss of faith; and an inner tension is set up, the hidden contradictions struggling to come to the surface. The attempt to disentangle Hebraism and Christianity from Hellenism is therefore no indication of a lack of appreciation for what the Greeks have done for mankind; ungrateful and ignorant of the elements which have gone to make up his own thought would be the man who disowned that indebtedness. The endeavor is made to recover an appreciation of each tradition in its uniqueness and undistorted by assimilation to the other.