If you haven’t had the opportunity to listen to some of the lectures given by Richard Hays at Baylor University a few weeks ago let me encourage you to do so. I have already linked both audio and video here. In these lectures he challenges the modern approach to reading the Old Testament by taking a look at the christological lens through which the canonical Gospels present the Old Testament. In his opening lecture, “Can the Gospels Teach Us How to Read the Old Testament”, he says this:
“….many mainstream Protestant churches are, in fact, naively Marcionite in their theology and practice. In their worship services they have no Old Testament reading or if the Old Testament is read it’s rarely preached upon and indeed, in so far as Jewish tradition appears in preaching at all it is usually with a negative foil for the gospel, a legalistic religion from which Jesus has delivered us.”
I find it hard to disagree with this statement. I would say this isn’t limited to mainstream Protestants. We evangelicals have been influenced as well.
Do you see modern Protestant preaching as essentially Marcionite? If so, what can we do to change this?
the archives near Emmaus 
Use the Lectionary. 😉
Seriously, as a Pentecostal pastor, it’s what I’m using more and more.
Hey Brian,
Thanks for sharing this. As one with a great deal of interest in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, I am truly grieved by the lacuna of the Hebrew Bible in our formation of Christian Theology. When my wife and visit a church, I always grab my Greek New Testament and leave my Hebrew Bible (physical copy) at home. (I always have my BHS with me on my handy and elegant Accordance Bible App). I do this because 95% of the time, the sermon is from the new testament.
However, I am not sure if I would use the term Marcionite, unless there were a conscience statement of disgust for the theology manifest in the Hebrew Bible. Yet, I understand what Hayes is getting at here, and it is a handy word to use to express the chasm in our current churches.
I think his statement made a good point but I don’t think it is actually true. Instead, it seems that preaching from the NT is just easier so we preachers follow the path of least resistance (I’m one of them, sad to say…Hays stepped on my toes!). Also, I wonder if lack of study in OT may be a contributing factor. I’ve studied Greek quite a bit but I don’t know an aleph from a gimmel, thus I’m less likely to get excited about an OT text than I am a passage in the Synoptics.
I think Dan made a good point…using a lectionary or some schedule of texts may be helpful.
Definitely this quote is so true. In evangelical circles, the problem is theological in that many Evangelicals suggest reading the New Testament into the Old testament, and that’s how we get our hermeneutic. I use the method in reverse, for the Hebrew bible is a continuing story. But hey, that’s just me.
Rod’s point is well put, but we must also see that the early Church, first Jewish then also Gentile, read the Septuagint.. this was their “Bible”. And note too the so-called Apocrypha connection. And the Church too followed the order of the Biblical books in the LXX.
@Dan: The Lectionary could be an antidote.
@James: One is more likely to need a Greek text than a Hebrew text on Sunday, but as you noted, apps can help with that decision!
@Matthew: NT preaching is easier, but I wonder if this will expose a deficiency in our understanding of the NT. The OT is a huge part of the NT. It is very difficult to grasp much of the NT without knowing much of the OT.
@Rod: I like the idea of Christ in the middle with the OT and NT in a dynamic conversation over his person.
@Fr. Robert: Ah, the LXX! Now that brings up a whole new discussion.
I’d say lectionary, though I could probably be accused of bias there. Yet there are some problems as well. If you are only using it on Sunday, you can sometimes, though not always, lose continuity, unless you are encouring your folks to keep up with daily readings as well.
@Jeremy: Dan suggested the lectionary as well. I think Mark Stevens has used the lectionary recently as well in his preaching. This may be one very helpful solution.
I certainly think there’s a point to what Hays says here. But I wonder if a bigger problem in conservative evangelical circles isn’t too much attraction to certain elements of the OT, attraction to the “justice” of God understood in terms of law and violence. The deep cultural and social popularity of the ten commandments seem to bear this out.
I’d say the problem is more specific than avoidance of the OT as such. Rather evangelicals are too disposed to let the Law, the conquest, and the kings inform their understanding of God while ignoring the prophets, who we really should be listening to above all when we read the OT, for my money.
@Halden: It does seem that there are certain circles who used OT texts frequently, but they have a narrow focus. I agree that the OT must be read with the prophets in view. Before Jesus it was the prophets who were the greatest commentators on Torah.
I agree with Halden.
I think the “Prophets” should be given much greater place, as a helpful resource to see how the Torah was actually applied to the life of Israel; in anticipation and pointing to her telos, Jesus.
But I think Marcionite is too strong. It’s probably much more pragmatic than that. Typically what I have observed is that pastors, in general, are trying to provide applicational and ethical and even self-help sermons; and given the didactic nature of much of the NT (and the WWJD mentality taken to the Gospels), focusing on the NT makes sense nowadays (which I say unapprovingly).
Good insight Bobby. Yes, we loose if we miss the depth of the OT Prophets!
@Bobby: We may say that, in part, it is actually the art of preaching that has suffered as a whole which has implication for its neglect of the OT, yes?
@Brian,
Yeah, I think that’s probably even more on point! It seems like many pastors sit down with the Text, with a set of questions, shaped by what they perceive to be the “real life” issues which their congregants are probably facing. It’s kind’ve theological pelagianism (sorry, I don’t normally like to cuss like that 😉 ).
It’s so easy to be a know it all on these blogs 🙂 (I say to self, because I think the Holy Spirit just convicted me).
@Irish,
Thanks. Just piggy-backing on Halden’s point.
Excellent post, Brian, which I am, unfortunately, just now seeing.
I love the direction Hays sends us. I hope others quibble over his rhetorical reference to Marcion. The thrust of his point is that there is more to learn of Jesus in the Scriptures – what a wonderful truth of which to be reminded!
And his more subtle point, that we could best learn how to understand the OT by listening more carefully to those who wrote the NT (having been schooled by the Lord Himself) will keep us from many false understandings. I have no problem when people consult the Reformers, but when they do so to the exclusion of the apostles I think errors can result.
@Mike: Indeed, I don’t think the Marcionite designation is the primary point of Hays insight. The primary point is that we practically neglect the OT in our teaching and preaching way too much!
Also, just as you note we can learn to read the OT better by reading the NT, so I would add we can better understand the NT by understanding the OT.
even with the lectionary one could always pick the gospel passage or other NT passage. if we are going to preach the OT we’ll probably have to be intentional about it.
@Brian: True.
@Brian LePort:
Good addition.
Marcion was against slavery. Paul was for it. Paul should be cast out of the Bible and replaced by Marcion.
rey, you may be on to something. Let’s completely recast the Bible in terms of 21st-century moral sensibilities (with hubris, of course, being at the top of the list). What a beacon of moral light it would become!
@Rey: There is a difference between not openly attacking the system of slavery while encouraging Christian slaves in their faith and actually being “for” slavery. Read Paul’s letter to Philemon.