Peter Enns and Marcionism

[Glenn P]

Could mean like Elijah calling fire from Heaven "from his mouth" -- do you take 2 Kings 1:10 literally?

Yes, but the fire came down from the sky, not out of anyone's mouth.

[Paprika]

I think he's right that there is a very strong discontinuity here. Can anyone really think that God calls the church to invade the land of other nations and take its booty?

You're framing it wrongly. Under classic Jewish and Christian worldviews, God is the Creator and owner of all, thus the land of other nations did not belong finally to them. With respect to the land of Canaan God expressly said he was evicting the Canaanites and giving the land to the Israelites - the Canaanites thus become 'illegal squatters' in defyment of the will of God. The Israelites only move to claim what is properly theirs, given by God.

[JohnnyP]

Yes, but the fire came down from the sky, not out of anyone's mouth.

I wouldn't read it like a dragon breathing fire, but understand it as that the command for fire, just as the command for no rain, came out of Elijah's mouth. So it's not difficult to see the parallel.

2 Kings 1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

1 Kings 17:1 And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

I'm not one who believes 2 Olive Trees of Revelation 11 are Elijah and/or Moses resurrected as some do, even though they sent similar plagues; rather that the 2 Olive Trees are righteous Jews and Gentiles also discussed in Romans 11. But they appear to have some of the same powers as those earlier prophets.

Without getting too much into eschatology and back to the point, the NT isn't all "make love not war" at any rate.

[Glenn P]

"I wouldn't read it like a dragon breathing fire"

Trouble is, here's what it says: "fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies"

So the fire proceeded from their mouths. So it's really not something that we should look at as literally true at all.

[JohnnyP]

Trouble is, here's what it says: "fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies"

So the fire proceeded from their mouths. So it's really not something that we should look at as literally true at all.

I might see a non-literal reading, like fire is symbolic of effective preaching or something, if it didn't say the fire kills. Since it does, and due to parallels with Elijah, I read it as fire comes from their mouths by way of command to call it from Heaven.

Whatever it is, it kills enemies, so it is an example that the NT may not always call for non-violence.

[Glenn P]

I might see a non-literal reading, like fire is symbolic of effective preaching or something, if it didn't say the fire kills. Since it does, and due to parallels with Elijah, I read it as fire comes from their mouths by way of command to call it from Heaven.

Whatever it is, it kills enemies, so it is an example that the NT may not always call for non-violence.

If the fire is symbolic of preaching, then surely the real-world result is not killing at all (unless preaching generally kills people), so this wouldn't be an example of violence.

In any event, none of this supports the allegation that Peter Enns is a Marcionite. he very clearly is not, and the suggestion that he is one is ridiculous.

I'm not about to follow the side-track of nonviolence.

[KingsGambit]

At the very least, I think it can be said that arguing for radical discontinuity between the testaments is a road that consistently followed, may lead right to Marcionism.

[JohnnyP]

If the fire is symbolic of preaching, then surely the real-world result is not killing at all (unless preaching generally kills people), so this wouldn't be an example of violence.

Right, so since it does say men are killed by the fire, it is an example of violence.

Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

In any event, none of this supports the allegation that Peter Enns is a Marcionite. he very clearly is not, and the suggestion that he is one is ridiculous.

I don't know if he is or isn't, but don't think he explains himself in that article as to why he is not one when he says things like, "God is portrayed in even conflicting ways" since I don't see any conflict between OT and NT as I've explained.

I'm not about to follow the side-track of nonviolence.

When you stated the following it seemed to imply that the NT God always wants peace and non-violence, to which I used Revelation 11:5 as an example that this may not be so, even if as an exception to the rule:

There's a perceived conflict that many people identify: The conflict between a loving God who wants peace, and the actions of Yahweh in the Old Testament in the conquest narratives...I think he's right that there is a very strong discontinuity here.

[mikewhitney]

In general, it seems to me that Marcionite ideas have been popping up more and more lately among some Christian crowds - some Christian professors have become simply dismissive of the standard apologetic defenses of violence in the OT.

What are the standard defenses?

[KingsGambit]

What are the standard defenses?

Generally, either that the commands are somewhat hyperbolic in nature, or indepth explanations of just what the people did to earn their conquest (i.e. practicing human sacrifice and the like). Personally, I think these explanations are sufficient (especially the second of the two).

[mikewhitney]

Generally, either that the commands are somewhat hyperbolic in nature, or indepth explanations of just what the people did to earn their conquest (i.e. practicing human sacrifice and the like). Personally, I think these explanations are sufficient (especially the second of the two).

I would think that the issue in the OT was, in part, that idolatry and wickedness. But also, God had to clean up the area sufficiently so that the Israel people could be the path through whom the Messiah was identified. Then after the Messiah came, all further cleanup would be worked out through the power of the Messiah and His influence such that the Christians would not end up being called to the OT style purification of the land (though a purification done through shedding of blood, as was the reason David could not build the temple).

What I don't quite know is whether the Levant was more wicked than other places or whether God was just needing to prepare a small area for a holy people.

[Paprika]

Then after the Messiah came, all further cleanup would be worked out through the power of the Messiah and His influence such that the Christians would not end up being called to the OT style purification of the land (though a purification done through shedding of blood, as was the reason David could not build the temple).

Then after the Messiah came, God destroyed the Temple after a horrific siege of Jerusalem.

[KingsGambit]

Has anybody else been reading the new Five Views on Inerrancy? Enns appears in it, and does get accused of Marcionism by some of the other participants.

[KingsGambit]

Bumping in light of discussion in another thread.

[Cerebrum123]

Bumping in light of discussion in another thread.

I'd need more information than the previous link in this thread to make a determination as to whether or not Peter Enns is espousing Marcionite views. However, I have noticed that old heresies have been popping up consistently lately.