2012 - The Movie

[Mellontes]

2012 – The Movie

On Saturday, November 14, 2009, my wife and I went to view the movie 2012. It was a special effects extravaganza! Unfortunately, it was not biblical in any respect. It is assumed by most of North American evangelical Christianity that our planet (world) is going to come to an end in accordance with biblical prophecy, but such is not the case, and nor has it ever been the case.

But before I get into all the reasons why such an assumption is incorrect, I should like to address those who also believe the world that was going to end has already done so. This world is what we refer to as the old covenant world of Judaism with its temple worship system. Not one single Jewish temple sacrifice has ever taken place since the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed in 70 AD. And because the temple no longer exists, neither does Judaism because the temple is at its very center of practice.

The movie 2012 dredged up as many references as possible to new worlds and theologies. The phrase a brave new world was used by the president in the movie to allude to Aldous Huxley’s novel of the same name. The “left behind” people in this movie were those who remained to face the cataclysmic effects of a planet gone awry. Even the Christian “rapture” was mentioned to give emphasis to the movie’s theme. But one thing the movie’s president of the United States (what other country!) did do was something we all should do as preterists. He chose to remain behind for one reason only – to tell the people the truth of what was coming. Perhaps he thought the truth would set these people free if only for a few brief moments before imminent death overtook them. The president’s task would not be a pleasant one for it entailed his own demise as well as telling the people something they all wished not to hear.

I think it was at that moment in the movie that I realized my mandate. It was to tell the people the truth, not only about the Gospel and its ability to set men free from sin, but also to Christians that their predominant eschatology is wrong. People do not like to be told they have been wrong all of their Christian lives and will do just about everything to hide from it. We have seen evidence of that on this forum and on many other forums as well.

Many Christians who have recognized and embraced the truth of fulfilled eschatology remain quiet, perhaps not willing to “suffer affliction” by those opposed to this truth. Being castigated by family members or close friends (?) is just too much for them to bear. Perhaps this is because they have not yet come to this realization on their own. They have been taught it and just believed it because they have trusted the individuals who taught it. I have been there once before and no matter what the facts are, they must be experienced by individual, personal study. I believe those who once said they were of our congregation of fulfilled eschatology did not experience the changes necessary for personal belief, and hence, have fallen away and developed into our most voracious antagonists.

While I sat and viewed the movie, I could not help but be empathic to countless millions of Christians and non-Christians who believe this kind of demise may be coming within their own generation. They expect this gloom and doom to come upon them and their children. Is this not a life of constant anxiety and fear? Why invest for the future? Why plan for anything too distant into the future? What a relief to know that this is not at all how the Lord intended for us to live. He is victorious in all He planned to do!

This movie presents us with a tremendous opportunity. The normal Christian who still expects these kinds of tragedies in their lifetime will be affected greatly by this movie. It will enhance their fears. It will increase their ungodly last-days teachings. More people will come to believe that Jesus and His inspired Apostles lied about the timing of the “end of the world.” We must be busy about the Lord’s work by telling everyone that the end of the world was but the end of the age of Judaism. It is past! He has conquered! He reigns victorious over us! If we do nothing, it may result in the end of our eschatological world, buried again in the depths of time to await discovery by another brave group of individuals ready to stand true for the Lord. “He did not lie!” they shall proclaim…and on it will go, again. Let us not be one of those who stand silent in this day and in this age.

[Michelle]

Hi Mellontes,

I haven't seen the movie, nor do I know that much about it, so commenting on the scenes you've discussed is pretty impossible for me. I do have a couple of questions for you though, if you don't mind.

I think it was at that moment in the movie that I realized my mandate. It was to tell the people the truth, not only about the Gospel and its ability to set men free from sin, but also to Christians that their predominant eschatology is wrong. People do not like to be told they have been wrong all of their Christian lives and will do just about everything to hide from it. We have seen evidence of that on this forum and on many other forums as well.

Why is it so important to you to prove people are wrong about eschatology?

Many Christians who have recognized and embraced the truth of fulfilled eschatology remain quiet, perhaps not willing to “suffer affliction” by those opposed to this truth. Being castigated by family members or close friends (?) is just too much for them to bear. Perhaps this is because they have not yet come to this realization on their own. They have been taught it and just believed it because they have trusted the individuals who taught it. I have been there once before and no matter what the facts are, they must be experienced by individual, personal study. I believe those who once said they were of our congregation of fulfilled eschatology did not experience the changes necessary for personal belief, and hence, have fallen away and developed into our most voracious antagonists.

What are the changes that need to be experienced in order to not fall away easily from your beliefs?

Thanks,
Michelle

[steve]

Good questions from Michelle. I wonder the same things.

I remember (way back in my youth) feeling angry at my teachers for having taught me only one eschatological system. The reaction is probably natural enough. I have seen it in many people. The most harsh critics of dispensationalism are those who were once dispensationalists (the same is true of anti-Calvinistic ex-Calvinists). However, once the initial disappointment has passed, one should settle down and see things in perspective, which includes at least the following:

1. People who taught me dispensationalism were not deliberately hiding anything. They thought they were right, and probably knew no alternatives themselves;

2. There are lots of things more important than the correct end-time scenario, or even the correct fulfilled eschatological scenario;

3. When one sees through a former error, it is possible for that subject to become an obsession, and a one-stringed instrument upon which I can play incessantly a single tune—to the exclusion of a balanced approach to discipleship and theology;

4. I, with my "corrected" views, can be more displeasing to God than are those who taught me wrongly, if my spirit is uncharitable (1 Cor.13:2).

[Allyn]

Mellontes was speaking for himself concerning his own ministry so it should not surprise anyone when one says he or she must do what he or she was led to do. To think that it is not important is only saying that your ministry is not as important as my ministry and so on. Truth is what matters and to diminish the truth and the intensity of it in one person over what the other person thinks is more telling in itself. I know Mellontes personally and I know where God is leading him. Does that mean because it is different from my ministry that his is less important? I don't think so.

[Mellontes]

Why is it so important to you to prove people are wrong about eschatology?

Hi Michelle,

My purpose is not to prove people wrong regarding eschatology, although, of course, that is a resultant factor. It would be more akin to showing people the truth in which they see their error. Proving someone wrong seems so argumentative and that is not my purpose at all. I am sure that many of us were once involved with dispensationalism. But once we had been freed from that system, what a breath of fresh air we were given. What greater incite into the Scriptures we were given. Now having been in "prison" system for 20 years, I want desperately to give others that same freedom. It is truth that sets men free, not proving them wrong. The leap from partial-preterism (some things past) to full-preterism (all things past) is much like the change from dispensationalism to partial preterism - but, of course, that has to be personally experienced to be understood in its fullest light.

It is a real burden upon my heart to see how a theological system has taken precedence over the word of God. Many believe theology instead of Jesus. Permit one example (they are too numerous for one post):

Jesus said Elijah had come already. I believe Him, and so do many on this forum. Yet, there are many who do not believe Jesus because they wish to make Elijah one of the two witnesses in Revelation. Therefore, Elijah must come again and Jesus was wrong. I don't think there is any middle ground in what Jesus said.

Now, we advance upwards to those who are convinced that Jesus was correct in what he said (and I agree). But for some reason or other, God sent this Elijah (John the Baptist) to the wrong generation. He got sent to the first century instead of to the generation that would see the great and terrible day of the Lord. Let's be serious here. What point would there be in sending this "Elijah" 2,000 years prior to the day of the Lord? Does anyone even consider that?
What did this Elijah say to the Pharisees & Sadducees who came to his baptism. He said the following:

"O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Mt 3:7, Luke 3:7)

Now a few things about this passage (sorry if I am beginning to be a bore now). "The wrath to come" is really "the wrath about to come." There is that one incessant little Greek word ("mello" - Strong's 3195) in both passages that dispels any long distant future wrath of God upon these unbelieving Jews.

John the Baptist added to this same thought when He said:

Matthew 3:10 - And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Luke 3:9 - And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Can there be any doubt of the impending wrath that would fall upon these unbelieving Jews in the near future? Now, I am sure that many on this forum would agree that this speaks of the destruction in 70 AD, and of course I agree too. But the question remains as to whether this was THE Parousia or just a TYPE of the Parousia. This is partial preterism in a nut shell.

The Thessalonian church (and many other churches) were being persecuted by Jewish unbelievers. See 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 for Scriptural verification. Paul, as Saul, used to be guilty of the same thing. The unbelieving Jews hated Christians just as much as they hated Jesus. Jesus rebuked these unbelieving Jews thoroughly in Matthew 23 and ended his discourse to them with:

Matthew 23:34-36 - Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

And then right afterwards IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TEMPLE BEING DESTROYED (Matthew 24:1, 2), the disciples asked their infamous question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [age-aion]?" The disciples are not thinking planetary annihilation. It was the end of Judaism. No temple, no old testament economy...Partial preterists agree with this initial thought but add planetary destruction and the complete end of time later on in Jesus' discourse despite Jesus not mentioning these things.

Anyway, back to the Jewish persecution. Sorry if I am taking much too long to explain a simple point...The following passage, as far as I know, is understood to be the future, final Parousia of the Lord Jesus:

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 - Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

This is where partial preterism breaks down. All of a sudden the pronouns used in this passage (bolded, underlined) refer to future people and the hermeneutic of audience relevance is completely abandoned! I have already shown that the "them that trouble you" are the unbelieving Jews from 1 Thess 2:14-16.
It would be good if every person figured out exactly who the pronouns signify. And when doing so, it will be discovered that you CANNOT go past the first century for this event. It is painfully obvious that the wrath of God first mentioned by the "Elijah" sent before the great and dreadful day of the Lord came upon the people in the very generation that Jesus said. I believe Jesus. I believe Paul. I believe John. Now either the promise of rest given by Paul to this Thessalonian church came true at the parousia or it did not. And if it did not, Paul lied. I won't accept that even though there are lots more that do.

Again, I apologize for my longwindedness...

What are the changes that need to be experienced in order to not fall away easily from your beliefs?

LOTS of personal study into the Scriptures with no theological lenses on...taking at face value what Jesus and his inspired personnel said...believing John when he said the content in Revelation "must shortly come to pass, the time was at hand (Rev 1:1, Rev 1:3, Rev 22:6, Rev 22:10) - the book ends of time frame for the entire content, including Revelation 20. Believe Jesus when he said that the beloved disciple could be alive at his return (John 21:22). There would be no point for Jesus to say something like that if His "return" was not expected for another 2,000+ years. And this reminds me of something that happened to me about 6 months ago. Some Mormons dropped by. I invited them in (horror of horrors). I began to discuss fulfilled eschatology with them (since they also believe in a future return) and showed them John 21:22 as well. I was startled by their response, but at the same time, I had to admire their integrity. They, almost in unison, said that the beloved disciple is still alive! They knew that Jesus couldn't lie about something like that. So rather than call Jesus a liar (to my face so to speak) and rather to admit the parousia was past, they had to make the beloved disciple alive somewhere on this planet. Of course, they didn't actually know his location on the planet . But I still had to admire their integrity and how they came to their decision. Most people just ignore the passage as having any real significance.

Michelle, just take the time statements at face value. Understand Scripture according to what the audience would have known at that time. For a long time now, our theological understanding has taken precedence over Scripture. We have already decided that NATURE determines the time frame, when in fact it should be TIMING that determines nature. I speak concerning the parousia, the resurrection and the judgment. The death that was defeated was not physical death nor was physical death the penalty for sin. God bless you in your further endeavors. Sorry for the long post...

[Michelle]

Mellontes,

Thanks for the long and thoughtful response. In that post you seemed to back away from "People do not like to be told they have been wrong all of their Christian lives and will do just about everything to hide from it. We have seen evidence of that on this forum and on many other forums as well," which to me sounded like you were going to hunt them down and drag them kicking and screaming into the full-preterist camp.

In an effort at full disclosure, I think I should mention that I'm a friend with a very vocal opponent to full-preterism. A friend in a traditional sense, not the cyber-sense of having posted a few comments on her blog, but in the sense of sharing life together. It's not that my friendships determine my theology, because if that were so, I would still be a futurist, since most of my friends are. It's just that I've witnessed that it's not a lack of study in the scriptures, nor myopia due to systematic-theological lenses that leads to stridency. She doesn't shy away from explaining her views and outlining her rebuttal to others' views, just as you've done above.

In response to Allyn, I wouldn't presume to judge anyone's ministry. Heck, whatever my ministry is, it is truly pretty small potatoes, but for some reason God wants me to be faithful in it. I wouldn't mind if someone questioned why I thought it was an important thing to do for the kingdom, and would in fact appreciate the opportunity to refine my focus and perspective on it.

Truth does matter, but opinions aren't the same thing as truth. Browbeating other Christians because they don't agree with your interpretations of hard to discern passages of scripture tends to make me uncomfortable, whether I agree with the opinion or not, and whether it's from a friend or a stranger. Accusing brothers and sisters of calling Jesus a liar is serious business, I would think. If that's truly your ministry, I would hope that you would welcome the opportunity to have fellow Christians critique it in order to gain wisdom and insight from the Holy Spirit. But...that's just my opinion.

[Allyn]

Hi Michelle,
Just for the record my response was aimed mostly at what Steve (who I admire greatly) said. Maybe more as a kind reminder rather than a rebuttal or attack.

BTW, I have also always thought of you as a thoughtful sincere person. My reason for saying anything at all in this thread was to extinguish flames (which may turn out to failed)

[Mellontes]

Mellontes,

Thanks for the long and thoughtful response. In that post you seemed to back away from "People do not like to be told they have been wrong all of their Christian lives and will do just about everything to hide from it. We have seen evidence of that on this forum and on many other forums as well," which to me sounded like you were going to hunt them down and drag them kicking and screaming into the full-preterist camp.

In an effort at full disclosure, I think I should mention that I'm a friend with a very vocal opponent to full-preterism. A friend in a traditional sense, not the cyber-sense of having posted a few comments on her blog, but in the sense of sharing life together. It's not that my friendships determine my theology, because if that were so, I would still be a futurist, since most of my friends are. It's just that I've witnessed that it's not a lack of study in the scriptures, nor myopia due to systematic-theological lenses that leads to stridency. She doesn't shy away from explaining her views and outlining her rebuttal to others' views, just as you've done above.

In answer to Allyn, I wouldn't presume to judge anyone's ministry. Heck, whatever my ministry is, it is truly pretty small potatoes, but for some reason God wants me to be faithful in it. I wouldn't mind if someone questioned why I thought it was an important thing to do for the kingdom, and would in fact appreciate the opportunity to refine my focus and perspective on it.

Truth does matter, but opinions aren't the same thing as truth. Browbeating other Christians because they don't agree with your interpretations of hard to discern passages of scripture tends to make me uncomfortable, no matter whether I agree with the opinion or not, and no matter whether it's from a friend or a stranger. Accusing brothers and sisters of calling Jesus a liar is serious business, I would think. If that's truly your ministry, I would hope that you would welcome the opportunity to have fellow Christians critique it in order to gain wisdom and insight from the Holy Spirit. But...that's just my opinion.

Hi Michelle,

I was surprised to hear you say "Browbeating other Christians because they don't agree with your interpretations of hard to discern passages of scripture tends to make me uncomfortable" because I don't believe I dealt with one single "hard to discern passage in my post to you. I find that it is the futurists who are continually imposing their interpretation on the hard to discern passages, like 1 Thess 4:15-17 for instance. Much of Revelation is to be interpreted literally by them. You are aware of these things. To me, "near" means near and "at hand" means at hand. I don't see what is so difficult with that. But what I do find fascinating are all the explanations as to why "near" does NOT mean near and why "at hand" does not mean at hand. They are clear references to time frames. It is not hard to discern. It is not difficult. It is our theological traditions that make these things difficult. And of course, I resent the term "browbeating."

A preconceived NATURE has taken precedence over TIMING. Most of the fulfillments are spiritual in nature. A spiritual fulfillment is a literal reality. It is not mystical as the futurists claim, it is real nonetheless. I guess you are not one to get involved with discussing Scripture of a different viewpoint, but don't you find 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 irrefutable from the 1st century perspective upon the unbelieving Jews at the parousia? Futurism won't allow it to be THE parousia because of the preconceived idea that the resurrection is a physical, out-of-the-ground type event that must be seen by human eyes in order for it to be true. Most ignore its significance. Pure and simple.

As for "People do not like to be told they have been wrong all of their Christian lives and will do just about everything to hide from it. We have seen evidence of that on this forum and on many other forums as well," it is true. People do not like being told they have been wrong all their Christian lives. I didn't like being told (through sound exegesis) that dispensationalism is a farce and a total falsehood about so many things. But it was true nonetheless. And trust me, no one is dragged into full-preterism screaming and kicking. Each individual chooses to come in. When I discovered that Jesus did not err (you don't like the term "lie") in what He said He was going to do when He said He was going to do it, I realized the impact that would have in my life. No one I knew believed that. Everyone I know believes the parousia is a future event. I knew castigation would follow and it has. There were dire consequences to my decision to accept full-preterism. No one gets pushed in. They discover the truth on their own. But it is solely by the Scriptures and not by theological tradition...We simply take at face value what Jesus and His apostles said.

Futurism is political in its dealings with Israel. Israel must be defended, even if they are wrong in doing what they do. Zionism is a bad thing. Even partial prets believe this. And just one more thing...even though you said "It's not that my friendships determine my theology, because if that were so, I would still be a futurist, since most of my friends are," you are still a futurist and even dispensationalists are partial preterists to some extent...

If you think we browbeat perhaps you should take a stroll over to CARM and go the the preterist section (which CARM relegated us to by taking us out of eschatology and Bible Prophecy). You should see all those who hate us for our views and are QUITE VOCAL IN THEIR HATRED TOWARD US. The remarks seem to come from unregenerated individuals who totally lack any fruits of the Spirit. We try to deal kindly with them to no avail. CARM supports their hatred. We have even been called non-Christians on several occasions. At another site we were called Christian Nazis because we don't support the recreation of Israel, how sweet...

Believe it or not, if you are not a full-preterist, then you must side with C.S. Lewis who said:

“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

Personally, I find that it is C.S. Lewis who is the embarassment!

Blessings!

[steve]

Michelle wrote:

What are the changes that need to be experienced in order to not fall away easily from your beliefs?

Mellontes replied:

LOTS of personal study into the Scriptures with no theological lenses on...taking at face value what Jesus and his inspired personnel said...believing John when he said the content in Revelation "must shortly come to pass, the time was at hand (Rev 1:1, Rev 1:3, Rev 22:6, Rev 22:10) - the book ends of time frame for the entire content, including Revelation 20. Believe Jesus when he said that the beloved disciple could be alive at his return (John 21:22). There would be no point for Jesus to say something like that if His "return" was not expected for another 2,000+ years.

Perhaps I shuld leave it up to someone else to answer these points, since almost anyone could, and since Mellontes and I are already getting along like a poor tipper and a slow waiter, but I am here now, so I might as well say something.

First, the idea of reading scripture without a theological lens is a commendable goal, but one is naive if he thinks he is doing this. Your theogical lenses (like your contact lenses), are something you see through, but not something that you yourself can see. Others can see your lens, perhaps, better than you can. Anyone who thinks he is reading with total objectivity has longer to live and to learn.

As for the time statements in Revelation bracketing the whole book, there is certainly more than one way to see this. I believe the time statements apply to the book, in general, but not necessarily to every particular. One may disagree with this thesis, but none can say that they are doing so based upon the required meaning of the words. There can be (and are, in my opinion) parenthetical sections that take a longer view than does the main body of the work. If this happened to be the case, there would be no need to modify the time statements at the beginning and end of the book, unless one had a theological agenda requiring that he take them in an absolute sense. For example, one of the last time statements (22:10) says that the book is not to be "sealed up", because the time is at hand. Yet, there is an earlier portion that is commanded to be sealed (10:4)—perhaps because the fulfillment was more remote? I believe that every vision in Revelation should be interpreted upon its own internal factors, without imposing a wooden structure that is not required by the time statements. However, I can't see any reason to argue about something so relatively trivial. I only point out that an assumption is being made here by one who foreswears the use of theological assumptions.

But then there is the material about the survival of the beloved disciple. I do not see how one can make the mistake Mellontes is making about this, if he reads the actual passage in John 21. Mellontes' point is that Jesus predicted John's possible survival until the coming of Christ:

Some Mormons dropped by. I invited them in (horror of horrors). I began to discuss fulfilled eschatology with them (since they also believe in a future return) and showed them John 21:22 as well. I was startled by their response, but at the same time, I had to admire their integrity. They, almost in unison, said that the beloved disciple is still alive! They knew that Jesus couldn't lie about something like that.

This mistake just seems so unnecessary. Just as a point of clarity, Jesus did not say that the beloved disciple would survive until Christ's coming—nor did He imply that he could survive until then. This was the mistaken interpretation that some took from Christ's statement (as John informs us in the passage), but John is at pains to explain that Jesus did not make any such prediction:

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" (John 21:23)

If I were to hear a politician say, "Were I to become the emperor of the galaxy tomorrow, I would still not abuse my power," I would be disappointed with the integrity of any news service that would run the headline: "Congressman Jones Claims That He Could Become Ruler of the Galaxy Within 24 Hours!"

There may be some arguments for full-preterism somewhere, but this one certainly is not relevant in any way to the case, and the use of it gives the impression that very thick theological lenses are most certainly in place.

[Allyn]

I would have to agree with you, Steve, that there is a better argument for FP then the ones currently underway in this thread. I believe we are able to understand those arguments from Scripture alone. As a small example, I cannot understand how the partial preterist takes Matthew 25:31 to mean a future second coming of Christ. Personally I would like for you to address this for me. How can it be justified as the second coming and not as His ascension? Is it purely traditional thought or is there support from Scripture that this is what is referenced?