Mellō Yellow: Final Thoughts on DeMar’s Silence and His Parting Shot

After five detailed responses to Gary DeMar on his distorted handling of the Greek verb μέλλω, it seems that Gary has quietly exited the “debate.” Rather than engaging the substantive critiques that were placed before him, he has chosen instead to return to his usual routine of going after the low-hanging fruit of dispensationalists and date-setters—voices that are far easier to caricature and dismiss than serious confessional Reformed arguments grounded in Scripture. Despite initial social media activity and evasive counter-claims, there has been no substantive engagement with the key issues raised. Instead, he has parted ways with a single, condescending remark, which I will address below.

If you missed any of the prior entries in the Mellō Yellow series, here they are:

• Mellō Yellow: Moving the Goalposts

• Mellō Yellow: Grammar in a Vacuum

• Mellō Yellow: Lexicons, Interlinears, and Selective Scholarship

• Mellō Yellow: On “Irrelevance” and Engagement

• Mellō Yellow: Only Responding, or Actively Obscuring?

These posts addressed DeMar’s shifting definitions, refusal to engage with future bodily resurrection texts, and his continued mishandling of both biblical data and historic Christian orthodoxy. The purpose was never merely polemical—it was to expose a dangerous distortion of a core Christian doctrine: the resurrection of the dead and the return of Christ.

A Lazy Parting Shot

While he has avoided responding to any of these critiques, Gary did leave behind one final parting shot:

It’s my opinion that those who have attacked me are leading people astray by claiming that questioning longstanding eschatological interpretations is something new. It’s not. Their fallback position when they can’t offer exegetical arguments is to rely on the Nicene Creed. The creeds are good when they quote Scripture on what a Christian is to believe. The Nicene Creed states, ‘He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.’ Jesus did come in glory to judge the living and the dead. ‘For the Son of Man is about to [mellō] come in the glory of His Father with His angels and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.’ (Matt. 16:27) Jesus was ‘about to’ do this related to those who had died. Jesus continues to do this with all of us at our death.¹

Let’s unpack this.

1. It’s not new

Of course it is not new to question eschatological interpretations. That has been a hallmark of theological inquiry for centuries. But what is new—and what Gary consistently fails to acknowledge—is the particular novelty of his view: namely, redefining the Second Coming, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment as events that occurred in AD 70 and now happen privately at death.

That is not “questioning” historic doctrine. That is rejecting it. And what is also new is the claim that one can deny these essential doctrines and still be considered “orthodox” and a “Christian” in any meaningful theological sense.

Gary is free to join up with Mike Sullivan, David Curtis, and the rest of the nuts over at Berean Bible “Church,” where questioning basic Christian doctrine seems to be a mark of honor. He can affirm Curtis’s notion that Christians may still sin in heaven or chase after other esoteric speculations. That is his prerogative. Nothing has ever stopped the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses from doing the same. But let’s stop pretending that any of this is an advancement of Christian theology.

2. Their fallback is the Nicene Creed

This is a strange accusation—because I never once ran to the Nicene Creed in any of my responses. My argument has been explicitly and rigorously exegetical. I walked through the context. I walked through the broader theological framework of the New Testament. DeMar is the one who constantly brings up the creeds to redirect attention away from the actual texts.

His remark reveals more about his method than mine. When cornered by exegesis, he retreats into vague generalizations and then pretends his opponents are the ones retreating into creedalism. But the record is plain: I engaged with the text. He did not.

It is also revealing that he calls the Nicene Creed a “fallback.” As if it were some desperate appeal made only when Scripture runs out of steam. This attitude betrays not only a low view of the creeds, but also a misunderstanding of their function. The Nicene Creed is not Scripture, but it is drawn from Scripture, and was confessed by the undivided church in defense of core Christian truth.

Reformed theology has always seen value in such confessions. When DeMar mocks Nicene orthodoxy, he is not merely mocking tradition—he is cutting himself off from the catholicity of the historic Christian faith.

3. Matthew 16:27 and μέλλω

As I have explained in multiple posts, DeMar assumes that μέλλει in Matthew 16:27 demands an imminent return of Christ within a strictly first-century timeframe. But this is an oversimplification. The verb μέλλω does not always signal immediacy, and even when it does, the context determines the kind of imminence in view.

But let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Matthew 16:27 refers in some way to the events surrounding AD 70. Fine. So what? Are we really prepared to let one or two verses—interpreted in isolation—overturn the entire eschatological framework of Scripture?

You cannot build a theological system on a few verses while ignoring the plain and repeated teaching of other passages like Acts 24:15, John 5:28–29, 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, and 1 Corinthians 15:22–26. These texts speak unambiguously about a future, bodily resurrection and a universal, public judgment.

Now, Gary might claim that he is not trying to overturn those passages—but by his own admission, he has no idea what many of them even mean. His position is not derived from the full counsel of God but from a narrow, proof-texting method that ignores the broader redemptive-historical structure of the New Testament.

4. Jesus continues to do this with all of us at our death

This is not what the Nicene Creed means by “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” It is not what Paul means in 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10. It is not what Jesus means in John 5 when He says that all who are in the tombs will come out.

The final judgment is not a series of private moments at death. It is a singular, public, climactic event when history itself gives way to glory.

Conclusion: Silence Speaks

Gary has not responded to the core critiques. He has not defined resurrection in a way that accounts for the physical body. He has not explained how his view can survive the clear witness of Acts 24 or 1 Corinthians 15. He has not squared his eschatology with the covenantal and creational contours of Scripture. In fact, he’s admitted that he doesn’t even know what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 15.

He simply went quiet. And then he left us with a vague, dismissive jab as he slipped off the stage.

For now, this concludes the Mellō Yellow series. I do not expect further engagement from Gary, but I do expect that the theological confusion he has sown will continue to bear bad fruit if left unchallenged.

So I end where I began: by confessing the blessed hope of the church—that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and that we look forward to the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

1. https://americanvision.org/posts/the-eschatological-fallback-position/