Mellō Yellow : Lexicons, Interlinears, Commentaries, and One-Man Translations

Jun 19, 2025

Throughout his rebuttals, Gary has leaned heavily on a few lexicons, interlinears, and translations—even rather idiosyncratic ones—as if a dictionary entry or a single translator’s wording could settle the debate over mellō. This reflects a surprisingly shallow approach to exegesis. Lexicons and interlinears are tools, not oracles, and their glosses must always be weighed against context. Yet Gary oscillates between dismissing these tools when they inconvenience him and wielding them when he thinks they support his case.

For example, in his written response, Gary mocked the use of lexicons altogether, deriding my reliance on BDAG and other standard references. He quipped sarcastically, “Get your lexicons out… You don’t have these lexicons? What did Bible readers do before these lexicons existed? Sorry, you’ll have to trust Jason Bradfield.” (Yes, he literally wrote that.) This was his attempt to cast me as overly academic or nitpicky for consulting scholarly tools—as if appealing to Greek lexicons were some crutch for those who don’t just “let Scripture interpret Scripture.” But here’s the irony: Gary himself relies on the very lexical data he mocks. How does he even know that mellō can mean “about to”? Not by divine revelation or intuition—but by consulting lexicons and translations.

In fact, Gary’s entire argument—that mellō always means “about to [occur imminently]”—is lifted from a simplistic reading of lexicon glosses and a few literal translations. It’s no secret that some English versions render Acts 24:15 as “there is about to be a resurrection…” For instance, Gary cites the David Bentley Hart Translation of the New Testament, which puts it: “a resurrection of both the just and the unjust is about to occur.” Likewise, Young’s Literal Translation uses “about to be.” Gary trots these out as if to say, “See? The translators agree mellō means ‘about to’ here. Case closed.” But this is a profoundly misleading way to do theology.

First, not all translators agree. In fact, the vast majority of English Bibles do not translate Acts 24:15 with “about to.” Most render it along the lines of “there will be a resurrection” or “there shall certainly be a resurrection” (e.g., ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV). Why? Because woodenly inserting “about to be” would miscommunicate the sense. Those that do use “about to” (like YLT or Hart’s version) follow an extremely literal method that often ignores idiomatic usage. These translations may be useful for certain word studies, but they’re hardly decisive for nuanced interpretation. Gary’s reliance on an outlier like Hart—a one-man translation with no committee review—underscores the weakness of his case. He cherry-picks whatever rendering favors his conclusion, regardless of how fringe it is. That’s not careful scholarship; it’s confirmation bias.

Moreover, Gary and his sidekick distorted my remarks about commentaries and interlinears. On their podcast, they claimed that my critique of “cherry-picking” implied that no one should cite these tools—something I never said. I quote commentators in nearly every article and sermon. My point was that the interlinears and commentators Gary cites who render mellō as “about to” offer no explanation for that choice or for its doctrinal implications. Quoting them without explaining the rationale is not exegesis; it’s proof-texting. And the strange thing is, Gary actually admits this. On his podcast, he says:

And it's interesting that the commentaries I reference that translate it as about to. In fact, I put a new one in there. I just came across it. I put a new one in there. He repeats this about to, about to, about to. They never explain what the about to is. And it's like some commentaries don't mention it at all. Some commentaries just say it means certainly or will be. And move on. And then some of these commentaries who talk about the resurrection, something about to take place, they don't explain what the about to would mean other than it's about to take place, but there's really not a time indicator related.1

This was EXACTLY my point! Whether a handful of interlinears or commentaries use “about to” was never the issue—we already knew they existed. I’ve known that for over 20 years. The question is why they do so, and what theological weight that carries. Gary admits his sources offer no explanation. That only strengthens my critique. Yet he and Eric miscast my argument as if I oppose the use of commentaries entirely. That misrepresentation not only misses but confirms my original point.

Appealing to lexicons and interlinears without context is a recipe for error. I made this point clearly, and Gary never refuted it. Lexicons list mellō as having multiple senses. Yes, one meaning is “to be about to,” implying imminence. But lexicons also note usages that express certainty or inevitability without a temporal nuance—especially when mellō is followed by a complementary infinitive, as it is in Acts 24:15. Language is flexible. Interlinear glosses often render mellō mechanically as “about to,” because they offer one-to-one substitutions. But, as I noted in my response, “Interlinear glosses are not lexicons and they are certainly not exegesis.” They don’t account for context or idiomatic use. As I wrote, “Just because some interlinears render mellō as ‘about to’ does not make that the correct interpretation in Acts 24:15.”

Gary’s comment that translators “must do something with mellō since it’s in the text” and therefore often say “about to” is not an argument—it’s a superficial observation. Every translator does render mellō, but they do so in light of context. Most major versions opt for “will be” or “shall certainly be,” which emphasizes certainty, not imminence. To suggest, as Gary and Eric imply, that translators “left out” mellō if they don’t print “about to” is flatly false. They translated it—they just judged that in this context, “certainly be” best conveys Paul’s intent. Pretending otherwise ignores both the translators’ judgment and the passage’s theological setting.

Also, by implying that these committees “fail to translate” mellō whenever their English text lacks the phrase “about to,” Gary exposes the inconsistency of his position. If he were simply arguing that “about to” is one possible rendering, he would acknowledge that “will be” or “shall certainly be” are also valid choices. But instead, he treats every non-“about to” rendering as an omission. That reveals that, despite his disclaimers, he actually believes mellō must always imply imminence.

Gary’s tendency to brandish lexicons and translations as if they settled the matter is, frankly, a smokescreen. It avoids the hard work of exegesis. It’s far easier to say, “Thayer says mellō = about to,” or “look, this interlinear agrees with me,” than to engage with why most scholars, commentators, and translators disagree. Gary derides the use of scholarly tools one moment and appeals to them the next, depending on what helps his argument. But you can’t have it both ways. Either lexicons and linguistic tools matter or they don’t. You can’t reject them as unnecessary while building your entire case on their contents.

Let me be clear: no lexicon entry or isolated translation can substitute for careful exegesis. Translation choices must be rooted in full grammatical, literary, and theological context—not plucked as standalone proof. Context is king. Hyper-preterists like Gary comb through interlinears and Strong’s Concordance, looking for every instance of mellō to slap “about to” onto it—context be damned. That is word-study fallacy 101.

Readers should also pay close attention to how Gary cites (or mis-cites) lexical tools. He writes:

If a Greek student were to follow William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek, he or she could translate mellō as ‘I am about to,’ since that is the definition he gives. Mounce’s online dictionary lists ‘to be about to, on the point of; to be destined, must; to intend to; (what is) to come, the future’ for Acts 24:15.2

But this is false. Mounce does not assign all those glosses to Acts 24:15. The list Gary quotes reflects the full semantic range of mellō across all contexts. When you scroll down to the Greek-English concordance entry for Acts 24:15, Mounce offers a specific rendering: “having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there is (mellein, present active infinitive) to be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.”3 The concordance does not imply imminence. It simply reads “is to be.” Gary blurs this distinction, giving the impression that Mounce endorses an “about to happen soon” reading in this verse when, in fact, he does not.

In the end, Gary’s lexicon-and-translation proof-texting amounts to nothing. As I wrote, “He leans on shallow linguistic assumptions... and appeals to interlinear glosses as if they settle the question. They do not.” All the BDAG entries, interlinear rows, and fringe translations in the world cannot rescue a thesis that collapses in context. The true test is exegesis—making sense of the text in its immediate and theological setting. On that test, Gary’s interpretation fails. Stacking lexical entries without contextual control is like piling bricks without mortar—it will not hold.

I urge readers to look beyond the smokescreen. The meaning of mellō in eschatological texts must be determined by context and theological coherence, not by a pile of glosses. Gary’s method amounts to little more than plugging his ears and repeating a slogan. It may sound convincing in a podcast, but it falls apart under scrutiny.

In my next segment, I’ll address Gary’s tendency to dismiss his critics as irrelevant.