Mellō Yellow : Moving the Goalposts

From Widespread Usage to One Verse

Jun 19, 2025

One of the clearest evasions in Gary's recent response is how he shifted the discussion about the Greek verb mellō. Here's how my first article began:

A central claim of hyper-preterist interpretation is that the Greek verb mellō always and exclusively means "about to." From this assertion, hyper-preterists argue that every New Testament reference to resurrection, judgment, or the coming of Christ must have been fulfilled imminently—usually by AD 70. When this claim is challenged, proponents often pivot by alleging that Greek lexicons, grammars, and Bible translators are biased. They insist that theological commitment to a future resurrection has led mainstream scholarship to dilute the word's "true" meaning and obscure its implications for eschatology.1

My original critique was never limited to a single proof-text. It exposed the broader, systematic way hyper-preterists overread mellō as "imminent" across numerous passages.

I also addressed the narrative—repeated by Gary and Kim—that modern translation committees are conspiring to hide this Greek word's "true" meaning. The suggestion that scores of scholars across multiple denominations have coordinated to suppress mellō is not only implausible; it serves as a convenient excuse to dismiss the fact that the vast majority of mainstream Bible versions do not render every occurrence of mellō as "about to." I pointed out that full (hyper) preterists consistently over-interpret mellō to always mean "imminent" in passages about final judgment, resurrection, and related themes, ignoring context and standard Greek usage.

For example, I highlighted Acts 26:22–23 as an unmistakable instance where mellō cannot plausibly signal an immediate time frame. Paul testifies that he is declaring "nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass" (Greek: mellontōn ginesthai). If mellō here truly meant "about to" in a temporal sense, it would force the absurd conclusion that Moses and the prophets predicted events that were "about to happen" in their own lifetimes—yet Israel waited over a millennium for their fulfillment. Nor can one salvage the point by claiming the imminence refers only to Paul's day: the very predictions Paul enumerates—Messiah's suffering, resurrection, and the proclamation of light to both Jews and Gentiles—had already taken place or were already underway when Paul spoke. In context, mellō in Acts 26:22 clearly conveys certainty or destiny, not near-term timing. As I noted, "Acts 26:22–23 stands as a direct and unambiguous refutation of [Gary's] claim that mellō always signals imminence." The very reason I drafted this rebuttal was Gary's sweeping assertion that "at no place can it be said that mellō can't be translated as 'about to,'" and that "there is no way anyone can demonstrate with certainty that mellō does not always mean 'about to.'"2 Those claims begged for a straightforward test case—and Acts 26:22–23 provides it perfectly.

Gary's reaction? He ignored it. Rather than answer the evidence I presented, he zeroed in narrowly on Acts 24:15. By doing so, he sidestepped an instance—among many—that undermines his absolutist take on mellō. This is a textbook case of shifting the focus to a more convenient battleground. In his response, Gary treated Acts 24:15 (Paul's statement about "a resurrection of both the just and the unjust") in isolation, citing a few lexicons for that verse alone while saying nothing about Acts 26:22–23 or any other text that challenges his view.

By narrowing the discussion to Acts 24:15, Gary tried to frame the issue in the smallest terms possible. Why? Because if he can reduce the debate to the translation of a single verse, he might introduce enough doubt or technical complexity to claim victory. But the broader pattern remains: his hyper-preterist interpretation of mellō falters when tested against the full scope of Scripture. Focusing solely on Acts 24:15 allowed Gary to duck my response to his challenge. This is a classic goalpost shift—redefining the debate on his terms after the fact. I will not let that slide. The goalposts belong where they were first planted: on the entire New Testament usage of mellō, not just one isolated occurrence. And on that larger field, Gary's thesis collapses.

A theologian confident in his position would engage every relevant passage, not cherry-pick a single verse. Gary's silence on Acts 26:22–23 and similar texts speaks louder than any of his arguments. It tacitly concedes that those passages stretch his "about to" idea into absurdity. In short, Gary changed the subject to avoid losing the debate—a sure sign that, on the original subject, he had already lost.

As for his claim that I did not answer his challenge regarding Acts 24:15, he ignored that response as well. I addressed the verse directly and explained why mellō should not be translated as “about to” in that context. My follow-up article lays out those answers clearly, addressing both the grammar and the theological implications.