Important Note: Gary DeMar’s Facebook page has been taken down. To keep up with the latest from Gary and American Vision or to continue the conversation from articles, podcasts, or videos, please go to the AV Facebook page here.
Jason Bradfield seems to have forgotten what he wrote in his first article about mellō. Let me refresh his memory with what he quoted from Kim Burgess in the first volume of The Hope of Israel and the Nations in his article “Mellō and the Bias Problem” that initiated this debate.
The presence of this Greek word mellō severely embarrasses the translators because it does not fit into their preset prophetic/eschatological paradigms, so they often skip over it entirely and refuse to translate it, as was the case in Romans 8:18 in the NASB, or else they attempt to cover it up with language such as ‘there shall certainly be’ as was the case in a crucial text like Acts 24:15, ‘there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked’ instead of what it really says in the Greek, ‘there is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.’ In short, based on these English translators, this imminency (time) factor is cast out or eclipsed entirely. This is so tragic for our being enabled to come to a sound and proper understanding of NT eschatology per OT Israel as Paul understood it. [1]
Bradfield then wrote, “But this charge simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It misunderstands both the nature of language and the task of lexicography.” I wrote two detailed articles about his claim and soundly refuted his argument using numerous sources. You can read them here and here. Here’s another translation of Acts 24:15 from David Bentley Hart’s The New Testament: A Translation (Yale University Press (2017). “Keeping hope in God that—as they themselves anticipate—a resurrection of both the just and the unjust is about to occur.”
Bradfield claims in a recent Facebook post that I did not offer “a substantive engagement with the text.” Keep in mind that my articles responded to what he wrote regarding Acts 24:15. THAT’S THE TEXT I responded to! My responses were more than “substantive.” Read his article and read my two articles (here and here) to see who is telling the truth.
He then accused me of running a “divide-and-conquer playbook” by showing the inconsistency of interpretations of passages among those who signed the Three Questions Letter. In his recent Facebook post he does not mention Acts 24:15. Why? Because I showed that his claim that translating mellō as “about to” is legitimate and numerous commentators, lexicons, Greek-English interlinears, Bible translations, and one of his administrators and professors at Whitefield Theological Seminary (see below) agree with me.
Bradfield also wrote this in his Facebook post:
According to Gary, the verb mellō must always mean ‘about to,’ simply because he decrees it—no matter the content, syntax, or lexical evidence to the contrary.
I never said any such thing (see here and here). I wrote, “It was not my goal to prove full preterism or that mellō must be translated as ‘about to’ in every case.” Check it out for yourself in my article “What Must be Proved When Mellō is Used?” Bradfield is misleading his small readership.
What about my “divide-and-conquer playbook”? Soon after Andrew Sandlin wrote and published the Three Questions Letter and people like Jason Bradfield, Sam Frost, Ken Gentry, Phil Kayser, Doug Wilson, and others signed it, I pointed out repeatedly that these men do not agree among themselves. It’s not that I divide and conquer. Their comments on various texts show that they are divided. There’s a Bible verse for that. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” I and others, independent of one another, listed numerous examples of what divides those who signed the Three Questions Letter.
Here’s an example related to Acts 24:15 from Phil Kayser. Phil signed the letter. He also serves on the Administrative Board at Whitefield Theological Seminary [2] where Bradfield is Chairman of the Executive Board. Kayser’s Linkedin profile [3] states that he is a “Teacher/Mentor at Whitefield Theological Seminary.” After pointing out that Acts 17:31 “speaks about a resurrection and a judgment that was ‘about to’ take place,” Kayser writes, “Look next at Acts 24:15. This is Paul speaking. He says, ‘I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15).” He continues.
The word “will be” is the Greek word μέλλω which refers to something very very near. It is more literally translated “that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead.” Well, he said that about ten years before the AD 70 resurrection, so it was literally true. Look down at verse 25 [in Acts 24] where μέλλω occurs again. “Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come [literally, the judgment about to come], Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you” (v. 25).
It was the very imminence of this judgment that made Felix afraid. Turn next to Romans 8:18. The whole context is the reversal of every facet of the curse, including the resurrection of our bodies, which in verse 23 Paul calls the “redemption of our bodies.” [4] But I want you to notice the use of the word μέλλω in verse 18. “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be [literally, ‘which is about to be’] revealed in us. (v. 18) [5]
Kayser adds, “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge [literally, ‘who is about to judge’] the living and the dead at His appearing [epiphany] and His kingdom’ (2 Tim. 4:1).” [6] Kayser disagrees with Bradfield, and yet he’s a teacher and mentor at WTS where Bradfield serves as the Interim President Chairman, Executive Director! Kayser is also a Distinguished Research Professor of Exegetical Theology at WTS.
In Bradfield’s original article about “Bias,” he took offense at this statement from Kim Burgess in The Hope of Israel and the Nations, “The presence of this Greek word mellō severely embarrasses the translators because it does not fit into their preset prophetic/eschatological paradigms, so they often skip over it entirely and refuse to translate it…. In short, based on these English translators, this imminency (time) factor is cast out or eclipsed entirely. This is so tragic for our being enabled to come to a sound and proper understanding of NT eschatology per OT Israel as Paul understood it.”
The Hope of Israel and the Nations
The reader and student of the Bible must first understand the content of the New Testament writings in terms of how those in the first century would have understood it. The New Testament is written against the background of the Old Testament. The shadows of the Old were fulfilled in the reality of the New. All the rituals and ceremonies were fulfilled in Jesus. The same is true of the temple, land, blood sacrifices, the nature of redemption, the resurrection of the dead, the breaking down of the dividing wall dividing Jews and Gentiles, and so much more. The New Testament's emphasis is on the finished work of Jesus and its application, not only to that Apostolic generation but to the world today.
Buy NowKayser holds a similar view: “The New King James book of Acts was translated by Futurists, and they deliberately left out the translation of μέλλω even though it is in all Greek manuscripts. The Greek word μέλλω means ‘about to happen’ or to be imminent. There was an imminent resurrection.” [7]
Then there’s Kayser’s view of two physical resurrections separated by nearly 2000 years. Is this interpretation OK to be taught at WTS as well as Kayer’s translation of mellō? Former Full Preterist Sam Frost who received a Ph.D. from WTS and signed the Three Questions Letter, had this to say about Kayser’s relationship with the seminary: “Now, one has to ask how this Professor of Ethics at a Reformed seminary (Whitefield Theological Seminary) can get to such a position.” This is how Frost ended his critical 2021 article of Kayser’s article on the resurrection.
If one were, however, to bring up charges as to the Westminster Confession and Kayser’s position, one could, if they were so inclined. That is, if they were hell bent on the jots and tittles of the Confession and a strict subscriptionist view were maintained. I don’t see the need to do that. What I see, as a scholar, is that Kayser is just being … a scholar. A boundary pusher. He ‘sees’ all of these problems within Revelation 20 (and they are myriad) and how folks have interpreted this passage and is attempting to straighten it out. Bravo. Applause. Kudos. Shout it from the rooftops! Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda! [the church reformed, always reforming] But, just remember folks, the other guy gets to do that, too. [8]
It was OK to be “a boundary pusher” and participate in “the church reformed, always reforming” in 2021, but don’t you dare try it today. I don’t need to divide and conquer. Bradfield and the other letter signers are doing that to themselves. Their wound is self-inflicted.
Bradfield repeats the mantra that full preterism lacks a unified front, and on that basis, accuses me of inconsistency for demanding consistency from those who signed the Three Questions Letter. This comparison fails because I have not aligned myself with full preterists in any formal or collaborative way against full preterist critics. I don’t always agree with the positions full preterists take, and I never co-authored a letter with full preterists to press someone like Ken Gentry to answer a specific set of theological questions. Keep in mind that the inconsistencies among the Three Questions Letter signing are much more significant.
I suggest that Bradfield and the other Three Questions Letter signers respond to House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology: A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, including the chapter by former full preterist Sam Frost titled “Inconsistent Orthodoxy.” The updated edition of House Divided does not include Frost’s article. (I can understand why he wanted it removed. It’s devastating to what he believes now.) It’s a shame, because the chapter is worth reading. I wasn’t the first to note the inconsistencies. Frost did it first, and he was right.
Wars and Rumors of Wars
A first-century interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was once common in commentaries and narrative-style books that describe the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is also a history of skeptics who turn to Bible prophecy and claim Jesus was wrong about the timing of His coming at “the end of the age” and the signs associated with it. A mountain of scholarship shows that the prophecy given by Jesus was fulfilled in exacting detail when He said it would: before the generation of those to whom He was speaking passed away.
Buy NowOne last point. The interpretation of mellō is only one issue on the topic of the “about to” judgment.
• “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matt. 23:24-26)
• For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17).
• You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brothers, against one another, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing before the doors. (James 5:8-9).
[1] Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, 2 vols. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2024), 1:215-216.
[2] https://whitefield.edu/seminary-directors/
[3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/philkayser/
[4] Literally, “the redemption of the body [σώματος/sōmatos] of us,” not “in us.” Σώματος is singular.
[5] Phil Kayser, “Barley Harvest: Revelation 11:11-14 (April 2, 2017): https://bit.ly/3NdFwTq Kayser does not deny a yet future resurrection.
[8] Sam Frost, “Were some of the dead raised in 70 CE? A Brief Critique of Phillip G. Kayser’s View on Revelation 20” (December 17, 2021). https://vigil.blog/2021/12/17/were-some-of-the-dead-raised-in-70-ce-a-brief-critique-of-phillip-g-kaysers-view-on-revelation-20/