All,

I have a question regarding the interpretation of the greek word mello. A full preterist by the name of Walt Hibbard (no stranger to several here) wrote an article some time ago discussing this word in Acts 24:15... "there will be (gr. mello) a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked". Hibbard argues that this should be translated as "about to be". Full preterists typically argue that it should always be translated thusly. What argument would be offered to counter the full preterist in this verse? Several, particularly Olan Hicks, have argued that verses such as Matt. 11:14, Acts 26:22-23, and Romans 5:4 cannot be translated "about to", so there are times when imminence is not intended, but certainty. What about Acts 24:15? What is the textual argument against the primary meaning of "about to"? How does the translator discern the author's intent without presupposition? Is it possible in this case? I know that the most literal english translations translate this as "about to" (Weymouth, Young, Green). Are they wrong to do so and on what grounds? Hopefully some of the "greek savvy" folk can offer some insight on this one.

Thanks for your feedback,
Z

Z - can you copy and paste what I had said about that passage in email? [btw - I am very glad we started corresponding, it has been a pleasure to speak with you]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren (email)

Z - off the top of my head, you know my memory is horrible, I do not know. I know I have argued against's Walt's position, but I cannot for the life of me remember where I got into great detail about it. If Acts 24:15 (shame on me I just woke and am blurry-eyes) is where Paul is testifying before the council and pit the Pharisees against the Sadducees, Paul said his belief was that of a Pharisees. First, it is practically undisputed that the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection, and second they didn't think it was about to happen. I will have to look at those other few passages and see if any article springs to mind. JPHolding did an article on that topic a long ways back, but I seem to remember disagreeing with a few of his points, but it couldn't hurt to do a search on Tekton. Also I seem to remember that the guys from thingstocome.org had a debate with Noe and that was on of the items. I will let you know as soon as I run across anything. In case you are not aware Jaltus at our site is extraordinarily qualified in Greek, as in John Reece, who might be able to assist you.

Thanks by the way for this... I'll look over at thingstocome and see if I can find anything. Hopefully Jaltus/John will have some comments as well. (And the pleasure has been all mine! Thanks for kicking that correspondence off.)

no post, wrong forum. I thought I was on the "unorthodox" one. Sorry.

Originally posted by zweiteskommen

All,

I have a question regarding the interpretation of the greek word mello. A full preterist by the name of Walt Hibbard (no stranger to several here) wrote an article some time ago discussing this word in Acts 24:15... "there will be (gr. mello) a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked". Hibbard argues that this should be translated as "about to be". Full preterists typically argue that it should always be translated thusly. What argument would be offered to counter the full preterist in this verse? Several, particularly Olan Hicks, have argued that verses such as Matt. 11:14, Acts 26:22-23, and Romans 5:4 cannot be translated "about to", so there are times when imminence is not intended, but certainty. What about Acts 24:15? What is the textual argument against the primary meaning of "about to"? How does the translator discern the author's intent without presupposition? Is it possible in this case? I know that the most literal English translations translate this as "about to" (Weymouth, Young, Green). Are they wrong to do so and on what grounds? Hopefully some of the "greek savvy" folk can offer some insight on this one.

Thanks for your feedback,
Z

Good questions.

With regard to the occurrence of μελλω in Matthew 24:15, BDAG (the preeminent lexical authority for New Testament Greek) has this entry:

to take place at a future point of time and so to be subsequent to another event, be about to [. . .]

[. . .] With the future infinitive μελλω denotes certainty that an event with occur in the future μελλειν εσεσθαι [. . .] will certainly take place or be Acts 11:28; 24:15; 27:10

Let’s look at the context of those three verses in Acts in which the present infinitive of μελλω is combined with the future infinitive of the Greek verb for ‘to be’.

Acts 11:19-30 (ESV) bold and bracketed insertion added

The Church in Antioch

19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.
27 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be [μελλειν εσεσθαι] a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). 29 So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 30 And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 24:1-21 (ESV) bold and bracketed insertion added

Paul Before Felix at Caesarea

1 And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus. They laid before the governor their case against Paul. 2 And when he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying:
"Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation, 3 in every way and everywhere we accept this with all gratitude. 4 But, to detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly. 5 For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him. 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to find out from him about everything of which we accuse him."
9 The Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that all these things were so.
10 And when the governor had nodded to him to speak, Paul replied:
"Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. 11 You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, 12 and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. 13 Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be [μελλειν εσεσθαι] a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. 16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. 17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. 18 While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia — 19 they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. 20 Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, 21 other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: 'It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.'"

Acts 27:1-11 (ESV) bold and bracketed insertion added

Paul Sails for Rome

1 And when it was decided that we should sail for Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan Cohort named Julius. 2 And embarking in a ship of Adramyttium, which was about to sail to the ports along the coast of Asia, we put to sea, accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. 3 The next day we put in at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul kindly and gave him leave to go to his friends and be cared for. 4 And putting out to sea from there we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were against us. 5 And when we had sailed across the open sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra in Lycia. 6 There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy and put us on board. 7 We sailed slowly for a number of days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, and as the wind did not allow us to go farther, we sailed under the lee of Crete off Salmone. 8 Coasting along it with difficulty, we came to a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea.
9 Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast was already over, Paul advised them, 10 saying, "Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be [μελλειν εσεσθαι] with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives." 11 But the centurion paid more attention to the pilot and to the owner of the ship than to what Paul said.

It’s interesting to note that

• the basic definition under which BDAG lists all three occurrences in Acts is be about to;

• the first and third of the occurrences in Acts have documented near-term fulfillments within the narratives that contain the occurrences;

• there is no documented near-term fulfillment of the second occurrence (Acts 24:15) — not in Acts nor in any other NT scripture.

I agree with whoever wrote “there are times when imminence is not intended, but certainty”, which is supported by the BDAG sense specific to the occurrences in Acts: “will certainly take place or be”.

John,

Thanks for your response on this subject.

Originally posted by John Reece

It’s interesting to note that

• the basic definition under which BDAG lists all three occurrences in Acts is be about to;

• the first and third of the occurrences in Acts have documented near-term fulfillments within the narratives that contain the occurrences;

• there is no documented near-term fulfillment of the second occurrence (Acts 24:15) — not in Acts nor in any other NT scripture.

You seem to be saying, by way of implication, that we know whether imminence was intended only after the event has been historically corroborated (at least in these three cases). Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd like to know what your response is to these questions:

1. Would the original audience, prior to occurance, know whether imminence or just certainty was intended?
2. Is the translation of Acts 24:15 as "will be" or "about to" subject to our theological presuppositions or is there an objective reason behind it?
3. Are translations like Weymouth, Green and Young incorrect?

I suppose those three questions are really one... just from different angles. Thanks again for your help.

Z

Originally posted by zweiteskommen

John,

Thanks for your response on this subject.

You seem to be saying, by way of implication, that we know whether imminence was intended only after the event has been historically corroborated (at least in these three cases). Am I understanding you correctly?

No.

I only noted the facts apparent in the texts.

It occurred to me that those who presuppose an intention of imminence might cite Acts 11:28 and Acts 27:10 and say, “See, imminence is intended because there was a fulfillment in the near-term.”

It also occurred to me that those who insist that there was a near-term (within a generation) fulfillment of Acts 24:15 circa AD 70 do so sans any historical documentation.

If so, I'd like to know what your response is to these questions:

Well, not so, as noted above. However, I’ll try to respond to your questions.

Would the original audience, prior to occurrence, know whether imminence or just certainty was intended?

In the case of the Greek phrase that occurs in Acts 11:28; 24:15; and 27:10, it is like saying in English, “there is going to be . . .” — meaning certainty in any case, but imminence only when the context (rather than the phrase itself) indicates imminence (as in the case of Paul’s prediction of shipwreck in the context of Acts 27, and the prediction of a famine in the context of Acts 11).

Is the translation of Acts 24:15 as "will be" or "about to" subject to our theological presuppositions or is there an objective reason behind it?

Those whose theological presuppositions are dearly held will subject the texts to their presuppositions.

I won't say that I'm totally free of dearly held presuppositions, but I've made ridding myself of such a primary exegetical goal for the past 20+ years. I'm content to let others be the judge of how well I may or may not succeed in that regard.

With reference to the subject at hand, I think that I'm in accord which the best lexicographers, translators, and commentators when I say that in Acts 24:15 (and 11:28 & 27:10) μελλειν εσεσθαι means ‘there will be’; or, as BDAG has it: “will certainly take place or be”.

I know of no objective reason for rendering μελλειν εσεσθαι ‘about to be’.

Are translations like Weymouth, Green and Young incorrect?

If they render μελλειν εσεσθαι ‘about to be’, I think they are not accurately conveying the sense of the Greek phrase.

A postscript to my prior posts re:

Originally posted by zweiteskommen

All,
A full preterist by the name of Walt Hibbard (no stranger to several here) wrote an article some time ago discussing this word in Acts 24:15... "there will be (gr. mello) a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked". Hibbard argues that this should be translated as "about to be".

If that's a direct quote of what Hibbard wrote, it simply reveals that he has not actually read the Greek text, in which there’s not just the single verb mellw (the ‘w’ represents omega = a long ‘o’, as in ‘oh’). In the Greek text there are two verbs forming a verbal phrase: ‘mellow + the Greek equivalent of the English verb ‘to be’; the first verb is a present infinitive and the second verb is a future infinitive.

Anyone who writes an article purporting to be an exegesis of the occurrence of mellw in Acts 24:15 without dealing with those grammatical facts thereby demonstrates that he is into something way beyond his competence.

Thank you John, as is usual, you have been helpful. I am going to highlight this discussion in my next update of my site.

Also, I can get you the link later, but JPHolding has an article on "mello" that I would like you to take a look at. I have enjoyed that article, but I know JP always want input from people who actually know the language and have a reputation for not embellishing it.

Thank you, John... very informative stuff. The argument for always translating mello a certain way seemed dubious on the surface. I don't think this issue debunks the FP theory on resurrection, but it would certainly render null and void an overly zealous argument.

Thanks again,
Z

PS - There does seem to be an understood imminence in Acts 11, since they acted immediately to deal with the famine. Yes?

Originally posted by zweiteskommen

There does seem to be an understood imminence in Acts 11, since they acted immediately to deal with the famine. Yes?

Yes.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Thank you John, as is usual, you have been helpful. I am going to highlight this discussion in my next update of my site.

Also, I can get you the link later, but JPHolding has an article on "mello" that I would like you to take a look at. I have enjoyed that article, but I know JP always want input from people who actually know the language and have a reputation for not embellishing it.

Whenever I'm able to be of service to you, Dee Dee, I’m happy to oblige.

But I do hope you won’t recruit me to critique anything JP has written. What little energy I have is pretty well consumed each day without my getting involving in critiquing the work of a specialist in Christian apologetics. Spare me, please. Pretty please.



Blessings,

John

Originally posted by zweiteskommen

There does seem to be an understood imminence in Acts 11, since they acted immediately to deal with the famine. Yes?

Originally posted by John Reece

Yes.

John, I hope you'll bear with me in patience on this subject. You agree with me that imminence is understood by the audience, but I'm having trouble seeing how that is derived from the surrounding context. If not explicitly derived from the language itself, how did they recognize the immediacy of the famine? How did they know to take immediate action if not for the meaning in the words Agabus used?

Thanks,

Z

Oh John, no, I was not asking for a critique but more to see if you could add further information to his arsenal. But I sure understand the lack of time issue.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Oh John, no, I was not asking for a critique but more to see if you could add further information to his arsenal. But I sure understand the lack of time issue.

It's more a lack of energy issue.

I appreciate your kind consideration.

Boy I understand the lack of energy thing too. I am no Spring chicken any longer myself.