Mello and the Ongoing Battle of ImminenceThe Greek term "mello" often leads the discussion of those who cry out against the imminent, shortly to come to pass, at hand time statements of the scriptures. It is often translated "will be" to the absence of any temporal (time related) significance versus. That bias exists on the translation of this term is evident from the information which follows. This bias is sometimes used in an attempt to water down the emphatic time statements elsewhere found in the New Testament pointing to a first century return of Christ. The facts however are simple. Occurring 111 time in the New Testament, the percentage of times mello is translated imminent varies from version to version, from a minimum of a single time by the Wycliffe translation to a maximum of 108 times by the KIT (Kingdom Internlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures).
Out of the 111 times mello occurs in the New Testament, 50 of those reference relate to eschatology or the end-time. The number of times it is translated to mean "imminent or "soon to occur" ranges from zero (Barclay's New Testament, KJV, Cranmer, Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Rheims, The New Testament: English Version for the Deaf, Beck's Translation of the New Testament) to 49 times (Concordant Literal New Testament, Weymouth Version New Testament in Modern Speech). Young's literal translation of the New Testament renders 35 out of 50 along with Weymouth. What is the point? Why is there such a wide disparity and disagreement on how to render the word mello? It cannot be doubted that bias exists in the scholarly world on this term. Translators refuse to accurately and honorably translate this term to mean imminence. The evidence however is overwhelming. Mello means imminence and favors a fulfilled prophecy viewpoint. Some cite comments from Greek scholars regarding the "future infinitive," saying that it does not specify any time element between the prophet statement and its fulfillment. Let's grant this for the sake of argument. If the term does not specify any time, then no argument can be made for or against the time, for no time would be inherent in the passage. This means we will have to use the other time passages to understand the time element of the event. This is a principle of Dungan's Hermeneutics which cannot be denied. (See D. R. Dungan's Hermeneutics). This same logic is used by those who reject the imminence of mello when establishing the time element of events which do not specifically mention the time in the text. For example the kingdom mention in James 2:5, has no temporal reference. However, the same kingdom in Luke 21:31, is said to be "at hand" (imminent) at Jerusalem's fall and coming within the first century generation (v. 32). The net result is, by default, mello would mean imminent. For if there is no time expressed in the future infinitive according to the Greek scholars, and if we must determine the time from other time passages, then the time from other time passages must be imposed on the text which does not have time explicitly mentioned. This is a dilemma for futurists who back themselves into a corner by denying that the term has any reference to time. Therefore, one cannot dismiss the imminent translation without casting suspicion on the available research. Thus either way we slice the cake, it is perfectly acceptable to render Acts 24:15 to mean imminent. "There is "about to be" a resurrection of the dead." As the time statements for Paul 's writing on the endtime expressly state the resurrection was at hand, (Romans 13:11, 12), this must be the case for Acts 24:15. Compare also 2 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 4:5.
|
