'For' or 'because of' the remission of sins

[GerhardEbersoehn]

This is utter nonsense. First of all, unto never means 'because of' but, I do not care what the definition of 'for' or 'unto' is in English. We are not talking about English. Yes, εἰς always takes the accusative, and ἄφεσιν is in the accusative. In English, anytime you have "of," it is automatically understood to be genitive, which εἰς never is. It cannot be "because of," because εἰς is a preposition, and "because" is a conjunction. You do not substitute conjunctions for prepositions.

If we insist upon using 'because of' to define εἰς, we will have to throw out all the rules of grammar that govern the mechanics of the syntax of this verse. When we do this, then we can make the language say anything we want. The reason we have scripture in the original language is so that we can maintain the integrity of the text, not so we can manipulate it to satisfy what we think the text should say.

Who takes notice of the rules here?

 

[oldhermit]

'eis' used in the sense of 'because of'
εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἄφες αὐτήν, ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν
Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day

τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου τηρήσῃ αὐτό· 8 τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ
of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor

'eis' used synonymously with 'dia' and 'hoti'; 'because of' - 'have need of'

καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμᾶς ἐρωτᾷ Διὰ τί λύετε;
And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him?

οὕτως ἐρεῖτε ὅτι Ὁ Κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει.
thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

'eis' - 'because (He was)'
κρατῆσαι ἐφοβήθησαν τοὺς ὄχλους, ἐπεὶ εἰς προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον.
they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

I am not trying to be condescending or rude but, I really do not understand what you are trying to demonstrate by these passages, and I am not sure you do either. Εἰς is NOT used synonymously with διὰ or ὅτι. With the genitive, the preposition διὰ can mean 'by', 'through', or even 'during'. With the accusative it can mean 'because of', 'on account of', or 'for the sake of' but, it is not used synonymously with εἰς. The only preposition I know of where εἰς is sometimes used in the place of is ἐν, and that is because εἰς and ἐν both carry basically the same meaning. ὅτι on the other hand, is a conjunction that means, 'that', 'since', 'for', or 'because'; it is not a preposition and is not interchangeable with εἰς. ​

In your first example, 'against' is a rather poor rendering of εἰς in John 12:7. Since it expresses purpose in the sentence, it would be better translated as 'for', not 'against'. Please allow me to explain. How εἰς is translated in a phrase depends on the action it takes in a sentence. If it refers to special action it is usually either 'into', 'toward', or 'in'. If it express temporal action it is 'for, or throughout'. If it expresses purpose, it is 'for', 'in order to', or 'to'. If it demonstrates result it is 'so that', or 'with the result that'. If for reference, it shows 'with respect to', or 'with reverence to'. If it describes advantage it is 'for'. If it demonstrates disadvantage, it is 'against'. (Clearly, εἰς does not convey the idea of disadvantage in John 12:7.) If it expresses point action, it is 'at'. BUT, it is NEVER 'because of.' Εἰς never takes an action that points backward in time.

 

[oldhermit]

Who takes notice of the rules here?

Apparently, not very many. That is why scripture is so badly perverted by so many people and treated with such contempt in general. When you throw out all the rules, you can then do anything you want.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Apparently, not very many. That is why scripture is so badly perverted by so many people and treated with such contempt in general. When you throw out all the rules, you can then do anything you want.

You can do anything you like; yes, like you can make your own rules instead. Or make your own English grammar rules and claim them for Greek ones.

I would have appreciated a few illustrations of examples instead, I would guess like A.T. Robertson gave for 'eis' meaning 'because of'. (O, how I love that man!)

 

[oldhermit]

It has been a long time since I have read Robertson. Perhaps you could provide some of the examples he uses from scripture where he thinks eis can be translated as 'because of'.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

With the accusative it can mean 'because of', 'on account of', or 'for the sake of' but, it is not used synonymously with εἰς.

In John 12:7 there exists no need to explain. 'Eis' is being used; fact which explains itself; no questions -- excellently rendered / used / translated / explained by real Greek grammarians in the KJ Authorised Version with 'against', which perfectly expresses purpose and could just as well and synonymous have been exchanged with 'for' or 'because of' or 'in view of'.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It has been a long time since I have read Robertson. Perhaps you could provide some of the examples he uses from scripture where he thinks eis can be translated as 'because of'.

I may, one day, in my own time. Yet, was it not you who claimed?,
oldhermit said: ↑
Robertson attempts to make an argument for 'because of'. If you do not know who A.T. Robertson is, he is one of the foremost Greek scholars of the twentyth century. In spite of his considerable reputation and skills as a Greek scholar, he has simply missed it on this point.

Where do I find this instance in Robertson?

 

[oldhermit]

In John 12:7 there exists no need to explain. 'Eis' is being used; fact which explains itself; no questions -- excellently rendered / used / translated / explained by real Greek grammarians in the KJ Authorised Version with 'against', which perfectly expresses purpose and could just as well and synonymous have been exchanged with 'for' or 'because of' or 'in view of'.

I am aware that is how the KJV renders the word. It is not altogether wrong but, it is certainly not the best choice. Compare the KJV to other English translation and you will not find many who will translate it as 'against' because it does not express the idea of disadvantage.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I am not trying to be condescending or rude but, I really do not understand what you are trying to demonstrate by these passages,

I am not trying to be condescending or rude but, to demonstrate by these passages from Robertson's Grammar. . .

Q~LIMITS OF SYNTAX. After all is done, instances remain where syntax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. Take 'hudati' in Acts 1:5, for instance. In itself the word can be either locative or instrumental with 'baptidzoh'. So in Acts 2:38 'eis' does not of itself express design (see Mt. 10.41), but it may be so used. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.~QE

Matthew 12:41, "they repented at / because of the preaching of Jonas" - 'metenoehsan eis to kehrugma Iohnah'.

Acts 10:22, "Cornelius was warned to send for you to hear / because of to hear word from you" - 'Kornelius echrehmatistheh metapempsasthai se eis akousai rhehmata para sou'.

John 6:66 "Many of his followers left Him because of the last (words of Jesus in verse 65) and no longer walked with Him." - 'polloi tohn mathehtohn autou apehlthon eis ta opisoh kai ouketi met' autou periepatoun.' Verse 65, "I say unto you that no man can come unto Me except it were given unto him of My Father."

 

[oldhermit]

I may, one day, in my own time.

Let me save you the trouble. Robertson tried to argue these points before and many of his own colleagues took him to task on his invented notion of a 'casual' use for eis. It is interesting that this idea never shows up anywhere prior to Robertson. Neither he nor J. R. Mantey could defend their position. What is most disturbing in all of this is that Robertson himself even admits that his treatment of eis is NOT based on any rules of grammar but upon his own soteriological bias. Robertson knows what the rules are, he simply chooses to ignore them in favor of personal bias.

 

[oldhermit]

I am not trying to be condescending or rude but, to demonstrate by these passages from Robertson's Grammar. . .

Q~LIMITS OF SYNTAX. After all is done, instances remain where syntax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. Take 'hudati' in Acts 1:5, for instance. In itself the word can be either locative or instrumental with 'baptidzoh'. So in Acts 2:38 'eis' does not of itself express design (see Mt. 10.41), but it may be so used. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.~QE

More to follow, God willing.

What Robertson means by this is that the language of the text must submit itself to human reasoning in order to justify his treatment of this text and others as well. This is not how scripture defines the relationship between itself and the human mind. Truth is bound up in the grammatical structure of the text, not in human reason that forces itself onto the text. Robertson is clearly demonstrating that he has no regard for the integrity of scripture. He knows what this verse says. He just does not like what it says. He know the rules of grammar both in English and Greek. He just chooses to ignore them.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn
Many of his followers left Him because of the last (words of Jesus in verse 65) and no longer walked with Him.
John 6:66

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Let me save you the trouble. Robertson tried to argue these points before and many of his own colleagues took him to task on his invented notion of a 'casual' use for eis. It is interesting that this idea never shows up anywhere prior to Robertson. Neither he nor J. R. Mantey could defend their position. What is most disturbing in all of this is that Robertson himself even admits that his treatment of eis is NOT based on any rules of grammar but upon his own soteriological bias. Robertson knows what the rules are, he simply chooses to ignore them in favor of personal bias.

I only know about his Grammar and cannot see in it what you are here alleging.

In his Grammar Robertson argues the unmistakable and undeniable shift away from Preposition to Case in Classical and Hellenistic Greek and again away from Case to Preposition in present day Greek.

One does find examples given by Robertson of 'eis' meaning 'because of'. One I am sure of, is Matthew 12:41.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Robertson is clearly demonstrating that he has no regard for the integrity of scripture.

Of course, completely irresponsible!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

He knows what this verse says. He just does not like what it says. He know the rules of grammar both in English and Greek. He just chooses to ignore them.

Of which '~verse~' do you speak?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

his invented notion of a 'casual' use for eis.

Perhaps you mean 'causal' use?

 

[oldhermit]

I only know about his Grammar and cannot see in it what you are here alleging.

In his Grammar Robertson argues the unmistakable and undeniable shift away from Preposition to Case in Classical and Hellenistic Greek and again away from Case to Preposition in present day Greek.

One does find examples given by Robertson of 'eis' meaning 'because of'. One I am sure of, is Matthew 12:41.

Matthew 12:24 does not support Robertson's argument for the so-called 'casual' use of eis. He knows that will not work here. Here, eis express point action. The men of Nineveh repented "at" the preaching of Jonah. If Matthew had meant to say that they repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah, he could have used 'dia' since it is with the accusative case and that would have conveyed the idea of 'because of'. Instead, Matthew uses a word that never means 'because of'. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus says, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for (eis) the forgiveness of sins." This is the exact same construction as that of "be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins." Was Jesus blood shed because of the remission or to achieve the remission of sins?

There is nothing 'alleged' in what I am saying. What I am giving you are the simple grammatical facts.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

What Robertson means by this is that the language of the text must submit itself to human reasoning

It is a very unfair, unjustifiable and in fact, false and totally unsubstantiated accusation. What you are referring to, was the so called 'dynamic equivalent' movements of the 20th century in the fifties and eighties. World wide orchestrated by the Roman Catholic Church and performed under the baton of the famous / infamous Nida rock solid Jesuit appointed leader by Protestants and Catholics and Charismatics with even enthusiasm. Robertson of all scholars least deserves being associated with such godless movements a century after him.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Matthew 12:24 does not support Robertson's argument for the so-called 'casual' use of eis. He knows that will not work here.

No one as far as I can see except you talks about '~Matthew 12:24~'!

 

[oldhermit]

If you what to know what Robertson's own colleagues think of his so-called casual use of eis, I suggest you read the following debate between
Ralf Marcus and J.R. Montey on this subject. Here is where you will find that debate. "The causal use of eis in the New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature 70.1. Mounce, Wallace, and Marcus are all of the same level of scholarship as Robertson and to my knowledge, none of them believe in baptismal regeneration. However, they do know what Acts 2:38 says and they absolutely destroyed Robertson's and Montey's position to the point that Montey was even forced to concede. Robertson is simply wrong.