Could You Please Elaborate On "eis" In Acts 2:38?
As I have always stated in my study of this passage I find it interesting that A.T. Robertson a well known Greek scholar alluded to the fact of the grammar here is often left to interpretation. “... of Acts 2:38, where only the context and tenor of N.T. teaching can determine whether “into”, “unto” or merely “in” or “on” (upon) Is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not the grammarian." Page 592.
Again he states in the same book on Page 595 under Aim or Purpose. "Sometimes indeed eis appears in an atmosphere where aim or purpose is manifestly the resultant idea." He goes on to explain One may doubt also that this is the idea in Matthew 26:28. But it by no means follows that the same ide is expressed by Mark 1:4 and Acts 2:38 (cf. Matthew 10:41), though that may in the abstract be true. It remains a matter for the interpreter to decide. Pages 594-595 Even in his comments on 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 Acts 1:5, for instance. "In itself the word can be either locative or instrumental with baptism. So in Acts 2:38 eis does not of itself express design (see Matthew 10:41), but it may be so used. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through. Page 389.
A Grammar of The Greek New Testament A.T. Robertson 1934 Broadman Press Page 592 It is sad that such a scholar as Mr. Robertson didn’t completely understand how salvation is given and achieved. I just would like to add two arguments. 1. Whatever be the design of baptism in this passage, repentance bears the same end or aim. If baptism be “because of” remission, then so is repentance. To command men to repent because of remission is absurd, since it is universally granted that repentance is a condition precedent to remission. But let it be admitted that repentance is for ( in order to obtain) the remission of sins, and no amount of illogical juggling of words will hide the fact that baptism is for the same purpose and in exactly the same sense. 2.Secondly the denominational theory contradicts an obvious fact in the case.
The Pentecostians were asking what to do to be saved, not something to do because they where already saved. The conclusion is irresistible: repentance and baptism conditions precedent to the remission of sins. “What must we do to obtain the forgiveness of sins?” The answer is the same: ”Repent and be baptized” They were not told to repent for one purpose and be baptized for another. Repentance and baptism in this passage stand in precisely the same relationship. The rule of grammar operative in such cases is as follows: Coordinate connectives connect similar grammatical elements, and place them in equal ranks; or, more simply, “Whenever two things are connected by the copulative conjunction ‘and’ and something is affirmed or predicated of them, however much they may differ in other respects, they are perfectly equal as to the thing predicated or affirmed.” Repentance and baptism are of course, different acts; but in this sentence their object is the same, and they are entirely equal as to the thing predicated or affirmed, which, in this case, is remission of sins. Indeed, it is impossible for one candidly to approach the passage and gather any other meaning who is content to let the scriptures speak for themselves.
The verbs "repent," and "be baptized," are joined by the copulative conjunction "and." They are thus equally related to their object, which in this sentence is "remission of sins." Now in English the word that the translators show for this copulative conjunction is and and [Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German unti and] (before 12th century) 1 — used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type — used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function 2 — used as a function word to join one finite verb (as go, come, try) to another so that together they are logically equivalent to an infinitive of purpose 3 — used in logic to form a conjunction AND \and\ noun (1949) : a logical operator that requires both of two inputs to be present or two conditions to be met for an output to be made or a statement to be executed Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.
"The sense of a word cannot be diverse or multiform at the same time and in the same place." Again, "In no language can a word have more than one literal meaning in the same place" (Ernesti, pp. 9,11). In the sentence before us, the relation of the verbs "repent," and "be baptized," to their object, "remission," is expression by the preposition "for ." It must therefore follow that "for" cannot mean "because of," as to baptism, and "in order to" as to repentance, seeing that a word cannot have two meanings at the same time and in the same place. But since repentance is clearly "in order to" the remission of sins in the passage, so also is baptism. In fact this clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other" (Hackett's Commentary on Acts). The clearest exposition of its usage, however, is in Matthew 26:28, where a similarly constructed sentence is found. 'For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice that the words "for the remission of sins" are the same as in Acts 2:38. Observe too, that the preposition "for" (eis) is performing its usual function of pointing out the object of the verb. In this instance, the verb is "is shed," and "remission of sins," is the object.
Does this mean that Christ shed his blood "because of' remission? If the word "for" is to be given the meaning claimed for it in Acts 2:38, this conclusion is inevitable. Examine the following parallel: Christ's blood was shed. "For the remission of sins" (Eis aphesin hamartioon). Repent and be baptized. "For the remission of sins" (Eis aphesin hamartioon). Unless it be granted that Christ died "because of' the forgiveness of our sins, it must follow, indisputably, that baptism with its proper antecedents is "in order to" remission of sins. Sectarian debaters ignorant of the Greek New Testament or possessing only a smattering knowledge at most, have turned frequently in desperation to this in a vain effort to escape the irresistible force of Peter's statement. N o scholar worthy of the title would suffer his name to appear in connection with such a criticism; so doing betrays an utter unfamiliarity with the simplest rules of construction of a Greek sentence. It is absurd to force a Greek sentence into conformity with the rules of English grammar.
While it is true that the verbs differ in their substantives grammatically, it is our purpose to prove that they embrace and contemplate the same persons; and more, that the form in which they appear is even more emphatic in teaching the essentiality of baptism for remission of sins. Two things he commanded them to do: (1) repent and (2) be baptized; thereupon, they were promised "remission of sins." One can only stand aghast and marvel at the reckless ingenuity that would dare lay unholy hands on a passage involving matters of such transcendent moment to the human family. Far better is it to accept without question these words of life and be blessed thereby. Our critics are grievously at fault in contending that verbs whose subjects differ in number and person cannot take the same object. They can and in many instances in the sacred writings do take the same object. The rule is as follows: Imperatives when connected by a conjunction, expressed or implied, have the same object, unless a different object is expressed or implied. Metanoesate is in the imperative mood, second person, plural number. Baptisheto is in the imperative mood, third person, singular number. They are connected by the conjunction "and."
"Remission" is the only object expressed in the sentence, and no other is implied. Therefore, the rule is operative in this case. Thus the conclusion must follow that the verb "repent" sustains to "remission," the same relation that "be baptized" sustains. But since "repentance" is clearly "in order to" remission, so also is baptism. It is surely not difficult to see that "every one of you" is included in the "ye" who were commanded to repent. To illustrate: A contractor hires carpenters to build a house, and says to them, "All of you come, and let each man bring his tools." Certainly, "all" in the sentence is the same as "each man." Yet, "all" is plural, while "each man" is singular, and despite disagreement in number, they embrace and contemplate the same persons. Critical analysis of Acts 2:38 is necessary only to expose the sophistry of those who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Those who are content to let the Bible speak for itself have no difficulty with the passage. It is as clear as a bell on a frosty morning.
Faithful men who approach the Bible for no other purpose than to gather the meaning and mind of the Holy Spirit could never concoct such a monstrous criticism as that under consideration. In this connection let it be remembered that baptism is said to be "for" only one thing in all the Bible. While we learn by implication and necessary inference that it has other designs. It is significant and highly so, that it is declared to be "for" only one thing. Peter declares that it is "for" the remission of sins. Students of the New Testament have no other alternative than to accept this statement at face value. To do otherwise is to join the forces of infidelity.
Here is the battleground; this is the essence that the Bible declares baptism to be "for" the remission of sins; that it puts "into Christ" (Romans 5:3), and "saves." (1 Peter 3:21.) Yet, sectarian preachers join in a mighty refrain in teaching the people that baptism "is not for" the remission of sins; that it "does not put onto into Christ," and that "it does not save." Then, let the issue be carefully drawn. It is not, What did Peter mean? for he surely meant what he said: It is rather, Did Peter tell the truth?
This article taken from
http://www.speakingastheoraclesofgod.com/anwsers/elaborate%20in%20eis.htm