'For' or 'because of'

I have heard many arguments regarding the word εἰς and how it is to be translated, particularly in such places as Acts 2:38. Should it be translated as 'into', or 'because of'? Let me here some of your arguments on this.

"For the" is the uniform translation of eis in English. "Because of" would make no sense.

My view....

Because of......

At the time Jesus came teaching there were many that had trusted into the coming Messiah by faith (O.T. salvation) and I fully believe that immersion is to the N.T. what circumcision was to the O.T. I.E> an identifier.....Abraham was justified by faith long before he was circumcised and or offered Isaac.....When Peter comes preaching the message, the message is to be identified with Christ through immersion....their sins had already been forgiven in Christ, they were already saved by belief into the coming Messiah and the 1st act of obedience which is also an identifier and or public profession of being dead, buried and risen in Christ is immersion....Because of the fact your sins have been remitted in Christ, be identified with him through immersion.....

That is my view.......

Into makes the most sense to me (notice my signature). Salvation is in Christ, so though we are in him by covenant, we have to believe into him moment to moment. Out of faith into faith (Romans 1:17).

It would be interesting to see how εἰς is rendered in each case. What I have noticed is that it always seems to be rendered with either forward motion or point action.

Regarding Acts 2:38 I think into makes sense and because of doesn't. The men Peter was speaking to did not express a faith in Christ, but merely a conviction that they (corporately) had done wrong in murdering an innocent man. The step of faith was to repent and be baptized in his name in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. It doesn't make sense that Peter would tell them to repent and be baptized because of forgiveness of sins (which requires repentance and faith), because according to him they hadn't even repented yet.

Setting aside the soteriological implications for a moment, I would like focus first on just the rules of grammar that govern the sentence structure, including definitions,

At the moment that is not our concern.

I think context is important too. Peter made no mention of forgiveness of sins before verse 38. The men were wounded in their hearts and asked "what do we do"? Then Peter stated the remedy for their guilt. Also, if because of is the correct meaning, why didn't he use oti, which does mean because?

Contest never violates the rules of grammar. All languages have rules of grammar that must be followed or communication become impossible.

But that is not what this verse is alluding to. Please note:

...for the (eis) remission of sins (aphesin ton hamartion)...

This has nothing to do with *into the remission of sins* (which would make no sense) or "into Christ" which is not even there. It is "in the name of Jesus Christ".

OK, why didn't he use oti if because is correct? Would have been simple to do - "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins are forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Makes perfect sense - out of guilt into forgiveness. It's the way the Greeks thought.

It we attempt to translate εἰς as 'because of', this will be contrary to the meaning of the preposition and to every other use of this word found in scripture. It will also violate the rules of grammar for the use of "because of".

"καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν". Acts 2:38b

Eis is a preposition! Both "for" and "because of" are conjunctions. Plus, eis takes the accusative. It usually is "into, in, among" according to my mini dictionary, which is based on BDAG. However, Koine Greek does have some strange twists to it, as the language was in flux.

It can NOT be "because of" because εἰς takes the accusative, and ἄφεσιν is in the accusative. Anytime in English, you have "of" it automatically is known that it is genitive, which εἰς is not! It also can NOT be "because of," because εἰς is a preposition, and "because" is a conjunction.

So, I went to Bauer BDAG and the fifth meaning is:

5. Marker of a specific point of reference; for, to, with, with respect to, with reference to.

Because there is such a high frequency of εἰς, BDAG does not list this occurrence of εἰς in Acts 2:38. But, I would have to say Luke had a reason for writing it this way, not to be a conjunction, but as a point of reference.

One could even say: in the name of Jesus Christ, with reference to forgiveness of your sins.

Your points are spot on. Would not "because of' be an adverbial phrase? I am not sure about the Greek rule on this point but, in English, 'because of' can only modify verbs, adjectives and clauses, not nouns and pronouns. Since ‘remission’ and ‘sin’ are both nouns and there is no verb, adjective, or clause in “for the remission of sins,” ‘because of’ cannot be used. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how this rule applies in Greek.

Seeing how the word of God does not contradict itself......the question that is being danced around here is....was it immersion that saved them from their sins....

ALL conclusions concerning Acts and this particular context must jive with the bible....

Why did JESUS say the Pharisees would die in their sins....

Because they were not immersed

or

Because they did not believe on or into JESUS

Is it WATER or BLOOD that covers sins?

When I see the WATER or BLOOD I will pass over you?

Without the shedding of BLOOD or covering of water there is no remission of sins?

No matter how many try to make ACTS and immersion the cause and effect of sins being remitted, it is the BLOOD, not the WATER that covers and remits one's sins.........having said that.....

We must interpret based upon KNOWN facts.....

then what do you mean by "uniform translation" ?

every time i've heard that term, it meant uniformly translating a word in one language always to the same word or phrase in another language. i.e. if "for the" is the "uniform translation" then in every single case where εἰς is found it should be translated "for the"
whenever i have heard this term "uniform translation" used, it would imply that any deviation from translating to "for the" would be called "variable translation" instead of "uniform"

It should be "for" here is the problem many the hard line intranslation the "for" means to get or recieve when the word "for" can means because yo somthing that is already possesed we use "for" in that manor often when we say "take two aspirin for a headache" It does not mean that you take the aspirin to get the geadache you take them because you already have the head ache. Plus to truely understand this verse and the use of "for" we need to look at the full councel of God on Salvation. According to Jesus those men would not even have asked what they must do to be save if they had not been born again or be given life by the Spirit to come to Jesus granted by the Father.

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 6:63, 65 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.......65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The Lord opens hearts and those chosen for eternal life will believe.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

Lydia's was opened just like the men in Acts 2.