Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78485 | ||
Greetings, Concerning the Matthew 12:41 statement that the people of Nineveh "repented at the preaching of Jonah." The proper understanding is that the people heard the message from Jonah and repented toward the direction of the message: hence, they repented at/unto the preaching of Jonah. This verse is often used to show that EIS in Acts 2:38 can be translated 'because'. They want to move forgiveness of sins ahead of baptism. But the preposition EIS does not permit it. EIS - is a preposition of the accusative case and points toward the direct object which receives the action of the nearest verb. True to form in both Matthew 12:41 and Acts 2:38 'EIS the preaching', accusative, direct object. 'EIS the forgiveness', accusative, direct object. The expected result of repentence was alignment with, or into, the message of Jonah. In Acts 2:38, the expected result of repentance and water baptism was forgiveness of sins. Disciplerami |
||||||
2 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78757 | ||
Good News, EIS is prospective, not retrospective! The following is a clip and paste. All sources are referenced. Enjoy. ___________________ "In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing! Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that ”eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 [1952] 129-30; 71 [1953] 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370)." ____________________ Wallace did not come to believe that baptism is essential for salvation, but he shows that EIS is clearly, always prospective. Disciplerami See: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/surrenderingEis.htm |
||||||