Matthew 10:41 Eis

The argument over Acts 2:38 translation of eis is long and hurtful, and with new Bible versions translating the verse "because" for the first time in history, we need to ask what changed. Eis was in the New Testament scriptures 1722 times and never translated in Bibles, "because", until after 1990. It was always translated looking forward, for the remission or to receive remission.

The answer is protestant translators got their way. It was a long-standing wish of protestants going back to the Baptist A.T. Robertson that eis in some cases should be translated "because". Robertson chose a few verses to make his point, but was clearly incorrect. One verse that was used as his platform jumping off point was Matthew 10:40-42

Matthew 10:41

He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. 

The phrase "in the name" is translated from eis, in the ESV and other new versions they translated it "because" the name. The idea they used was that it was the basis for accepting the prophet. Thus, in their view eis meant basis or because. This is from A.T. Robertson directly. We could draw the conclusion the ESV is a Baptist translation in some respects.

So how did A.T. Robertson get it wrong? It is obvious to me, "because" is a terrible translation. 

It is because, pardon the pun, Matthew 10:41 isn't talking about basis but is speaking of force of intensity and sincerity. Eis is used when moving in a direction and establishing an upper or lower limit, or arrival at a destination. Receiving a prophet or righteous man is the destination completed. "In the name" is the force of sincerity. One receives the prophet in the manner deserved by the title of the prophet.

Eis should be used here and is of the Holy Spirit, but it shouldn't be translated because of, it fits the traditional forward use of eis very well. The English translation by Robertson isn't inspired, it is backwards. In John 2:23 and John12:42 many believed in Jesus but would not confess him openly. They received him in a manner that did not reflect sincerity of force as required in Matthew 10:41. Faith with inappropriate and insincere action wouldn't save.

John 2:23

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast [day,] many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 

John 2:24

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men, ] 

John 12:42

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him,] lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 

In essence, many believed the miracles but lacked sincerity of force, they were receiving partially with bad behavior. "In the name" using eis demands a full acceptance of the persons office and position, and reception equal to the name, appropriate for the office. So, eis in Matthew 10:41 speaks of the manner of receiving vs. basis for receiving. One can have the basis without having the manner and intensity.

Eis establishes method and an acceptable limit, to receive a prophets reward our acceptance of him must be sincere, matching his position and righteousness.

Robertson got it wrong, which eventually caused the protestant and other faith alone groups to fight for a false Bible translation, that reflected his view. Over the past century multitudes were convinced by Robertson's bad Greek. Those who accept such nonsense are in big trouble I would imagine. From now on this translation will be a precedent relied upon by faith only groups. A false precedent. It will make it easier for them to make faith only claims against baptism for remission.