John (and also Van, but mostly John) Let me address of few of the issues you mentioned—starting from the end of your last post. Please understand I was not disparaging your scholarship at translating Greek in to Japanese. I think that you can speak/read/understand Japanese is enough for me to recommend you for the Medal of Honor. The point that I was trying to make—perhaps feebly so—is that I’m surprised you didn’t agree with Schreiner and Mounce. It is the nature of these two particular scholars that made your disagreement surprising. Of course I know that many well-known and world-renowned scholars do disagree. But, Schreiner and Mounce are not “Fred the Barber” and “Jimmy the Plumber.” As you know, these two are generally regarded in the top 1% of the top 1% in their field. So, that I have come to the same conclusion that two world-class scholars have come to doesn’t make me a scholar (world-class or otherwise). However, it does encourage me in my studies. Perhaps my surprise at your non-agreement with them was largely subjective, and not objective. Now, on to the matters at hand: The use of use of εἰς The use of εἰς in this passage occurs in the phrase εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν (God chose you all as the first fruits [or from the beginning] to be saved through sanctification by the spirit and belief in the truth) ESV. Where εἰς appears is of considerable importance to the discussion. First, we know the preposition εἰς is always used with the accusative. Also, we know that εἰς itself implies—at least in some manner—motion. The object of εἰς is the accusative noun σωτηρίαν (salvation). Again, according to Mounce, the noun salvation itself implies—at least in some manner—motion of some kind. “Salvation” is one of those nouns that contains a verbal idea, and so the prepositional phrase is externally modifying a noun, but in terms of its meaning it could be functioning adverbially relative to the verbal idea in the noun. (source) Having cited Mounce, let me say the following: Just because εἰς σωτηρίαν can express a verbal concept does not mean that it is a verb. I think there is a huge difference between the grammar of the accusative noun and the implied verbal concept. Having an implied verbal concept does not necessarily mean that εἰς σωτηρίαν is to be understood as a verb. So, the verbal concept of εἰς σωτηρίαν is not, I think, in and of itself conclusive that the prepositional phrase ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας should or should not considered as adjectival or adverbial. More will be said about this later. Now, the accusative noun is joined by two other accusative elements: ὑμᾶς and ἀπαρχὴν. Leaving the discussion alone about whether ἀπαρχὴν should be translated as “first fruits” or “from the beginning,” let us point out that what is going on here, grammatically, is a double accusative. Wallace describes this construction as the "Double Accusative of Object-Compliment."  All of the required elements of the Double Accusative of Object-Compliment are present—we have an accusative, σωτηρίαν, as the direct object of the verb εἵλατο and we have a pronoun, ὑμᾶς, which is the object. The other accusative, ἀπαρχὴν, is either a noun or a prepositional phrase (depending on what reading you accept). Either way, it is complimenting the pronoun ὑμᾶς. The Double Accusative of Object Compliment we see here fits the common usage of object first and compliment second, moving from the definite to the qualitative.  As for the treatment of εἰς and the verbal nuance in translation, Wallace says: Occasionally, the construction is marked by the presence of εἰς...before the compliment... Although such elements are usually lacking, one should normally translate the construction with “as,” “to be,” or “namely” between the two accusatives.  This supplying of “to be,” seeming to turn the prepositional phrase εἰς σωτηρίαν into a verbal idea should be accepted as normative. Also, we see that Wallace says “The direct objective usually combines with the verb to form a new verbal idea that has another accusative (the compliment) as its object.”  So, you remarked: It would seem that translating the concept—the intent of Paul—as a verb is within, well within, then norms of translating and exegeteing the concept that Paul is driving at. So, what the idea contained in the phrase ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν seems to indicate that Paul here is driving home what God did for (or to)—He chose them to be saved. Continued.... 1. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 183. 2. Ibid., 185. 3. Ibid., 184. 4. Ibid., 183.