WORDS FOR "OBEY"
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
x
 "Have you done a word study on the translation of the Greek of the words rendered ‘obey’ or ‘obedience’ in the English?…"
—West Virginia Reader
x
 ANSWER: We claim to be no authority in the study of words. However, there is a lot of good source material available today to expedite and make such a study relatively simple. Personally, we find word studies to be most fascinating, as well as enlightening. And this is likewise true as we dig into the words behind the word translated "obey" in the New Testament.
x
 There are basically two words rendered "obey" (KJV) in the New Testament, hupakouo and peitho.
x
 The first word, Hupakouo, is the primary word for "obey" that is used. It is a compound word made up of two parts, hupo (under) + akouo (to hear). (We get our modern word "acoustic" from this root, akouo). The use of this word for obey would seem to imply that Christianity is a religion that has been spoken. And from an underling position we are to listen, to hearken, and to obey. Hupakouo is once translated "hearken" in Acts 12:13. However, elsewhere throughout the New Testament the word "obey" (or obedient) is used extensively to represent the Greek, as in the following references: Acts 6:7; Romans 6:12,16,17; 10:16; Ephesians 6:1,5); Philippians 2:12; Colossians 3:20,22; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 3:14; Hebrews 11:8; 1 Peter 3:6). We attentively listen and comply to what the Lord says.
x
 The second word translated "obey" is peitho. It basically means to be persuaded and is primarily rendered that way in the New Testament. However, it has an extended meaning of not only being persuaded (or convinced), but yielding to that persuasion in obedience. Peitho is represented by the word "obey" in the following references: Acts 5:36,37; Romans 2:8; Galatians 5:7; Hebrews 13:17; James 3:3.
x
 Take the word peitho and put the little privative prefix "a" in front of it, and we have apeitheo (a + peitheo). It negates the word. Consequently this word is translated "not obey" in Romans 2:8, 1 Peter 3:1 and 4:17. "Disobedient" is used for it in Romans 10:21; 1 Peter 2:8 and 3:20. It carries the idea of being disobedient, having resisted persuasion (even obstinately so).
x
 An interesting variant use of peitho is found in Acts 5:29 (and 32), Acts 27:21, and Titus 3:1. This is combined with archo to become peitharcheo (peitho + archo). We already have found that peitho means to obey out of persuasion. The last part of the word, archo, is reflected in our word monarch. It has reference to a ruler. So the Greek word peith + archeo (peitharcheo) means to obey a ruler or one in authority. It is quite expressive that Peter used this word when the rulers in Jerusalem commanded him to not preach any more in the name of Christ. His answer in no uncertain terms was, "We ought to obey [peitharcheo, obey a ruler] God rather than men [God is our ruler, not you]" (Acts 5:29). The KJV renders this word "obey magistrates" in Titus 3:1. And in the other Scripture listed, Acts 27:21, it is translated, "ye should have hearkened unto me…" They had followed the orders of the master of the ship and were headed into a winter storm. Is Paul implying that his words should have been listened to on a par with, or above, the "master" of the ship? Paul was a man of experience on the high seas; thus he would be an authority on the subject.
x
 Truly, this is an interesting word study. These are the impressions that we gleaned from our simple study of the word "obey" in the New Testament. Let us be found obedient to the Lord in all things.—J.E.G.
x
<BACK
x

 

 

ESAU AND FORNICATORS
x

IN HERBREWS 12:15-17 an interesting reference is made to Esau. In the same breath he is lumped together with fornicators. How can that be? The initial reference is to the selling of his birthright to his brother Jacob for a mess of pottage found in Genesis 25:29-34.
x
 The birthright in the line of the patriarchs was a matter of highest esteem and importance. Of all of humanity, God had called Abraham to become a great nation through whom all families of the earth would eventually be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3). The dignity of such a calling was evident in the favored birthright that was passed on to the firstborn in the line of descent of each generation. This involved material and spiritual privileges. Extra honor and dignity came in being the firstborn.
x
 The episode involving Jacob and Esau is quite revealing. Jacob, imperfect as he was, recognized the value and dignity of the birthright. But to Esau it was something lightly esteemed. In a moment of passing hunger, coming in from the fields empty-handed from hunting, he flippantly traded his birthright for a measly pot of red pottage. Having gotten him to swear to the deal, "Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised [disesteemed] his birthright" (Genesis 25:34).
x
 Consequently, we have the warning in the book of Hebrews. "Looking diligently…Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat [food] sold his birthright" (Hebrews 12:15,16). 
x
 But, again, why is he lumped together with fornicators? Perhaps Proverbs 30:20 would be helpful in understanding this. Here it speaks of the sexually loose "strange woman." It reads, "Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness." She goes from the heinous act of casual sex with no more moral scruples than a person wiping her mouth with a napkin after eating a common meal. There is no respect for that which is holy and sacred that God has placed in the context of marriage (that which produces other human beings). In a real sense, it is the same sin that Esau committed when he sold his birthright. There was no respect for the value and dignity of the birthright. He ate, got up, and went his way as if nothing perverse had happened. Just a casual meal--"thus Esau despised his birthright" (Genesis 25:34).
x
<BACK
x

 

 

SHUT UP IN A THEOLOGICAL BOX
X

STRONG admonitions and warnings about casting off faith and going back on the Lord are found throughout the book of Hebrews. One such admonition is found in Hebrews 10:35-39. It reads, "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."
X
 A person can get himself all shut up in a theological box, making it really hard for him to understand and accept Scripture for what it really says. This is true of the Scripture above. Kenneth S. Wuest, who is identified as "Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek The Moody Bible Institute" in his volumes titled Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, had this to say about Hebrews 10:39, 
"The ‘shrinking back’ ones are said to be shrinking back to perdition. The word ‘perdition’ is the translation of apoleia which mean ‘utter destruction,’ and in this context means ‘the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life; eternal misery, perdition,’ which is the lot of those who would renounce their professed faith in Messiah as High Priest and return to a dependence upon the abrogated sacrifices for salvation. The Word of God is very clear in its statements to the effect that a person once saved can never be lost. Therefore, this person who draws back to perdition must be an unsaved person."
 It sounds like he has on Calvinistic glasses with a Calvinistic filter. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary identifies Calvinism as the doctrines of "John Calvin (1509-64) including election or predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistibility of grace, and the perseverance of the saints." This Calvinistic thinking surfaces in Wuest’s word studies above when he said that "a person once saved can never be lost" (the perseverance of the saints). Even though the writer of the book of Hebrews, speaking to Christians, said that they could draw back unto perdition and be lost after becoming a Christian, Wuest says this can’t mean Christians because they can’t be lost after having once been saved. But the writer just said it. Prejudice really enslaves one’s thoughts.
X
 The writer of the book of Hebrews, in his warnings and admonitions, repeatedly makes it plain that a Christian can cast off his faith, be lost and not receive the everlasting reward. How else can the following references be explained? They are very simple. And there are others.
  • "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?" (Read the context, 2:1-4)

    •  
  • "But Christ as a son over his own house: whose house are we, IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto th end" (3:6).

    •  
  • "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God…For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end" (3:12,14).

    •  
  • "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which not man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God…" (12:14,15).
 Yes, we believe that God will do his part in keeping us. Peter tells us in 1 Peter 1:5 that Christians "are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." Yes, but please notice. God keeps us through our faith. By this means we tap on to the power of God. But the writer of Hebrews says that we can cast off our faith. Our being "kept" is conditional. We are still a free moral agent with responsibility and accountability. Calvinism is a very reactionary and radical doctrine, coming out of the Dark Ages. Paul speaks of the "manifold wisdom of God" (Ephesians 3:10). Let us recognize that there are many folds and facets to God’s wisdom, and accept every one of them as we accept all of the Word of God for what it actually says.
X
 This little article is not intended to disparage the personal piety of Mr. Wuest, nor to diminish the value of much of his writings when he speaks on practical matters, but we couldn’t help but be amazed by the sectarian entrenchment in his thinking and mindset. 
X
<BACK
X

 

 

INFANT BAPTISM
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
X

 TO AN OBSERVANT STUDENT and one who believes the Scriptures, infant baptism doesn’t make sense. The New Testament teaches that faith and repentance must precede and accompany baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:35-37; Acts 2:38). It teaches that baptism (immersion in water, Acts 8:38,39; Romans 6:4) is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). An infant is eliminated as a "candidate" for baptism because infants are not capable of believing. Infants are eliminated as "candidates" for baptism inasmuch as they do not have the capacity to repent, not having the awareness nor guilt of sin to repent of (repentance is a change of heart, a change of mind). Consequently, in the light of these considerations, they are eliminated as proper subjects for baptism. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Infants are sinless, they are innocent, and there is no discernment of sin and consequently no guilt (and thus they are not accountable). So, how could an infant be baptized for the "remission of sins." There are none to be remitted. They belong to God until they come to that age of accountability. Do you remember what Jesus said? "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). He also said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:4). 
X
 Infant baptism was introduced in a less enlightened age removed from the days of the early church by superstitious men who believed that through birth we inherit the guilt of the sin of Adam. Although an infant doesn’t have the capability (nor capacity) to believe and repent, nor the need to be baptized, these errant teachers thought baptism would somehow rectify the supposed, but nonexistent, problem. However, infants and little children are not accountable to God. They already belong to God, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The Scriptures say that Jesus would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21), not Adam’s sin. Men were told to "repent…and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19), not Adam’s sin. Ezekiel 18:20 reads, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." To say that we inherited Adam’s sin would make our Lord a sinner since on the human side his genealogy goes all the way back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38).
X
<BACK
X
TheSwordANDStaff