John 3:36 and the word apeithon

Preamble

I want to examine one word in one verse from the Gospel of John.  In particular, I want to question why the NIV translators chose the translation they did.  My hunch is that there may be some theological machinations going on under the surface but I will let the reader decide for him or herself.

The Verse: 3:36

The one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one apeithon the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The Word: apeithon

Most modern English translations translate apeithon as "disobeys".  However, the two most influential translations for Evangelicals, the King James and the NIV, use different words:

King James: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

NIV: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.

Raymond Brown points out that the Latin tradition reads "disbelieves" on the analogy of 3:18 (The one believing in Him is not judged, but the one not believing already has been judged...), and that it is a natural contrast to the "believes" in  the first part of 3:36.  This  would explain the King James, but what about the NIV?  Why did the NIV chose the word "rejects"?

Other uses of apeithon in the New Testament

Unfortunately, John does not use the word elsewhere, but it is used in other NT books (Acts 14:2; 19:9; Rom. 2:8; 10:21; 11:30; 11:31; 15:31; Heb. 3:18; 11:31; 1 Pet. 3:1; 3:20; 4:17).

Romans 2:8  is instructive.  In Romans 2:6, Paul states a principle that God will recompense to each man according to his works (erga).  In verse 2:7, Paul states the positive outcome: to those who work (ergou) good, life eternal (sounds like John!).  But 2:8 states the negative outcome: to those being selfish and apeithousi the truth, wrath and anger (sounds like John!).  There is little question that our word in question is at least related to an action verb, especially given the emphasis on works in these verses.  This would make the word "disobeys" a natural translation.

Some of Paul's other uses of the word also pertain to actions.  In Romans 10:21, he quotes Isaiah 65:2: I reach out my hands toward a people apeithounta and opposing.  Isaiah 65:2 talks about those who "go the way not good", which is definitely an action.  Hebrews 3:18, similarly, mentions our word in relation to rebellion in 3:16 and sin in 3:17, both which have to do with action in relation to God, for which "disobedience" would be a dead-on translation.

It's interesting that both Hebrews 3:18 and 11:31 relate our word to either faith or unbelief, as does John 3:36.  I think the moral here is not to change the meaning of apeithon  but to broaden our conception of "belief" as used by NT writers!

NIV and John 3:36

So, why did the NIV use the word "rejects".  It could be that the root word of apeithon has to do with persuasion or the like and so rejects might seem appropriate.  My own sense is that the word "rejects" can naturally pertain to beliefs.  One can reject proposition such as "Jesus is the Son of God" or "Jesus died for my sins".  Is this a theological tipping of the hat by the NIV translators?  You be the judge!

Theological Upshot

To disobey the Son has to do with actions (works) and not just beliefs.  John is not just talking about believing the right stuff.  However, as I hope this exercise has shown, in order to teach obedience we first have to get the word right!  As I point out on my website, John 3:36 ought to inform our take on John 3:16, which for many is the Gospel in a nut-shell.