The lexica agree on the shape of the entry and differ mainly in weighting. BDAG organizes it by voice and tense: the active transitive "convince, persuade, win over," with a further sense "conciliate, satisfy, set at ease" (Mt 28:14; Ac 12:20; 1 Jn 3:19); the second perfect πέποιθα with present force, "depend on, trust in, be confident"; the perfect passive πέπεισμαι and the aorist passive, "be convinced, be certain"; and the present and imperfect middle-passive, "be persuaded, obey, follow." LSJ, covering classical usage, makes the transitive "prevail upon, persuade" primary and treats "trust" as the intransitive perfect. Louw-Nida distribute the verb across three semantic domains (persuasion 33, trusting/relying 31, obeying 36), which is the clearest lexicographic demonstration that no single English verb covers the range. Bultmann's TDNT article argues that the archaic intransitive sense was "trust," the transitive "convince, persuade" developing later by way of the passive, which explains why the second perfect behaves so differently from the present. Moulton-Milligan document "persuade," "prevail on," and passive "comply" throughout the documentary papyri, so none of this is a specialized biblical idiom.
The decisive datum for biblical usage is Septuagintal. The translators regularly rendered בָּטַח with πείθω/πέποιθα, and also used the verb for חָסָה and the Niphal of שָׁעַן, while generally avoiding πιστεύω for בָּטַח; the result is a Greek verb whose secular center of gravity was rhetorical persuasion but which became a principal vehicle for trust in God (Dt 28:52; 2 Chr 14:11; Prov 3:5; Isa 31:1). Paul's confidence formulas with πέποιθα (Rom 8:38; Phil 1:6, 25; 2:24; 2 Thess 3:4) stand directly in that line, which is why the perfect is the lexical hinge between this verb and the πίστις word-group.
Two live debates bear on the entry. First, whether the middle-passive properly means "obey": Rom 2:8 and Gal 5:7 make "comply with" the natural rendering (Moo, Cranfield, Jewett, Fitzmyer), but Heb 13:17 is contested, since the author passed over ὑπακούω and ὑποτάσσω (Attridge, Ellingworth, Koester). The wider frame is the Bultmann legacy: Teresa Morgan's Roman Faith and Christian Faith recasts πίστις/fides as relational trust and trustworthiness rather than propositional belief, placing πείθομαι and πέποιθα on one continuum of relational reliance, while Matthew Bates's "allegiance" proposal, criticized by Schreiner and Timmins, presses the obedience component further than most accept. Second, Paul and rhetoric: 1 Cor 2:4 uses the otherwise unattested adjective πειθός in a textually unstable phrase (Metzger's committee retains the shorter text against the Byzantine ἀνθρωπίνης), and Litfin and Winter read Paul as renouncing Greco-Roman persuasion in principle, while Pogoloff, Mitchell, and Witherington limit the target to sophistic excess. 2 Cor 5:11 and Gal 1:10 show the verb used approvingly and warily in the same corpus; Harris and Barrett note the disputed object at 2 Cor 5:11, most favoring Paul's own sincerity over conversion. Occurrence totals vary between editions (52 in the modern critical text against 55 in the Textus Receptus this corpus follows), so any single count is approximate.