The point that we need to make is that this context restricts the words, "But do this with gentleness and respect." The statement has been used to prescribe the proper attitudes, mannerisms, and even the vocabularies that Christians are to use when answering challenges from all kinds of unbelievers. Thus the verse has been reduced to something like, "Always be ready to do apologetics, but do it nicely."

However, such an interpretation of the verse would condemn the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord himself, as there are times when they conducted themselves with anything other than "gentleness and respect" toward the unbelievers, at least as these words are now understood. Rather, they called the disobedient and unbelieving such things as whores, dogs, pigs, foxes, snakes, fools (or morons), hypocrites, wicked men, blind men, dead men, brutes, rubbish, dung, and so on. And do we need to repeat all the negative remarks that Peter himself has made about the unbelievers in this very letter that we are studying?

On the other hand, the prophets and apostles usually answered authority figures with gentleness, doubtless "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13) and acknowledging the fact that "there is no authority except that which God has established" (Romans 13:1). In one instance, Paul answered his interrogator with some of the harshest words possible, even with a curse, but he softened once he discovered that he was speaking to the high priest:

Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"

Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?" Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'" (Acts 23:1-5)

Thus the strong tendency among apologists and interpreters to universalize 1 Peter 3:15 and condemn those who do not adhere to their standard of "gentleness and respect" is unbiblical (since it removes the words from their context, and distorts and misapplies them) and irreverent (for it indirectly criticizes the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord).

And I say that they use their standard of "gentleness and respect" because, whether in context or out of context, they do not use Scripture itself to define these words, but the non-Christian notion of social propriety. The result is that the unbelievers are controlling how Christians must deal with them. This in turn takes away the sting that is part and parcel of a biblical defense of the faith. It is not that we must be constantly harsh and insulting – that is not the point at all – but we must remain free to display the variety and intensity of expression as prescribed and exhibited by the relevant biblical commands and examples, and as necessitated by our encounters with different types of unbelievers.

In any case, Christians should no longer allow teachers of apologetics to get away with the misuse of 1 Peter 3:15.

Our rational defense is to be accompanied by "good behavior" (v. 16). Again, the gospel message is a sufficient basis for faith, and makes the unbelievers culpable. And although some sinners might be convicted by our good behavior and thus become "ashamed of their slander," many of them might not respond this way.

In fact, our good behavior might sometimes infuriate them, harden their hearts and incite greater persecution (4:4). But we do what is right no matter what, "keeping a clear conscience," which sinners cannot see. Yet if the unbelievers persist in their persecution, how should we think? Peter writes, "It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil" (v. 17).

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link