Commentary on First Peter (76)
Besides the tendency of a reprobate or unrenewed mind to resist authority, there is another reason why some believers need to be taught and reminded to submit under human authorities, even to those who are unwise and unjust. It has to do with the deep transformation that individuals undergo when they become believers.
Doubtless many of the slaves in Peter's time are destitute and beaten down, with no hope and no prospects. And even if those who are not severely oppressed are probably accustomed to the way things are. They might appear submissive, but mere compliance does not satisfy Peter's instruction to submit "with all respect" – it might simply mean that they lack the courage and the strength to put up a decent uprising.
But faith changes everything.
First, God has given Christians new status in Christ. They have been justified, sanctified, and adopted by the Most High. They have been made kings and priests in Christ, and now they are seated with him in heavenly places. Those with only a partial understanding of what has happened to them might think that their newfound dignity as Christians conflict with their lowly natural positions. But as mentioned, their spiritual exaltation does not necessarily demand a social revolution, or a tearing down of existing social structures.
Second, God has given Christians new power in Christ. Conversion involves much more than a shift in thinking, or the acceptance of a new philosophy. No, in conjunction with accepting the biblical system of belief, those who turn to Christ undergo tremendous spiritual and psychical changes. As the Scripture says, "The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person" (1 Samuel 10:6).
Christians are no longer limited to their own resources, but they are preserved through faith by the very power of God. From the Holy Spirit we receive joy, life, boldness, and supernatural power! He grants to us spiritual illumination and an awareness concerning God, his holiness, as well as human sinfulness, both in ourselves and in others. We become more sensitive to injustice, more indignant about it, and now we have the boldness to stand up against it.
Imagine what the faith of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit could do to the first-century slaves. No deprivation or oppression could suppress the acute moral sensibilities and the explosive spiritual power that God has produced in them. But they must be taught the proper way to interpret and react to the world. One pastoral concern, then, is to direct this otherworldly power in believers, and to ensure that their actions and reactions are informed by an understanding of God's verbal instructions as revealed in Scripture, so that they will use this new strength not to defy human authorities, but to obey them even in the face of oppression and injustice. They must be told what Peter writes in verse 16, "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."
Commentary on First Peter (75)
Now we will turn our attention to verse 18. Addressing the household servants, Peter writes, "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." For them to "submit" means to place themselves under the authority of their masters. Obedience is the necessary implication, and also part of the word's meaning. They are to submit with all "respect" (NIV, NASB, ESV). The word phobos refers to fear, and thus the KJV and NKJV have "with all fear," but New Testament teaching is such that only God is worthy of a sense of terror. Yet "respect" is probably too weak. One commentator suggests that Peter is trying to instill an attitude of "healthy apprehension of [the masters'] displeasure."
Some masters are "good and gentle" (KJV, NASB), but others are "harsh" (NIV, NKJV). Although "harsh" contrasts well with "gentle," the word skolios means "crooked," and metaphorically speaking, that which is morally perverse. The NASB says "unreasonable," and the ESV has "unjust." A word that conveys the moral crookedness or perversity of these wicked masters is to be preferred. Naturally, those masters who are morally perverse are often also harsh, unreasonable, and unjust. They might overwork and underpay their slaves, and subject them to brutal working conditions while holding them to unrealistic expectations, punishing and depriving those who fail to measure up.
Slaves who come under the authority of masters like these would necessarily experience tremendous suffering. Yet Peter says to obey them as well. Scripture does not teach a convenient and pragmatic ethic. It requires men to do what is commanded rather than what seems comfortable.
Upon learning what the Bible teaches about submission to authority, whether to the government, to church leaders, to parents, or to husbands, more than a few Christians tend to respond, "But within reason, right?" Or, they would sound a weak moan and mutter under their breathe, "Well, as long as they are reasonable." By "reasonable" they usually have in mind what is within the limits of their comfort and preference. But if they are the ones setting the limits, then there is really no true submission to authority.
Therefore, such a reaction is not different from outright rebellion in principle, only that it is far less honest. It makes one's subjective standard rather than God's command the line which even God-ordained authorities must not cross. This teaching is anathema to those who are obsessed with their personal rights. One can still seem to hear them wonder in astonishment: "So you are saying that we should submit to unreasonable authorities?" The answer is YES.
Resistance to authority, of course, is part of man's fallen nature, and it appears within the context of all kinds of political climates and in connection with all kinds of philosophical trends. It is easier to submit to "good and gentle" masters who make realistic demands and who provide at least a minimal level of security and comfort. Perhaps for this reason, Peter does not comment on them any further. However, he finds it necessary to stress that submission applies even when the masters are crooked and perverse.
The very fact that he takes time to emphasize this shows that he is no naïve apostle, churning out moralistic platitudes without any awareness of the realities of life or the actual conditions of his readers. In other words, his instruction for the slaves to submit does not come under the assumption that they would all receive favorable treatment from their masters. There is no need to ask him, "But what about those who are harsh and unreasonable? What about those who are crooked and perverse?" He writes, "submit…also to those who are harsh."
Commentary on First Peter (74)
While Galatians 3:28 and other verses oppose racism, classism, and sexism in relation to how we must regard people's standing before God, they do not erase all distinctions concerning race, class, and gender. Neither do they eliminate roles and ranks in the society, the family, and the church. How Scripture addresses a given context must be settled separately using other biblical passages.
Of course men and women are equal in Christ, and this means that God does not save men more readily than he does women, and vice versa. They are all justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and women can believe just as readily as men can. Christians coming from once race is just as much justified, sanctified, honored, and blessed as Christians coming from another race. But this says nothing about their physiological distinctions, their roles in marriage, or even their places in the church. We must not distort Scripture and use it to overturn what God has said elsewhere in Scripture.
When it comes to ontology and soteriology, husbands and wives are without doubt equal. In terms of competence, the husbands will be better at some things, while at other times the wives will excel. However, in light of Ephesians 5:22-24, when it comes to authority and order in the family, there is no question but that the wives must submit to their husbands. Within the context of that passage, to deny this would in fact amount to a rejection of Christ's authority over the church. We marvel at how some people could love their gender pride more than Christ, so that they would even spit in his face in order to gain a sense of "equality" (sometimes superiority) with the leaders that God has ordained. But then, with a knowledge of Scripture about the human condition, sin should no longer surprise us.
These remarks about gender and marriage as they relate to Galatians 3:28 serve to illustrate the importance of the right use of Scripture, and that we must never take it out of context and use it to promote our favorite agendas. We must start with Scripture and be told about how we should view slavery, rather than to start with a particular view of slavery and then interpret Scripture from such a viewpoint.
Also, we must keep in mind that God himself has ordained certain structures and institutions in human society, and Scripture's emphasis on the spiritual equality between people of various races, positions, and genders does not directly address the moral status of these structures and institutions. They must be considered separately, even if informed by the principle of spiritual equality in Christ.
Commentary on First Peter (73)
Paul suggests that a slave should gain his freedom if he is able to do so (1 Corinthians 7:21); otherwise, he says, "Don't let it trouble you" (v. 21). The primary aim of the gospel is not to incite political and social revolution – at least not directly – but to call out a people to be God's special treasure, and who would worship him in spirit and in truth (v. 22). Christian teaching does strike at perhaps the greatest evil within the institution of slavery, and that is the idea that some men are less than persons. It instead affirms that all men are made in God's image.
In Galatians 3:28, Paul writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Of course, this much-cited verse from the Bible is also one of the most misused and abused. One cannot infer just anything he wishes from the statement. The verse affirms only that believers "are all one in Christ Jesus," so that in Christ Jesus, there is no ranking of persons in terms of race, status, and gender.
However, this says nothing about the racial, social, and sexual distinctions that remain. The verse is talking about equality in the context of justification by faith. It does not abolish or even address the natural institutions and relationships that exist in society, which God himself has established. Racial distinctions are still as clear as ever, only that one race is not favored above another in Christ. Paul tells the slaves to obey their masters, so he continues to recognize the institution of slavery as it exists in society. But slaves and masters are equal in Christ. Or, to speak in terms of the rich and the poor, in Christ the rich are not more favored than the poor, but this does not change the fact that the rich still have more money.
Accordingly, it is asinine to use this verse to argue for gender "equality" in institutions such as marriage and the church. Still less can we use it to defend a view that contradicts what God commands elsewhere in Scripture. For example, we cannot argue, "There is no male and female in Christ, therefore a wife does not have to submit to her husband." The verse cannot be applied beyond its context in such a manner. Also, Paul asserts the exact opposite elsewhere, that wives must submit to their husbands in everything, even as the church submits to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-24).
Moreover, once we wrest a verse like Galatians 3:28 from its context, then we cannot turn around and limit its application. In other words, if we take this verse out of its context so that we could use it to erase the gender distinction that we oppose in a given context, or in a given institution or relationship, then we cannot stop it from being applied to all institutions and relationships, and to all contexts – from the social to the ecclesiastical, and even to the physiological.
This results in all sorts of absurdities. True, the husband will no longer be the head of the wife, which is the intended purpose of misusing Galatians 3:28. But if this is inferred from "neither male nor female," then gender distinctions cannot suddenly reappear when the subject changes. Thus there can no longer be women's health clubs, women's restrooms, women's clothes, women's medicine, or even women's rights. There is no longer any need to protect women's welfare – people are people. There can no longer be fathers and mothers, but only genderless parents. For that matter, reproduction no longer requires a man and a woman, at least for Christians – since there is neither male nor female in Christ! – it just requires any two people.
If we base our doctrine and practice of gender "equality" based on Galatians 3:28, and apply it beyond its context, then the doctrine immediately self-destructs, and the practice immediately becomes irrelevant. This is because once we falsely apply Galatians 3:28 in such a manner, the topic itself disappears – there is "neither male nor female" in Christ. The point is that once we take the verse out of context and abuse it one way, we cannot then arbitrarily forbid other misapplications.
Commentary on First Peter (72)
So it would be wrong to think that all slaves lived under constant oppression and suffering. On the other hand, a slave was a slave. His service was not voluntary. He was not regarded as a full person, but as property, and he had no civil rights to protect his interests as an individual. Under Roman law, the head of a household could even execute his slaves. Thus the exact condition that a slave worked under depended on the kind of master he had. A demanding and unreasonable master could make a slave's life extremely difficult.
Christian teaching does not abolish the institution of slavery, but it does address the relationship between masters and slaves. On the one hand, it instructs the masters to treat their slaves well, and to regard the Lord as their common Master (Ephesians 6:9). On the other hand, Christianity does not simply favor those who are typically characterized as oppressed – many people who call themselves victims get into trouble because they are rebellious.
Slave uprisings were never successful but quickly crushed. Passive rebellion was more common, such as in the form of working slowly. Thus masters often complained that their slaves were lazy, especially when they were not being watched. But the biblical work ethic is superior, so that Paul writes, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart" (v. 5-6).
Applying this to the modern society, Scripture opposes the tendency to think that in a labor dispute the management is always at fault and that the workers are always oppressed. Scripture advocates justice for all – yes, even for the rich. The poor are not to be regarded as righteous just because they are poor, and the slaves are not blameless just because they are slaves. Being poor or even enslaved is not a sufficient defense for laziness, rebellion, or criminal activities.
A group of college students were asked to consider a real life case in which a man and a woman were dismissed from employment for having sexual relations on company premises and while they were on duty. The written company policy prohibited such behavior and granted management the right to terminate. In response, the couple sued to regain employment as well as for lost wages.
An arbitrator was asked to settle the case, but the students were given the opportunity to write their own conclusions before reading the verdict. Almost all of them ruled against the management. In fact, I can recall only one (a Christian) who favored the management's decision. One reason that the students gave for ruling against the management included the tiresome and often fallacious "that's not fair" remark. But what was really unfair was that the company even had to explain and defend its decision. At any rate, unlike those college students, the real-life arbitrator had his sanity intact and ruled in favor of the management.
Commentary on First Peter (71)
When it comes to slavery, we must again begin with a right view of reality. Assuming the work that we have done elsewhere, we can affirm that the only right view of reality is the biblical view. Because all non-Christians have a false view of reality, they can assert nothing about slavery. Then, we must define what kind of slavery we are talking about. And again, this might sound strange to some, especially to those who are blinded by their sensitivity to the subject, but it is irrational to condemn slavery of all kinds and in all relationships, if for no other reason than that it is a privilege and a delight to be God's slave.
Now, the mention of slavery often invokes ideas connected with the situation in nineteenth-century America, and for many people, this is the only kind of slavery that they know about. However, Peter was writing to readers in the first century. Thus the same English word might refer to things that slightly or widely differ. Although the preceding comments about ethics and our current passage can certainly teach us something about how to interpret American slavery, we must instead focus on what Peter tells the slaves to do in verse 18, and then on the principle that gives rise to his instruction as stated in verses 19 and 20.
The word translated "slaves" here in the NIV, and translated "servants" in the KJV and NASB, is oiketai rather than the more frequent douloi, or bondslaves. There is really not an English term that gives us the exact meaning of the word – "slaves" seems too harsh and "servants" seems to weak – and so it is best understood from a description of what these people were.
In earlier Roman history, slaves were acquired through conquest and kidnapping. By the first century, the slave population consisted of mainly the descendents of these slaves. Most slaves had been born into the households that they served. In our passage, Peter is addressing some of these household servants that have become Christians.
There were several kinds of slaves. The mining slaves labored under the worst conditions and accordingly had the shortest life spans. The situation for household slaves was more pleasant. They were not only unskilled individuals assigned to hard physical labor, but many of them were trained professionals responsible for important household duties. So these slaves could be doctors, teachers, musicians, manager of finances, and so on.
Household slaves were often well-treated. Many of them were considered trusted members of the family. They were usually paid for their service, and those who managed to save enough could purchase their own freedom. Some of the freed slaves even became quite wealthy. Thus household slaves often lived better lives and enjoyed greater prospects than free peasants. As Keener writes, "Economically, socially, and with regard to freedom to determine their future, these slaves were better off than most free persons in the Roman Empire."
Commentary on First Peter (70)
1 PETER 2:18-20
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
People are highly sensitive when it comes to the subject of slavery. Seeing how slavery could involve great cruelty on the one hand and great suffering on the other, perhaps they should be sensitive about it. However, sometimes they can get to the point where they will hear no arguments, make no distinctions, and refuse all discussions on the subject other than to affirm their understanding of slavery and their opposition to it. That "slavery" without qualification is evil has become a nonnegotiable assumption by which other ideas are judged, so that some have attacked the Bible on this subject concerning both what it does say and what it does not say about it. And to those Christians who have failed to make truth the starting point of their thinking, the subject can sometimes cause them great confusion and embarrassment.
Whenever we enter a discussion concerning a sensitive ethical or social topic, we must first keep in mind that metaphysics logically precedes ethics. That is, our view of reality is the necessary foundation to our view of morality. The truth that there is a God (and that it is inconceivable that there is no God, so that to affirm that he exists is merely to bring the necessary fact to our attention, and does not imply that it is possible to affirm that he does not exist), that he is the way that he is, that he has created all that there is, that there is spirit and there is matter, that he has foreordained all things, that he directly controls all things, that he knows all things, that so-called secondary causes in fact have no inherent causative power in themselves, that he is the sole standard of right and wrong, that he has made man in his own image, that he has decided to judge every person, and so on, all determine what we can deduce about ethics.
For example, we may consider the question, What kind of world is this in which murder is immoral? It is a world in which God reigns supreme, in which he is the creator of all things, in which he is the sole standard of right and wrong, in which he has made man in his own image, in which man has sinned and fallen, in which God has commanded man not to murder, and in which to murder is to attack God's image and to transgress God's command. In this kind of world, and admittedly the only kind of world that there is, murder is immoral. But in the fantasyland of the unbeliever, in which humans came about from an impossible process of evolution, or in which the world is explained by some other absurd fable, even if murder is undesirable for the victim, the unbeliever would have no solid reason to tell us why it is immoral.
So we must never begin with an ethical principle and then find a view of reality to match it. Neither can we take an ethical principle and test a worldview by it, since one would need a worldview before he can have an ethical principle in the first place. What happens is that when it comes to a sensitive ethical issue, people often make their view on the subject the nonnegotiable starting point, and then judge and filter everything else by it. The result is that they become blind to all arguments and distinctions, and when Scripture is involved, they are blind to its context, meaning, and application.
Commentary on First Peter (69)
In our context, to "honor all people" means that we are to respect each person relative to his position. By no means are we saying that we should show favoritism or flatter the rich and powerful. But as the verse itself indicates, to "honor all people" does not mean that we should treat every person in exactly the same way.
For example, the fear that is due to God is certainly not given to all people, and the submission that is shown to a king is not shown to others. However, this does not mean that we may disdain and mistreat those who apparently have no important earthly position in life, such as the beggars and the orphans. Neither may we treat unbelievers as if they are brutes and stones. We are, after all, to honor all people, and each person should be respected if for no other reason than that he has been made in the image of God (James 3:9-10).
The relationship among Christians is more intimate, and so Peter says, "Love the brotherhood." This love (agapao) is to be sincere, deep, and enduring. The word translated "brotherhood" (adelphotes) "describes family ties established by covenant relationship." It refers to the Christian community, and the family relationship that they now share – believers have been made brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now, we call one another "brothers" and "sisters" in church, but the real test of whether we really believe this rests on whether we have this love that Peter is talking about. If we love other Christians less than we love our natural family, then the truth is that we regard the brotherhood as less than family. However, unless our natural family also belongs to the faith, we in fact have more in common with our spiritual family than our natural one. The natural family whose members hold to opposing spiritual commitments is divided, but believers are united in Christ. Paul writes, "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Galatians 6:10). So, honor all people, and love the brotherhood.
As expected, many deny that the command to "Fear God" includes the idea of terror, of being afraid. We have addressed this in connection with 1:17, noting that it means more than mere respect, reverence, and awe. Although our redemption through Christ removes the fear of ultimate doom, it does not – should not – remove all sense of terror, first generated by a recognition of God's majesty and transcendence in contrast to our creatureliness, and then even when God is considered as Father, a fear of his fatherly displeasure and discipline. Thus Robertson asserts that which few are willing to accept, that we are to fear God "in both senses of reverence and dread."
Although the Roman emperor claims to be divine, and is acknowledged as such by many, Peter does not tell his readers to regard him with the same holy fear that they should have toward God. Rather, just as he says to "Honor all people" at the beginning of the verse, now he writes, "Honor the king," as if to reduce him to the level of "all people." After all, the emperor is no God, but a mere man. He is to be honored, and honored as a king, but not feared as God.
That said, it remains that this is a positive command and we must not overemphasize its negative implication. In other words, here Peter instructs his readers to positively honor the king, and to do no less than this, even if the emperor is a godless pagan, and even if he is Nero.
Commentary on First Peter (68)
Verse 17 consists of four phrases. The first is an aorist imperative, but the next three are present imperatives. The NIV makes the first a heading for the rest, and so it says, "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king." That is, loving believers, fearing God, and honoring the king fall under the command to show proper respect to everyone.
Commentators suggest that this is a false understanding of the verse, although some of their reasons are unconvincing. For example, Grudem observes that believers, God, and the king do not exhaust the "everyone" (pantas: "all people," "all men," "all persons") to which the first phrase refers. However, there is no reason to think that the three phrases must completely enumerate what "everyone" includes, rather than to simply give examples that are especially pertinent to Peter's context. So this reason is irrelevant to our discussion.
On the other hand, Grudem then points out that it is unnatural to include God in the category of "all men." A parallel usage of "all" that would include God is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. This seems a much better reason for rejecting NIV's interpretation. When we also take into account other arguments, which we will not mention here, it seems best to understand the verse as conveying four commands.
Moreover, the word translated "show respect" in the first phrase is the same one for "honor" in the fourth. The NIV would make better English provided the first phrase is a heading for the other three, and if the first instance of "honor" means something more general than the fourth. But since both of these are improbable, the NKJV is preferable here: "Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."
Commentary on First Peter (67)
Although all non-Christians are stupid and sinful, and inferior in every way, believers must remain submissive to human institutions on account of the Lord. Thus Peter continues, "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God" (v. 16). In Christ, we are free – among other things, we are free from the bondage of sin and the wrath of God. We are even free from the power of men, in the sense that human institutions in themselves have no authority over us. We do not belong to them, and they cannot control our hearts and our destinies.
Here some commentators again discover paradox where there is none. They enjoy pointing out that Peter says we are to "live as free men" but at the same time "live as servants of God." To them, it is as if God is not God unless he speaks in paradox, and revelation is not profound enough unless it appears self-contradictory. But how frustrated we are at their incompetence! How indignant we are at their irreverence!
For verse 16 to even appear paradoxical – that is, for "live as free men" and "live as servants of God" to even appear to contradict – one must understand the freedom in "free men" as referring to a freedom from God, or an absolute freedom. Do these commentators really think that this is what Peter means? Does Peter even appear to be saying, "Live as men who are free from all things, yes, even free from God…but, live as servants of God as well"? Only then can we speak of a paradox or apparent contradiction.
Now, the context of the letter includes redemption, persecution, and submission. The freedom is relative to the immediate context of Peter's discussion, and not relative to all things including God. How twisted does a person have to be to see a paradox here? A paradox occurs when two things appear to clash. Where is the clash?
The point is that although we are citizens of heaven, along with all the rights and privileges that this entails, we cannot say, "I am seated with Christ in heavenly places, so that I am above all earthly authorities and institutions. Therefore, I can steal whatever I want, kill whomever I want, and ignore all human laws." This would be to use our freedom "as a cover-up for evil." Neither can we feign piety and say, "I submit to no man, but I will obey God alone," since it is God himself who has established these human institutions (Romans 13:1-2).
So, although we do not bow to men, as if they possess inherent and absolute authority over us, we submit to them "as servants of God," since God has ordained them to rule. On this basis, we may submit to even a pagan emperor or a pagan government without resistance and without inciting unrest. This is not to compromise our loyalty to God, but it is to live as servants of God, submitting to that which he has designed and established. Indeed, there are cases in which we must refuse to obey human authority – the principle for determining these exceptions has already been noted earlier.
Commentary on First Peter (66)
Peter describes these false accusations against the Christians as "ignorant talk" (v. 15). The word here simply means "ignorance" (KJV, NASB), but it is clear from the context that he is referring to an ignorance that is expressed in slander. And thus "ignorant talk" (NIV) and "ignorant charges" are acceptable.
False accusations against the Christian faith never come from intelligent people, but from "foolish men" (v. 15). Again, Peter has a very low view of the non-Christians' intelligence. These are stupid people who draw uneducated conclusions about the Christian faith. The Bible never wonders how smart people can believe stupid things – it realizes that stupid people believe stupid things. Neither is the Bible worried that so many intelligent and educated individuals reject the faith – none of them are intelligent and educated. If a person is a non-Christian, then he is stupid and unlearned. He is irrational and ignorant. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Therefore, all unbelieving questions, objections, and accusations are intellectual garbage. None of them are thoughtful or intriguing. All of them are foolish and laughable, and easy to answer. It remains that we may, and often should, accommodate their intellectual handicap and respond to them with great patience, reinforcing our verbal explanation with exemplary conduct. However, we do so "for the Lord's sake," and never because their challenges can put any real pressure on us.
Moreover, since false accusations come from the ignorance of foolish men, this means that we must never flatter unbelief. When unbelievers raise questions and objections, they never do so out of a love for God and a desire to know God. As long as they remain in unbelief, even a seemingly sincere and humble inquiry is in fact a "pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Yet many Christians begin their answers by saying, "That's a good question." But can any inquiry arising from unbelief really be a "good" question? Yes, we can answer any challenge that unbelievers throw at us, and we should often do it with patience and kindness. But every question that does not presuppose the supremacy of God and of Christ is an evil inquiry, a sinful question, a foolish objection – the ranting of a wicked moron.
For example, in light of what Scripture teaches about the nature of God, someone might protest, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (Romans 9:19). How many Christians have responded, "That's a good question"? But it is not a good question. Or, how many Christians have responded, "That's a difficult question. I am not sure I have the perfect answer to it, but let me explain the best that I can"? But it is not a difficult question. Rather than flattering the person, and before providing the simple and obvious answer, Paul rebukes him: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20).
Therefore, although unbelievers might misinterpret our patience as weakness and timidity, may Christians never make the same mistake. No, when dealing with unbelievers, we always speak from a position of superior knowledge and authority. But we endure their insults and abuses "for the Lord's sake." As the stronger ones, we accommodate their weakness and incompetence so that God may be honored and glorified.