The word “apologetics” is derived from the Greek apologia, which is often translated as “answer” or “defense.” It refers to an intellectual answer or defense, so that the one presenting it does so by using words, by submitting evidences, and by providing arguments. The classic illustration for this is the court trial, in which the accused, or the defendant, is expected to issue an “answer” in response to the charges made against him. The Bible commands us to answer the world, and this suggests that there is an intellectual dimension to the Christian faith. Christianity involves learning, thinking, believing, knowing, speaking, and writing. There are facts, claims, and propositions that we must grasp and apply. This is a defining characteristic of biblical apologetics.
This is accurate as far as it goes; however, the idea that apologetics is an answer or defense could be misunderstood. To be more precise, those who are careless about what an answer or defense means might misunderstand what it is that the Bible commands Christians to do. This misunderstanding has turned the practice of apologetics into a passive and defensive discipline that is propelled by reactions to attacks from the unbelievers.
Some Christians seem to think that we are to put ourselves at the disposal of unbelievers, always ready to react whenever they express their curiosity or animosity, and to do this in a way that yields to the particular manner in which each inquiry takes shape. For the Christians who think this way, the result is that the unbelievers have exercised excessive control over their agendas and activities, and even the form and content of their apologetics.
This false view regards apologetics as mainly a defensive discipline, always reacting to non-Christian intellectual aggression. To “answer” the unbelievers would mean neutralizing objections and correcting misunderstandings, but it would not include a merciless and relentless assault against non-Christian beliefs. That is, this view of apologetics understands an “answer” as mainly defensive, not offensive, and mainly as a response, not as something that we initiate. Their false interpretation of Peter’s instruction to answer with gentleness and respect reinforces this position for them.
Of course, there are those who hold to this idea of apologetics for reasons other than a false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15, but the misinterpretation of this verse has indeed been a contributing factor to the false humility that has so crippled the church’s apologetic endeavor. Moreover, even for those who have arrived at this passive and defensive view of apologetics because of other reasons, a true understanding of 1 Peter 3:15, and of what it means to provide an “answer” to unbelievers, will still be sufficient to offer a biblical corrective.
There is nothing in the idea of an “answer” that requires us to be only defensive, or even mainly defensive. The nature of the answer depends on the content of what we are answering for and what we believe to be the reasons that constitute the answer. When a non-Christian demands to know the reason I am justified in affirming the Christian faith, and why it is reasonable for me to be a believer, part of my answer is that there is something wrong with him, that is, with the unbeliever who asks me this. Part of my answer is that any person who is a non-Christian is immoral and irrational. Since I do not wish to be like him, and since I perceive that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, I am justified in affirming the Christian faith. Part of my answer is that God will throw the unbeliever into a lake of fire. Since I do not wish to suffer a fate like his, and since I perceive that Christ was made sin, although he did no sin, so that in him I might be made the righteousness of God, I look to him for salvation – for deliverance from divine wrath, and for the hope of eternal life and glory.
This is an integral and necessary aspect of my answer, my defense. This is what I believe, so this is what I tell him. As it is written, “I have believed, and therefore have I spoken.” We also believe, and therefore speak. Thus even a defense does not need to be only defensive. The fact that Peter calls on us to provide an answer or a defense is the biblical basis for incorporating an offensive and aggressive element in our apologetics. We are to attack the people that we answer. We might also call the practice of apologetics the vindication of the Christian faith. The word makes room for both the defensive and offensive aspects of our engagement with non-Christians. Nevertheless, the words “answer” and “defense” are accurate if all their implications are understood.
Consider again the illustration of a court trial. It is common for the defense to attack the prosecution in the process of arguing for the innocence of the accused. This is done not necessarily as a diversion, since the strength of the prosecution’s case is indeed relevant to the burden placed on the defense and the success of the defense. So the defense would attempt to dismantle the prosecution’s case by discrediting the witnesses, by offering alternate explanations for the evidences, by refuting the reasoning and the inferences of the prosecution, by exposing the inconsistency of their arguments and testimonies, and even by drawing attention to some broader issues such as the reliability of memory and of sensation.
All these aggressive tactics legitimately belong to the arsenal of legal defense, or any rational defense of a position. In fact, the defense would be foolish and even unethical for failing to attack the vulnerabilities in the prosecution’s case. And if the prosecution’s case is mostly based on conjectures, false inferences, inconsistent testimonies, and arbitrary accusations, then it is conceivable that much of the defense’s arguments would be of the aggressive kind.
The illustration shows that to be on the defense does not necessarily mean to be always on the defensive. But later I will show that the place of a defendant does not fully reflect the situation of the Christian, and that there is an even greater justification, even an obligation, for assuming an aggressive posture when it comes to apologetics. Remember that 1 Peter 3:15 mainly deals with how a Christian should behave under official interrogation, and it is not the only verse in the Bible that has to do with apologetics.
There are numerous biblical examples to reinforce the point. Once I point out a few of them, you should be able to notice many others.
The first example comes from Luke 11, from the ministry of Jesus. He was a walking tsunami of divine power, an avalanche of signs and wonders. The Gospels record only a very small percentage of the miracles he performed. John wrote that if all his works (including miracles) were recorded in writing, perhaps the world would not be enough to contain the books that would be produced. Even if we take this as a hyperbole, and even if we take into account the much larger and more cumbersome scrolls and parchments that were used at that time, it would not stretch the imagination to suppose that Jesus performed thousands of miracles, even tens of thousands, if not more. This is more than plausible. He would at times heal entire crowds with a word of command, and sometimes he would spend all night laying hands on the sick. So his healing miracles alone would number in the thousands. It would be impossible for the number to be smaller.
His adversaries were envious because he was attracting many followers, and he was liberating these people from false traditions and authorities. But the sheer number and magnitude of his miracles made his power undeniable. Therefore, as religious reprobates often do, they resorted to slander, and said that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Satan, the devil. No one could accuse him of error in his doctrine or behavior, so the charge that he wielded demonic power was groundless. Nevertheless, this is the nature of slander, that it is irrational and without justification.
Demonology is not the main issue here. We are interested in Jesus’ answer, his defense, to this accusation.
First, he exposed the fallacy in the accusation, showing that it was irrational. He said that Satan’s kingdom cannot be divided against itself and remain standing (v. 17-18). This in itself was an indirect attack against his critics, since objections do not appear out of nowhere – they are formulated by people. Irrational people make irrational statements. Unintelligent people make unintelligent criticisms. So the way he neutralized the accusation made his critics appear ignorant and foolish. In this case, they were either ignorant of the operation of Satan’s kingdom, or they failed to make valid inferences from what they knew. If he had pressed this point, this maneuver that neutralized the objection would have also become a direct attack.
Next, he indeed made a direct attack against his critics. He said that if he drove out demons by the power of the devil, then, “By whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges” (v. 19). Although the theology is important, that is not our main interest at this time, so we shall focus on the rational and rhetorical tactic that Jesus used. After he neutralized their accusation with a proper application of biblical demonology, he returned the burden of the argument to his critics, and challenged their own practices. He even set fire to their own camp, by exposing the conflict that would arise among themselves if the accusation were allowed to stand. He went on the offensive.
Finally, he offered a positive answer, and said, “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (v. 20). He affirmed that he could drive out demons, but he did not do this by the power of the devil. Rather, he did it by the finger of God, or the Spirit of God. And then he used this last point to drive across his message, that “the kingdom of God has come to you.” He used the opportunity to reaffirm his mission and to preach the gospel. “Now if I cast out demons by the power of God,” he said in effect, “then the kingdom of God is here. God’s rule has come. God’s time has come. God’s Son has come! What are you going to do about it? Will you continue to invent irrational criticisms and unjustified accusations, or will you repent of your sins, and rejoice that the kingdom has come to you, and enter in through faith and thanksgiving?”
His answer, therefore, consisted of an analysis of the accusation, neutralizing it in the process, a destructive attack against his opponents, forcing the burden back on to them through it, and a constructive statement of the truth about himself and his message, by which he reaffirms his mission and furthers his own agenda. The vindication of the faith would be far more faithful and effective if we would follow this approach. We must do more than to make a constructive statement. We must do more than to neutralize the objection. We must also pursue the heretics, and attack the unbelievers.
In Acts 2, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and as the Spirit enabled them, they spoke in languages that they had never learned, declaring the wonders of God. The Jews were bewildered, and some of them said that these Christians were drunk with wine. At this, Peter rose to speak.
He first weakened the accusation by noting that it was implausible (v. 15). Then he offered a constructive statement (v. 16-36). This included an alternate explanation of the occurrence, that it was a fulfillment of prophecy (v. 16-21). This then turned into a proclamation of the gospel, the person and work of Christ, which was supported by arguments from prophecy, history, and testimony.
Embedded within this constructive statement was an attack against the critics, the Jews. Peter said that they murdered Jesus with the help of the Romans. So they called the disciples drunks, but he called them murderers. They did not ask him this, but Peter brought it up. But unlike their accusation against the Christians, Peter’s accusation against them was based on truth and not slander, not misunderstanding or misrepresentation. And those Jews who repented acknowledged this, and were cut to the heart.
So the same three elements that were present in Jesus’ defense were also present in Peter’s answer.
Then, in Acts 7, Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin on charges that he spoke against the temple and the law. The high priest asked him if the charges were true, and so Stephen gave his answer, his defense. Read it. You will notice the same three elements in his reply.
We might call his answer a redemptive-historical analysis. He began with God’s calling of Abraham, and then Isaac, then Jacob, after that, Joseph. But he gave the greatest attention to Moses. And it is in this section on Moses that he neutralized the accusation brought against him. Then he also mentioned Joshua, David, and Solomon.
The conclusion included a constructive statement about “the Righteous One” predicted by the prophets. This final section also included an attack against his accusers. Although his entire account illustrated the Jewish people’s rebellion and hardness of heart, he made the theme explicit at the end: “You always resisted the Holy Spirit!” They claimed to honor the prophets, but they were the ones who persecuted them. They claimed to honor the law, but they disobeyed it. And he said that now they had even murdered Jesus Christ, their own Messiah. He was the accused, but he ended up making a stronger attack against his accusers than the one they made against him. They accused him of sacrilege, but he charged them with generations of sacrilege and murder.
Paul’s speech before the Areopagus in Acts 17 is often misrepresented. Some commentators claim that he flattered the Greeks and appealed to common beliefs to introduce the Christian faith to them. I have written an extensive exposition showing that Paul did the very opposite, so I will not investigate the details with you here, but we will focus on the three elements of a Christian answer.
The whole speech, of course, was a constructive statement. It is similar in structure and content to a course in systematic theology, in which we begin from Scripture, to God, creation, providence, to man and sin, and then to Christ, redemption, and judgment. The popular assertion that Paul was not a systematic theologian is contradicted by explicit biblical accounts. Paul was not only a systematic theologian, but the content that he treated and the order in which he treated them were almost identical to many of our textbooks in systematic theology.
Although most systematic theologians did not derive their outlines from Paul, they ended up following approximately the same order, treating the same subjects. This is because systematic theology follows the logical order and observes the logical relationships of the doctrines that it considers, and therefore those who can think logically will arrive at approximately the same result. As with us, at times Paul presented his theology in a different arrangement, but the subjects treated remained the same, only that his purpose required him to arrange his material in another manner.
Although the speech was a kind of answer about the Christian faith, the situation was different, in that Paul was not confronted with the same kind of hostile accusations that we found in our other examples, and that the Greeks were curious about what he had to say. Nevertheless, we could still find the element of neutralizing an objection. That is, the Greeks suspected Paul of introducing “bad philosophy” to them, and his answer showed that his philosophy was a broad, coherent, and superior worldview, thus neutralizing their initial accusation.
And he attacked the Greeks even at the beginning of his speech. He took their altar to “An Unknown God” as an admission of their ignorance. So he undermined them from the start and claimed to speak from a superior position. Later into the speech he attacked their idolatry by noting that the divine being could not be represented by gold or silver or stone. They were the ones who practiced bad philosophy. He called them ignorant, and said that God now commands all people everywhere to repent.
Thus the Christian answer to the unbelievers includes three elements. First, we are to neutralize the objections. Second, we are to provide a constructive statement that explains our beliefs and that provides rational support for them. This is to reaffirm and reassert the Christian faith, and to further our own agenda, so that the objections would not remove our focus on our mission. Third, we are to fiercely attack the non-Christians – their beliefs, their intelligence, and their character. We are to expose everything that is wrong about them.
The prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus all employed this method. A method of apologetics that does not attack the unbelievers is not only incomplete, but because it is incomplete, also irresponsible, and because it is irresponsible, it is also sinful. It is a sin to not attack the unbelievers with all our powers and resources. Some Christians would rather attack believers who follow this method than to attack the non-Christians. This is treason against the kingdom of heaven.