Here is a strange thing. Teachers of Christian apologetics almost always refer to 1 Peter 3:15 as their charter, but they are the ones who have abused the verse more than anyone. Pick up any book that addresses how the cults distort Scripture, and you will see the constant emphasis on interpreting a text in its proper context. Turn to the beginning of the same book, and you will likely find the author refer to 1 Peter 3:15 as the justification, nay, the divine commission for the whole project. But this same author would abuse the verse in the same way that he shows the cults do.
It says, “But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord, always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Read the text for yourself and observe the context. See what the verse is really saying. Take in as much of the context as you can. Read everything that comes before the verse, or the entire letter if you wish. The truth is that 1 Peter 3:15 is not talking about apologetics as we use the term, and it is not talking about answering our peers. It is written in the context of Peter’s instruction on the proper attitude and response in the face of interrogation from authority figures such as officials, masters, and husbands — people who at that time had the authority to punish, torture, or even kill the Christians.
Our Lord is Jesus
It is under this kind of pressure that Peter tells us to fortify Christ as Lord in our hearts. Regard Jesus as holy and precious. Enthrone him in your heart. Let him have that unique and highest place. “Jesus is Lord!” — this is our stance when we face interrogation for our faith. This is the foundation that supports everything we do, or every aspect of our response. Whatever we say cannot deviate from this. If Jesus Christ is set in place in our hearts, then even when we face extreme danger because of our faith, we would not confess that the state or government is Lord, or that our master or employer is Lord, or that our parent or husband is Lord, and thus compromise our faith.
This is the most important part of the verse, but it is also the most neglected. In terms of the proportion of attention received, this part of the verse is practically ignored. However, when someone is under pressure, when someone is facing danger, this is what he needs to hear: “Hold fast to Jesus as your Lord! Regard him as holy and precious in your heart! Never let go.” He needs to hear this more than he needs to hear: “Always be ready to defend your faith.” If he fails to hold fast to Jesus as Lord in his heart, then he cannot defend his faith anyway. It is shameful that most teachers of apologetics spend so much more time in telling people how to hold fast to Jesus with their mouths, than in telling them how to hold fast to Jesus in their hearts. The result is that their teachings produce a mass of high-minded religious hypocrites who have lost Christ in their hearts long ago.
Hold fast to Jesus in your heart. Make up your mind that he is forever your Lord and your God. Whatever happens, do not give that up. Never compromise because of fear. As verse 14 says, “Have no fear of them, nor be troubled.” You see, Peter is talking about a situation in which there could be something to fear, but you will not yield to this if you will set Jesus in place in your heart. Never waver in your commitment to Jesus. Regard him as holy, unique, and as more precious than your own life.
Now although we seem to move forward to other parts of the verse, in reality they are extensions of this first and most essential part. Jesus is holy and precious. Jesus is Lord. I would gratefully approve if you would construe our whole discussion as one that explores the proper way to encourage this part of Peter’s teaching.
Our Faith is True
As we enthrone Christ in our hearts, so that we are immovable in him, we are prepared to answer the men who interrogate us about our faith. Our response is described as an account or a defense about our faith. How is this account or defense to be presented? The verse is usually used out of context to instruct believers on how they ought to behave when preaching or conversing with peers in a free society. However, the actual context is interrogation, so that this verse alone cannot tell us whether our ordinary apologetics should mainly consist of offering arguments to justify our faith, or whether we should instead exert various degrees of effort in attacking our opponents for their non-Christian beliefs. In other words, the proper behavior under official interrogation, or even violent torture, might not be the best approach for an everyday justification of our faith in preaching or conversation. Have you seen even one of those teachers of apologetics make this distinction when discussing this text? But this text is clearly talking about one type of situation and not the other. I say that they are not qualified to teach Bible interpretation and Christian apologetics, let alone to critique how we do these things.
The religious leaders in Peter’s time persecuted authentic orthodoxy in the name of historic orthodoxy. Ishmael would always harass Isaac. The flesh would always contend against the spirit, and man-made doctrines and traditions would always attempt to supplant divine revelations. The apostle’s apologetics is intended to defend authentic orthodoxy against the historic orthodoxy that persecutes the church. If men would hold fast to Jesus Christ, then surely the historic and the authentic would be the same, but that has not been the case. At times the situation had been better, and at times it had been worse, but historic orthodoxy – man-made orthodoxy — had never truly accepted Jesus Christ as he is revealed by the gospel.
Never fear the theologians of the historic church. When they persecute you for believing the word of God, in your heart hold on tightly to Jesus as Lord, regard only him as holy and dear to you. Commit yourself wholly to him. Then answer the theologians. Tell them what the word of God says. Tell them what you believe. Even if they hold an official position over you, in a free society you would have the option to depart. And when they no longer have authority over you, then they become only mere men offering their foolish opinions. Now attack them for their unbelief. Publicize their error. Overturn their regime. Unbelief is not a trivial oversight. The theology of unbelief is not the gospel. It steals the name of Jesus and makes a counterfeit religion that has none of the power belonging to the original. Then it compels everyone to comply. Overthrow this tyranny. There is no need to hesitate.
In some societies, we could live ten lifetimes without ever facing an official interrogation on the level that Peter has in mind. Even husbands usually either would not, or could not, beat their wives with impunity. So must we “always” answer when confronted? Why couldn’t we do it on our terms instead? Should our “apologetics” still be a response or a defense? Why shouldn’t it be rather a direct, active, and relentless assault? Moreover, although a defense could surely consist of philosophical arguments, it is impossible that Peter had only this, or even mainly this, in mind. What kind of philosophical argument would the typical slave or a house wife at that time offer against an interrogator or authority figure? Consider how they answered. The early disciples referred to the scriptures, and said that their beliefs and actions merely followed what the prophets said. And they just as readily referred to their visions and miracles as their answer to official interrogation. Why am I doing this? Paul would say, “Because Jesus appeared to me and told me to do this.” He answered this way even though he knew more scriptures and arguments than we do. Nowadays there are people who have been converted by visions and dreams of Jesus. Are they wrong if they offer this as the reason for their hope in Jesus? Do they disobey 1 Peter 3:15? Certainly, they do not. The elite apologists would regard them like the cults. But these apologists are the ones treating this text like the cults they oppose.
The verse teaches us to state the reason for our hope in Jesus, not to state the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus. We can appeal to the scriptures and preach the gospel to those who interrogate us, but the verse itself only tells us to state the reason why we believe or how we have come to believe. It does not say that our answer must prove the truth of the Christian faith to the other person’s satisfaction. The verse itself does not require one to develop an entire system of apologetics. One might say, “I was lost in sin, but one day Jesus appeared to me and revealed himself as the Son of God, and I believed in him. This is the same Jesus that the Bible teaches.” Another might say, “I was a cripple from birth. I had never walked. One day a preacher laid his hands on me in the name of Jesus, and I was healed. I gave my life to Jesus, and confessed him as Lord and God, the Savior of the world.” Then another might say, “I was a thief and a murderer. But one day I found a gospel tract and read it. It dawned on me that I was a sinner and that Jesus Christ came to save me. I believed on him and I was changed.” All these answers would satisfy what 1 Peter 3:15 requires. Each person stated his reason for his hope in Christ. The other person might or might not be convinced, but the Christian offered his answer in each instance. Now if someone became a Christian because he had read a 600-page book on Christian apologetics, filled with technical arguments, equations, or what-not, then that would be his reason. But he cannot insist that other people must offer the same kind of reason, and most of the answers and conversions in the Bible itself are not associated with this kind.
In hijacking this verse to exclusively endorse intricate systems of apologetics, Christian teachers have undermined legitimate and much more common reasons for faith. Many have even given the impression that a person’s original reason for faith is defective, and that he must place his faith on this other foundation of academic apologetics. But as long as the foundation consists of a faith in Christ that agrees with the gospel, it is legitimate. We could add a bunch of arguments to support it, but these would not be the reason for the person’s faith. They would be the weapons he uses to engage enemies of the faith, but these are not the reason for his own faith in Christ. In distorting this verse about apologetics, in order to teach apologetics, the teachers of apologetics end up destroying the very kind of apologetics that Peter encourages in this verse. We ourselves offer a most powerful system of apologetics. It is biblical to offer intellectual arguments for the Christian faith, even the most intricate philosophical arguments, but this is more directly justified by other portions of Scripture, because 1 Peter 3:15 is not talking about this. We may use the verse as a general endorsement for apologetics, but if in the process we lose sight of the main point of the verse, then it is time to perform some of that fancy apologetics against ourselves. To put it another way, only the people who acknowledge the main point of the verse has the right to make a broader application of it, because they are less likely to subvert the original intent to push their own agenda.
Our Way is Peace
We fortify our hearts with “Jesus is Lord” when we face official interrogation, even if this means prison and torture. And with our hearts anchored in Christ, we offer our answer or defense. The Bible certainly endorses making arguments for the Christian faith, but in the context of this verse, our answer can be whatever led you to the faith. The standard interpretation of the verse is a betrayal of the apostle, of suffering believers, and of the practice of apologetics itself.
When threatened by authority figures with the power to punish, we refuse to fear or to compromise, but we hold Jesus Christ dear in our hearts, regarding him as holy and precious. Then we are always ready to state the reason for our faith. This is our reason for our faith in Christ. It could consist of our experience of conversion, or our upbringing by holy parents, or miracles of nature or of healing, or visions and dreams. Of course, if some of us were convinced by arguments that accompanied the presentation of the gospel, and that would be the reason. The verse does not restrict the answer or defense to a specific kind of reason or system. And on its own, the verse cannot make apologetics into the elaborate academic enterprise that we have today.
We must not say that a Christian is not performing legitimate apologetics when he offers his own reason for coming to the faith. If he despises intellectual arguments, then he would be wrong, but this is a separate issue that we should address with him. He has offered an acceptable answer or defense as long as he does not claim that his own reason is sufficient proof to someone else. Nevertheless, the other person may in fact accept this testimony and come to faith in Christ as a result. Then, his reason for coming to faith would be, “A Christian told me how he came to believe in Jesus, and when I heard it, I also believed.” This would be this second man’s reason, and it would also be legitimate as far as 1 Peter 3:15 is concerned.
We offer our answer or defense with “gentleness and respect” — toward authority figures, because this is the only kind of people specified by the context. What this gentleness entails is not left to guesswork or contemporary culture, but it is also indicated by the context. This is also universally ignored and even contradicted by teachers of apologetics. The context refers to the authority of human institutions (2:13), and the threat goes as far as the kind of punishment that governors and even the emperor can impose (v. 13-14). When we make a broader observation of the cultural context, we notice that religious controversies were often addressed by violent suppression, including false accusations, beatings, and even murder. It is only against this textual and cultural context, and even more specifically when addressing human institutions with the authority to punish, that Peter teaches Christians to respond with “gentleness” — an approach that stands as a contrast against violence. Of course, this violence includes verbal threats of violence, which Christians also ought to avoid. The verse does not refer to speaking with soft words and an effeminate tone, and it does not contradict the fierce and demeaning language Jesus often applied to his opponents, the kind of language also used by the prophets and the apostles.
Have you seen this verse presented this way, especially in the context of teaching apologetics? It is the obvious and undeniable teaching of the verse. It is not difficult. You just need to read it. Many people are obsessed with apologetics, and consider themselves experts, but they throw this verse around like Peter is not even there. The apostle is ostracized from the discussion, and his concerns are disregarded, not mentioned. Why? It is because these people are not good at apologetics, and not even good at reading. The devotees of apologetics end up robbing everybody by perverting the verse for their narrow purpose. Their whole thing amounts to this: “Go make some good arguments, but be nice when you talk to people.” But the verse does not say this. It is so far from what the verse means and what the rest of Scripture exemplifies that this interpretation amounts to a rejection of the verse. Peter was teaching God-like quality of Christian ethics, not the shallow tenderness of Confucian ethics. Much teaching on Christian character is really Confucianism in Christian vocabulary.
Now do you see what Peter was really saying? And do you see how it has been reduced to something so cheap in comparison? Behold! This is the measure of your renown heroes in apologetics! Peter introduced a counter-cultural approach to confronting religious disagreement in the face of authorities in a world where violence was the norm. Christian teachers today address a world in which this verse has already succeeded. Christians now answer with less force and vividness than the Bible permits them. They behave with a sinfully extreme level of gentleness and respect, to a point that amounts to permissiveness toward depravity and unbelief. There are indeed Christians in some parts of the world suffering the kind of persecution that Peter had in mind, but they are left without proper instruction because verses like 1 Peter 3:15 have been hijacked by church members sitting in first-class enjoying their premium apologetics!
Does this mean that we can attack people with insults when we defend the faith? Of course. Yes, of course you can do it, and sometimes you must do it. When it is appropriate in the context of the confrontation, it would be irresponsible to avoid it. Study the examples of the prophets and apostles, and the Lord Jesus, and learn when you should attack, how you should insult, and what tones or words to use. The Bible teaches against violence, not against assertive and even offensive speech. Peter referred to an answer toward authorities with official status, not peers. In free societies, even authorities such as officials, professors, and employers no longer hold the power that they had in a culture like the one Peter addressed. A professor or employer is more like a peer nowadays compared to a master in ancient times. A professor might still possess authority to punish a student, but not with violence and physical torture. Thus although we can still apply Peter’s instruction, we should adjust the approach in a biblical measure, because even a professor has become more like a peer. A policeman or a judge might possess more authority to punish, so Peter’s instruction concerning respect toward human institutions becomes more applicable, but they are still nothing like the ancient officials in our free societies. Certainly it is often unnecessary to insult a professor or a policeman, and it is right to show respect to a husband. But I mean we should know what the verse really says. Of course, the word of God has so succeeded that now husbands also behave with gentleness and respect toward their wives. And when they do not, they are met with disapproval. This is a good thing. Let us acknowledge how the gospel has changed the world.
The standard charter for Christian apologetics is fraudulent, based on a distortion of Scripture. Naturally, the product is defective. Teachers of apologetics have been such bumbling idiots that they have created a burden that everyone else must carry. For example, I have had unbelievers attempt to use 1 Peter 3:15 to force me to engage with them, and to do it on their terms and at their convenience. This text does not allow them to make this demand, but they attempt to exploit how Christians use the verse. I know the truth about this verse, so I turn it back against them to show that they are illiterate fools who are too stupid to challenge me or the Christian faith. But of course, by doing so I have also exposed practically all other Christians as incompetent. This is not my fault. Blame the teachers of apologetics and the biblical scholars.
A Christian should be ready to answer someone like a government agent about his faith when he is interrogated, but Scripture does not mean that any ordinary citizen has the right to compel a Christian to answer for his faith on the non-Christian’s terms and the non-Christian’s schedule, and to do it all with “gentleness and respect.” When sinners try to manipulate me with this verse, I have them exactly where I want them. I seize them by their throats and crush them, and they are destroyed. But they are merely using the Christian interpretation of the verse.
This distortion on 1 Peter 3:15 is not trivial, but very destructive for apologetics. It offers ammunition to non-Christians to manipulate believers, to twist their arms to do something that the Bible never commanded, and to do it with a creepy effeminate style that the Bible also never commanded. Christian apologists have been the greatest enemies of Christian apologetics. Our understanding of 1 Peter 3:15 is obvious and straightforward, and undeniable. Why haven’t we seen other people teach this? The truth is that the teachers of apologetics are not very good at apologetics, and those who correct biblical distortions themselves commit biblical distortions. They do this because they have not sanctified Jesus as Lord in their hearts, and for all the apologetics they teach and perform, they are only pursuing their own agenda and tradition.