The Use Of 1 Peter 3:13-17 For Christian Apologetics

By Timothy E. Miller

[Timothy E. Miller is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Bible Exposition, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Allen Park, Michigan.]

Abstract

First Peter 3:15 is sometimes used without due consideration of its broader context. Consequently, while some of the apologetic implications of the passage are recognized, others are missed. A verse-by-verse analysis of the pericope in which 1 Peter 3:15 resides reveals important apologetic implications that focus on the single verse can overlook.

Introduction

First Peter 3:15 is popularly known as the “Apologetic Mandate.”[1] As such, the text has sometimes been used without a broader presentation of Peter’s meaning in 3:13-17, the pericope in which 3:15 resides.[2] Using the text in isolation is possible because the verse can be read meaningfully in isolation from its broader context.[3] Nevertheless, the broader context is critical both in showing that the verse means what it appears to mean and in developing further implications of the verse. This article, then, is designed to justify the apologetic use of the text by focusing on an exegesis of the broader context. The goal of the work is (1) to confirm that the way the text is often used in apologetic literature is correct and (2) to show that a development of the broader context provides a richer picture of the passage’s apologetic usefulness.

Historical Context

First Peter indicates that Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote the letter. Modern scholarship generally rejects this ascription, proposing that a later school (the Petrine school) or individual penned the words in Peter’s name. Schreiner’s arguments and conclusion are, however, persuasive:

There are no decisive grounds to reject Petrine authorship for the letter. Both internal and external evidence supports such a view, and there was no controversy over whether Peter wrote the letter in the early church. . . . The objections raised against Petrine authorship are not compelling, and credible responses can be given to each one.[4]

The import of Peter’s identity is in the relationship between Peter and Jesus. Throughout 1 Peter, there is an evident reliance on the teaching of Jesus, even though Peter does not directly quote Jesus.[5] In 3:13-17 an awareness of Jesus’s teaching on suffering influences Peter’s message.

The date of the epistle is tied to two other issues: the nature of the persecution and the question of authorship.[6] Those who argue for pseudepigraphal authorship usually date the epistle between AD 69 and 95, on the assumption that the book is related to one of the widespread persecutions of the church (e.g., under Vespasian, Titus, or Domitian).

On the other hand, if Peter the apostle was the author, a date in the early 60s is more likely,[7] and therefore the type of persecution is localized. In the passage under examination, Peter asks the rhetorical question, “Who will harm you if you are doing good?” (1 Pet. 3:13). Jobes argues that the question indicates a time period prior to extreme persecution of the variety imposed by Nero, which occurred from AD 64-67.[8] Further, the persecution Peter’s readers were facing was not state sponsored (see the commentary on 3:15 below); instead, Peter references oral abuse because of righteous conduct (2:11; 3:16; 4:14). Therefore, it is best to see the type of persecution Peter’s readers were facing as socially focused and primarily verbal.

The nature of the persecution is confirmed by the identity of the recipients. While some might argue for a primarily Jewish audience on the basis of Peter’s prolific Old Testament use and his characterization of the audience as strangers and exiles, it is best to see them as Gentiles. First Peter 4:3-4 provides persuasive evidence for a Gentile audience: “For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you.”[9] These vices are associated with Gentiles and would be a surprising description of the past life of those of Jewish descent. Further, Peter envisions his readers suffering verbal abuse (βλασφημέω) because of their refusal to engage in these activities, abuse that Jews would have been less likely to experience. It is more likely that these are Gentiles who have abandoned their former way of life (1:14, 18) and as a result are suffering verbal persecution at the hands of those who remain blinded to the truth (2:8).

First Peter 5:12 provides the purpose statement of the book: “I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it.” In view of external pressures to abandon the Great Shepherd of their souls (2:25), Peter admonishes his listeners to persevere in the face of these difficulties. The passage examined below discusses the difficulty of suffering for godliness; Peter encourages his readers that there are significant benefits to those who persevere through suffering.

Text And Translation

This section of 1 Peter is relatively stable, with few meaningful variants. Each of the variants discussed in the following footnotes is given an A rating in the UBS5 Greek New Testament.

And who is going to harm you if you are zealous[10] for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness, you will be blessed. Do not fear them and do not be troubled. But honor Christ the Lord[11] as holy in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. But do so with gentleness and respect, keeping a pure conscience so that when you are slandered,[12] those speaking evil against your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good—if that should be God’s will—than to suffer for doing evil.

Literary Analysis

Scholars are generally agreed on the broad structure of Peter’s epistle.[13] After the introduction (1:1-2), the first major section (1:3-2:10) details the status of believers because of Christ. They are a new people, chosen by God, spiritual exiles, and pilgrims awaiting their future inheritance. The second section (2:11-4:11), which details the believer’s responsibilities in light of this relationship to Christ, focuses on how the readers, as spiritual exiles and pilgrims, are to respond to the social order of the world and to paradoxical suffering for doing righteous works. The last section (4:12-5:11) before the conclusion (5:12-14) gives final encouragement to persevere in suffering and details the responsibility of the elders and church in light of their relationship to Christ.

The second section, which includes the passage under consideration, can itself be divided into two parts. The first, which runs from 2:11 to 3:12, calls the believers to live righteous lives by submitting to various authorities (government, masters, husbands) and concludes with a call to righteous living in order to gain God’s blessing (3:8-12). The second subdivision, 3:13-4:11, then develops the odd complexity of living in a fallen world. Even as believers seek to live in righteousness, conforming to good societal values, they will endure suffering. The passage under consideration here (3:13-17) prepares the reader to suffer for righteousness. It reveals that such suffering is under the sovereignty of God and, if handled appropriately, will lead to divine blessing.[14] First Peter 3:18-4:6 reminds the readers of Jesus’s suffering and the necessity of following in his footsteps, while 4:7-11 encourages the reader to look toward eternity during the complex oddity of present suffering.

Grammatical And Lexical Analysis

Verse 13, while starting a new unit of thought, connects to the previous context (3:8-12) by the cognates ποιοῦντας κακά (“the one doing evil”; v. 12) and κακώσων (“the one harming you”; v. 13). Further, the believer stands on the opposite side of those doing evil (v. 12). He is both righteous (δικαιοσύνη) and doing good (ἀγαθός)—concepts that echo the previous passage. These connections reveal that Peter is continuing the thought of the psalm quoted in verses 10-12. His readers are the righteous who do good and who will have the blessing of God, while those who persecute them are those who do evil and will have God’s face turned from them. Since ἀγαθός occurs in both verses 13 and 17, Michaels correctly recognizes that “the application of the psalm is therefore not confined to v 13 but to some extent shapes the writer’s train of thought to the end of v 17.”[15]

Verse 13 is also connected to the previous context by the copulative καί, but how the καί should be translated depends on how one interprets the rhetorical question introduced here: “Who is there to harm you if you are doing good?” Peter’s third-class conditional can be interpreted as a general statement of fact.[16] In that case, Peter would be saying that no one will possibly hurt the readers. The UBS handbook on 1 Peter, following this use, suggests that the text can be translated “certainly no one will harm you if you are eager to do what is good.”[17] The conditional can also be taken to describe a situation that is, in all probability, not going to happen. If this is Peter’s use, he is arguing that it is generally expected that when a man is doing good/righteousness, that man will not be harmed because of it.

The first reading is preferred for the following reasons. First, the use of the future subjunctive (γένησθε) indicates that the focus is not on the present harm but on future harm in the eschaton. Thus, Peter’s focus is not on whether someone might momentarily harm the believer; rather, he is asking what meaningful (i.e., eternal and substantial) harm can be done to those who do good. Second, the eschatological focus is confirmed in verse 16 when he speaks of the evil workers being put to shame. Third, Peter elsewhere implies that his audience was already enduring suffering for doing good (1:6; 3:14; 4:12-19), so questioning the possibility of such suffering would be a more challenging reading. Finally, the first reading best explains the connection between the preceding psalm and this pericope. The logic of the passage is as follows: Because God’s eyes are on the righteous, no final harm can come to those who do good. For this reason, the καί should be translated as “so then” or “therefore” since it draws out an implication from the psalm.

Peter describes his readers as zealous (ζηλωτής) for what is good (ἀγαθός). The word ἀγαθός contrasts with κακός in verse 12, but it derives its moral content from the instruction provided in 2:11-3:9.[18] Ζηλωτής, as noted in the textual variant discussion above, does not refer to a political movement; rather, the word is being used in its Hellenistic sense as the pursuit of moral ideals.[19]

Verse 14 begins with ἀλλά, which must be interpreted according to one’s understanding of verse 13. If Peter has indicated that suffering for doing good is rare, then ἀλλά introduces a contrastive state of affairs—i.e., “but if you do suffer for doing right.” On the other hand, if verse 13 is eschatologically focused, as has been argued above, then ἀλλά clarifies the previous verse. As Achtemeier notes, “Far from calling into question the claim of v. 13 that nothing can harm the person zealous for God’s will, the suffering of Christians actually confirms that claim, since those who suffer in accord with the divine will are in fact blessed rather than harmed.”[20]

Peter’s use of the rare optative here and in verse 17 demands explanation. Wallace, following the normal use of the optative to suggest some level of possibility, argues that Peter uses it here to indicate that while the readers have not yet faced suffering, it is a possibility they should be prepared for.[21] However, Peter strongly indicates that his readers have already suffered persecution for doing good (1:6; 3:14; 4:12-19). It seems best to see the optative as reflecting the possible frequency and timing of suffering rather than the possibility of suffering itself. Or, as Schreiner indicates, “the optative is used because suffering, though not a constant experience in the Christian life, is always a threat and could erupt at any time.”[22]

Peter’s dependence on the teaching of Jesus is clearly evident in this verse. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” (Matt. 5:10). Peter picks up all three elements of this beatitude—persecution, righteousness, and blessing. Mirroring the teaching of his Lord, Peter applies the blessing only to those who endure persecution for the sake of righteousness (διὰ δικαιοσύνην). Μακάριος can imply a subjective state of happiness, or it can imply that one is the recipient of divine favor.[23] While the latter can result in the former, it is best to see the blessing as a divine gift in line with the promises made already in this epistle (1:4; 2:9).

Verses 14b to 15a introduce a quotation from Isaiah 8:12.[24] There is disagreement over whether Peter quoted the text from the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, or his memory.[25] Since Peter shows a preference for the Septuagint throughout the letter, it should be the assumed text unless there is a reason to suggest otherwise. The problem with a definitive claim that Peter used the Septuagint concerns the differences with the Septuagint rendering. For example, the Septuagint has the singular pronoun αὐτοῦ (“do not fear the fear of it/him”), but Peter records a plural pronoun, αὐτῶν (“do not fear the fear of them”). In light of Peter’s overall preference for the Septuagint, it will be maintained that this is an intentional modification of the Septuagint rendering.

If this change is intentional, what is its significance? In the original passage, Isaiah was warned by God not to fear what the people feared. In their historical situation, the Southern Kingdom was being threatened by the dual forces of the Northern Kingdom and Syria. Instead of fearing the plot hatched by the two kingdoms, Isaiah should fear only God. In this way, Isaiah was not to fear what the people feared—the plot against Judah.[26] Peter, due to the different circumstances, changed the referent of the fear. Rather than fearing what they feared, Peter encourages the people not to fear them—i.e., the people who might persecute them for doing righteousness.[27] Jobes captures the essence of the change when she says, “1 Peter takes the quote up in an entirely different historical context, but with the same purpose of encouraging his readers in the face of threat, applying it to Christians who are not facing hostile powers beyond their borders but adversaries from within their own society.”[28]

Peter’s first admonition in the face of the threat of persecution is to not fear or be troubled. The presence of dual subjunctives of prohibition amplifies the command. Peter’s reliance on Isaiah 8 has been shown, but it is also possible that Peter is continuing to reflect the teaching of Jesus. Matthew 10:28 says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Because of the eschatological theme running through this text, the teaching of Jesus is quite applicable.

Verse 15 continues the quotation from Isaiah 8 and introduces the second response the readers should have in the face of the threat of persecution: rather than fearing man, they should honor Christ as holy. Ἁγιάζω can refer to “making something holy,” but “regarding one as holy” better fits the context and matches the use of the word in the Lord’s Prayer, which, like the beatitude above, is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount.[29] That one is to regard Christ as holy is confirmed in that this process takes place “in the heart.” This dative of location is not in Isaiah, but is added by Peter to indicate that his call is to “more than an intellectual commitment to truth about Jesus, but for a deep commitment to him.”[30] Peter’s adept mixing of Old Testament quotations with his memories of Jesus’s teaching already in this passage make it possible that Peter is alluding to Luke 21:14.[31]

The most significant change Peter makes in his quotation of the Septuagint concerns the identity of the One his readers are to fear. The Septuagint reads, Κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε, but Peter replaces the pronoun with a title for Jesus: κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε. There is ambiguity concerning whether Χριστόν is in apposition to κύριον (“set apart the Lord, namely Christ”) or whether κύριον functions as a predicate accusative (“set apart Christ as Lord”). In favor of the predicative interpretation is the anarthrous κύριον. It would more naturally have the article if functioning in apposition to an articular Χριστόν. Further, Schreiner argues that the passage concerns honoring Christ as Lord, not identifying Christ as Lord, which would be the import of the appositional use.[32]

In favor of the appositional use, however, is the Septuagint, whose form Peter copies. Since Peter’s syntax is restrained by the text he is citing, Jobes argues that weight should be given to the use in the Septuagint, which implies an appositional use.[33] Michaels suggests that Χριστόν is articular while κύριον is not because Peter is focusing on Christ as the “controlling word” in this section and the next.[34] As for Schreiner’s argument that the passage concerns Christ as Lord, it is clear that this is not opposed to also recognizing Christ as identical to Isaiah’s referent of Lord. In fact, the former concept is necessarily implied in the latter.

While regarding Christ as holy, the believer is to always be “prepared to give an answer.” The adjective ἕτοιμος functions with imperatival force, indicating that the constant preparation for giving an answer (ἀπολογία) is corollary to honoring Christ as holy. While ἀπολογία occurs frequently in judicial settings (Luke 21:14; Acts 19:33), its use here is more general, referring to offering a defense before anyone who might ask (παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς).

Why does Peter indicate that the believer should defend the reason for the hope (ἐλπίς) rather than faith? Hope is an important characteristic in Peter’s letter (1:3, 13, 21) and functions as a near equivalent to faith. Nevertheless, it also emphasizes an optimistic future orientation.[35] Significantly, Peter indicates that this hope is reasonable (λόγος), implying that substantial reasons can be given in its defense. This hope has a sure foundation that can be rationally communicated even to those who do not share the hope.[36]

Peter also assumes that the lives of believers will be characterized by an outwardly evident hopeful expectation. He does not say that believers should tell others about the hope; rather, they are to answer others who ask about the hope that they have recognized in the life of the persecuted, yet righteous believer(s). Bible versions differ on the translation of ἐν ὑμῖν. It can refer to the hope personally held by individual believers (“in you”), or it can refer to the hope maintained among the broader body of believers (“among you”). While one must always guard against a modern, individualistic interpretation of Scripture (as Achtemeier points out[37]), an individualistic interpretation is to be preferred here. Schreiner highlights that the verse started with “in your hearts,” which speaks of each individual personalizing the command to honor Christ as Lord. Undoubtedly, there would have been a broader witness provided by the hope shared among the believers, but the sporadic nature of the persecution (as indicated by the optatives in verses 14 and 17) causes Peter to argue that even individuals who hold forth hope in the midst of persecution may be the catalyst for an unbeliever’s questions.

Verse 16 gives three qualifications concerning how one ought to respond to questioning.[38] First, the believer is to respond with meekness, often translated “gentleness.” While Hellenistic virtues are frequently parallel to biblical virtues, this one is distinctive, deriving from Jesus’s teaching (Matt. 11:29) and person (21:5).[39] Most likely Peter is drawing attention to the way Jesus treated those who persecuted him (1 Pet. 2:23).[40] Second, the believer is to respond with respect/fear (φόβος). But who is to be respected/feared—i.e., does the believer respect the questioner or fear God? In favor of the latter, Peter has frequently encouraged his readers to fear God (1:17; 2:18; 3:2), even indicating in verse 14 that they should not have φόβος of the persecutors. In light of this broader context, Michaels argues that it is “virtually certain” that Peter meant to indicate fear of God.[41] However, Jobes shows that “Peter elsewhere teaches that one way fear of God is expressed (1:17; 2:17) is by respecting others (2:18; 3:1, 7).”[42] Further, since the posture of gentleness is in reference to the questioner,[43] it would make sense that the second noun, which is governed by the same preposition, would have the same referent. But even if both nouns refer to the questioner, this does not exclude meekness and fear toward God, for fear, “like humility, refers to an attitude towards others that is rooted in one’s attitude toward God.”[44]

Συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν indicates the third qualification for answering the unbeliever. The attendant circumstance participle identifies the necessity of having a good conscience while expressing oneself with meekness and respect. In the New Testament, the conscience is the moral faculty that guides one to do what one believes is correct.[45] While the first two qualifications deal primarily with the believer’s verbal response to the questioner, this third qualification more likely addresses lifestyle. Peter reminds his readers to follow what they believe to be correct, for if they fail to do so, they will suffer for their own wrongdoing (3:17).

Ἵνα identifies the purpose of the three qualifications; namely, that when the reader is slandered (καταλαλέω) and reviled (ἐπηρεάζω)[46] for good conduct, the speaker will be put to shame (καταισχύνω). Shockingly, the reason for the reviling is good behavior! Peter’s addition of ἐν Χριστῷ in describing the good conduct indicates that the behavior reviled is specifically Christian.[47] In other words, the conduct is determined to be good on the basis of one’s relationship to Christ, not on the cultural norms of the day.[48]

Peter envisions persecution as arising from the believer’s good conduct, but he foresees that continued good conduct salted with meek and respectful words will lead to the persecutor being put to shame (καταισχύνω). The shame envisioned here could refer to an eschatological shame, wherein the unbeliever is put to shame at the coming of the Lord. Schreiner offers three arguments in favor of this reading.[49] First, καταισχυνθῶσιν (“be put to shame”) frequently occurs in future, eschatological contexts (Rom. 5:5; 9:33; 10:11; 1 Cor. 1:27). Second, since good behavior led to the persecution, how would more good behavior lead to shame on behalf of the persecutors? Finally, the concepts in this passage are paralleled in 2:12, where the context is clearly eschatological.

Despite Schreiner’s arguments, a good case can be made for a temporal view that has in mind a shame leading to repentance. First, the parallels with 2:12 might suggest that Peter has the same thoughts in mind, and since that context spoke of salvation, a soteriological emphasis may obtain here as well. Second, ἐπηρεάζω occurs only twice in Scripture—here and in Luke 6:28. Peter’s frequent reference to the teaching of Jesus in this passage (and book) strengthens the possibility of this connection. In Luke 6:28, Jesus tells his disciples to pray for those who abuse them, implying a prayer for salvation. Finally, Peter indicates that the believer should have reasons for his or her faith and be ready to share them. The focus on rational argumentation seems to be directed to persuading the persecutor of the truth of the hope. If so, the reasons for hope given in a respectful and meek manner accompanied by a good lifestyle (good conscience) might work together to make the persecutor ashamed of his accusations against the believer.[50]

In verse 17, Peter argues that it is “better to suffer for doing good . . . than for doing evil.” This better refers back to verse 14, which indicates that God’s blessing rests on those who suffer for righteousness. On the other hand, the Lord is against those who do evil (3:12). The most debatable aspect of this verse concerns whether the suffering for doing evil occurs in this life or in the eschaton.

According to Michaels, a “near consensus” in modern scholarship is that Peter is referencing suffering for evil in this life.[51] This position rests on the supposed parallel between this verse and 2:20, where Peter indicates that it is better for servants to suffer in this life for doing good than for doing evil. Schreiner adds three additional arguments.[52] First, the passage lacks eschatological language one would otherwise expect. Second, in the ten other uses of the πάσχω word group, 1 Peter never uses it to refer to eschatological judgment.[53] Third, 4:15-16 also offers a parallel to these verses, and there the meaning concerns the present life. Achtemeier provides one final argument, namely, that there is no discernible division of the passage concerning the one who implements the suffering. The eschatological view demands that the suffering for good is by the hand of evil doers, while the suffering for evil is by the hand of God.[54]

Michaels has championed the eschatological view, making three arguments in its favor.[55] First, he argues that the parallel between this passage and 2:20 is inexact, for 3:17 does not speak to endurance. The result is that while 2:20 emphasizes the value of enduring unjust suffering, 3:17 becomes tautological, saying nothing more than “good is better than evil.”[56] Second, Jesus’s teaching in Mark 9:43, 45, 47, which notes that it is better to excise a body part than endure eternal punishment, is similar in form to this verse. Michaels argues that both Peter and Jesus are using Tobspruch, a form of wisdom teaching that includes three elements: “a word for ‘good’ or ‘better,’ two infinitives . . . weighed against each other, and a word of comparison.”[57] Since the use in the Gospels is eschatological, it is probable that the Tobspruch in 1 Peter 3:17 is eschatological as well. Finally, the broader context of the passage leads one to view this as eschatological. The psalm that introduced this section divided humanity into those who do good and those who do evil. For the former, God’s eyes are on them favorably, but for the evil, God’s face is against them. When 3:13-17 is read in this way, an eschatological light is cast on the passage.

It seems possible to maintain the major thrust of both positions simultaneously. Clearly Peter would argue that doing good is better than doing evil, even without regard to the eschatological implications. Further, Peter would also argue that it is better to suffer now for doing good than to suffer at the hands of God in eternity for doing evil (4:17). The language of this passage favors the former position, but the wider context of the text implies the latter position, even if Peter did not intend to make it explicit.

“If that should be God’s will” introduces the reader to the second optative in this section. The function here is the same as in verse 15; while suffering may not always be the will of God, it is always a live possibility. Peter evidences a high view of sovereignty here as he does elsewhere (1:2; 2:8). His point is not that one might suffer for doing good outside of God’s will. Instead, he is emphasizing that when suffering comes, it is always under the sovereignty of God. Jobes notes the theological implication: “If suffering is within God’s will, it is also within God’s sovereign control. And thus Christian suffering is determined not by the will of one’s adversaries but by the will of one’s heavenly Father.”[58]

Exegetical Summary

First Peter 3:13-17 is a reflection on Psalm 34:12-16 in view of the readers’ experience of persecution. The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous; consequently, there is no one who can ultimately harm the believer. Nevertheless, Peter’s readers have faced suffering and may continue to face it in this life. When this happens, the believer should make certain that the suffering is for the sake of righteousness. If so, there is promised blessing—as both the psalm under consideration and the teaching of Jesus make clear. When suffering arises, believers have only two options. They may fear and become anxious due to the persecutors, or they may honor Christ as holy. The latter response, Peter foresees, may result in persecutors asking about the nature of the believers’ hope. For this reason, Peter commands his readers to be prepared to give a reasonable defense of that hope. Anticipating that tension would exist between believers and their persecutors, Peter instructs his readers to answer with gentleness and respect—even to those who have persecuted them. Good words, however, must be matched with a good lifestyle so that a believer’s conscience is pure before both the one who investigates the hope and, more importantly, the Lord. Peter anticipates that the combination of good words and a good lifestyle may result in the unbeliever’s shame, leading to repentance. While Peter does not promise that suffering will always lead to conversion of the persecutor, he does promise that suffering for doing good is always better than suffering for doing evil. Ultimately, Peter reminds his readers that God is sovereign even over the suffering of his people. If God allows his people to suffer for doing righteousness, he will reward them, for his eyes are on the righteous and his ears are open to their prayer.

Apologetic Applications And Implications

This analysis of 1 Peter 3:13-17 has attempted to view the text on its own terms, not those dictated by the desire to build a proof text for apologetics. Having done so, however, there is plenty of room to examine how this passage impacts the practice of apologetics.

First, verse 12 can be read as an encouragement to pray for the conversion of enemies. To see how this is so, recall the significant influence of Jesus’s teaching throughout the passage. In each of the verses examined above, Peter referenced Jesus’s teaching, but one passage is exceedingly significant for this point. In Luke 6:28, the only other place in the New Testament where ἐπηρεάζω is found, Jesus indicates that his disciples should pray for their persecutors. This reading is strengthened by 1 Peter 3:9, which introduces the psalm. There Peter encourages his readers to respond to reviling with blessing. What greater blessing can there be than to pray for the conversion of one’s persecutors?

Second, apologetic opportunities may arise because of one’s hope-filled response to suffering for doing good. Those who desire opportunities to share the gospel, therefore, must be concerned not only with what they say but also with what they do. If being put to shame leads to repentance as argued above, then that is the result of meek, respectful words that accompany a lifestyle lived with a good conscience. Therefore, both opportunity and fruit are the result of a fully implemented Christian life.

Third, all believers are apologists in the sense that God has called each to be ready to give reasons for his or her hope. Peter’s use of legal terminology (3:15) may reflect the seriousness of this calling: “Peter sees his readers as being ‘on trial’ every day as they live for Christ in a pagan society.”[59] Nevertheless, Peter’s use of Jesus’s teaching as found in Luke 21:14 provides confidence in the face of such opportunities. If Peter is thinking of Jesus’s teaching as recorded in Luke, as argued above, he is suggesting that the Spirit aids those who must give an answer. Nevertheless, the Spirit’s aid does not negate the need for believers to investigate the reasons for their hope, for the point of Luke 21:14 is that the Spirit will guide believers in use of the knowledge they have.

Fourth, despite murderous threatening and calls for persecution, the apologist need not fear unbelievers. No one can ultimately (i.e., eternally, or from the vantage point of eternity) harm the believer who does good in Christ (1 Pet. 3:13), for the apologist knows that God’s eyes are on the righteous, but his face is against the evildoers (v. 12). Suffering in the present life should be viewed as cause for rejoicing (v. 14), for not only is there an imperishable inheritance awaiting the saints (1:4), but suffering at the hands of evildoers may be the catalyst for the evildoer’s conversion (3:16). And since God is sovereign over the suffering of his saints (v. 17), the believer can pray, expecting that suffering is a divine appointment that will produce further apologetic opportunities.

Fifth, Peter teaches the importance of how the apologist responds to the questioner. Some people are drawn to apologetics because they love to argue (and are therefore frequently adept at it). Peter warns them that proper apologetic speech is filled with meekness and respect for the listener. Those who lose sight of pointing to Christ through gracious words and good works (v. 16) may win an intellectual battle (i.e., they may prove the reason for their hope; v. 15) but lose the war for the unbeliever’s soul.

Conclusion

First Peter 3:13-17 says much about Christian apologetics, but that is not the central point of Peter’s message. Peter is chiefly concerned with helping his readers work through a proper response to suffering while acting righteously. That this topic has massive apologetic implications shows how closely the lifestyle of the believer is connected to God’s revelation of himself in his saints. This is only fitting, since it was Peter’s Lord who told him, “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 6:16).

Notes

1. Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2006), 13-14; James K. Beilby, Thinking about Christian Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 39.
2. This is especially the case in some introductory apologetic books. For example, see two introductory works that, while applying the texts properly, do not explain the broader context (Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011], 24, 33, 97, 127; John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction [Phillipsburg, NJ: P. & R. Publishing, 1994], 1). Clearly, the purposes of these volumes determine the extent of the exegetical work displayed therein. The point here is simply that a further development of 1 Peter 3:15 in light of its broader context gives deeper insight into the meaning of 3:15 itself.
3. Certainly, not all apologetic treatments of the verse ignore the surrounding context. For an excellent textual analysis in light of the apologetic task, see K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 33-35.
4. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary 37 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 35. See also Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 5-18.
5. Robert H. Gundry, “ ‘Verba Christi’ in I Peter: Their Implications Concerning the Authorship of I Peter and the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition,” New Testament Studies 13 (1967): 336-50; Robert H. Gundry, “Further Verba on ‘Verba Christi’ in First Peter,” Biblica 55 (1974): 211-32.
6. Michaels, however, argues that date and authorship should not be closely correlated (J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1988], lvii–lxvi).
7. Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), 735-36.
8. Jobes, 1 Peter, 227.
9. All quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.
10. Many later manuscripts (e.g., K, L, P, vgms) have μιμηται instead of ζηλωται, which is heavily favored by the earlier manuscripts (e.g., P72, א, A, B). That the term “zealot” became associated with the rebels against Rome is probably responsible for this scribal emendation.
11. Some manuscripts (e.g., K, L, P) have κύριον δὲ τὸν θεόν instead of κύριον δὲτὸν Χριστός (e.g., P72, א, A, B, C). This is a later reading that probably arose due to an intentional or unintentional harmonization of the text with the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 8:13. See Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia, ed. Eldon Jay (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 228.
12. Instead of the simple καταλαλεῖσθε (“being slandered”; e.g., א, B), numerous manuscripts have καταλαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν (“they speak evil of you as of evildoers”; e.g., A, C, K). It is best to interpret this emendation as an unintentional borrowing of language from 2:12.
13. “There is virtual unanimity regarding the structure of 1 Peter in the recent scholarly literature.” Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 737. See also Schreiner’s excellent outline of the book, which is broadly followed in this summary (Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 48).
14. While it is impossible to separate these verses completely from the broader context, they are somewhat distinct. First, the section is demarked by a return to prose from the preceding quotation of Old Testament poetry. Second, as Achtemeier has noted, there is an inclusio between the idea of “blessing” in verse 14 and the idea of “better” in verse 17. In both cases, the vantage point is divine (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 238). Third, the rare use of the optative in both verse 13 and verse 17 sections this passage off as referring to a state of affairs that is possible, though sporadic (Michaels, 1 Peter, 192).
15. Michaels, 1 Peter, 184.
16. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 696.
17. Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on the First Letter from Peter (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 104.
18. Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 2nd ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 129.
19. For a list of Hellenistic writers using it in this way, see Michaels, 1 Peter, 185.
20. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 231.
21. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 484.
22. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 171.
23. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 610-11.
24. Isaiah 8:11-15, having already been cited by Peter in chapter 2, serves as an important text for Peter’s purposes.
25. Achtemeier argues that since Peter seems to have modified the text, one cannot be sure of his original source. Schreiner agrees, suggesting that Peter’s memory might be the ultimate source. Finally, Arichea and Nida put forth the possibility that Peter was using a different text than those available to us today (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 232; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 172; Arichea and Nida, A Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 105).
26. Actually, there are a number of possibilities within the Isaiah context concerning what the people feared, but the interest here is to highlight the modification made to the quote in 1 Peter.
27. The genitive αὐτῶν can be taken as a subjective or objective genitive. If the former, the Old Testament context is maintained to a greater degree, for in both cases, the call is not to fear what others fear. This is how the NIV takes the verse (“Do not fear what they fear”). The NASB takes it as an objective genitive (“Do not fear their intimidation”), which makes better sense of the fuller context of the passage and letter, which concerns persecution of believers by individuals.
28. Jobes, 1 Peter, 229.
29. For the uses of ἁγιάζω, see Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 10.
30. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 131.
31. Luke 21:14-15 reads, “Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.” Both I. Howard Marshall and Robert Stein suggest that the listeners were not to practice the speech or memorize it beforehand. If so, this would not prevent thinking about what they should say; rather, it gives place for the Spirit to guide the actual defense (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 768); Robert H. Stein, Luke, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993], 517).
32. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 173.
33. Jobes, 1 Peter, 229.
34. Michaels, 1 Peter, 187.
35. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 319.
36. Peter does not speak to the unbeliever’s ability or inability to understand the reasons given for the hope. Instead, his focus is on the believer’s ability (and duty) to defend the hope with substantial, rational argumentation.
37. “Such individualism is probably anachronistic within the thought-world of our author” (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 234 n. 66).
38. Verse 16a in the Greek text (ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, “but with gentleness and respect”) is placed at the end of verse 15 in some English translations (e.g., ESV, NIV). Here it is treated according to its placement in the major Greek texts.
39. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 234.
40. In 2:23 Peter indicates that when Christ suffered he did not threaten (ἀπειλέω). Jesus had the power to destroy his persecutors, but instead of expressing his power, he submitted because he trusted his Father, who was ultimately in control.
41. Michaels, 1 Peter, 189.
42. Jobes, 1 Peter, 231.
43. Michaels recognizes this problem and suggests that meekness is in reference to God as well. He uses 1 Peter 3:4 as his example, suggesting that the wife is showing meekness in reference to God (Michaels, 1 Peter, 189). Despite this claim, the broader context of 3:4 is submission to one’s husband. As such, the meekness/gentleness is in reference to the husband, notwithstanding God’s observation of it (3:4b).
44. Jobes, 1 Peter, 231.
45. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 324.
46. This word is used elsewhere only in Luke 6:28, where Jesus indicates that his disciples ought to pray for enemies. The verb means “to treat [something] in a despicable manner” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 362).
47. Did Peter use ἐν Χριστῷ in a Pauline sense to refer to union with Christ? While the context does not demand that he did, the early church apostles knew each other and investigated one another’s teaching. As such, there is no reason to deny a fuller understanding here.
48. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 236.
49. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 177-78.
50. Michaels suggests that Peter might mean both present and eschatological shame, though he focuses on the eschatological (Michaels, 1 Peter, 133).
51. Ibid., 191.
52. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 178-79.
53. Michaels, who holds to an eschatological perspective on this text, recognizes that Peter’s use of πάσχω is challenging to his position. He provides two arguments in its defense. First, πάσχω is directly related to ἀγαθοποιέω, but is only implied in relation to κακοποιέω. Second, he argues that Peter relativizes the stages of God’s judgment, merging them together so that one could speak of “suffering” or “judgment” as the same reality (Michaels, 1 Peter, 192).
54. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 237.
55. Michaels, 1 Peter, 191-92.
56. Ibid., 191.
57. Ibid., 191-92.
58. Jobes, 1 Peter, 233.
59. Michaels, 1 Peter, 188.