1 Peter 3:15

[Toasty]

When giving an account for the hope that is in you, does Paul have in mind being asked these questions:
Why believe in Jesus if you suffer for the sake of righteousness?

Does Paul have in mind giving an answer to any kind of objection to Christianity or just why do you continue to believe in Jesus even though you suffer for living a godly life?

I was just wondering because the context of 1 Peter 3:15 has to do with suffering for righteousness sake.

 

[jambo]

You seem to be mixing Peter up with Paul. Persecution was a big issue for those Christians Peter was writing to and v15 follows on from writing about suffering for the sake of righteousness so I would think that's the immediate thought but giving a reason for the hope would not be confined to those particular circumstances alone.

 

[Ed Walsh]

When giving an account for the hope that is in you, does Paul have in mind being asked these questions:
Why believe in Jesus if you suffer for the sake of righteousness?

I think the directive in, 1 Peter 3:15 goes way beyond just suffering. We are to give a “reasoned defense” [ἀπολογία] for any and all questions that may arise.

From Greg Bahnsen:

Those who were followers of Christ in the early church stood firm on His own categorical claim: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). Accordingly, they proclaimed Christ in such a way that the gospel about Him would be understood as objectively and exclusively true. Those who abide in His word would “know the truth” that sets men free (John 8:31–32).

First-century Christians were willing and able to defend that claim. After all, the truth is not clearly taught unless whatever contradicts it or whatever error stands over against it is refuted. Jude exhorted his fellow believers “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Peter made it a moral imperative to be prepared to give a reasoned answer in defense of the Christian message: “Set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts, being ready always to give an answer to every man who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). In light of the preceding passages, this verse is not an isolated encouragement to defend the faith intellectually; it should be seen in the wider context of the total New Testament witness, which emphasizes the vindication of Christian truth-claims. According to 1 Peter 3:15, the obligation to defend the Christian faith rests upon all believers—all the sheep of Christ’s flock. It is all the more an obligation resting upon those charged with defending the flock (Acts 20:28–30) and setting before it an example as shepherds (1 Peter 5:1–3). Thus, one of the New Testament requirements for those who would be ordained as elders or teachers in the church is that they be “able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to confute the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that apologetics has the strong warrant of New Testament example and command.

Later on Bahnsen said this:
The “reason for the hope” that is within us (cf. 1 Peter 3:15) is that without the lordship of Christ, there could be no intelligible reason given by the unbeliever for anything at all. God has made foolish the wisdom of this world (cf. 1 Cor. 1:20). The Bible, stating the reductio ad absurdum advocated by Van Til, says very pointedly and powerfully, “Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools” (Rom. 1:22).

Van Til’s Apologetic, Readings and Analysis, Greg L. Bahnsen

 

[Toasty]

You seem to be mixing Peter up with Paul. Persecution was a big issue for those Christians Peter was writing to and v15 follows on from writing about suffering for the sake of righteousness so I would think that's the immediate thought but giving a reason for the hope would not be confined to those particular circumstances alone.

I'm sorry. I meant Peter.

We need to be ready in all circumstances.

 

[MW]

I think that text has been burdened with apologetical weights which it might not be able to carry. The original context makes it clear that the readiness is connected with a good conscience out of which the answer is given, which means it is concerned primarily with moral readiness to give an answer. Although intellectual reasons are part of this readiness it is not the burden of the passage.