A Hopeful Apology

I Peter 3:13-22 is the epistle reading for the 6th Sunday of Easter in the Year of Mark.  This continues the reading of this letter which, in many ways, is an exhortation to hope - a worthy task in the season of resurrection.  It shall be the preacher's task to continue to exhort people to a vibrant hope, and in this text, to be prepared to defend one's hope.

(The following questions center on the issue of how the Word is functioning.  This is a central concern of Law and Gospel preachers, since the way the Word functions is the way the sermon, at least in part, must function.  For more on this method and on Law and Gospel preaching in general, see my brief guide, Afflicting the Comfortable, Comforting the Afflicted, available from wipfandstock.com or amazon.)

1.  How does the Word function in the text?  This text is split up quite cleanly into two sections, verses 13-17 and 18-22, wherein we see the text functioning in the former section as a call to obedience, and in the latter as Gospel.  In other words, the initial five verses invite the listeners to live in a certain way because of what God in Christ has done for them, and the last five verses proclaim all that God has done.

2.  How is the Word not functioning in the text?  There is no clear word of Law here, no word that says explicitly, "You need Christ."  To be sure, the text speaks of enemies of believers, but it does not address the need for a Savior.

3.  With whom are you identifying in the text?  As in all these readings in I Peter, we identify with those to whom these words were first written.  We are those for whom Christ has died, and those who are called to give a defense for the hope that is in us.

4.  What Law/Gospel couplet is suggested by this text?  Although the text lacks examples of Law language, there is plenty of Gospel language, and so we shall simply design couplets using the Gospel terms. For example:  unrighteous/righteous; lost/brought to God; a guilty conscience/free of guilt.

5.  Exegetical work:  The word translated as 'defense' is a word which theologians know well. It is the word apologia, from which we get the words apology, apologist, and apologetics.  While the common use of this word is to express regret, in this case it is far from that. The word means to make a spirited defense.  According to Rienecker and Rogers, "The word was often used of the argument for the defense in a court of law and though the word may have the idea of a judicial interrogation in which one is called to answer for the manner in which he has exercised his responsibilities (Beare), the word can also mean an informal explanation or defense of one's own position...and the word would aptly describe giving an answer to the skeptical, abusive, or derisive inquiries of ill-disposed neighbors. (Kelly)." (Linguistic Key to the Greek NT, p. 758)  Fourth century exegete, Didymus the Blind, has this to say:  "We must be so well instructed in the knowledge of our faith that whenever anyone asks us about it we may be able to give them a proper answer and to do so with meekness and in the fear of God.  For whoever says anything about God must do so as if God himself were present to hear him."  (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, NT, Vol. XI, p. 104) 

6.  Consider the insights of the pioneers of the New Homiletic?  To have the listener experience the text, that is always the goal of the sermon, said Fred Craddock.  How will we give our listeners an experience of this text?  That is the question.

Blessings on your proclamation!