"BE PREPARED?" (MATTHEW 10:18-19; I PETER 3:15)

I have posted my comments on several Girl Scout mottoes in the past, but I don't want to forget the Boy Scouts either. The idea of being prepared seems to be a very New Testament concept. Peter gives the following advice to his audience:

    “Be prepared at all times to give a defense to anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have within you.” (I Peter 3:15)

But this would seem to totally contradict what Jesus told his disciples earlier:

    “For my sake you will be brought to trial before rulers and kings, to tell the Gospel to them and to the Gentiles. When they bring you to trial, take no thought for what you are going to say or the manner in which to say it; when the time comes, you will be given the words to speak.” (Matthew 10:18-19: Luke 12:11-12)

Eugene Boring clearly points out the differences between these two sayings without offering any insights into how to resolve the situation. With most other apparent contradictions in the Bible which critics, even friendly ones such as Boring, like to point out, the resolution is generally obtained by looking more carefully at differences in context or the use of problematic translations. Both are at play in this case.

One major cause of confusion is over-reliance on the King James phrase “take no thought for.” This wording also occurs on Jesus' lips in Matthew 6:25-34 where it is applied to one's life, length of life, clothing, food, drink, future plans, and what will happen in the future. But the use of archaic language is highly misleading, so consider a number of modern translations of the Greek instead:

    “Do not be anxious” – RSV, NASB

    “Put away anxious thoughts” – NEB

    “Do not be overly concerned” – Anchor Bible

    “Don't fuss about” – The Message

    “Don't ( or Do not) worry” – Phillips, NRSV, Living Bible, TEV, JB

The key word for “thought”in these passages is meri, which Young defines as “being overly anxious” or “very careful.” It is not the usual Greek word dialogismos referring to one's use of reason.

So Jesus is not at all telling his disciples to turn their brains off in Matthew 10 anymore than he is telling them to make no plans for one's future at all in Matthew 6, as scholars agree:

    Hendricksen: “This does not mean that the mind of the persecuted apostle is a tabula rasa (blank tablet) and that then in some mechanical fashion God will suddenly begin to write words upon that blank slate...neither....will the previous apostolic training which they received from Jesus be nullified. All this will be enlivened and sharpened and raised to a higher plane of activity.”

    France: “As in [Matthew] 6:25-34, this assurance [in Matthew 10] is not an excuse for failure to make responsible provision for foreseeable needs; to take this utterance as an excuse for lazy preachers, insisting that all Christian utterance must be spontaneous and unprepared, is to take it seriously out of context.”

    Boring: “...they are not to wait until the situation is upon them and depend upon charismatic help for an answer, but are to think through the meaning of their faith and its relation to public life, and be prepared to respond intelligently when asked.”

    Eastman: “They must be able to articulate the nature and content of their faith to those who do not believe.”

In case you feel that the first three cited authors above are alluding to a purely hypothetical possibility, consider the case of a rather young Sunday school teacher in a class I attended years ago. He was going to teach a series on the book of Romans, but apparently he took the general admonition of Jesus in Matthew 10 rather literally and applied it to Sunday school teaching as well. His idea of preparation before a lesson was to meet with one or two others a few minutes before class time and pray that the Holy Spirit would give him the words to say to us.

As a result of this “preparation,” the children's Sunday school classes were filled with members of our class volunteering to be teachers and teacher aides – anything to escape his teaching. The reason was that after about two months into this series, we still hadn't advanced past the first chapter. I would argue that we never even got to the first verse since this “teacher” spent most of class time sharing random thoughts God had given him while working on his garden. He had heavy “charismatic” leanings and felt that the Holy Spirit would just give him the words he needed without any preparation on his own part.

One key word in I Peter 3:15 needing definition is that translated as “defense.” In the Greek, it is apologia, from which we get the term apologetics. This does not indicate in any way that we need to be apologetic when talking about our faith.” As Link says, “Whereas the word apology denotes a particular defence of the Christian faith, apologetics is the working out and presentation of intellectual, scientific and philosophical arguments which may underlie such an apology.” For some resources regarding Christian apologetics that meet that definition, see my post “Apologetics: A Study Guide.”

But the context of I Peter 3:15 encompasses more than the intellectual alone since the passage goes on in v. 16 to caution that your defense needs to be made with gentleness and reverence. For, as Walls explains, “the spirit in which a statement is made may matter more with some hearers than its content.” And from a practical viewpoint, Polhill adds, “Meekness is necessary when sharing the faith in adverse circumstances.”

However, Lin probably goes too far in explaining these verses by saying, “Evangelism both in private and in public included persuasive testimonies...These consisted of one's personal experience of salvation, especially the power behind one's transformed and/or exemplary life.” I believe that he is confusing the roles of an apologist and an evangelist, although they can be one and the same person at times. C.S. Lewis carefully distinguishes the two roles in that an apologist attempts to remove intellectual barriers that people have erected against belief so that an evangelist can then begin to bring them to faith through personal testimonies, etc.

Context is the next important item to consider. In this case, it appears to be roughly the same in Matthew 10 and I Peter 3:15. Both audiences for the believer were likely to be hostile. The major question concerns exactly how hostile. There is fortunately no doubt in the case of Matthew 10. Jesus is clearly talking about a more formal and legal situation. The uncertainty lies with the intent of the I Peter passage. One the one hand, persecution of some sort is understood to form the background of this saying. As evidence of that contention, just note the number of times the word “suffer” or “suffering” occurs in I Peter 3:1-4:19. But the extent of the persecution envisioned is more of an uncertainty.

There are those who feel that the opposition being faced by Peter's audience was informal in nature:

    Schnabel says that the witnessing was done by “individual Christians responding to questions about the faith.”

    Polkinghorne feels that at the time of writing “the opposition was so far unofficial.”

    Walls: “Some think that the exhortation...implies the official persecution of Christians...and refers to the possibility of their having to face interrogation at a formal trial. The accompanying phraseology in this verse, however, combines forcibly to suggest something which might be called for at anytime in the most informal and spontaneous manner.”

    Goppert says that it is different from the context in Matthew 10 in that it “speaks primarily of instances of private conflict, not merely of trials before legal authorities.”

Other scholars state that it is uncertain what degree of questioning would have been in mind:

    Reicke feels the questioning could have come from “the authorities, the police, or meddlesome accusers.”

    Davids says that the verb “question” “can indicate formal legal or judicial settings, but...also used for informal and personal situations.”

    Boring: “It was a matter of discrimination, ostracism, verbal abuse and harassment, employment and commercial disadvantages, and suspicions that could lead to accusations before unfriendly courts.”

In short, the contention is that Peter is addressing either primarily or exclusively those informal occasions when the believers may be privately asked questions regarding their faith. In stark contrast, Jesus was talking about a future time when official and legal interrogation would be carried out on them. But why is even somewhat different advice given in each case? France probably does the best job of explaining why the legal situation is a little different when he says that: “in the crisis situation which demands a verbal defense and proclamation in an intimidating setting (particularly given the low social status of most of Jesus' early followers), disciples have a resource beyond their own intellectual or rhetorical powers...the Father gives his Spirit to empower the disciples' witness to his Son.”

That comment brings up a final point. Just as the above demonstrates that Jesus was not counseling a total lack of preparation on the believers' part, so also Peter is not completely discounting the role of the Spirit in aiding them in what to say.

First, Hendricksen in commenting Matthew 10:19 reminds us, “the Father's Spirit will be speaking in them and...will remind them of everything' that Jesus himself said to them (John 14:26).” Then couple that with Walls' remark that the first part of I Peter 3:15 exhorts believers “whatever their circumstances, to enjoy living communion with Christ by realizing His indwelling presence.” Combined with the fact that this presence is in the form of the Holy Spirit, also called the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ, we see that both passages equally stress reliance in times of questioning on divine help.