Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. (1 Peter 3.15 NASV).

Alright, so in my bio I have it that I like ancient texts (whatever that means), yet don't actually have anything in the blog. That’s just wrong. Some of you might wanna tune out the next week. So what exactly does the above verse mean? I'll tell you what I don't think it means: apologetics. "Wow," you might say, "That's kinda interesting since the word the author uses for "answer" is apologia and the word for reason is logos." Just so you know, apologies are "defenses" using rationality, and a logos is rational as opposed to an emotive (pathos) or ethical (ethos) type of rhetoric.

The main reason is it doesn't seem to jive with the rest of the thematic elements. As way of explanation though the term has morphed from a legal sense to one of justifying beliefs. Keep in mind, I'm no scholar, but during this time period apologia reflected a range of semantic possibilities connected to the notion of justification. The most notable example was Caesar Augustus' Res Gestae Divi Augusti, which was a propaganda piece defending his reign from expected "malignment" by posterity. In the Christian canon itself, it typically refers to the traditional legal sense. However, there are some places where it is more ambiguous or less strict. Paul defends his apostleship to the Church of Corinth. He also used it in "defense of the Gospel"; however, again there are places like here of ambiguity where the writer might be trying to allude to a less strict legal sense or possibly a more polemical sense.

A strict legal sense is not indicative as the person is accountable to "everyone" (presumably those outside the Church). Defense to authorities is actually a relatively frequent theme in the NT, so the author obviously could of specified if that was the intended scenario. However, the object of the defense is not the faith or beliefs or even the gospel, it is hope. Who is asking for this account? Evil-doers or those witness to Christian responses to evil-doers. In the surrounding verses when they speak of "fear", it's not "oh my word, what will they think", it's "oh my word, what are they gonna do next?" In that respect, an exhortation to a group largely unphilosophical to pull out their logic textbooks and copy of Pagan's Against Theist Quarterly is disjointive and incongruous. Rather than being overwhelmed, the author tells the Church to "sanctify Jesus in your heart", be prepared to give a defense, and have a "good conscience". It then goes on about the virtues of suffering for good. I don't get the image of the questioner suggesting, "Hey, let's sit down and have a nice cup of tea and discuss the philosophical merits of your beliefs."
The notion instead seems to be a range of emotions evoked from surprise at Christian behavior: curiosity, befuddlement, fear, anger, admiration, etc. These result in a desire to question these anomalies. And yes, even admiration. Early commentators admired the courage of the Church. Thought they were crazy as hell, true, but brave in the face of death! Today, we get why Christians are jerks online from other Christians. At least according to the author, you don't get points for suffering evil for evil, and it's not slander if it's true. And why are we supposed to? For love of enemies and hope in an inheritance blessing.

Well, that's different is a perfectly normal response from people. The directive contains an implicit assumption embedded in a passage dealing with suffering for doing good, the assumption that love and hope and suffering are present. The author is telling the Church to explain our "living apologetic" and our "hope beyond hope". So where lies the hope of Christians? The promise and work of God. The verse refers to a narrating of the gospel and proclamation of its promises. Tragic, lamentable, whatever, the verse doesn't have much relevance to Christians today. For one, few actually believe the Biblical hope, and fewer still believe in turning the other cheek and loving one's enemy. The entire book wasn't really written for bourgeois American WASPs, but rather for a subjugated people often finding themselves ostracized by their very own. While it might be flattering, it's also kinda insulting to others self-identifying with the implied audience, and increasingly annoying in a society where the Church has held not only a place of privilege but are instigators of many "evils".

Don't get me wrong, apologetics are fine and dandy. This verse simply isn't addressing that subject imo. There are others.