Wednesday Bible Study: The fool on Facebook

Well, the bunny trail really whopped me this week- I had to learn and re-learn terms just to understand the context of a very easy passage.  First, let me present the ESV version of 1 Peter 3:16 and its environs:

1Pe 3:14  But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 
1Pe 3:15  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 
1Pe 3:16  having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 
1Pe 3:17  For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil. 

Now, to show you where I prolly shouldn't have went, let me re-present the preceding verse- v15- in the KJV:

1Pe 3:15  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 

So me being me, I questioned why it was "Christ the Lord" in one version and "the Lord God" in another.  Robertson's Word Pictures gave me the best explanation:

Christ as Lord (kurion ton Christon). Ton Christon, direct object with article and kurion predicate accusative (without article). This is the correct text, not ton theon of the Textus Receptus. An adaptation to Christ of Isa_8:13.

And what, you ask, does THAT mean?  Well, to unravel that one, I had to figure out just what "Textus Receptus" was.  And I learned:

The biblical Textus Receptus constituted the translation-base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, and most Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.

The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516—a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and monk Desiderius Erasmus. They are also the text type used in most Protestant denominations consistently throughout history before the 19th century adoption of the Alexandrian priority position within mainstream Biblical criticism.

Erasmus, in a rush to get his work done ahead of others he had heard were working on similar projects, worked from a very small number of incomplete, very late Greek manuscripts dating no earlier than 1500 that were locally available to him. These were all missing large portions of the biblical text and when all compiled together still left major gaps in the text. Erasmus filled in those holes by translating the highly-flawed Latin Vulgate into Greek to complete his cobbled up mess of a manuscript. The resulting Erasmian text was what the KJV translators used for their project. Knowing the actual history of the document would be problematic, they invented the "Textus Receptus" myth to validate their project and try to elevate it above the other (better) English translations already in existence (Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, etc.). TR is therefore among the least trustworthy Vorlage texts, and almost every other translation is based on much earlier, much more reliable manuscripts.[1] (Wiki)

Look at the bold lines to get the gist here:  The TR was basically Erasmus' slopped together Greek New Testament which many versions, including the KJV, used as authoritative.  Robertson was a studier of the Koine Greek of the very best and most ancient Greek texts- and understood what Peter was getting at.  And what was he getting at? Our answer begins with a clip from an article in Answers In Genesis:

The term Lord in the LXX of Isaiah 8:13 refers directly to the “Lord of Hosts.” In Peter’s use of the LXX, he inserts “Christ” (Messiah), asserting that we should honor him as Lord.

So once again parsing it out, Peter was paraphrasing from Isaiah 8:

Isa 8:12  "Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. 

Isa 8:13  But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 

But where Isaiah used Lord of Hosts, aka Lord God, Peter inserted "Christ" to make his point.  And in Erasmus's sloppy hurry, you lose that.

If you read this Sunday's message, you know I had another FB dust up with the Catholic crowd.  At issue was a drawing that showed a three legged stool which "their faith" rests on, while "my" stool stands on the one leg of Sola Scriptura.  I made mention that it was a good one legged stool when the leg was God's Word and thus had a base of GOD.  I was told that since Catholics hew to the KJV and Protestants have various versions, that my stool had "thousands of legs" and was thus unreliable.  And here, we have the proof that your "leg" is only as reliable as your version used, and the KJV, made from Erasmus's TR, just isn't the solid pillar he would like to think.

Then, in trying to get a handle on this, I learned that 3:15 is a matter of debate on whether it decreed that everybody, not just the pastor, be versed in 'apologetics'.  Back to the definition we go:

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.

So basically here, I learned that some people thought that only pastors have a duty to defend their faith.  Which is an idea that people who wish to debate things they haven't studied on FB might come up with, and not Christians who might find the blade of a Muslim neighbor at their throat anytime they step outside.  My first thought was, "Why should this even be a debate?"  Then I remembered that this is a world filled with the lazy, the cowardly, and those who think their only duties to God are the butt in the pew and the buck in the collection plate.  Some people have to have it spelled out to them.

None of which has anything to do with the end of the verse, or our target verse, which says, "Stand up for your faith, but lovingly, so the people who revile you for it come out looking bad. "  Because our CONDUCT in witnessing is going to score more points than the most eloquent logic that still puts your target audience off.  If they walk away, you've blown the Great Commission, which was my only point in that FB dust-up in the first place.  For my trouble, I was called a heretic by a gentleman who thought "stay on point" meant I was calling him a hunting dog.

Needless to say, I was a bit sweeter about it there, than I am here.  Am I being a hypocrite?  Well, let's take a look at a couple of verses in Proverbs before judging.

Pro 26:4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 

Pro 26:5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. 

Contradictory? Not at all.  You cannot use the same foolish arguments the fool uses, or else you look just like him.  However, if you don't let him know he's a fool, he'll never learn.  As Matthew Barnes says:

Two sides of a truth. To “answer a fool according to his folly” is in Pro_26:4 to bandy words with him, to descend to his level of coarse anger and vile abuse; in Pro_26:5 it is to say the right word at the right time, to expose his unwisdom and untruth to others and to himself, not by a teaching beyond his reach, but by words that he is just able to apprehend.