Acts 11:26

Acts

A NICKNAME ACCEPTED

Act 11:26.

Nations and parties, both political and religious, very often call themselves by one name, and are known to the outside world by another. These outside names are generally given in contempt; and yet they sometimes manage to hit the very centre of the characteristics of the people on whom they are bestowed, and so by degrees get to be adopted by them, and worn as an honour.

So it has been with the name ‘Christian.’ It was given at the first by the inhabitants of the Syrian city of Antioch, to a new sort of people that had sprung up amongst them, and whom they could not quite make out. They would not fit into any of their categories, and so they had to invent a new name for them. It is never used in the New Testament by Christians about themselves. It occurs here in this text; it occurs in Agrippa’s half-contemptuous exclamation: ‘You seem to think it is a very small matter to make me-me, a king!-a Christian, one of those despised people!’ And it occurs once more, where the Apostle Peter is specifying the charges brought against them: ‘If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf {1Pe 4:16}. That sounds like the beginning of the process which has gone on ever since, by which the nickname, flung by the sarcastic men of Antioch, has been turned into the designation by which, all over the world, the followers of Jesus Christ have been proud to call themselves.

Now in this text there are the outside name by which the world calls the followers of Jesus Christ, and one of the many interior names by which the Church called itself. I have thought it might be profitable now to put all the New Testament names for Christ’s followers together, and think about them.

I. So, to begin with, we deal with this name given by the world to the Church, which the Church has adopted.

Observe the circumstances under which it was given. A handful of large-hearted, brave men, anonymous fugitives belonging to the little Church in Jerusalem, had come down to Antioch; and there, without premeditation, without authority, almost without consciousness- certainly without knowing what a great thing they were doing-they took, all at once, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, a great step by preaching the Gospel to pure heathen Greeks; and so began the process by which a small Jewish sect was transformed into a world-wide church. The success of their work in Antioch, amongst the pure heathen population, has for its crowning attestation this, that it compelled the curiosity-hunting, pleasure-loving, sarcastic Antiocheans to find out a new name for this new thing; to write out a new label for the new bottles into which the new wine was being put. Clearly the name shows that the Church was beginning to attract the attention of outsiders.

Clearly it shows, too, that there was a novel element in the Church. The earlier disciples had been all Jews, and could be lumped together along with their countrymen, and come under the same category. But here was something that could not be called either Jew or Greek, because it embraced both. The new name is the first witness to the cosmopolitan character of the primitive Church. Then clearly, too, the name indicates that in a certain dim, confused way, even these superficial observers had got hold of the right notion of what it was that did bind these people together. They called them ‘Christians’ -Christ’s men, Christ’s followers. But it was only a very dim refraction of the truth that had got to them; they had no notion that ‘Christ’ was not a proper name, but the designation of an office; and they had no notion that there was anything peculiar or strange in the bond which united its adherents to Christ. Hence they called His followers ‘Christians,’ just as they would have called Herod’s followers ‘Herodians,’ in the political world, or Aristotle’s followers ‘Aristotelians’ in the philosophical world. Still, in their groping way, they bad put their finger on the fact that the one power that held this heterogeneous mass together, the one bond that bound up ‘Jew and Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond and free’ into one vital unity, was a personal relation to a living Person. And so they said-not understanding the whole significance of it, but having got hold of the right end of the clue-they said, ‘They are Christians!’ ‘Christ’s people,’ ‘the followers of this Christ.’

And their very blunder was a felicity. If they had called them ‘Jesuits’ that would have meant the followers of the mere man. They did not know how much deeper they had gone when they said, not followers of Jesus, but ‘followers of Christ’; for it is not Jesus the Man, but Jesus Christ, the Man with His office, that makes the centre and the bond of the Christian Church.

These, then, are the facts, and the fair inferences from them. A plain lesson here lies on the surface. The Church-that is to say, the men and women who make its members-should draw to itself the notice of the outside world. I do not mean by advertising, and ostentation, and sounding trumpets, and singularities, and affectations. None of all these are needed. If you are live Christians it will be plain enough to outsiders. It is a poor comment on your consistency, if, being Christ’s followers, you can go through life unrecognised even by ‘them that are without.’ What shall we say of leaven which does not leaven, or of light which does not shine, or of salt which does not repel corruption? It is a poor affair if, being professed followers of Jesus Christ, you do not impress the world with the thought that ‘here is a man who does not come under any of our categories, and who needs a new entry to describe him.’ The world ought to have the same impression about you which Haman had about the Jews-’Their laws are diverse from all people.’

Christian professors, are the world’s names for each other enough to describe you by, or do you need another name to be coined for you in order to express the manifest characteristics that you display? The Church that does not provoke the attention-I use the word in its etymological, not its offensive sense-the Church that does not call upon itself the attention and interest of outsiders, is not a Church as Jesus Christ meant it to be, and it is not a Church that is worth keeping alive; and the sooner it has decent burial the better for itself and for the world!

There is another thing here, viz.: this name suggests that the clear impression made by our conduct and character, as well as by our words, should be that we belong to Jesus Christ. The eye of an outside observer may be unable to penetrate the secret of the deep sweet tie uniting us to Jesus, but there should be no possibility of the most superficial and hasty glance overlooking the fact that we are His. He should manifestly be the centre and the guide, the impulse and the pattern, the strength and the reward, of our whole lives. We are Christians. That should be plain for all folks to see, whether we speak or be silent. Brethren, is it so with you? Does your life need no commentary of your words in order that men should know what is the hidden spring that moves all its wheels; what is the inward spirit that co-ordinates all its motions into harmony and beauty? Is it true that like ‘the ointment of the right hand which bewrayeth itself’ your allegiance to Jesus Christ, and the overmastering and supreme authority which He exercises upon you, and upon your life, ‘cannot be hid’? Do you think that, without your words, if you, living in the way you do, were put down into the middle of Pekin, as these handful of people were put down into the middle of the heathen city of Antioch, the wits of the Chinese metropolis would have to invent a name for you, as the clever men of Antioch did for these people; and do you think that if they had to invent a name, the name that would naturally come to their lips, looking at you, would be ‘Christians,’ ‘Christ’s men’? If it would not, there is something wrong.

The last word that I say about this first part of my text is this. It is a very sad thing, but it is one that is always occurring, that the world’s inadequate notions of what makes a follower of Jesus Christ get accepted by the Church. Why was it that the name ‘Christian’ ran all over Christendom in the course of a century and a half? I believe very largely because it was a conveniently vague name; because it did not describe the deepest and sacredest of the bonds that unite us to Jesus Christ. Many a man is quite willing to say, ‘I am a Christian,’ who would hesitate a long time before he said, ‘I am a believer,’ ‘I am a disciple.’ The vagueness of the name, the fact that it erred by defect in not touching the central, deepest relation between man and Jesus Christ, made it very appropriate to the declining spirituality and increasing formalism of the Christian Church in the post-Apostolic age. It is a sad thing when the Church drops its standard down to the world’s notion of what It ought to be, and adopts the world’s name for itself and its converts.

II. I turn now to set side by side with this vague, general, outside name the more specific and interior names-if I may so call them- by which Christ’s followers at first knew themselves.

The world said, ‘You are Christ’s men’; and the names which were self-imposed and are now to be considered might be taken as being the Church’s explanation of what the world was fumbling at when it so called them. There are four of them: of course, I can only just touch on them.

{a} The first is in this verse-’disciples.’ The others are believers, saints, brethren. These four are the Church’s own christening of itself; its explanation and expansion, its deepening and heightening, of the vague name given by the world.

As to the first, disciples, any concordance will show that the name was employed almost exclusively during the time of Christ’s life upon earth. It is the only name for Christ’s followers in the Gospels; it occurs also, mingled with others, in the Acts of the Apostles, and it never occurs thereafter.

The name ‘disciple,’ then, carries us back to the historical beginning of the whole matter, when Jesus was looked upon as a Rabbi having followers called disciples; just as were John the Baptist and his followers, Gamaliel and his school, or Socrates and his. It sets forth Christ as being the Teacher, and His followers as being His adherents, His scholars, who learned at His feet.

Now that is always true. We are Christ’s scholars quite as much as were the men who heard and saw with their eyes and handled with their hands, of the Word of Life. Not by words only, but by gracious deeds and fair, spotless life, He taught them and us and all men to the end of time, our highest knowledge of God of whom He is the final revelation, our best knowledge of what men should and shall be by His perfect life in which is contained all morality, our only knowledge of that future in that He has died and is risen and lives to help and still to teach. He teaches us still by the record of His life, and by the living influence of that Spirit whom He sends forth to guide us into all truth. He is the Teacher, the only Teacher, the Teacher for all men, the Teacher of all truth, the Teacher for evermore. He speaks from Heaven. Let us give heed to His voice.

But that Name is not enough to tell all that He is to us, or we to Him, and so after He had passed from earth it unconsciously and gradually dropped out of use by the disciples, as they felt a deepened bond uniting them to Him who was not only their Teacher of the Truth which was Himself, but was their Sacrifice and Advocate with the Father. And for all who hold the, as I believe, essentially imperfect conception of Jesus Christ as being mainly a Teacher, either by word or by pattern; whether it be put into the old form or into the modern form of regarding Him as the Ideal and Perfect Man, it seems to me a fact well worthy of consideration, that the name of disciple and the relation expressed by it were speedily felt by the Christian Church to be inadequate as a representation of the bond that knit them to Him. He is our Teacher, we His scholars. He is more than that, and a more sacred bond unites us to Him. As our Master we owe Him absolute submission. When He speaks, we have to accept His dictum. What He says is truth, pure and entire. His utterance is the last word upon any subject that He touches, it is the ultimate appeal, and the Judge that ends the strife. We owe Him submission, an open eye for all new truth, constant docility, as conscious of our own imperfections, and a confident expectation that He will bless us continuously with high and as yet unknown truths that come from His inexhaustible stores of wisdom and knowledge.

{b} Teacher and scholars move in a region which, though it be important, is not the central one. And the word that was needed next to express what the early Church felt Christ was to them, and they to Him, lifts us into a higher atmosphere altogether,-’believers,’ they who are exercising not merely intellectual submission to the dicta of the Teacher, but who are exercising living trust in the person of the Redeemer. The belief which is faith is altogether a higher thing than its first stage, which is the belief of the understanding. There is in it the moral element of trust. We believe a truth, we trust a Person; and the trust which we are to exercise in Jesus Christ, and which knits us to Him, is our trust in Him, not in any character that we may choose to ascribe to Him, but in the character in which He is revealed in the New Testament-Redeemer, Saviour, Manifest God; and therefore, the Infinite Friend and Helper of our souls.

That trust, my brethren, is the one bond that binds, men to God, and the one thing that makes us Christ’s men. Apart from it, we may be very near Him, but we are not joined to Him. By it, and by it alone, the union is completed, and His power and His grace flow into our spirits. Are you, not merely a ‘Christian,’ in the world’s notion, being bound in some vague way to Jesus Christ, but are you a Christian in the sense of trusting your soul’s salvation to Him?

{c} Then, still further, there is another name-’saints.’ It has suffered perhaps more at the hands both of the world and of the Church than any other. It has been taken by the latter and restricted to the dead, and further restricted to those who excel, according to the fantastic, ascetic standard of mediaeval Christianity. It has suffered from the world in that it has been used with a certain bitter emphasis of resentment at the claim of superior purity supposed to be implied in it, and so has come to mean on the world’s lips one who pretends to be better than other people and whose actions contradict his claim. But the name belongs to all Christ’s followers. It makes no claim to special purity, for the central idea of the word ‘saint’ is not purity. Holiness, which is the English for the Latinised ‘sanctity,’ holiness which is attributed in the Old Testament to God first, to men only secondarily, does not primarily mean purity, but separation. God is holy, inasmuch as by that whole majestic character of His, He is lifted above all bounds of creatural limitations, as well as above man’s sin. A sacrifice, the Sabbath, a city, a priest’s garment, a mitre-all these things are ‘holy,’ not when they are pure, but when they are devoted to Him. And men are holy, not because they are clean, but because by free self-surrender they have consecrated themselves to Him.

Holiness is consecration, that is to say, holiness is giving myself up to Him to do what He will with. ‘I am holy’ is not the declaration of my estimate ‘I am pure,’ but the declaration of the fact ‘I am thine, O Lord.’ So the New Testament idea of saint has in it these elements-consecration, consecration resting on faith in Christ, and consecration leading to separation from the world and its sin. And that glad yielding of oneself to God, as wooed by His mercies, and thereby drawn away from communion with our evil surroundings and from submission to our evil selves, must be a part of the experience of every true Christian. All His people are saints, not as being pure, but as being given up to Him, in union with whom alone will the cleansing powers flow into their lives and clothe them with ‘the righteousness of saints.’ Have you thus consecrated yourself to God?

{d} The last name is ‘brethren,’-a name which has been much maltreated both by the insincerity of the Church, and by the sarcasm of the world. It has been an unreal appellation which has meant nothing and been meant to mean nothing, so that the world has said that our ‘brethren’ signified a good deal less than their ‘brothers.’ ‘‘Tis true, ‘tis pity; pity ‘tis, ‘tis true.’

But what I ask you to notice is that the main thing about that name ‘brethren’ is not the relation of the brethren to one another, but their common relation to their Father.

When we call ourselves as Christian people ‘brethren,’ we mean first this: that we are the possessors of a supernatural life, which has come from one Father, and which has set us in altogether new relations to one another, and to the world round about us. Do you believe that if you have any of that new life which comes through faith in Jesus Christ, then you are the brethren of all those that possess the same?

As society becomes more complicated, as Christian people grow unlike each other in education, in social position, in occupation, in their general outlook into the world, it is more and more difficult to feel what is nevertheless true: that any two Christian people, however unlike each other, are nearer each other in the very roots of their nature, than a Christian and a non-Christian, however like each other. It is difficult to feel that, and it is getting more and more difficult, but for all that it is a fact.

And now I wish to ask you, Christian men and women, whether you feel more at home with people who love Jesus Christ-as you say that you love Him-or whether you like better to be with people who do not?

There are some of you who choose your intimate associates, whom you ask to your homes and introduce to your children as desirable companions, with no reference at all to their religious character. The duties of your position, of course, oblige each of you to be much among people who do not share your faith, and it is cowardly and wrong to shrink from the necessity. But for Christian people to make choice of heart friends, or close intimates, among those who have no sympathy with their professed belief about, and love to, Jesus Christ, does not say much for the depth and reality of their religion. A man is known by the company he keeps, and if your friends are picked out for other reasons, and their religion is no part of their attraction, it is not an unfair conclusion that there are other things for which you care more than you do for faith in Jesus Christ and love to Him. If you deeply feel the bond that knits you to Christ, and really live near to Him, you will be near to your brethren. You will feel that ‘blood is thicker than water,’ and however like you may be to irreligious people in many things, you will feel that the deepest bond of all knits you to the poorest, the most ignorant, the most unlike you in social position; ay! and the most unlike you in theological opinion, who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.

Now that is the sum of the whole matter. And my last word to you is this: Do not you be contented with the world’s vague notions of what makes Christ’s man. I do not ask you if you are Christians; plenty of you would say: ‘Oh yes! of course! Is not this a Christian country? Was not I christened when I was a child? Are we not all members of the Church of England by virtue of our birth? Yes! of course I am!’

I do not ask you that; I do not ask you anything; but I pray you to ask yourselves these four questions: Am I Christ’s scholar? Am I believing on Him? Am I consecrated to Him? Am I the possessor of a new life from Him? And never give yourselves rest until you can say humbly and yet confidently, ‘Yes! thank God, I am!’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 7

THE HARVEST OF THE GENTILES.

Act_11:26

THE eleventh chapter of the Acts is clearly divisible into two portions. There is first the narrative of St. Peters reception at Jerusalem after the conversion of Cornelius, and secondly the story of the origin of the Antiochene Church, the mother and metropolis of Gentile Christendom. They are distinct the one from the other, and yet they are closely connected together, for they both deal with the same great topic, the admission of the Gentiles to full and free communion in the Church of God. Let us then search out the line of thought which runs like a golden thread through this whole chapter, sure that in doing so we shall find light shed upon some. modern questions from this divinely written ecclesiastical history.

I. St. Peter tarried a certain time with Cornelius and the other new converts at Caesarea. There was doubtless much to be taught and much to be set in order. Baptism was in the early Church administered when the converts were yet immature in faith and knowledge. The Church was viewed as a hospital, where the sick and feeble were to be admitted and cured. It was not therefore demanded of candidates for admission that they should be perfectly instructed in all the articles and mysteries of the Christian faith. There were indeed some points in which they were not instructed at all till they had been "buried with Christ through baptism into death." Then when they had taken their stand upon the Christian platform, and were able to view the matter from the true vantage point, they were admitted into fuller and deeper mysteries. Peter too must have had his work cut out for him at Caesarea in striving to organise the Church. St. Philip may have here lent his aid, and may have been constituted the resident head of the local Church. After the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch he worked his way up to Caesarea, preaching in all the towns and villages of that populous district. There he seems to have fixed his residence, as fifteen years or so later we find him permanently located in that city with his "four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." {Act_21:8-9} We may be sure that some such Church organisation was immediately started at Caesarea. We have already traced the work of organisation in Jerusalem. The apostles originally embraced in themselves all ministerial offices, as in turn these offices were originally all summed up. in Jesus Christ. The apostles had taken an important step in the establishment of the order of deacons at Jerusalem, retaining in their own hands the supreme power to which appeal and reports could be made. At Damascus it is evident that at the time of St. Pauls conversion there was an organised Church, Ananias being the head and chief of it, with whom communications were officially held; while the notices about Joppa and the six witnesses of his action whom St. Peter brought with him to Caesarea, indicate that an assembly or Church, organised after the model of the Jerusalem Church, existed in that town.

Having concluded his work in Caesarea St. Peter returned to Jerusalem, and there had to render an account of his action and was placed upon his defence. "When Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." This simple circumstance throws much light upon the character of the earliest Christianity. It was to a large extent a Christian democracy. The apostles exercised the supreme executive power, but the collective Christian assembly claimed the exercise of their private judgment, and, above all, knew not anything of the fancied privilege of St. Peter, as Prince of the Apostles, to lay down on his own authority the laws for the whole Christian Commonwealth. Here was St. Peter exercising his ministry and apostolic power among the earliest Christians. How were his ministry and authority received? Were they treated as if the personal authority and decision of St. Peter settled every question without any further appeal? This will be best seen if we tell a story well known in the annals of ecclesiastical history. The fable of Papal Supremacy began to be asserted about the year 500, when a series of forgeries were circulated concerning the bishops of Rome and their decisions during the ages of persecution. One of these forgeries dealt with a pope named Marcellinus, who presided over the See of Rome during the beginning of the great Diocletian persecution. The story goes on to tell that Marcellinus fell into idolatry in order to save his life. A council of three hundred bishops was summoned at Sinuessa, when the assembled bishops are reported to have refused to pass sentence on the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, saying that the Holy See may be judged by no man. They therefore called upon the Pope to condemn himself, as he alone was a judge competent to exercise such a function. This story, according to Dollinger, was forged about the year 500, and it clearly exhibits the different view taken of the position of St. Peter in the Church of Jerusalem and of his alleged successors in the Church of Rome five centuries later. In the latter case St. Peters successor cannot be judged or condemned by any mortal. According to the Acts of the Apostles the members of the stricter party in the Church of Jerusalem had no hesitation in challenging the actions and teaching of St. Peter himself, and it was only when he could prove the immediate and manifest approval of Heaven that they ceased their opposition, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."

We can in this incident see how the Church was slowly but surely developing itself under the Divine guidance. The incident when the order of deacons was instituted was the primary step. There was then first manifested that combination of authority and freedom united with open discussion which, originating in the Christian Church, has been the source of all modern society, of modern governments, and modern methods of legislation. Now we see the same ideas applied to questions of doctrine and discipline, till we come in a short time to the perfection of this method in the celebrated Council of Jerusalem which framed the charter and traced out the main lines of development upon which the Church of the Gentiles and true gospel freedom were established.

II. The centre of Christian interest now shifts its position and fixes itself in the city of Antioch, where a further step in advance was taken. Our attention is first of all recalled to the results of St. Stephens death. "They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus." This is clearly a case of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, and the question has been raised, Was the action of these men of Cyprus and Cyrene quite independent of the action of St. Peter or an immediate result of the same? Did the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preach the gospel to the Gentiles of Antioch of their own motion, or did they wait till tidings of St. Peters action had reached them, and then, yielding to the generous instincts which had been long beating in the hearts of these Hellenistic Jews, did they proclaim at Antioch the glad tidings of salvation which the Gentiles of that gay and brilliant but very wicked city so much needed? Our answer to these queries is very short and plain. We think that the preaching of the Hellenists of Cyprus to the Gentiles of Antioch must have been the result of St. Peters action at Caesarea, else why did they wait till Antioch was reached to open their mouths to the pagan world? Surely, if the sight of sin and wickedness and civilised depravity was necessary to stir them up to efforts for the spiritual welfare of the Gentile world, Phoenicia and Cyprus abounded with scenes quite sufficient to unseal their lips. But the force of national prejudice and of religious exclusiveness was too strong till they came to Antioch, where tidings must have reached them of the vision and action of St. Peter at Caesarea.

It is easy to see why this information reached the missionaries at Antioch. Caesarea was the Roman capital of Palestine, and was a seaport. Antioch was the Roman capital of the province of Syria, an immense extent of territory, which included not merely the country which we call Syria, but extended to the Euphates on the west and to the desert intervening between Palestine and Egypt on the south. The prefect of the East resided at Antioch, and he was one of the three or four greatest officials under the Roman emperor. Palestine was, in fact, a part of the province of Syria, and its ruler or president was dependent upon the governor of Syria. It is therefore in strictest accordance with the facts of Roman history when St. Luke tells in his Gospel {Luk_2:2} concerning the taxation of Augustus Caesar, "This was the first enrolment made when Quirinus was governor of Syria." Antioch being then the seat of the central government of the eastern division of the Roman Empire, and Caesarea being the headquarters of an important lieutenant of the Syrian proconsul, it is no wonder there should have been very constant intercourse between the two places. The great magazines of arms for the entire east were located at Antioch, and there too the money was coined necessary to pay the troops and to carry on commercial intercourse. It must have been very easy for an official like Cornelius, or even for any simple private soldier or for an ordinary Jew or Christian of Caesarea, to communicate with Antioch, and to send word concerning the proceedings of St. Peter and the blessings vouchsafed by God to any devout person who might be there seeking after light and truth. It is quite natural therefore that, while the Christians dispersed into various lands by the persecution at Jerusalem restrained themselves to the Jews alone throughout their previous labours, when the men of Cyprus and Cyrene heard tidings at Antioch of St. Peter and his doings and revelations at Caesarea, they at last allowed free scope to their longings which long ago had found place in their more liberalised hearts, and testified to the Gentiles of Antioch concerning the gladsome story of the gospel. Here again we behold another instance of the value of culture and travel and enlarged intelligence. The Hellenists of Cyprus and Cyrene were the first to realise and act out the principle which God had taught St. Peter. They saw that Gods mercies were not restrained to the particular case of Cornelius. They realised that his was a typical instance, and that his conversion was intended to carry with it and to decide the possibility of Gentile salvation and the formation of a Gentile Church all over the world, and they put the principle in operation at once in one of the places where it was most needed: "When the men of Cyprus and Cyrene were come to Antioch, they spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus." The method of the Divine development was in the primitive ages very similar to that we often still behold. Some improvement is required, some new principle has to be set in motion. If younger men begin the work, or if souls notorious for their freer thought or less prejudiced understandings, attempt to introduce the novel principle, the vast mass of stolid conservative opposition and attachment to the past is at once quickened into lively action. But then some Peter or another, some man of known rectitude and worth, and yet of equally well-known narrow views and devoted adherence to the past, takes some hesitating step in advance. He may indeed strive to limit its application to the special case before him, and he may earnestly deprecate any wider application of the principle on which he has acted. But it is all in vain. He has served the Divine purposes. His narrowness and respectability and personal weight have done their work, and have sanctioned the introduction of the principle which then is applied upon a much wider scale by men whose minds have been liberalised and trained to seize a great broad principle and put it into practical operation.

III. "When they came to Antioch, they spake the word to the Greeks also." And verily the men of Cyprus and Cyrene chose a fitting spot to open the kingdom of heaven to the Greek world and to found the mother Church of Gentile Christendom, for no city in the whole world was more completely Satans seat, or more entirely devoted to those works which St. John describes as the lusts of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the vain-glory of life. Let us reflect a little on the history and state of Antioch, and we shall then see the Divine motive in selecting it as the site of the first great Gentile Church, and we shall see too the Divine guidance which led St. Luke in this typical ecclesiastical history to select the Church of Antioch for such frequent notice, exceeding, as it does, all other Churches save Jerusalem in the amount of attention bestowed upon it in the Acts of the Apostles.

Antioch and Alexandria were towns dating from the same epoch. They came into existence about the year 300 B.C., being the creation of Alexander the Great himself, or of the generals who divided his empire between them. The city of Antioch was originally built by Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the kingdom of Syria, but was subsequently enlarged, so that in St. Pauls time it was divided into four independent districts or towns, each surrounded by its own walls, and all included within one vast wall some fifty feet high, which surmounted mountain tops and was carried at vast expense across valleys and ravines. Antioch was in the first century counted the third city in the world, Rome being first, Alexandria second, and Antioch third. It bad marvellous natural advantages. It was blessed with charming mountain scenery. The peaks rising up on all sides could be seen from every part of the city, imparting thus to life in Antioch that sense not merely of beauty and grandeur, but of the nearness of such beauty and grandeur combined with solitude and freedom from the madding crowd which seem so sweet to a man who passes his life amid the noise and hurry of a great city. What a change in the conditions of life in London would be at once brought about could the scenery surrounding Edinburgh or Lucerne be transferred to the worlds metropolis, and the toiler in Fleet Street and the Strand be enabled to look amid his daily labours upon cloud-piercing mountains or peaks clad in a robe of virgin white! Antioch was built upon the southern bank of the river Orontes, along which it extended about five miles. The main street of the city, otherwise called the Street of Herod after the celebrated Herod the Great who built it, was four and a half miles long. This street was unrivalled among the cities of the world, and was furnished with an arcade on both sides extending its whole length, beneath which the inhabitants could walk and transact business at all times, free from the heat and from the rain. The water supply of Antioch was its special feature. The great orator Libanius, a native of Antioch, who lived three hundred years later than St. Paul, while the city yet stood in all its grandeur and beauty, thus dwells on this feature of Antioch in a panegyric composed under the Emperor Constantius: "That wherein we beat all other is the water supply of our city; if in other respects any one may compete with us, all give way so soon as we come to speak of the water, its abundance and its excellence. In the public baths every stream has the proportions of a river, in the private baths several have the like, and the rest not much less. One measures the abundance of running water by the number of the dwelling-houses; for as many as are the dwelling-houses, so many are also the running waters. Therefore we have no fighting at the public wells as to who shall come first to draw-an evil under which so many considerable towns suffer, when there is a violent crowding round the wells and outcry over broken jars. With us the public fountains flow for ornament, since every one has water within his doors. And this water is so clear that the pail appears empty, and so pleasant that it invites us to drink." Such was the description of a pagan who saw Antioch even as St. Paul saw it, and testified concerning the natural gifts with which God had endowed it. But, alas! as with individuals, so is it with cities. God may lavish His best blessings, and yet instead of bringing forth the fruits of righteousness His choicest gifts of nature may be turned into fruitful seed plots of lust and sin. Sodom and Gomorrha were planted in a vale that was well watered and fair and fruitful, even as the Garden of the Lord; but the inhabitants thereof were wicked, and sinners before the. Lord exceedingly; and so it was with Antioch. This city so blessed in situation and in natures richest and most precious gifts was celebrated for its wicked preeminence amid the awful corruption which then overspread the cities of the world. When the Roman satirist Juvenal, writing about this period of which we treat, would fain account for the excessive dissolution of morals which then prevailed at Rome, his explanation of it was that the manners of Antioch had invaded Rome and corrupted its ancient purity:

"Jampridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes."

Amid the general wickedness of Antioch there was one element of life and hope and purity. The Jews of Antioch formed a large society in that city governed by their own laws and preserving themselves by their peculiar discipline free from the abounding vices of Oriental paganism. It was at Antioch as it was at Alexandria and Damascus. The Jews at Alexandria had their alabarch to whom they owed special allegiance and by whom alone they were ruled; the Jews of Damascus had their ethnarch who exercised peculiar jurisdiction over them; and so too had the Jews of Antioch a peculiar ruler of their own, forming thus an imperium in imperio, running counter to our Western notions which in many respects demand an iron uniformity very foreign to the Eastern mind, and show themselves eminently deficient in that flexibility and diversity which found an abundant play even among the arrangements of the Roman Empire. This Jewish quarter of Antioch had for centuries been growing and extending itself, and its chief synagogue had been glorified by the reception of some of the choicest temple spoils which the kings of Syria had at first carried captive from Jerusalem and then in a fit of repentance or of prudent policy had bestowed upon the Jewish colony in their capital city.

Such was the city to which the men of Cyprus and Cyrene were now carrying the news of the gospel, intending, doubtless, to tell merely their Jewish fellow-countrymen and religionists of the Messiah whose love and power they had themselves experienced. Here, however, they were met by the startling information from Caesarea. They were, however, prepared for it. They were Hellenistic Jews like St. Stephen. They had listened to his burning words, and had followed closely his epoch-making speeches whereby he confounded the Jews and clearly indicated the opening of a new era. But then Gods dispensations seemed to have terminated his teaching and put a fatal end to the hopes which he had raised. Men then misread Gods dealings with His servants, and interpreted His ways amiss. The death of Stephen seemed perhaps to some minds a visible condemnation of his views, when in reality it was the direct channel by which God would work out a wider propagation of them, as well as the conversion of the agent destined to diffuse them most powerfully. Apparent defeat is not always permanent disaster, whether in things temporal or things spiritual; nay, rather, the temporal check may be the necessary condition of the final and glorious victory. So it was in this case, as the men of Cyprus and Cyrene proved, when the news of St. Peters revelation and his decisive action arrived and they realised in action the principles of Catholic Christianity for which their loved teacher St. Stephen had died. And their brave action was soon followed by blessed success, by a rich harvest of souls: "The hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number that believed turned to the Lord." Thus were laid the foundations of the headquarters, the mother Church of Gentile Christianity.

IV. Now we come to another step in the development. Tidings of the action taken at Antioch came to Jerusalem. The news must have travelled much the same road as that by which, as we have indicated, the story of St. Peters action was carried to Antioch. The intercourse between Jerusalem and Antioch was frequent enough by land or by sea; and no synagogue and no Jewish society was more liberal in its gifts towards the support of the supreme council and hierarchy at Jerusalem than the Jewish colony and its synagogues at Damascus. And the old custom of communication with Jerusalem naturally led the Nazarenes of Antioch to send word of their proceedings up to the apostles and supreme council who ruled their parent society in the same city. We see a clear indication that the events at Antioch happened subsequently to those at Caesarea in the manner in which the news was received at Jerusalem. There seems to have been no strife, no discussion, no controversy. The question had been already raised and decided after St. Peters return. So the apostles simply select a fitting messenger to go forth with the authority of the apostles and to complete the work which, having been initiated in baptism, merely now demanded that imposition of hands which, as we have seen in the case of the Samaritan converts, was one of the special functions of the apostles and chiefs of the Church at Jerusalem. And in choosing Barnabas the apostles made a wise choice. They did not send one of the original Twelve, because not one of them was fitted for the peculiar work now demanded. They were all narrow, provincial, untravelled, devoid of that wide and generous training which God had given to Barnabas. It may be too that they felt restrained from going beyond the bounds of Canaan before the twelve years had elapsed of which ancient Christian tradition tells as the limit of their stay in Jerusalem fixed by our Lord Himself. He was a Hellenistic Jew, and he could sympathise with the wider feelings and ideas of the Hellenists. He was a man of Cyprus, a friend and perhaps connection of many, both Jews and Gentiles, among those whose new-born faith and hope were now in question. And above all he was a man of kindly heart and genial temper and loving thought and blessed charity, fitted to soothe jealousies and allay suspicions, and make the long alienated and despised Gentiles feel at home in the Church and family of Jesus Christ. Barnabas was a person peculiarly fitted to prove a mediator and uniting link in a society where divergent elements found a place and asserted themselves. He was not the man to take a new step or to have decided the question of the admission of the Gentiles if it had not been already settled. He must have come therefore fortified by the authority of the apostles, and then, knowing right well what they approved, he was just the man to carry out the details of an arrangement requiring tact and skill and temper; though he was by no means suited to decide a great question on its own merits or to initiate any great movement. In the Church of God then, as in the Church of God still, there are a place and a work for the strong man of keen logic and a Vigorous intellect and profound thought. And there are too a place and a work for the man of loving heart and a charity which evermore delights in compromise. "Barnabas, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and faith; and much people was added unto the Lord." Barnabas had another virtue too. He knew his own weakness. He did not imagine like some men that he was specially strong where he was eminently weak. He felt his want of the active vigorous mind of his friend of boyhood, the new convert Saul. He knew where he was living in comparative obscurity and silence; so after a little experience of the atmosphere of Antioch he departed to Tarsus to seek for him and bring him back where a great work was awaiting his peculiar turn of mind. There is an ancient historian of Antioch who has preserved for us many stories about that city in these apostolic and even in much earlier ages. His name is John Malalas; he lived about six hundred years after Christ and had access to many ancient documents and writers that are no longer known to us. He tells us many things about the primitive Church of Antioch. He has his own version of the quarrel between St. Paul and St. Peter which happened in that city; and he fixes even the very spot where St. Paul first preached, telling us that its name was Singon Street, which stood neat "the Pantheon." This may seem to us a minuteness of detail too great to be believed. But then we must remember that John Malalas expressly cites ancient chronologers and historians as his authorities, and he himself lived while as yet Antioch retained all the ancient arrangements of streets and divisions. And surely Saul, as he travelled from Tarsus responding at once to the call of Barnabas, must have seen enough to stir his love to Christ and to souls into heartiest exertion. He came doubtless by sea and landed at Seleucia, the port of Antioch, some sixteen miles distant from the city. As he travelled up to Antioch he would get distant glimpses of the groves of Daphne, a park ten miles in circumference, dedicated indeed to the poetic worship of Apollo, but dedicated also to the vilest purposes of wickedness intimately associated with that poetic worship. Poetry, whether ancient or modern, can be very blessed, ennobling and elevating mans whole nature. But the same poetry, as in ancient paganism and in some modern writers, can become a festering plague-spot, the abounding source to its votaries of moral corruption and spiritual death.

Daphne and its associations would rouse the whole soul, the healthy moral nature of Saul of Tarsus, inherited originally from his ancient Jewish training, and now quickened and deepened by the spiritual revelations made to him in Christ Jesus. It is no wonder then that here we read of St. Pauls first long and continuous period of ministerial work: "It came to pass that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the Church, and taught much people." The results of the new force which Barnabas introduced into the spiritual life of Antioch soon became manifested. "The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." Saul of Tarsus possessed what Barnabas did not possess. He possessed a powerful, a logical, and a creative intellect. He realised from the beginning what his own principles meant and to what they were leading him. He taught not Judaism or the Law with an addition merely about Jesus of Nazareth. He troubled not himself about circumcision or the old covenant, but he taught from the very beginning Christ Jesus, Christ in His Divine and human nature, Christ in His various offices, Jesus Christ as the one hope for mankind. This was now at Antioch, as before at Damascus, the staple topic of St. Pauls preaching, and therefore the Antiochenes, with their ready wit and proverbial power of giving nicknames, at once designated the new sect not Nazarenes or Galileans as the Jews of Jerusalem called them, but Christians or adherents of Christ. Here, however, I prefer to avail myself of the exposition which one of the great spiritual teachers of the last generation gave us of this expression. The well-known and learned Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Trench, in his "Study of Words" (21st Ed.: Lond. 1890), p. 189, thus draws out the lesson connected with this word and the time of its appearance: "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. That we have here a notice which we would not willingly have missed all will acknowledge, even as nothing can be otherwise than curious which relates to the infancy of the Church. But there is here much more than a curious notice. Question it a little closer, and how much it will be found to contain, how much which it is waiting to yield up! What light it throws on the whole story of the Apostolic Church to know where and when this name of Christians was first imposed on the faithful; for imposed by adversaries it certainly was, not devised by themselves, however afterwards they may have learned to glory in it as the name of highest dignity and honour. They did not call themselves, but, as is expressly recorded, they were called Christians first at Antioch; in agreement with which statement the name occurs nowhere in Scripture, except on the lips of those alien from or opposed to the faith. {Act_26:28, 1Pe_4:16} And as it was a name imposed by adversaries, so among these adversaries it was plainly heathens, and not Jews, who were its authors; for Jews would never have called the followers of Jesus of Nazareth Christians, or those of Christ, the very point of their opposition to Him being, that He was not the Christ, but a false pretender to the name. Starting then from this point that Christians was a title given to the disciples by the heathen, what may we deduce from it further? At Antioch they first obtained this name-at the city, that is, which was the headquarters of the Churchs mission to the heathen, in the same sense as Jerusalem had been the headquarters of the mission to the seed of Abraham. It was there and among the faithful there that a conviction of the world-wide destination of the gospel arose; there it was first plainly seen as intended for all kindreds of the earth. Hitherto the faithful in Christ had been called by their adversaries, and indeed were often still called Galileans or Nazarenes-both names which indicated the Jewish cradle wherein the Church had been nursed, and that the world saw in the new society no more than a Jewish sect. But it was plain that the Church had now, even in the worlds eyes, chipped its Jewish shell. The name Christians or those of Christ, while it told that Christ and the confession of Him were felt even by the heathen to be the sum and centre of this new faith, showed also that they comprehended now, not all which the Church would be, but something of this; saw this much, namely, that it was no mere sect and variety of Judaism, but a Society with a mission and a destiny of its own. Now will the thoughtful reader fail to observe that the coming up of this name is by closest juxtaposition connected in the sacred narrative, and still more closely in the Greek than in the English, with the arrival at Antioch, and with the preaching there, of that Apostle who was Gods appointed instrument for bringing the Church to a full sense that the message which it had was not for some men only, but for all. As so often happens with the rise of new names, the rise of this one marked a new epoch in the Churchs life, and that it was entering upon a new stage of development." This is a long extract, but it sets forth in dignified and aptly chosen words, such as Archbishop Trench always used, the important lessons which the thoughtful student of the Acts may gather from the time and place where the term "Christians" first sprang into existence.

Finally, we notice in connection with Antioch that the foundation of the great Gentile Church was marked by the same universal impulse which we trace wherever Christ was effectually preached. The faith of the Crucified evermore produced love to the brethren. Agabus, a prophet whom we shall again meet many years after in the course of St. Pauls life, and who then predicted his approaching arrest and captivity at Jerusalem, made his earliest recorded appearance at Antioch, where he announced an impending famine. Agabus exercised the office of a prophet, which implied under the New Dispensation rather the office of preaching than of prediction. Prediction, indeed, whether under the Old or the New Dispensation, formed but a small portion of the prophetical office. The work of the prophet was pre-eminently that of telling forth Gods will and enforcing it upon a careless generation. Occasionally indeed, as in the case of Agabus, that telling forth involved prediction or announcement of Gods chastisements and visitations; but far oftener the prophets work was finished when he enforced the great principles of truth and righteousness as the Christian preacher does still. Agabus seems to have been specially gifted in the direction of prediction. He announced a famine as impending over the whole world, which came to pass in the age of Claudius, offering to the Gentile Church of Antioch an opportunity, of which they gladly availed themselves, to repay somewhat of the spiritual obligation which the Gentiles owed to the Jews according to St. Pauls own rule: "If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things." We can trace here the force and power of ancient Jewish customs. We can see how the mould and form and external shape of the Church was. gained from the Jew. The Jewish colony of Antioch had been of old famous for the liberality of its gifts to the mother community at Jerusalem. The predominant element in the Church of Antioch was now Gentile, but still the ancient customs prevailed. The Gentile Christian community acted towards the Jerusalem Church as the Jewish community had been used to treat their countrymen: "The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

11:26 Christians was possibly a term of derision. The Greek text uses this term in only two other New Testament passages (26:28; 1 Pet 4:16).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 11:26. Εὑρὼν, when he had found) It is probable that Saul had lain hid.—ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον, a whole year) How very little, in our days, is a year spent without fruit thought of! Many in the present day make not much progress in many years.—χρημάτισαι, it came to pass that the disciples were named) χρηματίζω (viz. με), reciprocal or neuter, thence also Passive. A remarkable verb, whereby is denoted an appellation received in common use.—τοὺς μαθητὰς, the disciples) inasmuch as their multitude was now a very large one.—Χριστιανοὺς, Christians) Whereas heretofore they had been called Nazarenes and Galileans. The name, Christians [i.e. adherents of Christ.—V. g.], as the name of Christ itself, though noble in itself, was odious in the estimation of those without. Comp. 1Pe 4:16.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 11:26 . ἐγένετο δὲ αὐτοὺς , see critical notes, if dative αὐτοῖς = accidit eis , see Plummer, St. Luke , p. 45, on the use of ἐγένετο . ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον : “even a whole year” R.V. συναχθῆναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ .: “they were gathered together in the Church,” so R.V. margin. Rendall holds that ἐν is fatal to the A.V. and R.V. text, and renders “they [ i.e. , Barnabas and Saul] were brought together in the Church,” an intimate association of inestimable value. Hort adopts as “the least difficult explanation of this curious word” “were hospitably received in the Church,” so Wendt, Weiss, Nösgen, cf. Mat 25:35 ; Deu 22:2 , Jos 2:18 , Jdg 19:18 , 2Sa 11:27 . διδάξαι … χρηματίσαι : both infinitives depend upon ἐγένετο , “and that the disciples,” etc., suggesting that the name “Christian” followed as result upon the widespread teaching of the Apostles amongst the Gentiles. If St. Luke, as Eusebius states, was himself a native of Antioch, it has been well noted that he might well record such a distinction for his city as the origin of the name “Christian”. χρηματίσαι : prim. to transact business ( χρῆμα ), passes into the meaning of taking a name from one’s public business, so to receive a name, to be called, cf. Rom 7:3 , so in Josephus and Philo, and instances in Grimm-Thayer. See also Act 10:22 for another shade of meaning, and so elsewhere in N.T.; and for its use to express a reply or information by a king or those in authority to inquiry, see Deissmann, Bibelstudien , p. 118. πρῶτον , see critical notes. Χριστιανούς : in the N.T. the Christians always named themselves μαθηταί , ἀδελφοί , ἅγιοι , πιστοί , etc., but on no occasion “Christians,” whilst the Jews not only refused to recognise that Jesus had any claim to be the Christ, but also called His followers Ναζωραῖοι (Act 24:5 ), or spake of them as ἡ αἵρεσις αὕτη (Act 28:22 , cf. Act 24:14 ). On the probably contemptuous use of the word in 1Pe 4:16 and Act 26:28 as not inconsistent with the above statements, see Wendt, edition 1899, in loco , and “Christian” in Hastings’ B.D. But whilst it is difficult to find an origin for the title amongst Christians or amongst Jews, there is no difficulty in attributing it to the keen-witted populace of Antioch, already famous for their bestowal of nicknames, although perhaps the possibility that the name may have originated amongst the Latin speaking official retinue of the legatus at Antioch should not be excluded (though there is no evidence whatever that it became at this early date an official name). But there is no need to suppose that the name was of Roman origin, although we may readily concede that the Latin termination - ianus was common enough at this period. There is ample proof of the use of the same termination not only in Latin but in Greek, even if we do not regard - ιανός with Wendt as a termination of a native “Asiatic type”. The notice in Tacitus, Ann. , xv., 44 ( cf. Suetonius, Nero , 16), who was probably in Rome during Nero’s persecution, A.D. 64, is very significant, for he not only intimates that the word was commonly and popularly known, but also that the title had been in vogue for some time: “quos vulgus Christianos appellabat,” note the imperfect tense. Against the recent strictures of Weizsäcker and Schmiedel we may place the opinion of Spitta, and also of Zahn, Einleitung , ii., 158. How soon the title given in mockery became a name of honour we may gather from the Ignatian Epistles, cf. Rom. , iii. 3; Magn. , iv.; Ephes. , xi., 2, and cf. Mart. Polyc. , x. and xii., 1, 2. See further Lightfoot, Phil. , p. 16; Lechler, Das Apostolische Zeitalter , p. 129 ff.; Smith, B.D. 2 “Christian,” Conybeare and Howson, p. 100 (smaller edition), and Expositor , June, 1898.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 26. He brought him unto Antioch] As this city was the metropolis of Syria, and the third city for importance in the whole Roman empire, Rome and Alexandria alone being more eminent, Barnabas might think it expedient to have for his assistance a person of such eminent talents as Saul; and who was especially appointed by Christ to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles. Saul appears also to have been a thorough master of the Greek tongue, and, consequently, the better qualified to explain the Gospel to the Greek philosophers, and to defend it against their cavils. Barnabas, also being a native of Cyprus, Ac 4:36, where the Greek language was spoken, was judged to be proper for this mission, perhaps on this account, as well as on account of his disinterestedness, holiness, and zeal.

And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.] It is evident they had the name Christians from CHRIST their master; as the Platonists and Pythagoreans had their name from their masters, Plato and Pythagoras. Now, as these had their name from those great masters because they attended their teaching, and credited their doctrines, so the disciples were called Christians because they took Christ for their teacher, crediting his doctrines, and following the rule of life laid down by him. It has been a question, by whom was this name given to the disciples? Some think they assumed it; others, that the inhabitants of Antioch gave it to them; and others, that it was given by Saul and Barnabas. This later opinion is favoured by the Codex Bezae, which reads the 25th and 26th verses thus: And hearing that Saul was at Tarsus, he departed, seeking for him; and having found him, he besought him to come to Antioch; who, when they were come, assembled with the Church a whole year, and instructed a great number; and there they first called the disciples at Antioch Christians.

The word χρηματισαι in our common text, which we translate were called, signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate, by Divine direction. In this sense, the word is used, Mt 2:12; Lu 2:26; and in the preceding chapter of this book, Ac 10:22. If, therefore, the name was given by Divine appointment, it as most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name Christian is from God, as well as that grace and holiness which are so essentially required and implied in the character. Before this time. the Jewish converts were simply called, among themselves, disciples, i.e. scholars; believers, saints, the Church, or assembly; and, by their enemies, Nazarenes, Galileans, the men of this way or sect; and perhaps lay other names which are not come down to us. They considered themselves as one family; and hence the appellation of brethren was frequent among them. It was the design of God to make all who believed of one heart and one soul, that they might consider him as their Father, and live and love like children of the same household. A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any human being can bear upon earth; and to receive it from God, as those appear to have done-how glorious the title! It is however worthy of remark that this name occurs in only three places in the New Testament: here, and in Ac 26:28, and in 1Pe 4:16.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

26. He addeth afterward, that such a holy concord was blessed from heaven; for this was no small honor that the holy name of Christians began there for all the whole world. Though the apostles had been long time at Jerusalem, yet God had not vouchsafed to bestow upon his Church, which was there, this excellent title of his Son. Whether it were because at Antioch much people was grown together into one body, as well of Jews as of Gentiles, or whether it were because the Church might be better ordered in time of peace; or because they were more bold to confess their faith, there were in very deed Christians both at Jerusalem and also in Samaria before that time; and we know that Jerusalem was the first fountain from which Christianity did flow. And what is it else to be a disciple of Christ but to be a Christian? But when they began plainly to be called that which they were the use of the name served greatly to set forth the glory of Christ, because by this means they referred all their religion unto Christ alone. This was, therefore, a most excellent worship for the city of Antioch. that Christ brought forth his name thence like a standard, whereby it might be made known to all the world that there was some people whose captain was Christ, and which did glory in his name.

But and if Rome had such a color of [pretext for] pride, who were able to suffer the proud boastings of the Pope and his adherents? They would then, not without cause, thunder out that Rome is the mother and head of all Churches; but it is well, that seeing they challenge to themselves whatsoever, when they come to the matter, they are found altogether vain; yea, Antioch itself doth plainly prove that the estate of one place is not continual. Admit we grant the Romans these plausible titles, we have been sometimes, [we once were,] shall they yet be so bold as to take one-half of that which belongeth to Antioch? And is the dignity of Antioch the greater now, because the Christians had their name thence? Yea, it is rather a manifest mirror of the horrible vengeance of God. For, seeing there is nothing to be seen there but evil favored wastiness, it remaineth that we learn to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and that we know that unthankful men have not so much liberty granted them that they may freely mock God.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(26) The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.—The term for “were called” is not the word usually so rendered. Better, perhaps, got the name of Christians. The Emperor Julian (Misopog., p. 344) notes the tendency to invent nicknames, as a form of satire, as characteristic of the population of Antioch in his time, and the same tone of persiflage seems to have prevailed on the first appearance of the new faith. The origin of a name which was afterwards to be so mighty in the history of the world is a subject full of interest. In its form it was essentially Latin, after the pattern of the Pompeiani, Sullani, and other party-names; and so far it would seem to have grown out of the contact of the new society with the Romans stationed at Antioch, who, learning that its members acknowledged the Christos as their head, gave them the name of Christiani. In the Gospels, it is true, however (Mat_22:16, et al.), we find the analogous term of Herodiani, but there, also, we may legitimately trace the influence of Roman associations. As used in the New Testament, we note (1) that the disciples never use it of themselves. They keep to such terms as the “brethren” (Act_15:1), and the “saints” (Act_9:13), and “those of the way” (Act_9:2). (2) That the hostile Jews use the more scornful term of “Nazarenes” (Act_24:5). (3) That the term Christianus is used as a neutral and sufficiently respectful word by Agrippa in Act_26:23, and at a somewhat later date, when it had obviously gained a wider currency, as that which brought with it the danger of suffering and persecution (1Pe_4:16). It was natural that a name first given by outsiders should soon be accepted by believers as a title in which to glory. Tradition ascribes its origin to Euodius, the first Bishop of Antioch (Bingham, Ant. II. i. § 4), and Ignatius, his successor, uses it frequently, and forms from it the hardly less important word of Christianismos, as opposed to Judaismos (Philadelph. c. 6), and as expressing the whole system of faith and life which we know as “Christianity.” It may be worth while to note that another ecclesiastical term, hardly less important in the history of Christendom, seems also to have originated at Antioch, and that we may trace to it the name of Catholic as well as Christian (Ignatius, Smyrn. c. 8). We learn from Tertullian (Apol. c. 3) that the name was often wrongly pronounced as Chrestiani, and its meaning not understood. Even the name of Christos was pronounced and explained as Chrestos (= good). The Christians, on their side, accepted the mistake as a nomen et omen, an unconscious witness on the part of the heathen that they were good and worthy in their lives, that their Lord was “good and gracious (1Pe_2:3).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. a whole year] This long period, spent with success in the first field where the preaching to the Gentiles had begun, will account for the constant return to Antioch after each missionary journey of the Apostle of the Gentiles. He had preached at Damascus and at Jerusalem, but it was always with his life in his hand. At Antioch he first found a quiet Church with a wide scope for all his earnestness.

and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch] It is most probable that this name was given them by the heathen in ridicule. The disciples of Jesus never give it to themselves, and as the use of it would imply that those who bore it were the followers of the Messiah, the Christ, it is certain it would not be given to them by the Jews. The reason for a new distinctive term is apparent. When these new Gentile converts were joined to the Church of Antioch, none of the former distinctive appellations would embrace the whole body. They were no longer all Nazarenes or Galilæans or Greek-Jews, and as to the people of Antioch they probably seemed a strange medley, they would not be unlikely to apply to them such a hybrid form as “Christian,” a Greek word with a Latin termination. The name is probably used in mockery by Agrippa (Act_26:28), “With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian,” but in the only other and later instance of the use of the name in the N. T. (1Pe_4:16) we can see that what had been at first a taunt had soon come to be a name in which to glory, “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then the disciples,.... That were at Antioch,

every man according to his ability; whether rich or poor, master or servant, everyone according to the substance he was possessed of; whether more or less, which was a good rule to go by:

determined to send relief to the brethren which dwelt in Judea; either because that Agabus might have suggested, that the famine would be the severest in those parts; or because that the Christians there had parted with their substance already, in the support of one another, and for the spread of the Gospel in other parts; and therefore the Christians at Antioch, in gratitude to them for having received the Gospel, and Gospel ministers from them, resolved to help them with their temporal things, when in distress.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Ver. 26. Called Christians] Called so by divine direction, as the word χρηματισαι signifieth. There were, saith a learned antiquary, certain heretics who (as the Samaritans joined Jewish ceremonies with heathenish rites, so they) joined Christ and Moses, law and gospel, baptism and circumcision. (Godwin’s Antiq. Heb.) Of their beginning read Act 15:2. These were called Nazarites; either of malice by the Jews, to bring the greater disgrace upon Christian religion, or else because at first they were true though weak Nazarites, that is, Christians misled by Peter’s Judaizing at Antioch, Gal 2:11-13. Hence it is thought that the Church at Antioch, in detestation of this newly bred heresy, fastened upon them by the name of Nazarites, forsook that name, and called themselves Christians. But what a shameful thing is it, that the most honourable name of Christian is in this day in Italy and at Rome a name of reproach, and usually abused to signify a fool or a dolt. (Fulke Not. on Rhem. Test.)

First in Antioch] Which had been the residence and bare the name of Antiochus, that bloody persecutor. Here then that prophecy was most sweetly fulfilled, Isa 60:14; "The sons of the afflicters shall come bending to thee," &c. And so it was, somewhat over a hundred years since, at Spira in Germany, where those of the reformed religion were first called Protestants. (Parei: Medul.) Howbeit some have observed that this name is not so new, but of an ancient standing; for they fetch it from 2Ch 24:19; "Yet he sent prophets to them to bring them again unto the Lord, and they testified against them; but they would not give ear:" which latter clause the Vulgate interpreter (and the Douay doctors in their English translation of the Old Testament follow him) rendereth thus: Quos Protestantes illi audire nolebant. Dr Poyns also (a Popish writer) tells us, that it was foretold in the Old Testament that the Protestants were a malignant Church, and he allegeth for proof this place in the Chronicles, though little to his purpose. A better divine tells us Englishmen, that we were never Protestants indeed till we took the late protestation, that brought us into the band of the covenant, and is to us as circumcision once to the Israelites, a Gilgal, the rolling away of our reproach; there being nothing, as some could hit us in the teeth (but untruly and uncharitably), that made us differ from Rome but a bare proclamation.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That a whole year - Antioch was a city exceedingly important in its numbers, wealth, and influence. It was for this reason, probably, that they spent so long a time there, instead of traveling in other places. The attention of the apostles was early and chiefly directed to cities, as being places of influence and centers of power. Thus, Paul passed three years in the city of Ephesus, Act 20:31. And thus he continued a year and a half at Corinth, Act 18:11. It may be added that the first churches were founded in cities; and the most remarkable success attended the preaching of the gospel in large towns.

They assembled themselves ... - They came together for worship.

With the church - Margin, in the church. The Greek ἐν en will bear this construction; but there is no instance in the New Testament where the word “church” refers to the edifice in which a congregation worships. It evidently here means that Barnabas and Saul convened with the Christian assembly at proper times, through the space of a year, for the purposes of public worship.

And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act 26:28, “Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”; 1Pe 4:16, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.” No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here. The word used here, and translated “were called” - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means:

(1) To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers.

(2) To be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.

(3) To be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, “She shall be called an adulteress.” It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they “were called,” but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.

It is, however, an honored name - the most honorable appellation that can be conferred on a mortal. It suggests at once to a Christian the name of his great Redeemer; the idea of our intimate relation to him; and the thought that we receive him as our chosen Leader, the source of our blessings, the author of our salvation, the fountain of our joys. It is the distinguishing name of all the redeemed. It is not that we belong to this or that denomination; it is not that our names are connected with high and illustrious ancestors; it is not that they are recorded in the books of heraldry; it is not that they stand high in courts, and among the frivolous, the fashionable, and the rich, that true honor is conferred upon men. These are not the things that give distinction and speciality to the followers of the Redeemer. It is that they are “Christians.” This is their special name; by this they are known; this at once suggests their character, their feelings, their doctrines, their hopes, their joys.

This binds them all together - a name which rises above every other appellation; which unites in one the inhabitants of distant nations and tribes of men; which connects the extremes of society, and places them in most important respects on a common level; and which is a bond to unite in one family all those who love the Lord Jesus, though dwelling in different climes, speaking different languages, engaged in different pursuits of life, and occupying distant graves at death. He who lives according to the import of this name is the most blessed and eminent of morals. This name shall be had in remembrance when the names of royalty shall be remembered no more, and when the appellations of nobility shall cease to amuse or to dazzle the world.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

At Antioch the disciples were first named Christians, when St. Paul and St. Barnabas were preaching there. Before that, they were called the disciples of Jesus, and sometimes Nazarenes, (see Acts xxiv. 5.) or perhaps Galileans. This honourable name of Christians, distinguished them from Gentiles and Jews, and from all heretical sects, who generally had some name from the authors of such sects, as Simonites, Cerinthians, Nicolaits, &c. Of which see St. Epiphanius. The faithful had also after some time the name of Catholics, being taught in the apostles’ creed to believe in the Catholic Church. And St. Augustine, in several places, takes notice, that no heretics could ever get themselves called by this name; nor can they to this present. See St. Augustine, de util. credendi. chap. viii.; de vera relig. chap. vii.; cont. epis. fundam. chap. iv. Whosoever is of the true faith of Christ, may justly say, Christian is my name, Catholic my surname: a greater honour, and a greater advantage, than to be of any royal family. (Witham) --- The faithful disciples, believers, &c. as before they were called, now received the name of Christians. It is not certain whether they took the name themselves, or it was given them out of disrespect, by the pagans. Galileans were a term of reproach likewise given to the Christians. St. Peter, in his first epistle, uses the appellation of Christians; but it does not appear that St. Paul ever did in any of his writings. (Calmet, Tirinus, &c.) --- The name of Christian should be common to all the faithful, and all other new names of sectaries abhorred. "If you hear," says St. Jerome, any where such as are said to be of Christ, "not to have their name from Christ, but from some other, as Marcionites, Valentinians, (as now also Lutherans, Calvinists, &c. &c. &c. &c.) know that they belong not to the Church of Christ, but to the synagogue of Antichrist." St. Pacianus, in his letter to Sympronian, says, when heresies had arisen, and endeavoured by diverse names to tear the dove of the Lord and Queen in pieces, that faithful required their surname: hence they who before were called Christians, are now surnamed also Catholics. Christian is my name and Catholic my surname. By this term Catholic, the apostles, in their creed, have distinguished the one true visible Church from all and every other congregation, sect, or party. This mark is so self-evident, that St. Augustine hesitates not to say: "In the lap of the Church the very name Catholic keepeth me." (Cont. ep. fund. chap. iv.) --- Again, in his book on the utility of believing, he says: "if after these troubles of mind you still are tossed and vexed, and wish for peace, follow the way of Catholic discipline, which from Christ himself, by the apostles, hath proceeded even unto us, and shall proceed from hence to the latest posterity." (1 Timothy iii. 15.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

A whole year they assembled themselves: frequency of meeting to partake of the ordinances of God, is the great reason why the gospel was so prevalent in this place.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch; which will be renowned so long as the world lasts, because here the banner of Christ was first publicly set up, and men listed under him: and this by Divine authority, for the word imports no less. And that it was not a name they gave themselves, much less was it a name the enemies of Christianity gave unto the professors of it, for they called them Nazarenes, or Galileans, out of contempt. But God would have Christ’s disciples to be called Christians: not only as scholars were amongst the Greeks called from their masters, (viz. Platonists, Pythagoreans, &c.), to teach us whom we profess to learn of, and to be instructed by; but to mind us of our unction; for Christians are anointed ones, 1Jo 2:27, and are made by Christ (in a spiritual sense) kings and priests unto God and his Father, Rev 1:6.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

26. Whole year… assembled… much people—For one year these two apostolic men perform heroic work in this great metropolis with a success that tells upon its future history. We doubt not they assembled weekly, upon the Lord’s day; for the earliest ecclesiastical history finds Sunday the sacred day at Antioch, and it is utterly improbable that any alteration took place of the day then first by the apostles established.

John Malela, an historian of Antioch, (says Mr. Lewin,) in the sixth century, tells, on the authority of Domninus, an antiquary of a much earlier age, the spot where Paul and Barnabas hold their public meetings. It was in Singon Street, near the Pantheon. So public a matter may perhaps have been transmitted by the Christian Church.

Christians first in Antioch—Antioch was celebrated for its Greek wit and levity, and these it often displayed in inventing nicknames. The term Christ is not a name, but a title, the Christ; that is, the Anointed or Messiah. But a Greek, like an English speaker, naturally taking it for a proper name, and hearing that this sect styled themselves followers of Christ, would very easily add the usual adjective termination, and call them Christians. On the other hand, a hostile Jew would feel that to call them after the glorious name of their nationally expected Messiah would be a blasphemy. He would prefer to call them Galileans, Nazarenes, or perhaps Ebionites, paupers. For themselves the Christians had preferred the title brethren, believers, disciples, saints, etc. The word Christian is but twice found elsewhere in the New Testament, and in neither is it uttered as an accepted name. The termination in ian belongs, indeed, rather to the Latin than to the Greek language; but it had at this time become naturalized to the Greek, and it is little likely that the grave Romans, who were comparatively few, and connected generally with the government, would have invented this epithet. For this Greek appellation, which is now naturalized in all civilized languages, we must doubtless thank the genius of the lively Greek pagans of Antioch. Yet Luke, though he never uses the epithet himself, evidently recognises that the name has now acquired a prevalent currency, so that its first invention is a fact worth mentioning. Chrysostom, when preacher at Antioch, with a stroke of Greek wit, once told the Antiochians that, though they had invented the Christian name, they left to others the practice of the Christian virtues.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Even for a whole year for a whole year, A.V. and T.R.; they were gathered together for they assembled themselves, A.V.; and that the disciples for and the disciples, A.V. The phrase ejn th ejkklhsia occurs again in 1Co_11:18 (T.R.) where it has, as here, very nearly the sense of "in the church," as a place of meeting. It should be "in," not "with." The "Church" is the assembly of disciples gathered together in their house of meeting. Were called; crhmatisai, bore the name of. It is a peculiar use of the word occurring in the New Testament only in Rom_7:3 besides, but found also in Polybius, Strabo, Josephus, and some other writers. Its common meaning is, in the passive voice, "to be warned of God," as in Act_10:22, where see note. Christians. It was a memorable event in the history of the Church when the name of Christians, which has distinguished them for nearly eighteen centuries and a half, was given to the disciples of Christ. Hitherto they had been called among themselves disciples, and brethren, and saints, and, by the Jews, men "of the Way", (Act_9:2) or "Nazarenes", (Act_24:5) but now they received the name of Christians, as followers of Christ, from the outside world, and accepted it themselves. (Act_26:28 1Pe_4:16) From the Latin form of the word Christians, i.e. followers of Christ (like Herodians, followers of Herod; Marians, Pompeians, partisans of Marius and Pompey; Caesariani, Ciceroniani, Vitelliani, Flaviani, etc.; Conybeare and Howson, vol. 1:130; Lewin, vol. 1:97), the designation most have been invented by the Gentiles, either by the Roman court or camp at Antioch, or by the Greek population, influenced as they were by Roman forms of speech current amongst them (compare the Greece-Oriental Nestorians, Arians, etc.). We may be sure that Christians, i.e. followers of Messiah, is not a name likely to have been given by Jews. There is no evidence either of its having been given in derision. The well-known account of Tacitus is "Vulgus Christianos appella-bat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat" ("Annal.," 15:44). Suidas says that those who had been previously called Nazarenes and Galileans, in the reign of Claudius Caesar, when Euodius had been made Bishop of Antioch by Peter, had their name changed into that of Christians. He seems to refer to the statement of Malalas (quoted by Conybeare and Howson, 1:131), that they who had been before called Nazarenes and Galileans received the name of Christians in the time of Euodius, who succeeded St. Peter as Bishop of Antioch, and who himself gave them this name." Malalas is thought to have lived somewhere between the sixth and ninth centuries, at Byzantium. A beautiful passage in the Clementine Liturgy is also quoted at p. 130: "We give thee thanks that we are called by the Name of thy Christ, and are thus reckoned as thine own," where the allusion is to Jam_2:7. The name Christian is frequent in the epistles of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch; Polycarp"s dying words were, "I am a Christian" (Bishop Wordsworth)

The Christian name.

the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Three great cities identified with Christian history in a special mannerJerusalem, Antioch, and Rome. The birth of the religion; its triumph in full manhood over the world; and between these two points its baptism as the religion of the East and West alike. Describe position and influence of the city. The name not given by Jews, as recognizing that Jesus was Messiah. Not by disciples, as other names in use brethren," "saints," "friends." Nor by Divine direction. It was either a name of reproach or a convenient designation of a rapidly enlarging society. Consider

I THE NAME GIVEN.

1. Personal, testifying to the pre-eminence of Christ in the first preaching. The facts came before the doctrines, as they always should.

2. A name of distinction. Separation from the world. Baptism in his Name. Worship of Christ. Spirit of Christ. "See how these Christians love one another." Contrast with heathen world.

3. Prophetic. Christ expected to return. Judge of all the earth. Despondency the main feature of heathenism. Christians preached hope. The Resurrection and Ascension. Not as others, children of the night, but children of the light.

II THE NAME HONOURED. Called Christians.

1. The life should be evident before it is named. Baptismal regeneration is condemned by such a fact.

2. If the world looks upon the life, it will name it; let us see to it that it names it after Christ. It should be the sign of conversation, and the testimony to a spiritual work.

3. The privilege is to wear the name. Are we ashamed of it? Secret disciples an anomaly. Connect the profession with teaching at Antioch, and the name will be itself a publication of the truth.

4. It is not what we are called that will decide our final state, but what we are. Let all who name his Name depart from iniquity. Christendom" is an empty mockery. Seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost. R.

Antiochene Christians.

the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Before this time they seem to have had no recognized name. Others may have called them "Nazarenes," or perhaps "Galilmans." They spoke of their teaching as "the Way," but do not seem to have found any other name for themselves than that of "disciples." It was left to circumstances to provide a name which all might accept, and, though the origin of the name Christian" is very strange, its appropriateness has been universally recognized. The very essence of the gospel is the presentation of Christ to men, and the pressure of his claims to men"s love and trust; and therefore those who receive Christ as their Savior, and obey him as their Lord, are properly denominated "Christians." It is usual to call disciples after the name of their master or teacher, as may be seen in the terms "Mohammedan," "Buddhist," "Wesleyan," etc. Sometimes classes of men are named after the central principle which they have adopted. This we cannot do, because our central principle is "Christ not even some truth about Christ, but Christ himself. So we can have no name but that which the people of Antioch found when they discovered how prominently Christ was set forth in the early preaching.

I THE THOUGHT OF THOSE WHO FIRST NAMED THE DISCIPLES "CHRISTIANS." It has often been pointed out that the name was started as a nickname. The idea of making so much of One who was known to have been crucified as a malefactor and impostor may well have excited the ridicule of humorous people, and we know how constantly the disciples were taunted with worshipping the Crucified. A caricature of the early times has been discovered, representing a person, with the head of an ass, stretched upon a cross, and a figure kneeling before it. Underneath is this inscription: "Alexamenos worshipping his God." In this spirit the name was first given, much as the term "Methodists" was applied to the followers of Wesley.

II THE THOUGHT OF THOSE WHO ACCEPTED THE NAME, Perhaps in their modesty they did not think themselves worthy to bear their Master"s name; but when others gave it to them they felt that they could accept it. And no name could be to them so honored. Their hesitation, however, might have arisen from another cause. To accept a distinctive title was to break away from Judaism, and take a position as a separate and independent sect. We can well understand how the disciples would hesitate to accept so defined a position. They thought of themselves as still Jews, seeking, some would say, the reformation of Judaism; and others would say, the spiritual fulfillment of Judaism; but anything savoring of sectarianism or separation would be distressing to them. Yet many times in Church history men have been compelled to take decided positions against their own wills, but their distinctness and separateness have proved to be for the world"s permanent good.

III THE THOUGHT OF THOSE WHO NOW NEAR THE NAME. For so many persons its deeper significance has faded out. It is so universally applied, and made so all-inclusive, as to have become a meaningless term. And yet how full of force and inspiration it should be to us

(1) for the sake of the history which the term embodies the long story of Christian witness and struggle; and

(2) for the depths of meaning which we may now find in it, for to us it may mean not merely "followers or disciples of Christ," but Christ-like men and women, who are daily being "changed into his image from glory to glory; and who want to be like him in all things"! R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch - Here it was that they first received this standing appellation. They were before termed Nazarenes and Galileans.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

DISCIPLES AND CHRISTIANS

26. “And it came to pass unto them indeed that they were assembled a whole year in the church and taught a great crowd, and that they first called the disciples Christians in Antioch.” The followers of our Savior were denominated by Himself and others “disciples,” i. e., pupils, learners. After the incarnation of the Holy Ghost in the Pentecostal experience we find the cognomen “Christian” applied to them, thus eventually superseding the former and familiar epithet “disciple.” The Holy Ghost is the Author of every word in the original Scriptures. Each one of His words is inspired, i. e., “God-breathed” (2Ti 3:16). The verbal inspiration is only in the original language, the transactions only retaining the substantial inspiration. Hence we learn a valuable fundamental lesson in these contrastive words “disciple,” a convert, and “Christian,” a noun derived from Christus, which means “the anointed,” and applied to Jesus after His anointing by the Holy Ghost descending on Him like a dove at the Jordan, having always hitherto been called Jesus, his birth-name, which means “Savior.” The disciple is saved in conversion, but not anointed by the Holy Ghost till he is sanctified in a second work of grace, thus progressing out of mere discipleship into Christianity properly so called. The word “Christian,” which literally means a person anointed with the Holy Ghost, is applicable to none but the sanctified, this being its New Testament meaning. Oh, how woefully has Satan perverted the use of that word! In Palestine, where the natives are Mohammedans and not allowed to get drunk, and the Jews are also abstinent, and all foreigners are denominated Christians, the most indubitable evidence that a man is a Christian and not a Jew or a Mohammedan is to find him so drunk he can not stand on his feet. Good Lord, save us from the popular and blasphemous application of the word “Christian.” It means a person anointed with the Holy Ghost, i. e., sanctified, in contradistinction to a mere disciple in his rudimentary experience. How horrifically and blasphemously inconsistent for people who reject and even preach against sanctification and all the work of the Holy Ghost, not only to claim to be Christians, but even stickleristic in the appropriation of the name. How Satan is delighted when people thus verify his delusions and falsifications!

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. The united efforts of two such men as Barnabas and Saul, in a community where the gospel was already favorably heard, could not fail of good results. (26) " And it came to pass, that during a whole year they were associated together in the Church, and taught a great multitude; and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. " There has been much dispute as to whether this new name was given by Barnabas and Saul under divine authority, or by the Gentiles of Antioch, or by the disciples themselves. It would serve no practical purpose to decide between the latter two suppositions, for, with whichever party it originated, it was subsequently accepted by the disciples in general.

As to the supposition that the name was given by direct revelation through Barnabas and Saul, a thorough discussion of its merits would require more verbal criticism than is suited to the design of this work, and, at the same time, be less decisive in reference to the authority of the name in question, than the course of investigation which we prefer to institute. We retain, therefore, the common version of the passage, which is sustained by the great mass of critics of all ages and all parties, while we seek a more certain basis on which to rest the divine authority of the new name than verbal criticism can establish.

If the New Testament furnishes any names for the people of God, its authority in reference to their use is not less imperative than in reference to any other use of language. We can have no more right, in this case, to substitute other names for them, or to add others to them, than to do the same in reference to the names of the apostles, of the Holy Spirit, or of Christ.

Religious names are significant. They not only distinguish the bodies to which they belong, as do modern names of individuals, but they distinguish them by a condensed description of their peculiarities. All the peculiarities of a religious denomination are expressed by the denominational name in its current import. Hence, to call a Baptist by the name Methodist would be worse than to call Smith by the name of Jones; for, besides miscalling him, it would be misrepresenting his religious principles. It is true, that, in thus miscalling the Baptist, you have not changed him into a Methodist, for he remains the same by whatever name you call him. Still, you have miscalled him and done him injustice. Truth and justice, therefore, require us to use religious names with reference to their significance.

If denominational names are significant, those originally applied to the body of Christ are not less so. They distinguish the people of God by designating some of their peculiarities. These peculiarities were found either in the relations which they sustained, or in the character which they exhibited to the world. The first relation which attracted the attention of the world, as they followed Jesus from place to place, was that of teacher and pupils. This suggested the name disciples, or learners, by which they were first designated, and which is the most common designation in the gospel narratives. From the fact that there were disciples of John, with whom they might be confounded, they were, at first, styled "disciples of Jesus." But when John had decreased, and Jesus had increased, the limiting words were dispensed with, and the term disciple was appropriated, so that, standing alone, it always meant a disciple of Jesus. In the four gospels the limiting words are commonly employed; but in Acts, where Luke is giving some of their history as a great people spreading through the earth, after once calling them "disciples of the Lord," at the time Saul starts after them to Damascus, he drops the limiting words, and thence throughout the whole narrative he calls them simply the "disciples."

When the disciples assumed a new relation to their teacher, it necessarily brought them into a new relation to one another. From the nature of the moral lessons which they were learning, and which they were required to put into immediate practice, this relation became very intimate and very affectionate. It gave rise to their designation as " the brethren. " They were so styled first by Jesus, saying to them: "Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren. " This term, however, as a distinctive appellation of the whole body, is used only once in the gospel narratives, where John says of the report that he would not die: "This saying went abroad among the brethren. " In Acts it frequently occurs in this sense; but still more frequently in the Epistles. The latter being addressed to the brethren, and treating of their mutual obligations, this term most naturally takes precedence in them, and the term disciple, which is used in speaking of a brother rather than to him, is as naturally omitted. This accounts for the fact that the latter term is not once found in the Epistles.

This increasing currency of the term brethren in the later apostolic age is intimately associated with the introduction of another name which came into use in the same period. Jesus frequently called the disciples his own brethren, and taught them, in praying to say, " Our Father, who art in heaven;" but the title, "children of God," which grew out of the relation thus indicated, was not applied to them during this early period. It is not so applied in any of the gospels but John's, and in this only in two instances, where it is evident that he is using the phraseology of the time in which he writes rather than of the period of which he writes. This appellation, as a current and cotemporaneous title, is found only in the Epistles, being brought into use after the disciples had obtained more exalted conceptions of the blessed privileges and high honors which God had conferred upon them. It extorted an admiring comment from John, in his old age: "Behold, what manner of love the Father bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God! "

By this time the disciples exhibited to the world a well-defined character. It was such as identified them with those who, in the Old Testament, were called saints, and this suggested the use of this term as one of their appellations. The persecutions which they were enduring still further identified them with the holy "prophets who were before them." This name occurs first on the lips of Ananias when he objected to approaching Saul of Tarsus. He says to the Lord, "I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints in Jerusalem." In the Epistles this name is used more frequently than any other.

All of the names we have now considered are well adapted to their specific purposes; but all of them presuppose some knowledge of the people whom they are intended to distinguish. An entire stranger would not at first know who was meant by the disciples, or the brethren; but would ask, Disciples of whom? brethren of whom? Nor would he know who were the children of God, or the saints, until you had informed him to what certain characters these terms apply. There was need, therefore, of a name less ambiguous to those who had the least information on the subject-one better adapted to the great world. This, like all the others, originated from circumstances which demanded it for immediate use. When a Church was established in Antioch, it became an object of inquiry to strangers, brought thither by the pursuits of commerce, from all parts of the world. They were strangers to the cause of Christ in reference to all but the wonderful career of its founder. The whole world had heard something of Christ, as the remarkable personage who was put to death under Pontius Pilate, though many had heard nothing of the early history of his Church. From this fact, when strangers came to Antioch, and heard the new party who were attracting so much attention there, called Christians, they at once recognized them as followers of that Christ of whom they had already heard. This explains the fact stated in the text, that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The fact that Luke here adopts it, and that both Paul and Peter afterward recognized it, gives it all the validity of inspired usage, and, therefore, all the weight of divine authority. That it is a New Testament name is undisputed, and this renders its divine authority indisputable.

This name, whether given by divine or by human authority, was not designed as an exclusive appellation, seeing that the others were continued in use after its introduction. It merely took its proper place among the other names, to answer its own special purpose.

To sum up the facts now adduced, the New Testament usage in reference to names is this: When the followers of Jesus were contemplated with reference to their relation to him as their great teacher, they were called disciples. When the mind of the speaker was fixed more particularly on their relation to one another, they were styled brethren. When their relation to God was in the foreground, they were called children of God. When they were designated with special reference to character, they were called saints. But when they were spoken of with the most general reference to their great leader, they were called Christians. A practical observance of the exact force of each of these names would soon conform our speech to the primitive model, and would check a tendency to exalt any one name above another, by giving to each its proper place.

The names now enumerated are all that are furnished by the New Testament. We have assumed above that it would be subversive of divine authority for disciples to adopt any other names. The truth of this assumption is demonstrated by the rebuke which Paul administers to the Corinthians for this very sin. He says to them: "It has been declared to me, my brethren, by them who are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed into the name of Paul?" Now, if it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing? The question demands the most solemn and trembling consideration of this generation.

It is no extenuation of this fault to urge that the divisions which now exist are of a different character from those in Corinth; for the difference is entirely in their favor. They had not gone so far as to divide the Church into separate organizations, but had merely formed parties within it, like the parties of the present day, which sometimes exist within a single denomination. The sin of to-day is, therefore, much greater than theirs.

It is equally vain to excuse our sin, by urging that the party names now worn are necessary, in order to distinguish the parties from one another. If the existence of the parties themselves were authorized by the Scriptures, this excuse would be valid; for we could not censure ourselves for the unavoidable results of that which is itself right. But the existence of party divisions constitutes the chief crime in the case, and leads to the sin of party names, as stealing leads to lying. The thief must inevitably lie, or acknowledge his theft; so the partisan must either cling to his party name, or give up his party. The name, in the mean time, is a necessary evil, but, being self-imposed, it is none the less evil from being necessary.

Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians back to the New Testament model-for, in the New Testament period, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Testament would utterly destroy! There is only one means of escape from this crying sin. Those who love God must break loose at once, as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice.

In addition to the observations already submitted on this topic, we remark that every significant name which a man wears imposes some obligation upon him, and appeals to him incessantly, though silently, to discharge this obligation faithfully. Does a man in foreign country declare himself an American, he realizes that there is a peculiar demeanor required by the fact, and feels constantly called upon to act worthy of the name he wears. Even a man's patronymic, which means no more than that he belongs to a certain family, is forever warning him not to disgrace the name of his father. So it must be with all religious names.

Is a man called a disciple of Jesus? He remembers that it is the part of a disciple to learn what his teacher imparts, and to imitate his example. Whenever he is reminded that this is his name, he feels the necessity of studying the teachings of Jesus, and walking in his footsteps. Whenever he finds himself neglecting these duties, his very name rebukes him. This thought was not overlooked by the great Teacher himself. He says to those Jews who believed on him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Again he says, "It is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher ;" and "whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me, can not be my disciple. " Thus he gives emphasis to that exhortation which the name itself is constantly sounding in the ear of conscience.

But the disciple is also one of the brethren -a brother to the Lord Jesus, who is the oldest brother of a large family. This name is full of affection and sympathy. I can not meet a man and call him brother, without some thought of the fraternal sympathy which should exist between us. If, when my heart is poisoned by unkind feelings toward a disciple, he meets me and calls me brother, I feel reproached by the word, and am choked in the attempt to pronounce it in return. It will never let me forget the law of love. Its influence is recognized by Peter, who says, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently."

There is another obligation involved in this name, arising from the fact that the brothers in one family stand on an equal footing in reference to authority, no one having supremacy over the others, but all subject to the father. Jesus makes use of this fact as the ground of a serious injunction. "Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren; and call no man on earth your Father, for One who is in heaven is your Father; neither be called Leaders, for one is your Leader, the Christ." The fact that we are brethren is thus made to bear directly against that thirsting for titles of distinction, and for rank and authority in the Church of Christ, which is invariably the offspring of an unholy ambition. The modern Leaders of sects-the ghostly Fathers of mystic Babylon, and the swelling titles by which Doctors of Divinity, and the Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops and Archbishops of the present age are distinguished, exhibit the most flagrant contempt for this solemn commandment of the Lord. A man who understands the meaning of the fact that he is one among many brethren, is guarded, by the humility of this title, from participation in a sin like this.

If such are the obligations implied in the names disciple and brethren, what shall we say of that more exalted title, children of God? It originates from a supposed likeness between them and their Father. We are commanded to love our enemies, to bless them who curse us, to do good to them who hate us, and pray for them who persecute us, that we may be children of our Father who is in heaven. Thus the very highest moral obligations imposed in the word of God must ever press upon the soul of him who ears this title, inciting him to become a partaker of the divine nature.

When, in addition to these appellations, you call a man a saint, you thrust him as a companion into the midst of all the holy men of old, and make him struggle to be like them. So palpable is the force of this name, that the mass of professed Christians have long since ceased to wear it. When men apostasized from what its meaning indicates, it hung so heavily upon the conscience, that it became like a coal of fire on their heads, and they found relief in throwing it off from themselves and appropriating it to a few of the worthy dead. If we would ever come back from the long apostasy of ages, we must learn to wear the name saint, and walk worthy of the company with which it identifies us. The term saint means a holy one, and Peter exhorts, "As he who called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of behavior; because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy."

The name Christian embodies within itself, in a more generic form, all the obligations specifically expressed by the other names. Being derived from the name of him who is "head over all things for the Church," whose name is above every name, it is a title of peculiar honor and glory. It calls upon the man who wears it to act a part in consonance with the historic memories which cluster around it, and encourages him with the reflection that he wears a high dignity even when despised and spit upon by the powers of earth. So thought Peter, when this name was most despised. He says, "If any suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this account." "If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you; for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."

When the servant of Christ remembers that all these names belong to him; that, because he is supposed to be learning of Christ, he is called a disciple; because he is one of the happy and loving family of equals, they call him brother; because the Father of that family, whose character he strives to imitate, is God himself, he is called a child of God; that, because he is presumed to be holy, he is called a saint; and that, for all these reasons, he wears the name of him who by his mediation and intercession enables him to be all that he is, how powerful the incentive to every virtue, constantly yet silently pressing upon his conscience, and how stern the rebuke to every vice!

When we turn from this deep and holy philosophy of scriptural names, to consider the import of mere partisan badges, how heartless they all appear! The constant and only influence of party names is to intensify mere partisan feelings. The man who wears the name Methodist feels called upon by the fact to simply act like a Methodist; and when that name is appealed to among those who honor it, it is only to exhort one another to diligence in that which is peculiarly expected of a mere Methodist. So with all other party names. There is nothing in any of them to excite the longings of a sin-sick soul, and hence they are never appealed to when sinners are exhorted to repent. On the contrary, the most zealous partisans are often heard to assure sinners, "Our object is not to make Presbyterians of you, or Methodists, or Baptists; but we want you to become Christians. " How strange it is that men will pertinaciously cling to names which they are thus ashamed of in the presence of penitent sinners, when there are others at hand given by God himself, full of honor to the wearer, and of attraction to all who seek salvation!

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

26. καὶ εὑρὼν ἤγαγεν εἰς, with אAB. The first αὐτὸν is also omitted in E. Vulg. has ‘quem cum invenisset, perduxit Antiochiam,’ which supports the omission of the second αὐτόν.

26. ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον, a whole year. This long period, spent with success in the first field where the preaching to the Gentiles had begun, will account for the constant return of the Apostle of the Gentiles to Antioch after each of his three missionary journeys. He had preached at Damascus and at Jerusalem, but it was always with his life in his hand. At Antioch he first found a quiet Church with a wide scope for all his earnestness.

χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως κ.τ.λ., and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. It is most probable that this name was given them by the heathen in ridicule. The disciples of Jesus never give it to themselves, and as the use of it would imply that those who bore it were the followers of the Messiah, the Christ, it is certain it would not be given to them by the Jews. The reason for a new distinctive term is apparent. When these new Gentile converts were joined to the Church of Antioch, none of the former distinctive appellations would embrace the whole body. They were no longer all Nazarenes or Galilæans or Greek-Jews, and as to the people of Antioch they probably seemed a strange medley, they would not be unlikely to apply to them such a hybrid form as ‘Christian,’ a Greek word with a Latin termination. The name is probably used in mockery by Agrippa (Act 26:28) ‘With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian,’ but in the only other and later instance of the use of the name in the N.T. (1Pe 4:16) we can see that what had been at first a taunt had soon come to be a name in which to glory, ‘If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.’

χρηματίζω, having, as a first meaning, ‘to do some business,’ came afterwards, because persons of certain callings are named from what they do, to have the sense of ‘to be named’ as here.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26.] The unusual word πρώτως seems to imply priority not only in time, but also in usage: at Antioch first and principally. So we have in Aristot. Eth. Nic. viii. 5, πρώτως καὶ κυρίως.

Χριστιανούς] This name is never used by Christians of themselves in the N. T. (but οἱ μαθηταί, οἱ πιστοί, or οἱ πιστεύοντες, οἱ ἀδελφοί, οἱ ἅγιοι, οἱ τῆς ὁδοῦ), only (see reff.) as spoken by, or coming from, those without the church. And of those, it cannot have arisen with the Jews, who would never have given a name derived from the Messiah to a hated and despised sect. By the Jews they were called Ναζωραῖοι, ch. 24:5, and Galilæans: and Julian, who wished to deprive them of a name in which they gloried (see below), and to favour the Jews, ordered that they should not be called Christiani; but Galilæi, Greg. Orat. iv. (in Jul. i.) 86, vol. i. p. 114. That it has a Latin form is no decided proof of a Latin origin: Latin forms had become naturalized among the Greeks, and in this case there would be no Greek adjective so ready to hand as the Latin possessive, sanctioned as it was by such forms as Pompeiani, Cæsariani, Herodiani (Christus being regarded as a proper name, see Tacit. Ann. xv. 44, ‘… quos vulgus … Christianos appellabat. Auctor ejus nominis Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat’). The name soon became matter of glorying among its bearers: ref. 1 Pet., H. E. v. 1, in the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, τοῦ ἡγεμόνος.… μόνον τοῦτο πυθομένου εἰ καὶ αὐτὸς εἴη Χριστιανός, τοῦ δὲ (Epagathus) λαμπροτάτῃ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσαντος, … and again, πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἐπηρωτημένα ἀπεκρίνατο (Sanctus) τῇ Ῥωμαικῇ φωνῇ, Χριστιανός εἰμι. And in the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm. on Acts, p. 84),—εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, ὅτι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ χριστοῦ σου ἐπικέκληται ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς, καὶ σοὶ προσῳκειώμεθα.

Before this, while the believers had been included among Jews, no distinctive name for them was needed: but now that a body of men, compounded of Jews and Gentiles, arose, distinct in belief and habits from both, some new appellation was required.

It may be observed, that the inhabitants of Antioch were famous for their propensity to jeer and call names; see instances in C. and H. i. p. 148, note 2. See several interesting particulars respecting the name collected in Wordsw.’s note: who however maintains that it was given by the Church herself.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Were called Christians [χρηματισαι χριστιανους] . The former of these two words, rendered were called, meant, originally, to transact business, to have dealings with; thence, in the course of business, to give audience to, to answer, from which comes its use to denote the responses of an oracle; a divine advice or warning. See Act 10:22; and compare Mt 2:12; Heb 11:7. Later, it acquires the meaning to bear a name; to be called, with the implication of a name used in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men; the name under which one passes. 18 This process of transition appears in the practice of naming men according to their occupations, as, in English, "John the Smith," " Philip the Armorer; " a practice which is the origin of many familiar family names, such as Butler, Carpenter, Smith, Cooper. Compare in New Testament Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti 4:14); Matthew the publican (Mt 10:3); Luke the physician (Col 4:14); Erastus the chamberlain (Rom 16:23); Rahab the harlot (Heb 11:31). In the same line is the use of the word calling, to denote one's business. The meaning of the word in this passage is illustrated by Rom 7:3. The disciples were called. They did not assume the name themselves. It occurs in only three passages in the New Testament : here; ch. 26 28; and 1Pe 4:16; and only in the last - named passage is used by a Christian of a Christian. The name was evidently not given by the Jews of Antioch, to whom Christ was the interpretation of Messiah, and who would not have bestowed that name on those whom they despised as apostates. The Jews designated the Christians as Nazarenes (Act 24:5), a term of contempt, because it was a proverb that nothing good could come out of Nazareth (Joh 1:47). The name was probably not assumed by the disciples themselves; for they were in the habit of styling each other believers, disciples, saints, brethren, those of the way. It, doubtless, was bestowed by the Gentiles. Some suppose that it was applied as a term of ridicule, and cite the witty and sarcastic character of the people of Antioch, and their notoriety for inventing names of derision; but this is doubtful. The name may have been given simply as a distinctive title, naturally chosen from the recognized and avowed devotion of the disciples to Christ as their leader. The Antiochenes mistook the nature of the name, not understanding its use among the disciples as an official title - the Anointed - but using it as a personal name, which they converted into a party name.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.