The Name “Christian” (Acts 11:26)

In what city were the believers first called Christians? Antioch (Acts 11:26)

In the nascent years of the Christian movement, the early church was seen simply as a rebellious offshoot branch of Judaism. As such, the sect was not initially associated with the word “Christian”. In fact, the word “Christianity” is not found in the Bible and “Christian” appears only sparsely.

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) reminds:

We use that term so commonly we think it must be scattered all across the New Testament, but it appears only three times—Acts 11:26, 26:28; I Peter 4:16...Christians was an outside nickname, possibly given in derision. It means “Christ followers” or “people of Christ’s party.” (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary ), 180)

Jesus’ followers were known by many names and “Christian” was hardly the first. From the book of Acts, Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) catalogs:

Up to this point the followers of Jesus have been called “saints” (Acts 9:13, 32, 41), “disciples” (Acts 6:2, 7, 9:1, 10, 26, 36), “believers” (Acts 4:32, 5:4, 10:45), “the church/assembly” (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1, 3, 9:31, 11:22, 26), “the brothers” (Acts 1:15, 10:23, 11:1). Now outsiders give the disciples a new name: Christianoi. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 104)

The New Testament records that the name Christian was derived in Antioch.

and when he [Barnabas] had found him [Saul], he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:26 NASB)

There are two cities known as Antioch in the book of Acts, Syrian Antioch (Acts 11:19-30, 14:1-28) and Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-52). The moniker “Christian” originated with the former.

Syrian Antioch was a leading city in the Roman world at the time. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) details:

Antioch, called by Josephus [37-100] “third among the cities of the Roman world” after Rome and Alexandria (War 3.29), was of great strategic importance to early Christianity. It was to be the first major cosmopolitan city outside Israel where Christianity clearly established itself as a force with which to be reckoned. Located on the Orontes, some eighteen miles upstream from its seaport on the Mediterranean (Seleucia, Pieria), Antioch was a great commercial center and near an important religious center connected with Artemis and Apollo (Daphne). It was the Roman provincial capital for Syria, and by the middle of the first century had an estimated population of a half-million people. On its coins Antioch called itself “Antioch, metropolis, sacred, and inviolable, and autonomous, and sovereign, and capital of the East.” It had come a long way since its founding by Seleucus I about 300 B.C., who named it after his father Antiochus...Jews had played a part in the city from its earliest days, and there was a considerable and well-established Jewish community in Antioch in the middle of the first century. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 366-267)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) specifies that:

Antioch was a cosmopolitan city, where Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian rubbed shoulders, where Mediterranean civilization met the Syrian desert; racial and religious differences which loomed so large in Judaea seemed much less important here. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 228)

Though the name’s origin is registered, its etymology is not. Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) acknowledges, “Luke doesn’t tell how this name was pinned on the disciples, whether by way of ridicule, for example. So he lets drop this bit of information either as a historical note or as an indication of popular recognition of the disciples’ attachment to Jesus as the Christ (Gundry, Commentary on Acts).”

The interpreter cannot even be certain when the name was given. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) reminds:

It is doubtful whether the name originated during the time when Saul and Barnabas worked together in Antioch – Luke does not quite say that it did. It was probably used in Pompeii between the earthquake of AD 62 and the destruction of the town in AD 79. (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 175)

Scholars have developed some hypotheses as to how the name developed. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) relays:

The verb were called implies in all probability that ‘Christian’ was a nickname given by the populace of Antioch, and thus ‘Christ’ could well have been understood as a proper name by them, even if at this stage the Christians themselves still used it as a title; it was not long, however, before the title became increasingly more like a name for Jesus. It is likely that the name contained an element of ridicule (cf. Acts 26:28; I Peter 4:16, its only other New Testament uses). The Christians preferred to use other names for themselves, such as ‘disciples’. ‘saints’ and ‘brothers’. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 203)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

The term christianoi...is obviously based on the title christos/chrestos = Messiah. If compared to a similarly formed designation like hērōdianoi (Mark 3:6, 12:13), it appears to mean a follower of someone, or a member of a movement. The translation “Messianist” would be appropriate in English. The other New Testament occurrences are placed in the mouths of outsiders: King Agrippa (Acts 26:28), and opponents (I Peter 4:16). It appears to have originated, therefore, as a somewhat slighting designation given not by the “believers” themselves but by hostile observers (see also Tacitus, Annals 15:44). The contemporary example of the name “Moonies” given to the members of the Unification Church (based on the name of the founder, Sun Yung Moon) is instructive. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 204-205)

There was precedent for an opprobrious name developing in Antioch. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) recounts:

Ancient Antioch was famous for its humor, especially the coining of jesting nicknames. When an organized brigade of chanting devotees of Nero led crowds in adulation, his band of imperial cheerleaders with their ludicrous homage was quickly dubbed Augustiani. And earlier, when the devotees of the one called Christ came to public attention, they were named Christianoi, partisans of Christ (Acts 11:26). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 175)

Many a truth is said in jest and even if it was intended to mock, the epithet is fitting. Though Christians in the Bible do not use the name, it obviously stuck and likely did so at an early date.

Paul Trebilco (b. 1958) notes:

Luke could well be indicating more widespread use of the term...Acts 11:26 suggests that Luke can presume his readers know the term. He does not need to explain it in any way, but can simply indicate this indication of its origin. His use of πρὡτως [“first”]also suggests the readers are to recall other times when they have heard the term, and they know of its ongoing use. At the very least, these points suggest that when Luke writes, the term was quite widely known both by outsiders (such as Agrippa) and by ‘Christians’ in a range of places. (Trebilco, Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament, 282)

John J. Pilch (b. 1936) observes:

Only outsiders use the word “Christian” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Peter 4:16-17) in mocking or pejorative fashion. Historically the word is most appropriately used after the time of Constantine (around A.D. 300). Prior to that time, the word is anachronistic. From this point of view, there are no “Christians” in the New Testament. How can one interpret or explain this statement? (Pilch, Visions and Healing in the Acts of the Apostles: How the Early Believers Experienced God , 150-151)

As Christ is a title and Jesus is a name, why were the early followers called Christians instead of Jesusians? What would you have called Jesus’ followers? Would you rather a group be named by insiders or outsiders? What do outsiders call your church? What other common names were originally intended to be disparaging? Is there significance to the fact that the name originated in Antioch?

James S. Jeffers (b. 1956) speculates:

The followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” at Antioch according to Acts 11:26. This is probably because believers in Antioch, for the first time, stood out enough from Jews to be nicknamed “Christus-people” by the local pagans. (Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, 288)

Mark DeYmaz (b. 1961) and Harry Li (b. 1961) assert that it is fitting that the Christian name emerged in Antioch:

Jews loved Gentiles, Gentiles loved Jews, and they were all worshiping God together as one in the local church at Antioch...Its pastoral leadership team included two men from Africa, one from the Mediterranean, one from Asia Minor, and one from the Middle East (Acts 4:36; 9:11; 13:1), providing the church with a visible witness and a model of unity at the highest level. And it was the church at Antioch, and not the church in Jerusalem that first sent missionaries to the world. With these things in mind, it’s not coincidental that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). For there Christ was clearly recognized in the midst of unity, just as he had said he would be (John 17:23). (DeYmaz and Lee, Ethnic Blends: Mixing Diversity into Your Local Church (Leadership Network Innovation Series), 42)

Bruce Milne (b. 1940) concurs:

It is...highly significant that it was here that the name “Christian” began to be applied to the followers of Jesus (Acts 11:26)—a further critical indication of their sheer “newness,” but a newness, be it noted, expressed not least in the diversity of their community. The citizens of Antioch could find no serviceable term to refer to them, either within Judaism or in any other Gentile religious tradition. It was a new thing and required a new name, but one which identified it with its primary focus—the Lord Jesus Christ—and with its most obvious feature, its welcoming of every race and every type—hence “Christ-ones,” Christians. Is it too much to claim that we truly justify our right to the name Christian only when we practice diversity in unity under Christ? (Milne, Dynamic Diversity: Bridging Class, Age, Race and Gender in the Church, 46-47)

Where, if ever, were you first called “Christian”? Do Christians still stand out today? Should they? What does it mean to be a “Christian”?

“The very word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Anti-Christ, p. 111

The Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12)

In I Corinthians 12, what analogy is used by Paul to explain how members of the church should work together? The body

In writing to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:11), Paul stresses unity. The apostle assures the Corinthians that they have all been endowed with spiritual gifts and that though they do not exhibit the same gifts, this was not grounds for division (I Corinthians 12:1-11). He then makes the natural progression from spirit(ual gifts) to body (I Corinthians 12:12-27). In doing so, he equates living out Christianity to functioning as the body of Christ.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. (I Corinthians 12:12 NASB)

The analogy of the body was not uncommon in antiquity though Paul was likely the first to translate the metaphor into terms of religious communion.

Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) comments:

In I Corinthians 12:12-26 Paul reinforces ...by means of a common political-philosophical analogy—the “body” politic now viewed as the “body” of Christ. He begins with the analogy by highlighting the two essentials, unity and diversity (one body, with many parts; I Corinthians 12:12, 14), and by focusing on their common experience of the Spirit in conversion as the key to unity (I Corinthians 12:13). But the essence of the elaborations of the analogy (especially I Corinthians 12:15-20) is the need for diversity if there is to be a true body and not simply a monstrosity. By its very nature the analogy shifts focus momentarily from the gifts per se to the diversity of people who make up the community in I Corinthians 12:21-26. (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 583)

The metaphor stresses that Christians are all members of the same team. Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) informs:

The so-called “weak” must not feel that if they happen to have not received certain gifts, they are somehow not a genuine part of the body [I Corinthians 12:15]...Paul reassures those who are anxious about comparisons with supposedly more “gifted” members, and underlines their role, status and welcome. On the other side, he rebukes “the strong” who seem to think that only those of similar social status and similar spiritual gifts are “real” Christians” [I Corinthians 12:20-21]. (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 990)

Marion Soards (b. 1952) asserts that “in Christ unity dominates diversity and makes diversity genuinely meaningful and constructive (Soards, I Corinthians (New International Biblical Commentary), 263).”

Watchman Nee (1903-1972) relays the practical application:

It means that the children of God at Corinth are the Body of Christ; so, both according to the spiritual principle and the spiritual fact, they should express themselves as the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is the universal church, the church which is in all places and throughout all generations both in space and in time. However, the brothers in a locality must at least stand in the same position, applying the same principle to express the same fact. In other words, the minimum boundary of unity is the boundary of locality. (Nee, Further Talks on the Church Life, 109)

Does a functional hierarchy exist in the religious institutions with which you associate? Should it? What analogy would you use to describe the church? What part of the body do you see yourself as serving? Are there any unnecessary parts of the Christian body, e.g. is anyone the appendix? What is the basis of the unity of the body of Christ?

God is the architect of both the human body and its metaphorical counterpart. The Spirit of Christ should be strong enough to make all other differences minor by comparison. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) relays:

In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul recalls for the Corinthians the basis of their unity in the one body: all of them, at the time of their conversion and initiation into the community of Christ’s people, were “in the Spirt...baptized into one body” and “made to drink one Spirit.” (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 214)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) clarifies:

He [Paul] identifies the members of the community, first as “Christ” (I Corinthians 12:12), then as the “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:27), and eventually as “the church” (I Corinthians 12:28). As such, the many members of the Christian community must use all their diverse manifestations of the Spirit “to the good” (I Corinthians 12:7) of the whole, because Christ is the unifying principle of the church. (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (The Anchor Yale Bible), 474)

Though Christ is clearing seen as the glue that holds the unit together, there is a glaring omission from Paul’s analogy as presented in I Corinthians 12. Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) writes:

Curiously, he does not call Christ the “head” of the body in this chapter (but see Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 2:19). This may alert us that Paul is here (I Corinthians 12:12-30) using the body metaphor differently than in Ephesians and Colossians. Here the point is not the head-body metaphor but that many parts form one body...In Paul’s mind there is some sense in which the divinely constructed union (I Corinthians 12:13) of the many diverse parts—organically interrelated, interdependently, harmoniously and functionally one body—constitutes now through the Holy Spirit the reality of Christ’s visible presence and activity in the world. (Johnson, 1 Corinthians (IVP New Testament Commentary), 230)

Christ’s headship of the body of Christ is a prominent theme elsewhere in the Pauline epistles (I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:13, 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 2:19) including later in this particular letter. Jerome H. Neyrey (b. 1940) writes:

In I Corinthians 15:20-28 Paul speaks of Christ as the new Adam—the new head/source. On one level the argument simply states that as all die in Adam, so all rise in Christ (I Corinthians 15:21-22; see Romans 5:12-21). But the passage says much more...Like other Christians, Paul visualizes Christ’s headship by stating that “all things are put in subject under his feet” (I Corinthians 15:25, 27; see Hebrews 1:13, 2:6-8). Christ is head, both as source and sovereign. (Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters, 136)

Paul sees Christians as the embodiment of Christ in the world with one spirit dictating the body’s movements. Jürgen Becker (b. 1934) argues that for Paul, this is not a metaphor but rather a description of the living solidarity of those who share the same spirit.

In Paul the figurative and comparative use of the body idea as unity in diversity is still largely dominant. Yet because his theology is determined by the new christological being of the eschatalogical church, for him the comparison becomes a statement on the nature of the church. Now the church is the “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:27), not just comparable to the body. Through the one Spirit who expresses himself in the diversity of spiritual gifts, all are baptized into one body which is Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-13). (Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 428)

Is “the body of Christ” merely a metaphor or a reality? How does the church act as Christ’s physical presence in the world? Historically, why has Christianity seen so many schisms? Why have most Christian divisions been rooted in the writings of Paul when the apostle strongly stressed unity? Is Christ the head of your church? Is Christ the head of your life?

“Yes, I see the Church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Why We Can’t Wait, p. 104