Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 11:26
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.
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 Galilans 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.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 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 – chrematizo – 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 Christs 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch,…. That he might be useful in directing, and assisting in settling this new and numerous church; in the establishing the members of it, and in putting them into Gospel order, and in a method to secure and maintain peace, especially as they might consist both of Jews and Gentiles; and none so proper to be concerned in such a work as the apostle of the Gentiles.
And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church; preaching the Gospel, and administering the ordinances to them, during that time, at proper seasons. For here being a number of converts, they were embodied together in a church state, very probably by the direction and assistance of Barnabas, who was sent to them from the church at Jerusalem, and in which he might be assisted by Saul: the first bishop, or pastor of this church, was Evodius, as Ignatius observes unto them k; Remember Evodius, your worthy and blessed pastor, who was first ordained over you by the apostles; and Ignatius himself was the next, of whom Origen speaking, says l, that he was the second bishop of Antioch after Peter, who in persecution fought with beasts at Rome; next to him was Heron, after him Cornelius, then, Eros; to whom succeeded Theophilus, who wrote three books to Autolycus, in vindication of the Christian religion, which are now extant, in the times of the emperor Aurelius Verus, about the year of Christ 171. He was succeeded by Maximinus m about the year 179, under Marcus Antoninus; and after him was Serapion, about the tenth year of the emperor Commodus, and of Christ 192; and about the year 214, Asclepiades succeeded in his room; next to him was Philetus, in the year 220, and then Zebennus in the year 231; next succeeded Babylas, the famous martyr, who suffered under Decius, and then followed Demetrianus, or Demetrius, about the year 255; and after him was the famous heretic Samosatenus, who was excommunicated from this church for his blasphemy against the Son of God; and Domnus, the son of Demetriauus, was put into his room, about the year 270; after him was Timaeus, in the year 274; and then Cyrillus, about the year 283: and these were the bishops or pastors of this church in the three first centuries n.
And taught much people; besides the church, and with success, as to enlighten, convince, convert, comfort, and establish:
and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch; before they were called among themselves, the disciples, brethren, believers, the church, c. and by others the Nazarenes, and Galilaeans: whether this name of Christians, which comes from Christ, and signifies anointed ones, was given by their enemies, or their friends, by others, or themselves, is not certain, though it is most likely the latter and it may be they hit upon this general appellation, upon the union of the Jews and Gentiles in one Gospel church state, and so happily buried the distinction of Jews and Gentiles, or those of the circumcision that believed, and those of the uncircumcision. Luke is particular in relating the affairs of this church, he being himself a native of this place. John of Antioch o gives an account of this matter in these words;
“at the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, ten years after Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, was ascended up into heaven, Evodus, the first after the Apostle Peter, being chosen bishop of Antioch, the great city of Syria, became a patriarch, and under him they were called Christians: for this same bishop, Evodus, conferring with them, put this name upon them, whereas before the Christians were called Nazarenes and Galilaeans.”
Epiphanius says p, the disciples were called Jessaeans before they took the name of Christians first at Antioch: they were called Jessaeans, says he, I think, because of Jesse, seeing David was of Jesse, and Mary of David: and so the Scripture was fulfilled, in which the Lord says to David, of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne, c.–Or else, they were called Jessaeans from the name of Jesus our Lord and refers the reader to a book of Philo’s, written by him, concerning the Jessaeans, whom Epiphanitius takes to be Christians; but those that Philo q treats of were not Jessaeans, but Essaeans, and seem to be the same with the Essenes, who were not Christians, but a sect of the Jews. Nor do we ever find that the Christians were called by this name.
k Epist ad Antiochenos, p. 86. l Homil. 6. in Luc. fol. 96. 1. m Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 20, 24. n Ib. l. 5. c 22. & 1. 6. c. 39, 44, 46. & l. 7. c. 14, 27, 32. o Apud Gregory’s Notes, &c. p. 155. p Contra Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 29. q Quod omnis probus liber, p. 876. De vita contemplativa, p. 889.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Even for a whole year ( ). Accusative of extent of time, probably the year A.D. 44, the year preceding the visit to Jerusalem (11:30), the year of the famine. The preceding years with Tarsus as headquarters covered A.D. 37 (39) to 44.
They were gathered together with the church ( ). First aorist passive infinitive of , old verb, probably here to meet together as in Mt 28:12. In Ac 14:27 the verb is used of gathering together the church, but here excludes that idea. Barnabas met together “in the church” (note first use of the word for the disciples at Antioch). This peculiar phrase accents the leadership and co-operation of Barnabas and Saul in teaching (, first aorist active infinitive) much people. Both infinitives are in the nominative case, the subject of (it came to pass).
And that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch ( ). This first active infinitive is also a subject of and is added as a separate item by the use of rather than . For the word itself in the sense of divine command see on Matt 2:12; Matt 2:22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22. Here and in Ro 7:3 it means to be called or named (assuming a name from one’s business, , from , to use or to do business). Polybius uses it in this sense as here. (the disciples) is in the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. (Christians) is simply predicate accusative. This word is made after the pattern of H (Mt 22:16, H, followers of Herod), , a follower of Caesar (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 377, gives papyri examples of the genitive meaning also “belonging to Caesar” like the common adjective ). It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners), believers, brethren, saints, those of the Way. The three uses of Christian in the N.T. are from the heathen standpoint (here), Ac 26:28 (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and 1Pe 4:16 (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Were called Christians [ ] . 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.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
First Called Christians at Antioch
1) “And when he had found him he brought him into
Antioch,” (kai heuron egagen eis Antiocheian) “And when he (Barnabas) had found (located) him (Saul) he brought him into Antioch,” from Tarsus, Act 11:25.
2) “And it came to pass that a whole year,” (egeneto de autois kai eniauton holon) “Then it occurred or happened to them (that for) even a full year,” from the time Paul returned from Tarsus to Antioch. This appears to be the first formal New Testament church Bible school. The second in Ephesus for two years, Act 9:10.
3) “They assembled themselves with the church,” (sunachthenai en te ekklesia) “To be assembled in colleague (close relation) with the church,” as teachers, instructors, soul winners and church administrative helpers, Eph 4:7-11; Gal 6:6.
4) “And taught much people,” (kai didakosi ochlon hikanon) “And to teach (they taught) a considerable crowd or large number of people,” in what might be termed a Bible school or Bible Institute labor, 1Ti 2:15; 1Pe 3:15.
5) “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch,” (chrematisai te protos en Antiocheia tous) “And then firstly (in order) the disciples came to be called Christians in Antioch,” Act 26:28. Whether this descriptive title was first given in honor or derision is not clearly disclosed, but whether given in honor or derision it is accepted by true disciples without shame.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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. (742) 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, (743) 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.
(742) “ Verum fuisse fontem ex quo primum fluxit Christanismus,” was the true fountain from which Christianity did first flow.
(743) “ Deformen vasitatem,” hideous devastation.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 11:26. When he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. Barnabas might go in quest of Paul, from a persuasion, that, as he was by his country a Greek, though by descent an Hebrew of the Hebrews; that is, descended from two Jewish parents, he would be peculiarly fit to assist him in his great work, especially considering on the one hand his fine accomplishments as a scholar, and on the other his extraordinary conversion, and eminent zeal and piety. Antioch was the metropolis of Syria; for magnitude, situation, and other agreeable circumstances, the third city in the Roman empire, being excelled by none except Rome and Alexandria. It was built by Seleucus, and called Antioch from the name of his son Antiochus. There was a Jewish university in this city, anda great number of proselytes according to Josephus, out of whom was formed a large Christian church, which was looked upon as the mother church of the Gentiles, as the church of Jerusalem was of the Jewish, or of all the Christian churches; and they were likewise the first fruits of the devout Gentiles out of Palestine. The Jewish converts had hitherto been called by their enemies, Men of that way, or sect; Galileans, Nazarenes, and other like names of reproach; and among themselves they had been called disciples, believers, the church, the saints; and to denote the unity and concord which were among them, they stiled one another brethren. But now the Gentile converts at Antioch were called by the name of CHRISTIANS, taking their denomination immediately from their Lord and Master CHRIST himself, just as among the philosophers, the Platonists, Pythagoreans, &c. took their names from their several masters.This name was first given to the converts at Antioch, I doubt not, by divine appointment; for the word , here used, signifies “to be warned by a divine admonition;” see Mat 2:12. Luk 2:26. Act 10:22 and accordingly Doddridge renders it were called by divine appointment. Dr. Mill has informed us, that the Cambridge manuscript reads this sentence thus; and then they first named by divine appointment, , the disciples, CHRISTIANS, in Antioch; whereby is signified, that Barnabas and Saul first gave them the name of Christians; and indeed the common reading, fairly rendered, seems to intimate the same thing: and it came to pass that they assembled, &c. and that they called the first disciples at Antioch by the name of Christians. Barnabas knew how unlikely it was that the church at Jerusalem should allow them the name of brethren, considering how strongly they had been prejudiced against them, and how backward they had been to receive them into the Christian church; though afterwards indeed the appellation of brethren was given them by the church at Jerusalem upon a full and mature consideration of their case. See chap. Act 15:23. However, as the Jewish Christians could not presently get over all their former prejudices, and allow those Gentile converts to be upon a level with themselves, and as it was nevertheless proper that they should have some name to distinguish them from such of the Gentile proselytes of the gate as had not embraced the Christian religion;for these, and such like wise reasons, they were called and distinguished by the name of Christians; and if that name was given them by a divine admonition, as we have shewn, it indicates the divine concern for them, and the honour which Heaven put upon them, in dignifying and distinguishing them by so high and honourable an appellation. Witsius thinks it a circumstance of remarkable wisdom, that this celebrated name should arise from Antioch, a church consisting of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, rather than from Jerusalem, dignified in so many other respects; and that it was a kind of victory gained over Satan, who, from Antioch some ages before, had raised so many cruel persecutors of the church of God.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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 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 readAct 15:2Act 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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
26. ] The unusual word 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, .
] This name is never used by Christians of themselves in the N. T. (but , , or , , , ), 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 , ch. Act 24:5 , and Galilans : 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 Galili, Greg. Naz [58] 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, Csariani, 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., Eus [59] H. E. Act 11:1 , in the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, . , (Epagathus) , and again, (Sanctus) , . And in the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm. on Acts, p. 84), , , .
[58] Nazianzenus, Gregory, fl. 370 389
[59] Eusebius, Bp. of Csarea, 315 320
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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 11:26 . , see critical notes, if dative = accidit eis , see Plummer, St. Luke , p. 45, on the use of . : “even a whole year” R.V. .: “they were gathered together in the Church,” so R.V. margin. Rendall holds that 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, Nsgen, cf. Mat 25:35 ; Deu 22:2 , Jos 2:18 , Jdg 19:18 , 2Sa 11:27 . : both infinitives depend upon , “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”. : prim. to transact business ( ), 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. , see critical notes. : in the N.T. the Christians always named themselves , , , , 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 (Act 24:5 ), or spake of them as (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 – 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 Weizscker 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
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.
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.
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!’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
when he had = having.
it came to pass. The three clauses which follow are all dependent on “it came to pass”.
And = And that.
called. Greek. chrematizo. This word occurs nine times. See note on Luk 2:26. Generally of a Divine communication. The noun chrematismos Occurs only in Rom 11:4. Though the name may have been given at first by Gentiles in mockery, the usage of the word by the Holy Spirit indicates that its real origin was Divine.
Christians. Here, Act 26:28. 1Pe 4:16. Compare Act 15:17. Jews could not have given the name, as Christos was a sacred word.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
26.] The unusual word 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, .
] This name is never used by Christians of themselves in the N. T. (but , , or , , , ), 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 , ch. Act 24:5, and Galilans: 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 Galili, Greg. Naz[58] 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, Csariani, 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., Eus[59] H. E. Act 11:1, in the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, . , (Epagathus) , and again, (Sanctus) , . And in the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm. on Acts, p. 84),- , , .
[58] Nazianzenus, Gregory, fl. 370-389
[59] Eusebius, Bp. of Csarea, 315-320
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.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 11:26. , when he had found) It is probable that Saul had lain hid.- , 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.-, it came to pass that the disciples were named) (viz. ), reciprocal or neuter, thence also Passive. A remarkable verb, whereby is denoted an appellation received in common use.- , the disciples) inasmuch as their multitude was now a very large one.-, 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
that: Act 13:1, Act 13:2
with the church: Act 14:23, Act 14:27, 1Co 4:17, 1Co 11:18, 1Co 14:23
taught: Mat 28:19
were: Act 26:28, Isa 65:15, 1Co 12:12, Eph 3:15, 1Pe 4:14, 1Jo 2:27, Rev 3:18
Reciprocal: Gen 4:26 – Enos Isa 43:7 – called Isa 62:2 – thou shalt Dan 11:33 – understand Act 11:19 – Antioch Act 14:26 – to Antioch Act 14:28 – General Act 15:34 – it pleased Act 26:20 – first 2Co 11:26 – journeyings Gal 1:21 – I came 2Ti 2:19 – Let Jam 2:7 – by 1Pe 4:16 – as
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE NAME CHRISTIAN
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Act 11:26
This is an interesting fact for all of us, since, whatever our differences, we are all proud of the name of Christiansmore proud of that name than of any other name. Let us inquire (1) When, (2) Where, (3) Why, it was given to us.
I. When?Not until twelve years apparently after the Ascension. Twelve long years of most intense life, of persecution, trial, growth, development, had passed over the Church before its members received any distinctive and abiding name. This serves to remind us that God cares for things, not names. God makes the things; man gives the names. Yet how much controversy is merely about names.
II. Where?In Antioch. And if we ask what sort of place it was, we find:
(a) It was beautiful. Situate on the Orontes, where it breaks through between Lebanon and Taurus; the scenery magnificent; itself splendidly adorned, and surrounded by groves and gardens.
(b) It was rich; the capital of Syria and third city of the world; centre of traffic and commerce between East and West.
(c) It was pleasure-loving; the meeting-place of lively Greek and self-indulgent Eastern, with every inducement and every advantage for enjoyment.
(d) It was wicked; always so in ancient heathen cities, but Antioch was exceptionally depraved. Rome was horribly bad; but when the satirist wished to say that Rome was made tenfold more corrupt, he wrote that the Orontes had emptied itself into the Tiber.
(e) It was heathen, very heathen. Here were the notorious groves of Daphne, where Apollo was worshipped with all magnificence and vice.
III. Why?That is not quite so certain; but we may safely say it came about in this manner. The men of Antioch noticed some amongst them who differed from othersnot that they were strangers by name or by face, but their behaviour was strange. The heathen were astonished and curious, and asked them: Who has taught you this? Who has made you so different from what you were? Who has given you this new-fangled idea of the beauty and wealth and pleasure and sin (as you call it) of Antioch? Who has forbidden you to worship our gods with us, who are so kind to us, and let us enjoy ourselves so well? To this the answer was ever, Christ. Christ has taught us that the world and its beauty pass away; but He has told us of a new heaven and a new earth far better. Christ has taught us to think but little of this worlds wealth, for He has given us treasure in heaven. Christ has taught us to look for higher pleasures than these of yours. Christ has taught us, above all, to know and to hate sin because He hates it. Christ has taught us not to worship your false gods, because He alone is worthy to be worshipped. So, they would say, this is your God and your Teacher, this Man Who was crucified and dead and buried under Pontius Pilate. Yes, they would reply, He was. For love of us He died; but He rose again and ascended into heaven, and He will come again to take us out of this world to Himself. Meanwhile we are His; we belong to Him, and serve Him, and wait for Him. Then some among the heathen would believe; the rest would scoff and call them Christians.
Canon Winterbotham.
Illustration
The object of a name is to distinguish persons and things from others with which they might be confused. The followers of our Lord Jesus Christ were originally content to be called the brethren, the Disciples, or the way. They were few in number in their different neighbourhoods, and they knew what they meant by those terms. But it was not long before something more definite was required, and at Antioch a new and clearer designation grew into use. Probably their friends who did not share their change of opinions, but had no great hostility to them in consequence, invented for them the descriptive title by which they were henceforth to be known; Christ-people they were called, Christians, the followers of Christ. Nothing could be more simple and true. For a long time no other appellation was necessary. But as the heresies which the Apostles predicted grew and multiplied, some further nomenclature was required. The heretics all called themselves Christians; something was needed to point out those who all over the civilised world continued united in the Apostles fellowship and doctrine. The adoption of a name, or its repudiation, very often means a vast deal more than is seen on the surface. For these the word Catholic, or Universal, came to be employed; as an early writer, Pacian, expressed it, Christian is my name, Catholic or Universal my surname. The Universals were those who did not render themselves Particularlists by some special division of opinion, but who everywhere held to the common doctrine of the united Churches of Christendom.
(SECOND OUTLINE)
WHAT IS IT TO BE A CHRISTIAN?
What is it to be a Christian? It is a name lightly, and variously, and capriciously used; and there is the more need of an accurate definition.
I. One of Christs.The first and simplest and truest answer to that question might be found in the very word itself. It is a person in whose heart Christ is as inwrought as the word Christ is wrapped up in the word Christian. A Christianaccording, therefore, to the root of the word would be a person who is one of Christs; just as a Ro-mana Romanis one of the Romans. It is evident from the very word itself that Christ must be everywhere. He must be at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end. It is the Christ in you, and you in Christ, which makes a Christian.
II. How does a person become a Christian?Where does it begin? It begins by an action of the Holy Ghost in the heart. The Holy Ghost working in a mans soul breathes there a sense of sin; a feeling of need. Then the same Spirit reveals Christ to that soul as meeting that need, as the only thing that can meet it. And the man, convicted by his conscience, sees in that Christ just what he wants. The Holy Ghost draws him to Christ. He seeks Christ; he believes in Christ; he gives himself to Christ; he rests on Christ. Thus, by a secret process, he is received into Christ. Christ is in him, and he is in Christ. That man has become a Christian.
III. A Christian carries Christ with him wherever he goes.Christ is now a felt, living Presence. They commune. There is a voice and there is an echo. It is as true as if he saw a person. He has it in his daily walks; he has it in his conscience; he has it in his pleasures; he has it in secret places; he has it in public worship; and he has it in the Holy Communion tenfold. And soas is wontwith very much converse he gradually takes the mind of Christ. He sees things as Christ sees them. And love springs up, and increases, every daylove growing into intensity.
IV. Can that love have no results?What are the results? Sin is become hateful to that man, because Jesus hates it; and in every sin to which he is tempted he sees a nail which fastens his dear Saviour to His Cross! And the higher love has now superseded the lower and the grovelling affections of his nature. What is anything to him in which Christ is not? Can he find pleasurewhen he cannot find Him? His standard has gone up. He has higher aims. His life now is to do all the good he can in the world for Christs sake. He has the very savour of Christ. And every one that sees that man, takes knowledge of him that he has been with Jesus.
Rev. James Vaughan.
Illustration
We do not know whether the name of Christian was given by the enemies of Christianity as a term of reproach, or whether the early Church adopted it as a title of honour. At any rate, the word itself occurs three times in the New Testament: in our text; Act 26:28; Acts 1 St. Peter Act 4:16. We know the word Christ means Anointed: therefore a Christian is one anointed by the Holy Spirit. A true Christian has the Holy Spirit: As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Of course, some Christians are Christians only in name. They profess and call themselves so, but they have no faith in Christ and no love to the brethren of Christ.
(THIRD OUTLINE)
THE TRUE-HEARTED CHRISTIAN
The true-hearted Christian is
I. A man in Christ.So St. Paul speaks of himself (2Co 12:2). And he says all believers were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).
II. A man for Christ.He has given himself to Christ (2Co 8:5). He is Christs property in a very special sense. Not his own, for he has been bought with a price. Therefore his eyes, his mouth, his tongue, his ears, his hands, his knees, his feet, intellect, money, influence, are dedicated to his Master. In one word, he is what St. Paul loved to call himselfa slave of Jesus Christ.
III. A man like Christ.I know the portrait is defaced and blurred with sin; but still, more or less, his features are like the children of the King. And the likeness will be completed one day (Rom 8:29). You know what Christ did. Christ pleased not Himselfthat was His inward life. He went about doing goodthat was His outward life.
IV. A man with Christ (Act 4:13).He has a foretaste of the fruits of the Tree of Life. He finds to his endless comfort that the streets of heaven stretch down to earth. Ye are come unto Mount Zion. Yes; Christs presence to the believer is a living, bright reality.
Rev. F. Harper.
Illustration
There was a terrible accident which happened in the North some years ago. One of those tall factory chimneys came down. Before it fell there had been some talk in the works about the danger of it. There was a little lad who lived with his mother, a widow, and supported her by his work in this factory. He woke up one morning and said he could not work that day, for, he added, I am sure that chimney is coming down. It was one of those strange instances of coming events casting their shadows before. It was stated that at the inquest, when the mother told the story, there was not a dry eye in the room. She reasoned with the lad, and said, You must go; and he replied, I dont want to. At last she said, You must go, my boy; the rent is due. Without another word, constrained by a mothers loving heart, that lad got up and went out in the darkness of the morning, saying, Mother, I will go for thee. She never saw him again until he was carried home dead on a stretcher. And if we are Christians indeed should we not say, Saviour, I will go for Theeto that heavy cross, to that disagreeable duty, to bear the scorn and cold indifference of the worldSaviour, I will go for thee?
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
6
Act 11:26. These two men spent a year with the church, teaching them their duties that follow induction into the Lord’s service. Called Christians. The second word is defined in the lexicon, “a follower of Christ,” hence it is not likely that enemies would attach that title to them as in disrespect, for the disciples themselves claimed to be that, and rejoiced in the thought of being known by that name. The first word is from CHREMATIZO, and Thayer defines it at this place, “to assume or take to one’s self a name from one’s public business.” That is exactly what was done in this case, for the (religious) business of the disciples was to work for Christ which made the name Christian an appro-prite one for them.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 11:26. When he had found him. This, coupled with the strong expression used above concerning the searching for Saul, seems to imply that he was not actually in Tarsus when Barnabas arrived there. Probably he was on some mission in Cilicia.
He brought him to Antioch. No reluctance is to be imagined on the part of St. Paul. On the contrary, he was probably overjoyed in the prospect of a wider field of work under providential encouragement. The whole credit, however, of this transaction belongs to Barnabas.
A whole year. This is one of the definite indications of time, which help us to put together the relative chronology of St. Pauls life. Other instances are found in Act 18:11, Act 19:10, Act 20:3; Act 20:31, Act 24:27, and Act 28:3.
Taught much people. Doubtless with success. See notes on Act 11:21; Act 11:24.
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. On two words in this sentence our attention cannot be too closely fastened.
The name CHRISTIAN marked the arrival of a new fact in the world. This new fact was the formation of a self-existent, self-conscious Church of Christ, independent of Judaism. This, too, was only ten years after the crucifixion of Christ. How the history of the world has been coloured, how mankind has been blessed by the mere existence of this word, it is not necessary to state at large. As to the origin of this new name, it certainly was not given by Jews to the followers of our Lord. The Jews would never have been willing even to seem to sanction the opinion that Jesus of Nazareth was Christ or the Messiah. Nor was the name assumed by the followers of our Lord as a chosen designation for themselves. They were content with such titles as the disciples, the brethren, the saints. This new term came from without, and from the Pagans. Its form, too, seems to show that it had a Latin origin. We are familiar in history with such terms as Pompeians and Vitellians; and the New Testament itself (Mat 22:16) supplies us with a similar term in the word Herodians. It is most probable that this new term at Antioch originated with the public authorities, who gave the designation to the community which began then to make its existence felt, and which was bound together by allegiance (however strange this might seem) to one Christus. It is possible, however, that the name was given by the populace in derision. Antioch was famous for its love of nicknames; and such may have been the beginning of the noblest name which any community ever bore. In the two other places of the New Testament where the name occurs (Act 26:28; 1Pe 4:16), reference is clearly made to the fact that it was viewed as expressive of contempt and dislike. St. Paul and St. Peter, however, clearly saw, and strongly felt, that it was a title of honour. To which we must add the words of St. James (Act 2:7), Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called? The whole subject is summed up in some simple words used by Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), though in a sense very different from that which he intended, Autor nominis cjus Christus.
And the place where this name was given seems to fit the occurrence in a remarkable manner. Antioch, the most important city of all Roman Asia, and the third in rank among the cities of the whole Roman world, had a character peculiarly cosmopolitan. Less distinguished for general culture than Alexandria, it was even more important than that city in the military and political sense. The situation of Antioch had much to do with its history. It stood near the abrupt angle formed by the coasts of Syria and Asia Minor, and in the opening where the Orontes passes between the ranges of Lebanon and Taurus. By its harbour of Seleucia it was in connection with all the trade of the Mediterranean; and, through the open country behind Lebanon, it was conveniently approached by the caravans from Mesopotamia and Arabia. It was almost an Oriental Rome, in which all the forms of the civilised life of the Empire found a representative (Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. p. 149). Founded by Seleucus Nicator, and named by him after his father Antiochus, it had retained all its old elements, and had received new elements when it became the capital of the Roman province of Syria. It was famous for the beauty of its position and the splendour of its buildings, and infamous for the profligacy and fraud, sorcery and effeminacy of its people. Renan, with a true instinct (Les Apotres, chap. 12), revels in his description of its external features and of its strange and varied life. Its Christian history was subsequently very eminent; for it became the seat of one of the five patriarchates of the Church. Here, with the Acts of the Apostles before us, we are called to notice that Antioch was the mother of Christian missions, and the author of the Christian name. Chrysostom, its great preacher, claims what we read in this verse as one of the grounds why Antioch is a metropolis.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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!
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
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!
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 26
Called Christians; by their enemies. The sacred writers themselves never employ the term to designate the followers of Christ, excepting that Peter uses it in one instance, in a connection which allows it to be considered a term of reproach. (1 Peter 4:16.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Barnabas had earlier sponsored Saul in Jerusalem (Act 9:27). Now Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch, a distance of about 90 miles, where they ministered together for a year teaching and leading the church. This was probably in A.D. 43, ten years after the death and resurrection of Jesus and the day of Pentecost.
Luke noted another advance for the church in that observers called the believers "Christians" (lit. those belonging to Christ’s party, i.e., Christ followers) first in Antioch. In other words, people now distinguished the Christians as a group from religious Jews as well as from pagan Gentiles (cf. 1Co 10:32). [Note: See Stephen J. Strauss, "The Significance of Acts 11:26 for the Church at Antioch and Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (July-September 2011):283-300.] There are only three occurrences of the name "Christian" in the New Testament, and in each case Christians did not use it of themselves (cf. Act 26:28; 1Pe 4:16). Similarly biblical references indicate that the name "Jew" is one that people other than the Israelites used to describe them.
"Note the three elements in the name [Christian]. (i) It contains Jewish thought, as the equivalent of Messiah, the Anointed. (ii) It shows the Greek language in the substantive-’Christ.’ (iii) It also includes the Latin language in the adjectival ending ’ians’ (Latin, iani). This universality is a reminder of the language of the title on the Cross." [Note: Thomas, p. 47.]
For Gentiles, however, the title "Christ" became a personal name for Jesus.
"They [those who used this name for believers in Jesus] . . . voiced an insight that the Christians themselves only saw clearly later on: Christianity is no mere variant of Judaism." [Note: Longenecker, p. 402.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
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.”