The Significance of Acts 11:26 for the Church at Antioch and Today

By Stephen J. Strauss

[Stephen J. Strauss is Professor of World Mission and Intercultural Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Church leaders face a never-ending array of models for nurturing their churches and reaching their communities. Should they be seeker-centered, purpose-driven, missional, emerging, or none of these, or wait for the “next new thing” to come along? Mission agencies confront vast geographic regions and people groups still little touched with the gospel. Which approaches are the most effective for stimulating church-planting movements? How can church and mission leaders sort through the array of ideas and truly impact their communities and the world with the gospel?

The Book of Acts provides some helpful models for building dynamic churches and mission movements. One of those models is the church at Antioch. Luke often used geography to advance his story line and develop his message and theology,[1] and one of his important geographic markers is the city of Antioch. Antioch is mentioned seventeen times in Acts and only twice in the rest of the New Testament. The Antioch story includes the first use of the word ἐκκλεσία in Acts other than to describe the Jerusalem church.

Antioch seems to take the role of Luke’s “second Jerusalem,” the new “mother church”[2] for the Pauline Gentile mission, and the place where Gentiles following Jesus became the standard for the future growth of the church. One of the crucial identifying markers of the Antioch church is stated in Acts 11:26, “The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”

This article explores why the disciples were called “Christians” in Antioch and suggests what this detail contributes to Luke’s larger theology and the message of Luke-Acts. The article then proposes some implications for contemporary church life and missiology.

Why Were Disciples Called Christians in Antioch?

To understand why the followers of Jesus were called “Christians,” four questions must be answered. Who first turned to the Lord in Antioch? What is the significance of the rather unique word χρηματίζειν? What is the significance of the word Χριστιανοίς (“Christians”)? What does the immediate context contribute to an understanding of the historical background?

Who Uniquely Responded to the Gospel in Antioch?

What made the church in Antioch unique? Who first turned to the Lord in Antioch? As a result of the persecution that followed the death of Stephen, Jewish disciples of Jesus scattered to Antioch, sharing the gospel with other Jews as they traveled. In Antioch, however, something new happened. Some of the Jewish believers who were originally from Cyprus and Cyrene began sharing the gospel with a different group, who turned to the Lord in large numbers. To whom did they speak?

The question is complicated by the uncertainty of the text of Acts 11:20. Should the text read ῞Ελληνας (“Greeks”) or ῾Ελληνιστάς (“Hellenists”)?[3] Though the textual problem is difficult, both possible readings allow for the meaning “Greek speakers, non-Jews, Gentiles,” with the context determining the exact meaning.[4] The context of Acts 11 indicates that Luke intended this to be seen as the first extensive mission to non-Jews. The men from Cyprus and Cyrene preached about the Lord Jesus[5] to the diverse Gentile, Greek-speaking population of Antioch, people who were not ethnically Jewish or proselytes. And many responded by turning to the Lord.

What is the significance of the word χρηματίζειν?

Two issues surrounding the use of χρηματίζειν need to be examined. First, χρηματίζειν is in the active mood, but it is commonly translated as a passive verb. Should the word be translated with a reflexive meaning (“the disciples called themselves Christian”) or a passive meaning (“others called them Christians)? Second, by Hellenistic times χρηματίζειν had acquired two meanings: (a) “to acquire a title or name” and (b) simply “to be called,” a virtual synonym for καλεῖν.[6] Did Luke choose this word to state that the disciples had received the official name or title Χριστιανοί, or did he choose the word as a synonym for καλεῖν for stylistic reasons?

Was this a self-designation? Bickerman argues that χρηματίζειν refers to the name one takes in official records and that, since it is in the active mood, the disciples themselves formally “took on the style of Christians,” as if they had “constituted a guild of Christ or perhaps a synagogue of Christians, as there was . . . the ‘synagogue of the Freedmen’ at Jerusalem.”[7] Later “the style was adopted by other Christian groups elsewhere and became their name for the pagan world and the Roman authorities.”[8] Bickerman supports his argument with several examples from the New Testament and ancient literature to show that χρηματίζειν in the active form should generally be translated as active or reflexive, that is, as a self-designation.

However, though the form is active and the expression clearly can be active (“took on themselves a legal identity”), some of Bickerman’s examples could also be translated passive (“were known as”). Cadbury notes that “the intransitive active [of χρηματίζειν] in the sense of ‘be named’ is abundantly illustrated by the papyri.”[9] Taylor concludes that not all Bickerman’s examples refer to self-designations. “There is no need to conclude that Acts 11, 26 must mean that the name of Christians was one which the disciples gave themselves.”[10] Nearly all commentators agree with Conzelman that “the phraseology of our passage clearly indicates that this title was given to the ‘Christians’ from outside the group.”[11] The only other New Testament uses of χριστιανοί are Acts 26:28 (used by King Agrippa) and 1 Peter 4:16, where Peter seems to have used it of “the language of the accusation” of outsiders against Christians, causing them to suffer.[12] In addition, “the absence of the word from the earliest Christian literature, including . . . all the Apostolic Fathers except Ignatius, suggests that as a matter of fact it was not a name early accepted by the Christians themselves.”[13] Thus it seems almost certain that the followers of Christ did not call themselves “Christians” in Antioch; instead nonbelievers gave them that name.

Was this an official designation? Some argue that χρηματίζειν was a technical term that implied that the Roman government authorities in Syria gave the disciples an official name, even a legal title, with political and possibly even criminal implications. Most scholars agree that the ending of the term Χριστιανοί is a Latinized suffix. “In normal Greek the followers of Christ would be designated by an appellative with the suffix –ειος. . . . The term χριστιανοί, on the other hand, is formed by addition of a Latin loan-suffixianus.”[14] This suffix was often attached to a personal name to indicate the supporters or partisans of that man, especially generals and political leaders, such as the Caesariani, Galbiani, and Augustiani.[15] The Χριστιανοί, then, would be the supporters or followers of Christ in the same way that the ῾Ηρῴδιανοι were followers of Herod or the Καισαριανοί were supporters of Caesar.[16] If the term Χριστιανοί was formed by adding the Latin suffix –ianus in this way, it might indicate that the Latin population of Antioch, especially the Roman government, made this designation, and that they were giving the disciples an official title.

Peterson and Taylor have constructed complex but speculative historical scenarios that might have led the Romans to give the disciples an official political or legal title as followers of Χριστός.[17]

These scenarios depict the Christians as a criminal or political threat to the Romans. However, Luke generally seems to have depicted the Romans as tolerant of Christians (e.g., Acts 16:35-39; 18:14-17; 23:27-30; 26:32). To suggest that they had been labeled as politically seditious or criminal would seem to undermine that theme.[18]

Larkin, Bruce, and Witherington emphasize that the meaning of χρηματίζειν is not necessarily an official title, but simply “to transact business” under a particular name, and so “to be commonly known” by that name.[19] Rather than being a legal designation, it seems to have been used more generally as “to be well known” by a name.[20] Haenchen gives a number of examples, including Romans 7:3, where χρηματίζειν is practically a synonym for καλεῖν.[21] Conzelman emphatically asserts, “We certainly do not have an ‘official’ term here.”[22] Though χρηματίζειν certainly could have designated an official name, it cannot be called a “technical term” for assigning a legal name. Furthermore Peterson’s view is built on speculation about historical events that may or may not have taken place, and Taylor’s view requires the unsubstantiated presumption that widely scattered events converged to form the background of events at Antioch. While either view is a remote possibility, neither the Latinized ending nor the meaning of the verb χρηματίζειν require that the Roman government coined the term Χριστιανόι as an official name. Overall, it seems unlikely that the Romans gave the disciples the legal name “Christian” with negative overtones.

Implications of the Word Χριστιανοί

Though Χριστιανοί does not seem to have been an official legal title, the observation that the Latinized suffix -ianus was commonly given to the supporters of a popular individual is highly significant. Mattingly believes that the name Χριστιανοί was coined by the wider population of Antioch, and that they were given the name to mimic groups like the Augustiani, a group of “Roman knights” organized as sycophants or cheerleaders for Nero.

This paramilitary corps of handsome, tough youths devoted themselves to rhythmic praise of the emperor’s person and his divine voice. Their whole life became an act of worship. When Nero toured Greece as an artiste in A.D. 66-67, the corps inevitably accompanied him. They vowed him a costly statue for his victories, and on his return to Italy played a prominent part in his triumphal entries at Naples and Rome. There they followed his chariot, proclaiming themselves “his Augustiani” and “the soldiers of his triumph.” . . . At best slightly ridiculous, they were often mere opportunists or worse. But whether sincere or not they were all trained to create an impression of fervour.[23]

Mattingly adds that “the Antiochenes were notoriously witty”[24] and speculates that by A.D. 59-60 they had become aware of a group in their city who were constantly “proclaiming allegiance to a person called Christus, whose praises they sang in formal hymns.” This group looked to them a lot like Nero’s cheerleaders, the Augustiani. Whoever this “Christos” was, he had his own group of followers. And so sometime near A.D. 60 they called them the Χριστιανοί, mocking both Nero’s followers and the new religious sect.[25]

Mattingly’s thesis requires that the “Christians” were not named until nearly two decades after the events narrated by Luke in Acts 11.[26] It is possible that Luke brought forward the actual naming of the “Christians” twenty years to this point in his story in order to emphasize his theme in the immediate context.[27] The connection with the Augustiani is intriguing and possible, but far from certain. What is more certain is that the –ιανός ending strongly implies that many in Antioch saw the disciples as followers or adherents of someone designated as “Christ” in the same way that the ᾿Ηρῴδιανοι were followers of Herod or the Καισάριανοι were partisans of Caesar. The Latinized ending need only indicate that they were copying a Latinized pattern of speech that was typical for naming groups of supporters, not necessarily that they were named by native Latin speakers or the Roman government. Luke’s pattern of using Χριστός as a title and not a personal name also hints that the Greco-Roman population of Antioch understood Χριστός as a title rather than a name.[28] However, Luke’s silence on whether the population of Antioch understood Χριστός as a proper name or as a title suggests that this was not his main point. His point was that the name Χριστιανοί “marked out the disciples as being above all the people, the followers, the servants of Christ.”[29] The diverse Gentile population of Antioch designated the disciples as “Christians” because these people were distinctively known as supporters or partisans of someone with the name or title “Christ.”

Insights from the Immediate Context

What did Luke emphasize about the church at Antioch that helps show why the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch? First, the church in Antioch became the focal point of Luke’s theme that God intended the gospel to reach the Gentiles. The Antioch church was founded in the aftermath of the persecution that followed the death of Stephen, reminding readers of the focus of Stephen’s ministry (rooted in Hellenism and challenging Palestinian Judaism and its prejudices). Acts 8:1-11:18 traced the gospel’s spread beyond Jerusalem—to the Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and Cornelius—and introduced the emerging mission of Saul (with his call to the Gentiles, 9:15). Luke then told of a group of Jewish believers from Cyprus and Cyrene who began to speak to the non-Jewish, Greek-speaking population of Antioch (11:20), many of whom “turned to the Lord” (v. 21).

Second, this turning to the Lord by Gentiles was validated by Barnabas, a representative from the Jerusalem church, who was a “good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (v. 24). Luke again mentioned growth in the church (v. 26). The validation from Jerusalem and mention of renewed church growth seem to be Luke’s way of saying that this new church had God’s stamp of approval.[30]

Third, Barnabas found Saul in Tarsus (v. 25)[31] and brought him to Antioch to help in the discipling of the new converts, and the two men taught “great numbers of people” (v. 26). Luke was doing more than reintroducing Paul and his key role in carrying the gospel to the Gentiles. He was also demonstrating that the new church in Antioch was well grounded theologically, having been taught by Jewish believers (Saul and Barnabas) with approved Jewish credentials.[32] This church understood the Old Testament roots of its faith and reflected its significance in its conduct.

In this church Gentiles first came to Christ in large numbers and joined with Jewish believers as spiritual equals in a unified, integrated assembly. The approval of the Jerusalem church (by proxy through Barnabas) and the recognition of sound teaching seem to serve as Luke’s validation of this unusual congregation. The identity of this group as an ongoing assembly (Acts 13:1; cf. Gal. 2:11-13) of both Jews and non-Jews stands out as unique and is another reason the population of Antioch wanted a new name for them.

The citizens of Antioch and other Greco-Roman cities would have been familiar with Gentiles visiting Jewish synagogues and participating in limited ways in the practices of the synagogue. But the distinction between these God-fearers and Jewish worshippers of God was clear. The synagogues remained Jewish and the God-fearers retained their identity as sociologically distinct from the Jews. In particular Slee points out that table fellowship between the two would have been almost nonexistent, since Jews were prohibited from eating with Gentiles in almost any circumstance because both meat and wine were regularly dedicated to idols.[33] The oddity of large numbers of Gentiles and Jews gathering together and even more shockingly, eating and drinking together, would have quickly caught the attention of the population of Antioch.

The unity of this group was clearly different from the peripheral Gentile presence at Jewish synagogues. “They saw that the ministry to Gentiles and the fellowship of Jews with Gentiles went beyond the bounds of what was usually permitted within Judaism.”[34] These Jews and Gentiles were intimately fellowshipping to the point that they became a distinct sociological unit. The name “Christian” seems to be a “testimony to the church’s having forced its presence on their attention as a group of people with their own identity.”[35] “It was at Antioch that the disciples of Jesus first formed a body large and cohesive enough to attract pagan attention. Though often Jewish in origin, they were clearly marked out from the flourishing Jewish community by their separate synagogue and a social life in which surprisingly Jew and Gentile met on equal terms. At some point, then, Antioch would need a distinguishing name for them.”[36]

And how was this new group to be characterized? Since the members of this new group were not all Jewish followers of “the Way,” they could not be thought of as a Jewish sect. So the population of Antioch “voiced an insight which the Christians themselves only saw clearly later on: Christianity is no mere variant of Judaism.”[37] The one thing that distinguished this ethnically mixed group of people was their outspoken identification with “Christ.” By using the –ιανός ending Luke was clearly noting that the believers were recognized as supporters of Χριστός in the same way that, over a decade later, the Augustiani would be recognized as supporters of Augustus Nero.[38] Adherence to “Christ” was what held them together. The name “Christians” for all followers of Jesus “could be used unequivocally as identification for all the members of the ἐκκλησία without prejudice as to language, nationality or status.”[39]

Since the people of Antioch identified the disciples as followers of someone called “Christ,” the implication is also strong that they were people who constantly talked about Christ. “The church’s evangelism made such an impact that the local people dubbed its members ‘Christ-people.’ “[40]

The pagans of Antioch, too, knew all about these people, for the Christians did not keep quiet about their faith, but proclaimed it wherever they went. . . . “Who are these people?” one Antiochene would ask another, as two or three unofficial missionaries gathered a knot of more or less interested hearers and disputants around them in one of the city colonnades. “Oh these are the people who are always talking about Christos, the Christ-people, the Christians” . . . so says Luke, in Antioch the adherents of Jesus the Christ first came to be popularly known as Christians.[41]

Whether or not the name was given in the 60s to mimic the Augustiani, as Mattingly maintains, the population of Antioch was famous for its wit and nicknaming skill,[42] and the name could easily have been coined as a joke, possibly with derisive overtones.[43] This would certainly fit the other two uses of “Christian” in the New Testament. In Acts 26:28 Agrippa II was mocking Paul in his attempts to make him “a Christian,” and Peter called on those who suffered “as a Christian” not to be ashamed (1 Pet. 4:16).

One can conclude then that the name Χριστιανοί was coined by the Greco-Roman population of Antioch, possibly as a joke or insult, to identify the mixed-ethnic group of both Jews and Gentiles who followed Christ and seemed to be talking about Him constantly.

What Is the Significance of the Name “Christians” for Luke’s Purpose and Theology?

Luke was a master storyteller and theologian. The details of his story are always carefully chosen to advance the message of his book and develop his theology. As noted, he emphasized that Antioch was the church where Gentiles as Gentiles were accepted in large numbers as followers of Jesus, and these Gentiles came together with Jewish followers of Jesus into a single, identifiable assembly. The name “Christian” indicates that this was an assembly in which Jews and Gentiles had become so integrated that a new name was needed to characterize them. The most unifying distinction was that they were clearly followers of “Christ” because they were always talking about Him.

To develop a statement of Luke’s purpose is beyond the scope of this article, but a few points must suffice. First, Acts is the second part of a two-volume work; the purpose and message of Acts is the conclusion to the purpose and message of the Gospel of Luke.[44] To understand Acts, one must understand Luke’s Gospel.

Second, “even the casual reader of Luke-Acts must notice the extent to which the author employs fulfillment terminology throughout this narrative and focuses on how the divine plan of salvation is being realized.”[45] Luke was particularly concerned to demonstrate “that Christianity came out of pious Judaism and is to be seen as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.”[46] He developed his fulfillment motif with the assumption that his readers were somewhat versed in the Old Testament and the rudiments of the Christian faith.

Third, Luke was clearly wrestling “with the problem of the mission to the Gentiles without the law”[47] and showing “how the church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, stands in continuity with Judaism.”[48] If the Gentiles can be part of the people of God as Gentiles, without observing the Jewish Law, “does this not break the continuity of the history of salvation?”[49] Perhaps the question Luke was answering should be stated more broadly: How can assemblies that are clearly unified around something other than Jewish identity—both ethnically and in their relationship to the Law—claim to stand in continuity with the Old Testament covenants and promises? How can people who are identified by their allegiance to Christ claim to be the heirs of Old Testament salvation? Luke’s answer is that Jesus offers salvation to all who follow Him.[50] In Acts Luke showed how “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1) was faithfully passed on in the power of the Holy Spirit and under His direction. The God-intended-and-directed progress of this salvation was to the ends of the earth and to the Gentiles as Gentiles who inhabited the ends of the earth.

Fourth, any understanding of Acts must grapple with the question of why Luke put such a strong emphasis on the person of Paul in the last half of his book.[51] Luke demonstrated God’s validation of Paul as His apostle in order to vindicate the authenticity of the Gentile-dominated churches planted largely as a result of Paul’s ministry. Luke’s larger purpose was to show that the Pauline church—assemblies of both Jews and Gentiles, who remained ethnically Gentile, united by their allegiance to Christ—is a legitimate extension of Israel’s hope in the coming Messiah. These assemblies—including Jews, but increasingly populated by Gentiles—were heirs together with Israel of Old Testament promises of forgiveness and salvation through the Messiah (Luke 3:1-6 // Isa. 40:3-5; Luke 4:16-19 // Isa. 61:1-2; Luke 24:44-48; Acts 3:17-26; 11:13-18; 13:13-52). The same Jesus who brought the promise of salvation to all people (Luke’s Gospel) is present in and through His church in His Spirit and His name (Acts). The Gentile mission is a true extension of Israel’s messianic hope.[52]

How would Luke have wanted readers to respond to this message? He would have wanted God-fearing Gentile seekers and interested-but-skeptical Jews to be convinced that Jesus Christ is God’s ordained means of salvation.[53] Among those who had become Christ-followers, especially Gentiles, Luke would have wanted to assure believers that they stood in the line of Old Testament salvation history, and thus to increase their commitment to the (largely) Gentile church and to more actively support the Gentile mission.[54]

To be in the center of God’s program, the church must be about the business of mission, in the power and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, always pushing out to the ends of the earth. This includes following Paul’s model: proclaiming the message of Jesus’ salvation to Gentiles as Gentiles. Luke’s “apologetic method offered Christians a ‘missionary tool,’ to assist them in evangelism.”[55]

The church at Antioch was the first of this kind of local church and was the source from which flowed the mission of planting similar churches. In Acts 11:19-26 Luke wove together two themes that are directly related to his larger purposes. First, Paul was reintegrated into the narrative, where he soon became the primary figure in planting churches, a primary emphasis of Luke’s. Second, Luke highlighted the beginning of this new kind of assembly—Jews and Gentiles meeting in a group that was clearly no longer a sect of Judaism. The church that became a model for the Gentile mission was rooted in sound teaching given by Paul. And it was a church made up of large numbers of Gentiles who met as equals with Jews in a new sociological unit, unified by their identity with Christ. Instead of ethnicity being a factor of exclusion or identity as the people of God, Luke wanted his readers to see that ethnicity had been replaced by identity with Christ. Luke’s message in Acts 11:26 is that the church is to be so identified with Christ that outsiders cannot find any other socioethnic label by which to characterize its people.

Implications for Contemporary Church Life and Missiology

What are the implications of this fact for church life and mission today?

First, the so-called homogenous unit cannot be the final goal for a church. True, missiologists have long noted that churches grow fastest when they are a homogenous sociological group.[56] People are most comfortable with other people who are like them.

For the church to take root in any culture believers must feel “at home”[57] when gathered in assemblies; they should not feel that to be Christians they must leave their home culture and become foreigners.

Yet both Jews and Gentiles, very different kinds of people, apparently felt adequately welcome in Antioch; the church grew significantly. Contextualization for an “at-home” church is important, but it must not be so extreme that those from other ethnicities, ages, or cultures feel excluded. For example worship services should be adequately diverse so that people of all ages and different ethnic identities feel “at home.” If a church includes people of many languages or ethnicities, do the composition and decisions of the leaders reflect the full spectrum of the congregation?

Second, many churches have sought a measure of homogeneity by establishing subcongregations that focus on a certain age-group, a certain language group, or a certain worship style. While these may be legitimate ways to allow people to be “at home” in their worship (particularly in the case of a service in another language), churches whose subcongregations are thoroughly homogeneous in their worship and organization must make an extra effort to find ways for the entire congregation of all ages, languages, and worship styles to be recognized around their common identity as followers of Christ. For example a church with multiple worship services centered around different styles of music might schedule regular “celebratory” gatherings in a large venue for all the subcongregations in which many styles of music and worship are featured.

Third, perhaps the “people group” approach to church planting should be reexamined. Much can be said biblically for targeting unreached people groups so that the gospel moves toward the vision of every tribe and language gathered around the throne of God (Rev. 7:9). But should the focus on planting individual congregations be geared toward churches that are identified by their ethnicity? Distinctive groups of unreached ethnic groups should be targeted for outreach, and the gospel must be allowed to take root and grow in the native soil of that group’s culture. But if the church that is planted results in an assembly that is more identified by its ethnicity than by its connection to Christ, it would seem to be outside Luke’s model of what the church should be.

Fourth, Scriptures affirm the multicultural, multiethnic church as a model of maturity, influence, and impact. Luke did not deny that the more homogenous church in Jerusalem was a church. But his “model church” is clearly the multicultural church in Antioch. Perhaps churches should intentionally put diversity at the center of their vision of what they would like to become instead of it being an optional “extra” that they hope will happen in the course of time.

Fifth, the primary identity of any church assembly should be its identification with Christ, not any particular sociological category. If any church is primarily identified by outsiders as white, black, Asian, or Hispanic, if it is identified as conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, if it is identified as wealthy or poor, it would seem to have lost its God-intended primary identity. In the church that gave birth to the name “Christian” and was the launching pad for the gospel to the Gentiles, outsiders found that they could not identify the believers with any one sociological group. They identified them by their connection with Christ.

Sixth, every local church should be characterized by its constant talk about Christ. Many evangelicals are identified primarily by their stand on political or social issues. Are the people in congregations primarily concerned with and talking about what Christ means to them? Or is their larger concern winning culture wars, wars in which they are seen as part of one particular (political) army? While it is important for believers to take a biblical stand on issues in the public arena, their primary identity to the watching world must always be with Jesus Christ, not any particular political or social issue.

Acts 11:26 and the church at Antioch provide a model for church life and missions. Local churches should be diverse assemblies so identified as followers of Christ that outsiders cannot find any other socioethnic category by which to characterize them.

Notes

1. For example Jerusalem plays a key role as the “climactic hub” in Luke-Acts, with Jesus journeying to Jerusalem in Luke 9-19 (9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 19:28) and the gospel advancing from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth in Acts. Joseph Fitzmeyer notes that for Luke “all is oriented toward Jerusalem, and in Acts all goes forth from Jerusalem—to the end of the earth” (The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1998], 56). Acts 1:8 is the outline for the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem, with the gospel proclaimed in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7), Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1-11:18) and to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 11:19-28:31). The focus on “the remotest part of the earth” has another geographic marker, Paul’s journey to Rome (19:21; 23:11; 28:14).
2. Norman E. Thomas, “The Church at Antioch: Crossing Racial, Cultural, and Class Barriers,” Mission in Acts, ed. Robert L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004), 146.
3. See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971), 388. The KJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and TNIV describe the group who heard the gospel as “Greeks,” while the ESV and NRSV refer to them as “Hellenists.”
4. When Luke spoke of ῾Ελληνιστάς in Acts 6:1, he was referring to Hellenized Jews. But this meaning does not seem to fit the context of Acts 11, for “it would hardly have been remarkable if they [disciples from Jerusalem] had preached to the Hellenists [i.e., Hellenized Jews],” since the gospel had gone out to Hellenistic Jews from the earliest days of the Jerusalem church (David J. Williams, Acts, New International Biblical Commentary [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985], 195). ῾Ελληνιστάς (“Hellenists”) therefore is the more difficult reading. Several writers prefer ῞Ελληνας, since the context demands the meaning “Greeks, Gentiles, non-Jews” (Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 419-20; Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 400; Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Oxford: Basil Blackford, 1971], 365; and Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 87. However, standard criteria for textual criticism suggests opting for the more difficult reading, the reason Meztger favors ῾Ελληνιστάς. “Transcriptional probability is all in favor of [῾Ελληνιστάς], for the temptation to editor or scribe was to substitute an easy and familiar word for one that was by no means familiar” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 388). But Metzger also points out that the basic meaning of ῾Ελληνιστάς is “one who uses Greek [language or customs],” not just Hellenized Jews, and that the meaning must be derived from the immediate context. Though he agrees that Luke clearly used the word to mean Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Acts 6:1, Metzger feels the meaning is somewhat ambiguous in 9:29, and that in 11:20 the meaning is clearly “‘Greek-speaking persons,’ meaning thereby the mixed population of Antioch in contrast to” Jews (ibid., 388-89). F. F. Bruce seems correct in concluding that ῾Ελληνιστάς is probably the original reading and that in 11:20 it means “Greek speakers” (The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952], 235). The context clearly indicates that Luke intended that this be seen as the first large-scale outreach to non-Jews. Others who favor the reading ῾Ελληνιστάς with the generalized meaning “Greek-speaking non-Jews” include C. K. Barrett (Acts, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1994], 1:550); William J. Larkin Jr. (Acts, IVP New Testament Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995] 176); I. Howard Marshall (The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 291); Williams (Acts, 207), and Ben Witherington III (The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 369).
5. Preaching that Jesus is κύριος (Acts 11:20-21) would have been particularly relevant to the Greco-Roman population of Antioch. “Greek terms Kyrios ‘Lord’ and Sotēr (‘Saviour’) were widely current in the religious world of the eastern Mediterranean. Many were attempting to find in various mystery cults a divine lord who could guarantee salvation and immortality to his devotees” (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 225).
6. Theo de Kruijf, “The Name Christians: A Label or a Challenge,” Bijdragen: Tijdschrit voor filosofie en theologie 59 (1998): 5. See also Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1089; and Bo Reicke, “χρηματίζειν,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 481-82.
7. E. J. Bickerman, “The Name of Christians,” Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 111, 113, 115-16.
8. Ibid., 116.
9. Henry Cadbury, “The Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts,” in Additional Notes to the Commentary, ed. Kirsopp Luke and Henry Cadbury, vol. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan, 1933; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 386. Bock notes that an “intransitive passive” sense is probable here (Bock, Acts, 416).
10. Justin Taylor, “Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 83. He adds, “The analogy with the German verb heissen may be useful: it is in the active voice but is normally translated into English with a passive (and into French with a reflexive); it does not necessarily carry the sense that the name borne is self-chosen” (ibid.).
11. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 88. See also Barrett, Acts, 1:555-56; Bock, Acts, 416; Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 238; Walter Grundmann, “χριστιανοί,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:537; Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 371; Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 402; Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 203; Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 106; John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church, and the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 205; Paul Walasky, Acts (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 115; Williams, Acts, 208; and Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 371. Taylor notes that only J. Moreau, C. Spicq, and B. Lipshitz feel that this was a self-designation, with Lipshitz asserting that “the conversion of large numbers of Gentiles at Antioch meant that the new community there neither wished nor was able to be considered as a Jewish sect” (“Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” 81-82).
12. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 238. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer agree that it is “improbable” that the disciples designated themselves “Christians” (Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 226).
13. Cadbury, “The Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts,” 386.
14. Bickerman, “The Name of Christians,” 116.
15. Harold B. Mattingly, “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958): 27; and Taylor, “Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” 27.
16. Grundman, “χριστιανοί,” 537; and Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, 106.
17. Erik Peterson gives a number of examples, especially in the papyri, of how χρηματίζειν is an official term that indicates a legal title. He says that Luke underscored this sense of χρηματίζειν by using πρώτως to emphasize that it was in Antioch that the disciples were first given their legal title. Luke used the more common form πρῶτος sixteen times in his Gospel and Acts, but Acts 11:26 is the only use of πρώτως in the New Testament, perhaps further marking “the inauguration of a [formal] practice governing the future” (Mattingly, “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” 28). However, in an attempt to find a political occasion that would have led the Romans to identify the disciples as a separate group and give them an official, legal name, Peterson confuses Herod Antipas (whom he finds in conflict with Christ in the Gospels) with Herod Agrippa I (who was opposed to Christ’s followers in Acts 12) and assumes that the ῾Ηρῴδιανοι and Χριστιανοί had come into conflict. The Romans, of course, were familiar with the ῾Ηρῴδιανοι, and so they identified their opponents as the “party of Χριστός,” perhaps even with a sense of mocking them as clients of a crucified man named Christ. Therefore Peterson concludes that the earliest use of the word “Christian” was rooted in politics and the Christians were viewed as criminals (“Christianus,” Miscllanea. Giovanni Mercali, vol. 1, Studi e Testi 121 [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1946], 355-77). Taylor agrees with Peterson that χρηματίζειν has overtones of being a legal name given by the Roman authorities, but he notes that “the least convincing part of Peterson’s argument is that in which he tries to link the origin of the name at Antioch with the attack by Agrippa I on the leaders of the church in Jerusalem” (“Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” 84). He constructs his own scenario based on evidence of Jewish unrest throughout the eastern Roman Empire in A.D. 38-40 and the fact that “only a Jewish setting can explain precisely why Χριστιανοί is the distinguishing epithet of the disciples of Jesus: they are the followers of one who they claim is ὁΧριστός, that is, the Messiah” (ibid., 91). This “nationalistic and revolutionary commotion aroused by Messianic preaching among a Jewish population” (ibid., 93) alerted the Roman authorities, for whom “the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah was inevitably a political act, or would easily seem so. In the tense and restive Jewish community of Antioch towards the end of the reign of Gaius this proclamation was enough to spark off the disorder which we know occurred in A.D. 39-40. The followers of the Messiah or Χριστός, called Χριστιανοί for the first time by the Roman authorities at Antioch, were naturally blamed for the disorder. The name was thenceforth synonymous with sedition and crime” (ibid., 94).
18. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 82.
19. Larkin, Acts, 179; Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, 238; and Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 371.
20. Hengel and Schemer suggest that “the disciples were first called Christians (in public) in Antioch” (Paul between Damascus and Antioch, 227).
21. The two most important of these are Josephus (The Antiquities of the Jews, 8:157), where the Roman emperors are said to be “called” by other names before they ascended the throne and were proclaimed “Caesar,” and Eusebius (Oration in Praise of Constantine, 17. 14), who refers to the “day which is called after the Lord” (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 368). Cf. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1089; and Reicke, “χρηματίζειν,” 9:482.
22. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 88.
23. Ibid., 29-30. Mattingly believes that though the term “Christian” originally came from popular use, Luke was writing much later after the designation had become their official name, and so Luke was justified in using χρηματίζειν to indicate that this was their official, legal designation (“The Origin of the Name Christiani,” 28). See also Tacitus, The Annalsof Imperial Rome, 14:13-15, trans. Michael Grant (Baltimore: Penguin, 1956), 311, for a primary source on the Augustiani.
24. Mattingly, “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” 31.
25. Ibid.
26. According to Tacitus the Augustiani were not formed until after the fall of Agrippina in A.D. 59, while the church in Antioch was most likely founded in the early 40s (The Annalsof Imperial Rome, 14:13-15). Herod Agrippa died in 44, and Paul and Barnabas carried the Antioch church’s gift to Jerusalem “about this time” (Acts 12:2; cf. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 263).
27. Taylor notes that the Western text “connects the invention of the name with the origins of the church” in Antioch by adding τότι, “at that time.” Even if one accepts this as an early tradition, Taylor adds that τότι is a general word, and that he is not attributing “the coining of the new name precisely to the ministry of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch.” But Taylor states that Luke believed “that the name originated at Antioch about the same time as the church itself in that city” (“Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” 79). If the Western text does reflect an early tradition, it would argue against Mattingly’s thesis.
28. Though Luke generally used “Christ” as a title and not a proper name, it has been suggested that the Greco-Roman population of Antioch heard Χριστός as a name, perhaps even confusing it with the name χρηστός, “kindly, useful” (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 238). However, both Jewish believers and God-fearing, synagogue-attending Gentiles who turned to Christ would have understood that the Old Testament background to Χριστός meant it was used as a title. In their conversations about Χριστός around the city, they certainly could have explained the significance of the term: Jesus was βασιλεύς. De Kruijf maintains that “it seems obvious that in these texts Χριστός is used as an appellative. The argument that Gentile Greeks could not have understood the name in any other way than as a (strange) proper name is flawed” (de Kruijf, “The Name Christians: A Label or a Challenge,” 18). Since the church of Antioch was built on the ministry of Saul and Barnabas (Acts 11:26), whose teaching was certainly rooted in the Old Testament and its promises, probably the new congregation of disciples understood and talked about Jesus’ identity as “the Anointed One.” The Augustiani received their name from Nero’s title, not his proper name, and so it was not unheard of for the –ιανός ending to be added to a title to indicate the followers of a person who uniquely held that title. Since Luke did not give any indication as to whether the Greco-Roman population of Antioch understood Χριστός as a proper name or as a title, the distinction is clearly not central to his argument. Rather his concern was to say that the disciples were clearly identified by the populace as followers of Christ. “In Antioch the testimony to Jesus as the Christ is so strong that community members are called Christians (Χριστιανούς, Christianous) for the first time” (Bock, Acts, 416).
29. Stott, The Message of Acts, 205. See also Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 371.
30. William H. Willimon, Acts (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 106. See also Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles 401; and Larkin, Acts, 177.
31. Larkin compares Luke 2:44-45; Acts 9:30; 21:39; 22:3 in his study of ἀναζητῆσαι and concludes that Barnabas exercised a thorough search to find Saul (Larkin, Acts, 179).
32. Both Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa drew a connection between Paul’s going to Antioch to teach and the designation of the believers there as “Christians.” Chrysostum said they were first called Christians there because, having been taught by Paul for a full year, they were the first to be “worthy of the name,” but this may be going too far. And the same may be true of Gregory, who said that Paul imitated Christ “so brilliantly that he revealed his own Master in himself . . . so that Paul no longer seemed to be living and speaking, but Christ himself seemed to be living in him” (Francis Martin, ed., Acts, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, ed. Thomas C. Oden [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006], 148). Nevertheless Luke’s mention of the teaching of Paul and Barnabas was more than a passing comment. It demonstrates the sound theological foundation on which this church was built.
33. Michelle Slee. The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE: Communion and Conflict, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement (New York: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 19. See also Mattingly, “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” 26.
34. Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 402.
35. Williams, Acts, 206. See also Bock, Acts, 416; and Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 371.
36. Mattingly, “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” 26. See also Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, 106.
37. Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 402. See also Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 371.
38. His readers might also have perceived that any group identified as followers of Χριστός would have understood Jesus as the true “Anointed One” (i.e. a title, not a name). This insight, gained from Paul and Barnabas’s teaching of the Old Testament, would have further validated them as well grounded in the Old Testament roots of their faith.
39. De Kruijf, “The Name Christians: A Label or a Challenge,” 17.
40. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 199.
41. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 228. See also Stott, The Message of Acts, 205; Bock, Acts, 416; and Hengel and Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch, 230.
42. Stott, The Message of Acts, 205; and Larkin, Acts, 175.
43. Williams, Acts, 206; Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 203; Walasky, Acts, 115; and Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 402.
44. Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, Studies of the New Testament and Its World (Edinburgh: Clark, 1982), 6; Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 20; and Fitzmeyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 55.
45. David Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfilment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 83.
46. David Wenham, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts: Israel’s Story in the Context of the Roman Empire,” in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Joel B. Green, and Anthony Thiselton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 2005, 94.
47. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 100 (italics his).
48. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 22 (italics his).
49. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 100.
50. Stephen J. Strauss, “The Application of the Gospel of Luke” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 30-31.
51. It has been suggested that Acts is a “political apologetic” (Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 21) or an apology to defend Paul prior to his trial (Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, 20-21). However, it is unlikely that any Roman court trying Paul would be interested in the ecclesiastical and theological depths that Luke developed (ibid., 20; and Albert C. Winn, “Elusive Mystery: The Purpose of Acts,” Interpretation 13 [April 1959]: 147). There is much less in Luke’s Gospel that resembles a legal defense of Paul, and Acts is the conclusion to Luke’s Gospel. Even the first portion of Acts contains material “which has little or nothing to do directly with Paul and his case” (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 14). Luke’s focus on Paul was not to rehabilitate him legally but to validate him as a God-authenticated apostle. See also Wenham, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 96.
52. “The book of Acts was intended as an account of Christian beginnings in order to strengthen faith and give assurance that its foundation is firm” (Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 21).
53. A strong case can be made that Luke’s intended readers were already followers of Christ (Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, 181; Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfillment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 103). But it seems better not to exclude Gentile God-fearers and skeptical-but-not-hostile Jews, who also would have had an understanding of the Old Testament and basic Christian teaching and practice. John Nolland concurs that Luke was written for God-fearers who were considering the Christian faith (Luke 1:11-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas TX: Word, 1989], xxxii).
54. “Acts reflects the tremendous tension which existed in the early church over the basis of the Gentile mission” (Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 29, italics his).
55. Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfillment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 103.
56. Donald McGavern, Understanding Church Growth, 3rd ed., ed. C. Peter Wagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
57. Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996), 7-8.