Called by His Name

INTRODUCTION
How would you answer an inquirer who asks, “So why are all you Bible-thumpers called ‘Christians’ anyways?” There are two common answers. The first and most common response is something along the lines of, “We were maliciously named ‘Christians’ by the pagans in the ancient world and we ran with it!” The second answer is something approximating, “God called us ‘Christians’ and so Christians we are!”

Whether you are inclined to the first or the second answer, both of those answers are dependent on how one verse is interpreted. That verse is Acts 11:26, “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.” Upon close examination you’ll notice that Luke does not explicitly tell us who called the disciples Christians. There are only two possible options, either the pagans called them Christians or God did. In the pages that follow, I will be making the case that it was God who named His new creation and not the pagans. First I’ll set the stage with some background arguments and then look at Acts 11:26 itself.

NAMING AS DOMINION
Creation, naming and taking dominion are inexorably linked. It is no coincidence that shortly after creating Adam, and giving him the task of subduing and taking dominion, God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. Adam’s first exercise in taking dominion was that of giving names to the creatures that God placed under his authority. To be given the privilege of naming is to be given the privilege of participating in creation itself. This is why Paul’s statement in Eph 3:15 is provocative: “... the father from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.” Letham elaborates: “He is the creator and Lord of all family groups. These families are named. Naming denoted sovereignty in the ancient world, so here the sovereign authority of the Father over all peoples is in view.”

This pattern —creation, dominion & naming— is demonstrated in God’s re-naming of Abram to Abraham. Calvin ably points out that God’s covenant with Abraham was a new creation: “As soon as it was said, ‘I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee,’ the Church was separated from other nations; just as in the creation of the world, the light emerged out of the darkness.” Dominion over the whole world is then promised to Abraham through the gospel (Romans 4:13). Then Abraham is re-named in accordance with his new nature— the father of multitudes.

This is again repeated with the re-naming of Jacob to Israel and continues to be demonstrated every time a baby is born. We follow after our Father in naming our kids as we participate in the creation of immortal souls. No parents would hand the birth certificate over to their enemies, at least no good parents. Certainly our God would not abdicate in naming His new creation.

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE
When Perpetua Vibia was awaiting execution for being a Christian in the early second century her father came to her and attempted to convince her to recant. She answered by pointing to a pitcher of water and asked “Can it be called by any other name than what it is?” Her father answered “No.” She then drove her point home saying “Neither can I call myself anything but what I am—a Christian.” This is the sentiment we should all share. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ, to be in submission to the Messiah. Anyone who has acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus Christ, no matter what they wish to be called, has become a Christian. That means that it had to be this way.

As the Apostle said “there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) and we should count it an honor to wear that name as a covenant people, as Peter does: “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” (1 Peter 4:16 ) Having been mystically united with the Saviour, our new nature knows no other name than Christ. This means the name ‘Christian’ is fitting. It would be quite surprising for the world to give such a fitting name, indeed they are not capable of such a thing. The ability and privilege to name belongs to the second Adam by whom, and for whose sake, we are called Christians.

There was at least one alternative name tried on for size and that was the term ‘Galileans’. It was more of a slur than a name. The Jews were often quick to point out that Jesus and His followers were Galileans in an attempt to brand their teaching as trailer-park philosophy. This name, although it benefited the enemies of the Church, didn’t stick. Instead, the name that benefited the party of the apostles prevailed. Albert Barnes, one of the Princeton theologians, notes that 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.” Given that the name ‘Christian’ was a glory to the Church and a detriment to their enemies, it is improbable that the name was concocted by the very enemies who sought their destruction.

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.” As noted in the introduction, the text doesn’t explicitly say who called the disciples Christians. Until this point the church was largely made up of Jews, but for the first time a large crowd made up of Jews and Gentiles was assembling. What were they to be called? A new name was needed. Many commentators point to the fact that Antioch was known for handing out mocking nicknames and assume with much certainty that the Antiochians did the naming. But it is unlikely, in light of the utility found in the name, that the Antiochians would’ve given the Church such an advantage. They were known for giving defamatory names, not accurate and helpful names. However, Antioch being known for giving names and being an economic juggernaut is not altogether irrelevant. Antioch was the place people went to make a name for themselves, like the modern day LA or New York. As a result of this success Antioch seems to have grown too big for its britches and took on the authority of handing out names. So when God names his church in Antioch, it is as if God is usurping the authority of Antioch by naming His people in the city that gives names. In effect, Antioch was displaced by the New Jerusalem and today Antioch is known more for the preaching of Chrysostom than its ancient success.

Another factor diminishing the likelihood of the name having a human origin is the use of a peculiar greek word χρηματίζω (chrēmatizō). This is the word that is translated “called” and in the New Testament it is uniquely used to denote a call from God. For this reason Barnes speculates that it was possibly Paul and Barnabas who did the naming: “It cannot be denied… that the most usual signification [of chrēmatizō] 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.” If this were a communication of human origin one would expect the use of the word καλέω (kaleō) as it is used in Matthew 23:7, “To be called (καλέω) by men.” Thus Matthew Poole says confidently that the naming was “by Divine authority, for the word (chrēmatizō) imports no less.”

Now it’s no secret that greek word studies have often functioned as the box-spring of many procrustean beds. The broader context and biblical theme must be determinative in allowing scripture to convey its organic meaning. In this case, in order for the name to be of divine origin one would expect the broader theme of scripture to push us in that direction. The question should be asked, were the disciples in Acts anticipating that God would give them a name?
The answer is found in the prophecy given in Isaiah 62:2 “And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.” Here we have a prophecy concerning the New Covenant. It is promised that after the gentiles are brought into the covenant that God would give these new people a new name. This is exactly what we see in Acts 11 as the church explodes and gentiles are brought in and they are given a new name. One can hope that a student of the Word would’ve been expecting to find a name given at that point. Along with that expectation, it is unavoidable that a straightforward reading of Isaiah 62:2 disqualifies the possibility of the name having a human origin as it will come from the mouth of the LORD. Matthew Henry has no problem connecting the dots here and does so with much certainty: “Thus the scripture was fulfilled, for so it was written concerning the gospel church thou shalt be called by a new name and it is said to the corrupt and degenerate church of the Jews The Lord God shall slay thee and call his servants by another name (Is 62:2, Is 65:15)”

Although a “new name” signifies more than a mere title, it certainly doesn’t signify any less. Here we have a name given and in so doing much is implied. To be called a ‘Christian’ would be a terrifying thing were it not for the imputation of His righteousness, for none of us could live up to such a name. But as it is we have the opportunity to glory in the fact that we are called by His name. We have the great privilege of echoing the dying words of the martyr and church father Polycarp: “I am a Christian!”

Sources:
​
The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship (Revised) Pg. 80

Genesis 17 Calvin's Commentaries (biblehub.com)

Vibia Perpetua, the young Roman mother who chose Christ | The Torchlighters

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

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

Matthew Henry’s Commentary Volume 6 Pg. 145

Pulpit Commentary, Acts 11:26 cf. Bishop Wordsworth