What is a "Christian"?

A scholar's commentary on the etymology and semantics of this word

This post is an adaptation of a comment I made at

Simple Christianity

in November, 2023. I had been trying to remember where my reference for this topic was, when it turned up in my Substack inbox as a response to the comment. I took that as a sign, and here is an updated version. This is a virtually unknown topic in the Christian universe.

Did Jesus ever profess to be a Christian? I can’t remember now why or where I came up with that particular question, but it is an interesting one. The origin story of the word “Christian” is up for grabs. It appears three times in its Greek New Testament form, Χριστιανός, spelled essentially the same way as the English transliteration “Kristianos“ apart from the “os” case ending. I have heard various explanations for this word, but here I will quote from the Schnabel commentary on Acts, for Acts 11:26:¹

11:25–26  … It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians… [Full Greek text omitted, along with other commentary]

…Luke’s final comment here about the origins and the early years of the congregation in Antioch notes that it was in Antioch that the disciples, i.e., the followers of Jesus, were first called “Christians” (Χριστιανοί). This term occurs in the New Testament only on the lips of outsiders. Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus use the term as well. The first Christian usage of the term as a self-designation comes from the second century, which suggests that the term “Christian” was not a self-designation of the followers of Jesus as early as the 30s.

The verb translated as “were called” (χρηματίσαι) is not necessarily a reflexive (“they called themselves Christians”) but can be treated as a passive, which suggests that the term “Christians” was introduced by others. The followers of Jesus called themselves “disciples,” “believers,” “brothers,” “slaves” or “servants of Jesus Christ,” and perhaps also “those who are in Christ Jesus.” The form of the Greek expression — in particular the ending (-ιανοί; singular -ιανός) — also suggests an origin outside of the church, pointing to Latin-speaking circles. In Rome we hear of the Caesariani and Augustiani; in Judea we encounter the Herodiani (the relatives, clients, and the supporters of the Herodian court, who are also mentioned in the New Testament, cf. Mark 3:6; 12:13). The term “Christians” (Χριστιανοί) was evidently an official designation coined by the Roman authorities in Antioch for the new religious group. The designation was probably applied to the followers of Jesus by outsiders “when, not least as a result of their missionary activity to the Greeks, they began to separate themselves from the synagogue congregations and acquire an identity as a separate group.”

It is possible that the followers of Jesus who proclaimed the good news of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, Lord, and Savior, in the synagogues, in private houses, and perhaps in the marketplace had come to the attention of the Roman authorities — perhaps as early as AD 39, in connection with the unrest among the Jews provoked by Emperor Caligula’s directive to have his statue erected in the Jerusalem temple. The followers of Jesus were probably recognized by the Roman authorities in Antioch as a group of people who publicly proclaimed their loyalty to a Jew named Jesus as Messiah (Χριστός), who grew in numbers and who thus had to be watched.

So what does it mean to call oneself or someone else a "Christian"? I'm not sure. There is reason to question whether the early church used the word the same way it is commonly used today.

Here are the three biblical references:

Acts 11:26 …and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you are going to persuade me to make a Christian of myself.”

1Pet. 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

Are these positive or negative references? Agrippa, in Acts 26:28, didn’t care for it, using it to name a class to which he did not wish to belong. The other two could be read either way, bearing in mind the considerations brought out in the Schnabel commentary. 1 Peter 4:16 associates “shame” with the word, interestingly enough. Acts 11:26 appears to be neutral — it can be taken either way — but note that it is translated here as passive, “they were called”, not reflexive as “they called themselves”. But it could be translated either way.²

Here is what I do know. I had the experience of attending a mainline church for 3 years. They called themselves Christians. I loved being part of it, and I remained there for as long as I could. My memories of it are of better days than now.

But the gospel, as I know it, never came up in that place, that I can recall, not in direct teaching. They practiced a form of the social gospel promoted by their denomination, not at all a bad thing to do, and supported by scripture, but that is not the biblical Gospel, although some mainline churches state that it is.

This is not unusual in the mainline churches, what remains of them. I had never seen anything like this before finding myself at that one, but I arrived there believing much as they did (although having read the Bible numerous times). I left an orthodox believer, but not because of what I learned there, although some of it helped. It’s a long story perhaps for another post.

I find that many people in the evangelical churches I have attended since then appear to have no awareness that this kind of substitution even goes on. And I have seen the surveys, Barna³ and others, pointing to a slide even in those churches in that direction. More personally, my own present church recently left its original denomination of 60 years over related issues. My point is that the present-day meaning of the name “Christian” has become quite dilute.

I began by asking "Did Jesus ever profess to be a Christian?" Well, I'm not sure that question even makes sense, but there is evidence that his followers of the period might not have, as Schnabel illustrates. The things I hear coming from these other churches, when I happen to be in a place to hear them, make my head spin. It can sound so "holy", and some of them are excellent at public prayer. But there can be very different kinds of communities claiming the same name.

So why does this matter? I’m not sure. What’s in a name? Well, potentially a lot. Biblical names can be very important. But Roman/Latin names for categories of “troublemakers”? Maybe not as much.

I wrote this article some time ago, but hesitated to publish it because I didn’t know where to go with it. I don’t find the name “Christian” to be a huge issue, but I do see it as possibly relating to another much greater issue. That, topic, however, will for this writer have to wait until I muster the nerve to write in full about it, although I have dropped related comments here and there. Backtrack in the threads (click “Return to thread”) to read the contexts.

There is so much to consider and from which to learn. Such is the journey on the difficult path.

1. Schnabel, Eckhard J., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, Zondervan, 2012, pp. 524-525.

2. The Greek word used here is is χρηματίσαι, in the aorist active infinitive.

3. See the original post upon which I was commenting.

The Danger of Cultural Christianity