What is a "Christian"?

Scholarly commentary on the etymology and semantics of this word [Edited 2025-12-20 where noted to include additional commentary]

Did Jesus ever profess to be a Christian?¹ 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. The word 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 11:26:²

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.

[Edited 2025-12-20: The details of each passage were expanded to include additional commentary from other sources.]

Are these positive or negative references? Let’s examine each.

• Acts 11:26 struck me as neutral—to possibly be taken either as positive or negative—but the Greek verb appearing here as “were first called” is commonly translated as passive as noted earlier, and that influences my thinking. Others see it differently, so take your pick. Despite the translation upon which he comments—ESV, which also chooses “were first called”—Vickers writes

Whether “first called Christians” (11:26) refers to self-reference or to a label from others is disputed. The more likely conclusion is that the name is first given by others to distinguish the believers from competing groups. In Jewish settings these believers are considered a sect, a splinter Jewish group (24:5, 14; 28:22), and Gentiles probably view them in relation to Jews. In Antioch, however, Gentiles have joined these Jewish followers of Jesus of Nazareth. They are not Jews, though they socialize with them sometimes, and they have also changed and left their former lifestyles and practices. Such a group needs a new name. And the name sticks.³

• My thinking was that Agrippa, in Acts 26:28, didn’t care for it, using it to name a class to which he did not wish to belong, but Vickers has this to say:

Agrippa fully understands that Paul is pressing him to believe. But instead of answering the question, he asks one of his own. There is considerable discussion concerning how the Greek text of 26:28 should be rendered. “In a short time” could be translated as “with so little effort” or “with so few words,” but Paul’s reply in verse 29 (“whether short or long”) seems best understood as a response to “in a short time.” The point is that Agrippa knows Paul is hoping to persuade him to be a Christian. The term “Christian” appears only one other time in Acts (cf. 11:26), where it was presumably coined by unbelievers at Antioch. Its usage by Agrippa perhaps implies that, unlike most in the narrative, he understands there to be a distinction between the followers of Jesus and the Jews, although this cannot be proved.⁴

• 1 Peter 4:16 associates “shame” with the word, interestingly enough. I wouldn’t take that as a positive, but (with much elision, to make it bearable) Michaels comments:⁵

The phrase “for being a Christian” brings out more clearly the meaning of the expression “for the name of Christ,” in v 14. Believers in Jesus Christ are referred to as “Christians” elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 11:26 and 26:28 (“Christian” being a formation analogous to “Herodian” [BGD, 886; cf 348], with the meaning, “partisans of Christ”). All three instances appear to reflect the viewpoint of Jewish and pagan outsiders toward those who followed and worshiped Jesus. This is evidenced by a variant reading, Χρηστιανός, or “good fellow” (used ironically) in at least one manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) each time the designation is used (for a similar confusion… By the second century, Χριστιανός had been adopted by “Christians” themselves as a self-designation (IgnEph 11.2; Magn 4; Rom 3.2; Pol 7.3; MartPol 3, 10.1, 12.1–2; Did 12.4).

…

μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, “don’t be ashamed” (lit, “let him not be ashamed,” with the τις ὑμῶν, “any of you,” v 15a, still presupposed as the subject). Peter’s conviction is that believers in Christ “will never be put to shame” (οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ , 2:6, citing Isa 28:16), while those who slander them will (cf 3:16). Yet he writes here in the imperative, not the indicative mood. His emphasis is not on what will objectively be the case (ie, that Christians will be vindicated) but on what his readers’ attitude should be subjectively when faced with verbal abuse and physical danger. Peter’s aspiration for them corresponds to Paul’s aspiration for himself in the wake of imprisonment and the possibility of death (Phil 1:20; cf 2 Tim 1:12; cf also the warnings of Jesus in Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26).

δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεόν, “only glorify God.” “Shame” and “glorifying God,” the only two alternatives for pagans under God’s judgment at the “day of visitation” (2:12; 3:16 …) are similarly the two alternatives open to Christians facing human judgment here and now… Peter wants to make sure that his readers’ response to threats from without is the glorification of God—precisely the same goal toward which he directed them in their ministries to each other… Although he does not in this instance spell out concretely how they are to do this, it is a fair inference from 3:15–16 that he wants them to acknowledge their faith in Christ openly and without fear, regardless of the consequences. As in the case of their ministry to one another, glorification of God depends on attitudes and behavior toward other people.

ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, “in this matter” (cf 2 Cor 3:10; 9:3; also Polyb. 18.18.2). Adoption of the more commonly accepted reading, “in this name,” could suggest that 1 Peter stands at a transition between the use of “Christian” by opponents of the movement (as in Acts and in pagan sources), and its serious use by believers themselves, beginning with Ignatius. Peter would then be saying, “Even though the name ‘Christian’ is thrown at you by your enemies in derision, wear the name proudly, for that is what you are.” Yet transcriptional probabilities favor the reading adopted here…

If you are not accustomed to reading deep-down Greek-level commentaries, welcome to the experience.

Here is what I 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.

[Edited 2025-12-20: Added footnote.]
But the gospel, as I know it now⁶, 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 complete 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 there an orthodox believer⁷, 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 omission even goes on. And I have seen the surveys, Barna⁸ and others, pointing to a slide even in evangelical 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, Vickers, and Michaels illustrate. And then again it can be argued that they did. Some of 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 entirely sure. What’s in a name? Well, potentially a lot. Biblical names can be very important. But Roman/Latin names for categories of “troublemakers”? Possibly 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 of the difficult path.

1. 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.

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

3. Brian J. Vickers, in ESV EC9 JOHN-ACTS, ESV Expository Commentary Vol. IX John-Acts, Crossway, 2019, pp 443-444.

4. Ibid, pp 565-566.

5. J. Ramsey Michaels, Word Biblical Commentary 49: 1 Peter, Zondervan Academic, 1988, pp. 268-269.

6. I have had to revise my own understanding of the gospel yet again, not changing it but including important detail that is traditionally “not taught”, a pattern that I hope to address in future posts. For now, 1 Corinthians 15 includes all of the essentials, along with other details that could be distracting now but which were important at the time of writing. The “not taught” part concerns the resurrection, hinting at what those resurrected are to become. Instead, tradition focuses upon—if not obsesses over—sinfulness, sin that has been forgiven. There is more (the tradition wanes worse and the true message waxes better), but I can’t do the subject justice in this space

7. Somewhat less “orthodox” now, but still numbered among the believers.

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

The Danger of Cultural Christianity