1 Peter 4:16

but if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.

By any calculation, this is one of the great verses of the New Testament: (1) In context, "if any man suffer as a Christian" has the meaning of "if any man is put to death for being a Christian," exploding in one short text the false theory that the mere profession of Christianity did not become a capital offense until the times of Domitian. (2) It identifies the divinely authorized name which was bestowed upon Christ's followers by the mouth of God himself, that is, the name Christian. (3) The chosen people, the new Israel of God, the church of Christ is commanded to glorify God in this name. For a discussion of the prophetic utterances regarding this name with the divine events which prevented for a time the giving of it, and also the providential circumstances surrounding the first appearance of the name in Syrian Antioch, see my Commentary on Acts, pp. 232-236.

REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME "CHRISTIAN"

It is distressing that in the 20th century, the old lie that Satan is the author of the name "Christian" is still widely circulated, and alas, accepted as gospel truth even by Christian commentators who certainly should know better. The Bible reveals that in the new dispensation, the children of God are to be called by a new name which the "mouth of the Lord" would name (Isaiah 62:2). If the enemies of Christ were privileged to name his followers, whatever became of that new name which was to originate in the mouth of God? As Hervey declared, "There is no evidence of its having been given in derision."[24] Admittedly, the name Christian glorifies Christ as the head of the church; and could there be anything reasonable in the supposition that evil men, under the influence of Satan, would have concocted a name that would glorify the Lord Jesus Christ?

This very verse is the place in the New Testament where the apostle Peter, in a sense, used "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," being the first of the apostles, and even the only one, to bind the name "Christian" upon the Lord's followers as their official, holy name. See introduction for further discussion of the "keys of the kingdom."

One of the most significant facts in the New Testament is that the name "disciple" which was everywhere applied to Jesus' followers throughout the Gospels and Acts, absolutely disappears from the New Testament from Acts to Revelation! The apostle John used the expression "disciples" some 77 times in his gospel, but never once in the three short epistles that bear his name, nor in the book of Revelation.

True, Matthew's commission reveals Jesus commanding the apostles to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:18-20); but that same commission reveals that all such disciples were to be "baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The name "Christian" is the name of the Father in the sense of his having sent his only Son who is honored by the name; it is the name "of the Son," because of the word "Christ" which is the principal part of the name; and it is the name of "the Holy Spirit," because the Holy Spirit conveyed the name through Paul and Barnabas at Antioch in Syria. One of the ways therefore in which Christians "put on Christ" in baptism (Galatians 3:27) is by putting on the sacred name of "Christian" by the very act itself.

A great deal of the support for the notion that the word "Christian" was a variation of "chrestian," meaning "goody-goody," and that it was originally a term of derision applied by Christ's enemies, comes from the fact of the Sinaitic manuscript having "Chrestian" instead of "Christian."[25] And why do scholars put so much trust in this variation from even older manuscripts? It is due to the scholarly "ipsi dixit" that "the more difficult reading is always to be preferred!"[26] They have even elevated this rule of interpretation to the status of a law, giving it a Latin name, and calling it "Lectio Difficilior", and this "law" is said to be the reason why the Sinaitic manuscript is chosen above older and more numerous manuscripts. Ridiculous! "Those most difficult variations could possibly be the result of scribal error and therefore have little meaning."[27] Think of it. The only thing that happened with that Sinaitic manuscript was that a tired scribe accidentally substituted an "e" for an "i"; and there's not a scholar on earth, nor even a student, who has not done that same thing himself a hundred times! So much for that worthless variation in the Sinaitic manuscript!

One other thought regarding the origin of this holy name is in order. Although our view is that `the Lord himself' gave the new name, it is not out of harmony with this to suppose that the Spirit-filled church might itself have begun to apply the name as suggested by Wheaton below; however, it does not seem consistent with divine origin to suppose that an epithet hurled by the enemies of the truth would in fact become the name. Wheaton said:

The Latin suffix "-ianus" may have been added to the Greek word Christ to indicate "supporters of," in the same way that Herod's followers were called Herodians (Mark 3:6, etc.). A Roman custom followed in adoption was that of taking this same suffix and adding it to the name of the one doing the adopting. Thus one adopted by Domitius would call himself Domitianus ... The Christians may well have applied the name to themselves as having been adopted into Christ's family.[28]

Glorify God in this name ... How shall the followers of the Lord honor such a commandment as this? First of all, it should be received as a commandment. The fact of the commandment having been given only once in the New Testament cannot reduce the binding nature of it. As regards the question of "how" to glorify God in this name, a number of things must be included: (1) It should be worn as the exclusive religious name of the child of God, not hyphenated with another name. (2) A godly, obedient, holy and devoted life should be exhibited by the wearer. (3) One should repeat the name under all circumstances where it would be appropriate, not being ashamed, ever to do so.

[24] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 359.

[25] A. J. Mason, op. cit., p. 430.

[26] Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1974), p. 81.

[27] Ibid.

[28] David H. Wheaton, op. cit., p. 1246.