Ignatius wrote:

`Whosoever is called by any other name than this of Christian is not of God, and it is our duty not only to be so

called, but to be'.

Gregory of Nazianzus said:

`I honour Peter, but I am not called Petrianus: I know Paul, but I am not called Paulianus. I will not consent to

be named of men, having been born of God. If I worshipped a creature I should not be a Christian. For why is

the name of Christian precious? Because Christ is God'.

The Antiochians were noted for inventing names of ridicule, (see Julian Misopogon, where he answers their

insults regarding his beard, and what Zosimus says of his emperor's visit, iii. II page 140), and there is every reason

to believe that this epoch-making name originated in the darkened wit of some loose living Antiochene. But there is

another side of the matter. Not even the wit of Antioch could have invented the name of `Christian' had there been

no material upon which to work. That material was most certainly provided by the ministry of Paul. The first

record of Paul's public witness is given in Acts 9, where we read:

`And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that He is the Son of God ... proving that this is the

Christ' (Acts 9:20,22 R.V.).

Later in Acts 17 we learn that this was his usual procedure:

`And Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the

Scriptures ... that this Jesus, Whom, said he, I proclaim unto you, is the Christ' (Acts 17:2,3 R.V.).

Paul's preaching left so strong an impression on the mind of Luke that instead of writing `this Jesus, Whom he

preached', a normal method of recording a past event, he records the actual words of Paul: and the Revisers,

perceiving this, have inserted the words, `said he'. At Corinth we have the same insistence:

`Paul was constrained by the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ' (Acts 18:5 R.V.).

The Person and work of Christ are the glory of Paul's epistles, and we can easily imagine that this blessed title,

and the repeated insistence upon its meaning and worth, soon became associated with the little gathering at Antioch.

Reference is made at the close of Acts 11 to Claudius, and in chapter 12 to the death of Herod. As these

references enable us to fix the date of Acts 12 with reasonable accuracy we will deal with them here, in order that

the way may be left clear for the commencement of our study of the ministry of Paul in Acts 13.

There is ample confirmation of the accuracy of the record that a famine befell the inhabitants of Judæa in the

reign of Claudius. In his Antiquities, Josephus refers to it in three places, namely, iii. 15, 3; xx. 2,5; and 5,2. Acts

12 records the tragic death of Herod, and Josephus gives us a vivid description of his dreadful end (Ant. xvii. 6,5 to

We further learn from Josephus that Herod Agrippa died on 6th August, A.D. 44, in the fifty-third year of his

age, and in the seventh of his reign, having reigned four years under Caligula, and three years under Claudius:

`Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over Judea, he came to the city Cæsarea, which was formerly

called Strabo's Tower: and there he exhibited shows in honour of Cæsar, upon his being informed that there was

a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety' (Ant. xix. 8,2).

Claudius had just returned from completing the conquests of Britain. His son received the name Britannicus in

honour of this acquisition to the Empire. The date of the return to Rome from Britain was January, A.D. 44, and the

festival held at Cæsarea `for his safety', during which Herod died, enables us to fix the date of Acts 12. Accordingly

we close this section with the following diagram which shows the Acts of the Apostles in relation to secular dates.