Who are the Natsarim?

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. What do you think they were called in Jewish circles? We find the answer to that in Acts 24. There comes this Tertullus, and he accuses Paul in the presence of the Roman power. He says of Paul, “ … we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes”. There were the Pharisees, who were terrific sticklers for the law and rather full of themselves. There were the Sadducees, who were very analytical and critical and didn't believe this and didn't believe that. And there were the Herodians, who didn't bother their heads so much about these things, but who went along with the ruling power because they knew it would be profitable for them in worldly things if they did so. The Jews had these sects among them and they were saying: “Now we've got the Nazarenes, the followers of this remarkable Person, Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified”. But another thing now arrives. Here where there was this work among the Gentiles, those who were converted owned the authority of the Lord over their hearts and lives and it put the stamp of Christ upon them. Others looking at these believers said, “We can't talk about them with a long rigmarole of explanation, we shall have to have something short and to the point. Well, they are Christ's ones, they are Christians”. It has often been pointed out that that word only occurs three times in the New Testament. Agrippa knew it (Acts 26:28). The name Christian had clearly travelled into high circles. Agrippa didn't say, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Nazarene”, but, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”. And it is endorsed by the Holy Spirit of God because in the first epistle of Peter you have the Spirit of God saying, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Peter 4:16). The Spirit of God, so to speak, accepts this name as a very good definition of those who are swept into this new and mighty work of His.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. What do you think they were called in Jewish circles? We find the answer to that in Acts 24. There comes this Tertullus, and he accuses Paul in the presence of the Roman power. He says of Paul, “ … we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes”. There were the Pharisees, who were terrific sticklers for the law and rather full of themselves. There were the Sadducees, who were very analytical and critical and didn't believe this and didn't believe that. And there were the Herodians, who didn't bother their heads so much about these things, but who went along with the ruling power because they knew it would be profitable for them in worldly things if they did so. The Jews had these sects among them and they were saying: “Now we've got the Nazarenes, the followers of this remarkable Person, Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified”. But another thing now arrives. Here where there was this work among the Gentiles, those who were converted owned the authority of the Lord over their hearts and lives and it put the stamp of Christ upon them. Others looking at these believers said, “We can't talk about them with a long rigmarole of explanation, we shall have to have something short and to the point. Well, they are Christ's ones, they are Christians”. It has often been pointed out that that word only occurs three times in the New Testament. Agrippa knew it (Acts 26:28). The name Christian had clearly travelled into high circles. Agrippa didn't say, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Nazarene”, but, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”. And it is endorsed by the Holy Spirit of God because in the first epistle of Peter you have the Spirit of God saying, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Peter 4:16). The Spirit of God, so to speak, accepts this name as a very good definition of those who are swept into this new and mighty work of His.

For a whole year teaching now went on without lot or hindrance, as far as we are informed, and the disciples in this city first received a new appellation, being called Christians. Nazaræans the Jews had styled and continued to style them (Acts 24:5). Brethren, they designated themselves. Christians, the men of Antioch surnamed them. "Nazaræans" told its tale of all that the Jews could say - viz., that the people whom they thoroughly detested were followers of one brought up at Nazareth. Of anything about the Lord beyond His life and death they knew nothing; His parents belonged to Nazareth, so they called Him a Nazaræan, and His followers were named Nazaræans. The disciples, however, had come to know of and to enjoy a fellowship together as children of the same Father: hence they called themselves Brethren (1:15, [46] 9:30, 12:17).

In the preceding pages it has been attempted to trace out in some slight degree the activities of a nature, foreign to man as a child of Adam, but inseparable from the one who is a child of God. It is the going forth of a new nature — the divine nature displayed in its perfection in the Lord Jesus (in whom alone it was not new) as He walked on earth, and seen in some measure in those, who by the Jews were called Nazoreans, by the Gentiles Christians, and by each other Brethren. (Acts 24:5; 11:26, 29.)

A native of Nazareth. Joseph and Mary, when they returned from Egypt, went to reside at Nazareth, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." These words are not found in the O.T., but the thought conveyed by them is in the prophets generally, that the Messiah would be despised and reproached: cf. Ps. 69; Isa. 53; etc. His disciples suffered the same reproach: Paul had to hear himself called "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Matt. 2:23; Acts 24:5. Christians in some parts of Palestine are still called Nazarenes.

The arraignment of Paul before him bears all the marks of bitter animus and prejudice. That not only elders but even Ananias the high priest should have thought it necessary to go down to appear against him, shows the importance they gave to his case. Then they employed an advocate who, to judge by his name, was a Roman and not a Jew. Tertullus, they doubtless felt, would know better than themselves what would appeal to the Roman mind, and so be more likely to secure a conviction. Tertullus did know, and began with fulsome flattery, for the account given of Felix's administration in secular history is in flat denial of what he stated. This he followed by a fourfold charge against Paul. All four charges were vague, particularly the first, that he was a pest, and the second that he was a mover of sedition. Vague charges were preferred, for he knew they could not be easily disproved as plain definite charges often can be.

The third and fourth charges were a little more definite. The fourth, as to profaning the temple was false, as the previous chapter showed: the third was the only one with some semblance of truth. He had proved himself a leader amongst the Christians, who were known by the Jews as the sect of the Nazarenes. They were indeed followers of the despised Nazarene, but they were emphatically not just a new sect amongst the Jews. The book of Acts was written to show us they were not this but rather something entirely new. The world never understands any genuine work of God.

He first makes three charges against Paul personally, and then one charge that he had "gone about to profane the temple." Of course the first three charges cannot even be considered by a court of justice. They considered Paul to be a pest. What difference would this make to a judge? They said he was a mover of sedition. But they have not one specific act of sedition to lay to his charge. They claimed that he was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." But this means nothing unless he had done something unlawful. The fourth charge does refer to his actions, but only that he had "gone about to profane the temple," not even that he had actually profaned it. In Chapter 21:28 the Asian Jews had charged Paul with actually polluting the temple. By this time Tertullus had probably learned that this could not be substantiated, yet he realized he ought to have some charge against Paul, therefore put it in this indefinite way. He did not say that Paul may have brought a Gentile into the temple, for the Gentile Felix would hardly consider this a charge at all! The only thing that the Jews could count on having any effect at all on Felix was the smooth speech of Tertullus.

They brought along a certain orator named Tertullus, who accused Paul in the presence of Felix. The words Tertullus used against the great man of God are extremely vile and manifest the hiss of the serpent. He calls him a pestilent fellow," a person whom Society may well be rid of. The indictment contains three counts. First stands a Political accusation. This, in presence of the high Roman officer, was of the greatest importance. Any conspiracy against the Roman government was a capital offense. The charge of sedition or treason was thus at once laid at the door of the Apostle. The second offense Tertullus brought against Paul was of a religious nature. As ringleader of the Nazarenes, presented by him as a sect of the Jews, he had abetted that which was against the peace of Judaism and introduced not alone a disturbing element, but had transgressed another Roman law, which forbade the introduction of an unrecognized religion. The third charge was the profanation of the temple. Paul answers the indictment in a masterly way. His address contains a denial of the first charge; a confession and admission concerning the second, and a complete vindication of the accusation of the temple profanation.

Having thus and yet more grossly sought to conciliate the governor, Tertullus after verse 4 turns to the calumniating of Paul. He represents the apostle not merely by the vague but most injurious appellation of a pest or pestilent fellow, but more definitely as moving seditions among all the Jews throughout the world, notoriously open to such mischievous excitement beyond all others through their untoward circumstances as well as their presence everywhere since their dispersion. Next, he taxes Paul as an heresiarch, or rather sectarian chief, employing (here only in the New Testament) against the Christians that name of contempt which they fixed on their Master — 'a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.' Lastly, he renews the old accusation of profaning the temple: the unfounded rumour which had originally set on the Jews to slay Paul in Jerusalem.

But far from denying what was said of 'the sect' (ver. 5), he avows it openly. 'But this I confess to thee, that according to the Way which they call sect, so I serve the [or, our] fathers' God.' This was of moment for the governor. Tolerant as the Romans were toward the religious convictions of the nations they ruled, they were stern in disallowing innovations, especially such as tended to stir up civil discord. The apostle accordingly prefers here, as on two other occasions not quite similar, to depart from the usual phrase, and says πατρώῶ θεῳ rather than τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν as Kühnöl and others have noticed. As the heathen, without God themselves, called the Christians godless or Atheists, because they had no idols, so the Jews called the church 'a sect'. Yet was it the only institution on earth that could not be a sect while true to Christ. The apostle goes farther however, and confesses his faith in all things according to the law and in the things written in the prophets. There is no hesitation in declaring boldly his faith in all the ancient oracles before the high priest and the Sadducean party, who notoriously slighted the prophets, as they had no real reverence for the law. If any Pharisees were in alliance with them as 'elders' of Israel, what a position in confederating with infidels against a more thorough believer than themselves!