THE CASE OF
The Case
of
Cornelius
BY
Professor
JAMES D. BALES
of Bible, Harding College
Searcy, Arkansas
Gospel Light Publishing Company
Delight, Arkansas
Copyright 1964
By
Gospel Light Publishing Company
Dedicated to
Mr. and Mrs. J. R. Newman
Beloved Friends in the Lord
Preface
The case of Cornelius is one of the most misunderstood
conversions in the New Testament. Individuals have ap­
pealed to it to justify their peculiar teachings about the
Holy Spirit, or about baptism, or about how the Spirit
works in conversion. The purpose of the miraculous
manifestations in this case is often overlooked while peo­
ple use it to prove things which are foreign to what the
Bible teaches. Since it is important to be converted to
Christ it is important for us to understand what is involv­
ed in conversion to Christ. It is possible to think that one
has actually been converted to Christ, when in reality he
has stopped short of what the Lord wants him to do. All
who love the Lord should want to know and to do His will
even though it may upset traditions to which they have
long held. All who try to share with others the way of
truth should want to instruct others in the way of the
Lord so that they, too, will be converted to Christ. No
sincere person wants to misguide others in such an im­
portant matter as our relationship to Christ. And yet, un­
less we study the word of God with honest hearts and dili­
gent minds we may be misled ourselves and we may mis­
lead others.
Those readers who are interested in the author’s expo­
sition of Acts 2:21 (calling on the name of the Lord)
should see the chapter in my book The Hub of the Bible.
James D. Bales.
Searcy, Arkansas
CONTENTS
I
CORNELIUS, THE GENTILE WHO FEARED GOD
7
II
21
“THY PRAYER IS HEARD”
III
Miraculous
elements involved
28
iv
WHY THE SPIRIT CAME ON CORNELIUS
49
V
THE PREACHER AND HIS SERMON
70
VI
THE PURPOSE OF CORNELIUS’ BAPTISM
82
VII
YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE CONVERSION
99
Chapter One
Cornelius,
The Gentile Who Feared God
Cornelius was “a centurion of the band called the Ital­
ian band” (Acts 10:1). “Band” has reference to a cohort.
“A regular cohort, the tenth part of a legion, had a paper
strength of 600 men; an auxiliary cohort usually com­
prised 1,000 men.” The cohort in Judaea was an auxiliary
cohort. “We have inscriptional evidence of the presence
in Syria c. (around) A.D. 69 of the . . . ‘second Italian
cohort of Roman citizens’.” “A centurion was nominally
in command of a hundred men; his responsibilities cor­
respond to those of a modern army captain, his status was
that of a non-commissioned officer. Centurions were the
backbone of the Roman army. Polybius {History iv. 24)
sums up their necessary qualifications thus: ‘Centurions
are required not to be bold and adventurous so much as
good leaders, of steady and prudent mind, not prone to
take the offensive or start fighting wantonly, but able
when overwhelmed and hard-pressed to stand fast and die
at their post’.” (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 214215. See also Josephus, Jewish Wars, ii 18, 7; iii 42).
Cornelius’ life shines all the brighter when we remem­
ber the circumstances under which he lived. Army life in
all ages has had its temptations. There were not only
temptations to immorality but also temptations to idola­
try since the idolatry of pagan Rome penetrated the ar­
mies of pagan Rome. Cornelius worshipped God, so he
8
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
had kept himself from idolatry. He was a just man, thus
had not taken advantage of his position to deal harshly
with the people. He was a praying man, so the fact that
he was a soldier had not taken away from him his realiza­
tion that he was a dependent creature. Instead of robbing
the people he was a giver of much alms.
Cornelius is one of the centurions who is mentioned in
the New Testament in a favorable light. Of another cen­
turion Jesus “marvelled, and said to them that followed
him, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great
faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, that many
shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven: but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth
into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and
gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go
thy way; as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee”
(Matt. 8:10-13).
Cornelius the centurion is described as “a righteous
man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all
the nation of the Jews . .
(Acts 10:22). He was “a
devout man . . . who gave much alms to the people, and
prayed to God always” (10:2). Although he was a good
moral man, and a religious man, he still needed the gospel
of Jesus Christ. Although he was a praying man, who
even had a vision, he needed to hear words whereby he
should be saved (10:3-4; 11:14).
As we more carefully examine this man and his quali­
ties let us keep in mind two important considerations.
First, although the Christian is to live a good moral life,
and although the fine attitude of Cornelius revealed a
heart which furnished good soil for the seed of the king­
dom, it takes more than moral goodness to save a person.
There are many individuals who are not nearly as good
morally as was Cornelius, who yet think that they are
good enough as they are. They do not think that they need
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
9
to be cleansed by the blood of Christ. They are basing
their hope of heaven on their moral goodness. Cornelius
needed the gospel, and so do they, for all have sinned and
fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Second,
the life of Cornelius before he became a Christian puts to
shame, by comparison, the life of some today who have
had the advantages of being brought up in a Christian
home, of hearing the gospel all of their lives and who have
attended church services with regularity. How does your
life look when compared with Cornelius’ before his con­
version?
It must have been possible for a soldier in the Roman
army to keep himself free from idolatrous worship and to
live a moral life, because before his conversion Cornelius
was not an idolater and he lived a moral life. He was not
a proselyte to the Jewish religion in that he was circum­
cised and kept the law, but he was a Gentile fearer of God
who worshipped God and kept the moral law. Thus the
Scriptures represent him as “a devout man, and one that
feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the
people and prayed to God always." His prayers and alms
had “gone up for a memorial before God” (10:4). It was
further said of him, “Cornelius a centurion, a righteous
man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all
the nations of the Jews . . .” (Acts 10:22).
If Cornelius had been immoral and an idolater these
things could not all have been said about him. But they
were said about him, so in spite of the difficulties it must
have been possible for him to worship God and to live a
moral life while in the Roman Army. If called on to live
otherwise, of course, he would have had to refuse to obey.
Doubtless, it was not easy for him to live a good moral
life in such surroundings. “But in reality, religion shows
its power in transmuting the raw material of external cir­
cumstance. Were piety dependent on happy external cir­
cumstances, it would be merely a matter of grace of man-
10
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
nets. We cannot expect elegance of the boor, refinement
of savages and roughs, but the sparks of Divine love may
be struck from the roughest flint of human nature. Those
characters which present naturally the greatest resistance
to the gospel become often its brightest illustrations when
subdued by the power of the truth.” (Pulpit Commentary,
Acts and Romans, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950, Vol. 18, pp. 340-341).
Cornelius Was Not a Proselyte
Cornelius was not a proselyte to the Jewish faith. If he
had been a convert to Judaism, the Judaizers in Jerusalem
would not have challenged Peter’s association with him.
“Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea
heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of
God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they
that were of the circumcision contended with him saying,
Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with
them” (Acts 11:1-3).
The vision which Peter had would have been unneces­
sary if Cornelius had been a proselyte to the Jewish faith,
for he would have then viewed Cornelius as a member of
his own nation instead of as a member of another nation
(Acts 10:9-16, 28).
What was involved in being a proselyte? The word
once was used to distinguish between the native bom of
the land and those who were strangers, or sojourners in
the land. It came to refer to a Gentile who was converted
to the Jewish faith (James Orr, Editor, The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 2467). Being
proselyted to the Jewish faith came to involve three
things. First, circumcision. This was commanded in the
Old Testament for those who would become identified
with the Jewish nation (Gen. 17:9-13). Circumcision
meant that he was bound to keep the law of Moses. Sec­
ond, immersion. He was then considered as a newly bom
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
11
child, a new man and he was given a new name. As one
who had given himself to God he was considered to be an
Israelite. There were Jews who thought that the proselyte
was inferior to the one who had been born a Jew. Third, a
sacrifice was offered (ibid., p. 2469. F. F. Bruce, Com­
mentary on the Book of Acts, Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956, p. 64).
There were other Gentiles who were sometimes viewed
as proselytes of the gate instead of the “proselyte of the
covenant.” These had not met the above qualifications.
These individuals accepted Jehovah as the true God and
lived by the moral principles of the law, such as abstain­
ing from theft, blasphemy, fornication, idolatry and homi­
cide (James Orr, op. cit., p. 2469). Some of them attend­
ed the synagogue and read the Scriptures in Greek (F. F.
Bruce, op. cit., p. 216). The Gentiles who were not cir­
cumcised, but who believed in God and lived by the
moral law, were known as Gentile God-fearers. Cornelius
was a Gentile who feared God.
A Devout Man
Cornelius was a devout man. To be devout meant that
one was “pious,” “dutiful,” “reverential.” It was used by
Luke to refer to Cornelius before he was a Christian
(Acts 10:2, 7); to “devout proselytes” (13:43); to “de­
vout women of honorable estate” (13:50) and to Anan­
ias who was a Christian (Acts 22:12). (James Orr, op.
cit., Vol. II, p. 840). A Christian should be devout, but
not every devout person is a Christian.
A Man Who Feared God
The term fear in the Bible is not only used in the sense
of terror, but also to refer to reverence and awe. To fear
God, in the sense that Cornelius feared, indicated that he
was a religious man who stood in reverence and awe be­
fore God. In fact, the Gentiles who accepted the moral
law and the one true God, Jehovah, were known as God-
12
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
fearers (Compare James Orr, op. cit., Vol. II, pp- 11021103).
Cornelius Influenced Others for Good
Cornelius was not only one who feared God, but his
faith in God led him to influence others to believe in and
fear God. Thus, we are told that he “feared God with all
his house” (Acts 10:2). Furthermore, when he was told
to send for Peter who would tell him words whereby he
should be saved, he wanted others to hear the word of sal­
vation. “And Cornelius was waiting for them, having call­
ed together his kinsmen and his near friends” (Acts 10:
24). Although we shall not be able to influence everyone
for good, there certainly may be something wrong if we
do not exercise any influence on our friends and loved
ones. There are wives who are unable to influence their
husbands with words, so, although they should not try to
“nag” their husbands into the kingdom, they should try to
win them by their manner of life (1 Pet. 3:1-3). It may
be that something is not wrong with us, but we should
examine ourselves to see whether or not we are casting a
stumbling block by our life or by our method of approach
to them. It may be that we have done wrong in the past,
and, although we have repented, the other person holds
this against us and uses it as an excuse, if not as a reason,
as to why he does not obey the gospel. It may be that it is
not our fault at all that someone near to us does not re­
spond to the gospel. But we should try to so live and so
teach that all in our house fear God, and that our kinsmen
and near friends will be sufficiently impressed by us that
they will consider favorably a request from us to meet in
our house for Bible study.
It will be observed that Cornelius was evangelistic be­
fore he became a Christian. Thus he gathered a group to
hear Peter. There are Christians who have had cottage
meetings in their own home or in the homes of friends.
This is not the only way that personal work can be done,
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
13
but it is one way. Are you as a Christian as interested in
reaching others, as was Cornelius? Good news, by its very
nature, ought to be shared. We who have been found by
the Savior ought to want others to find the Savior.
Gave Much Alms
“Who gave much alms to the people . . .” (Acts 10:
2). The “people” is the term which was used for the Jews
(Compare Acts 10:42; 26:17, 23; 28:17). Cornelius, a
Gentile, did not have the attitude that he should help only
those of his own race. Instead, he gave alms, yea much
alms, to the people. Although it is not easy to do benevo­
lent work so that you actually help people, faith in God
which does not move one to do good works for man is not
the faith that it ought to be. There are some Christians
who have more than others, and can do more benevolent
work than other Christians, but of how many of us can it
be said that we give much alms? We should try to help
people help themselves, but there are opportunities for all
of us to do alms deeds.
Prayed to God Always
Cornelius recognized that he was a dependent creature,
and that God the Creator of the heavens and the earth
hears prayer. The word always indicates that he was con­
stant in prayer, that he prayed with regularity. It was not
an occasional, hit-or-miss affair with him. If we are aware
of God’s presence and of our need, we, too, shall pray to
God always. Does Cornelius’ prayer life put you to
shame?
Cornelius Was a Righteous Man (Acts 10:22)
Cornelius was just or upright in his dealings with man.
This did not mean that he had already been cleansed from
sin and clothed with the righteousness of God which is by
faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-26). It did mean that he
was a just man, and as a righteous man he worked right-
14
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
eousness. As Peter said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is
no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that fears
him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him”
(Acts 10:34). A righteous man works righteousness be­
cause he is righteous. If we are not righteous in our man­
ner of life it is because we are not righteous. Peter’s state­
ment did not mean that Cornelius did not need the gospel,
but that the man who wants to do God’s will and who
wants to do right, and then does right, is acceptable to
God—on the terms of the gospel, of course.
A Man of Good Reputation
It is true that not everyone will speak well of a good
man. There are people who will speak against them and
misrepresent them. But if a man is a good man, and lives
the type of life Cornelius was living, he will build a repu­
tation which many will respect. For Cornelius, a Roman
soldier, to be “well reported of by all the nations of the
Jews” was a tremendous achievement. Not only was he a
Gentile, but he was a member of the Roman army and the
Jews had more than once rebelled against Rome. Corne­
lius must have been an exceptional person to have gained
the respect of the Jews under such circumstances. What
about our reputation? Do the outsiders, who respect
moral goodness, speak well of us?
Household Worship
Cornelius puts some Christians to shame with refer­
ence to household worship. He feared God with all his
house (Acts 10:2). He kept, for example, “the ninth hour
of prayer” in his house (10:30). How many Christians
have Bible reading, singing, discussions, and prayers in
their homes? The best time to start this is with the very
beginning of the marriage. If one waits until the children
in the home are half grown, it will be much more difficult
to start family worship.
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
15
Humility of Cornelius
. Cornelius is bidden to seek out a Jew, one of the
conquered race, not even a ruler or a high priest, but a
man lodging in the most despised quarter of the town,
and to hear from his lips what further is required of him.
. . . Cornelius sent eagerly to Joppa to find Peter, caring
neither for pride nor aught else if he can find the salvation
which he is seeking, the pearl of great price.” (E. M.
Knox, The Acts of the Apostles, London: MacMillan and
Co., Ltd., 1928, p. 159).
His humility had also been evident in the fact that pre­
vious to this he had attended the synagogue and had
learned of Jehovah from the Jews. Knox observed that:
“These centurions were, from their nationality and call­
ing, imbued with the Spirit of Rome, and inclined, as the
representatives of a conquering race, to despise those sub­
ject to them; the subject Jews on their side were as natu­
rally inclined to hate their conquerors and to view their
actions in an unfavourable light; and yet, despite them­
selves as it were, these centurions are always spoken of
favourably by the Jewish writers of the Bible, and in­
stance after instance is given of the way in which they
were attracted towards the Jewish Faith. Thus the cen­
turion at the Cross sees and recognizes the Divinity of
Jesus even at the moment of His deepest humiliation; an­
other loves the Jewish nation and builds them a syna­
gogue; and a third man is well reported of by the whole
nation of the Jews.... It seems as though the simplicity
and obedience required in the army, ‘I say to this man,
“Go,” and he goeth, and to another “Come,” and he
cometh, to my servant “Do this,” and he doeth it,’ pre­
pares men for the grandeur and simplicity as well as for
the self-discipline of the Christian faith. So, too, the self­
sacrifice which is prepared to yield life for the defence of
home and country predisposes to the still higher sacrifice
of yielding life for God.” (Ibid. pp. 158-159).
16
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Undoubtedly there were many centurions who did not
have this attitude, just as undoubtedly there were other
soldiers who did not desire salvation as did those to whom
John spoke (Lk. 3:14). And yet, certainly the attitude of
obedience is one which a person must have to accept God.
Thus, Cornelius, when told what to do by an angel, did it.
And he was ready to hear all that God commanded
through an apostle whom he recognized as sent of God
(Acts 10:33; 11:14). The spirit of sacrifice for what one
considers to be of real value is also the spirit which is
necessary if we are to serve God.
Receptive Hearts
Cornelius told Peter that “Forthwith therefore I sent to
thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now
therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to
hear all things that have been commanded thee of the
Lord” (Acts 10:33).
They did not say that we have come to hear that which
vill please us, or confirm us in our prejudices or tradiions, or just that which we may apply to other people.
They were not there to hear the doctrines of men. They
were there to hear all, not just a part, of what God, not
man, had commanded Peter to tell them.
Cornelius realized something that many do not realize.
He recognized that they were “all here present in the sight
of God." An awareness of the presence of God, a realiza­
tion that He knows our condition, makes us realize that
we have a responsibility to God as to how we hear. When
we are aware that we are in God’s presence continually,
we shall realize how fitting it is that we be ready to hear
all that God has commanded. Is it not also true that if we
really want to know and to do God’s will that we shall be­
come increasingly aware of the fact that all life is lived in
the presence of God?
What a wonderful audience faced Peter. What tremen-
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
17
dous results would follow each exposition of the word of
God if all had the attitude of this audience. Although we
cannot make others have this attitude, certainly we our­
selves can have this attitude both in a private and in pub­
lic study of the word of God.
What a fine man Cornelius was, and yet he needed the
gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, he “was warned of God by
a holy angel to send for thee [Peter] into his house, and
to hear words from thee.” (Acts 10:22). The words
which he needed to hear were the “words, whereby thou
shalt be saved and all thy house” (Acts 11:14). They
were words of salvation for they were words which pre­
sented Christ the Savior and showed Cornelius how he
could have his heart purified by faith and be saved by
grace (Acts 15:9, 11).
Eager to Learn and to Do
The fine characteristics which we have seen in the life
of Cornelius manifested themselves in his eagerness to
learn more about God’s will. Thus when God told him to
send for someone who would tell him words whereby he
could be saved, he did not say that he knew enough al­
ready, or that he was good enough already; instead, he
did what the Lord told him to do. Because he feared God,
he wanted to do God’s will. So when God spoke, he
acted. He was ready to walk in the additional light when
he saw the additional light. Having the desire to know all
that God had commanded Peter to teach him, he was re­
ceptive to the message, and was baptized into Christ
(Acts 10:33, 48). When he learned more he was willing
to do more. How many of us have this willingness to
learn and to do more?
Good Moral Men Need Christ
Christians must be good moral men, but having some
good moral qualities does not mean that one is a Chris­
tian. The grace of God instructs us to live moral lives.
18
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
“For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation
to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying un­
godliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and
righteously and godly in this present world; looking for
the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great
God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us,
that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good
works.” (Titus 2:11-14).
No man is good enough of himself. All have sinned
and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). “For
we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy,
hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of
God our Savior, and his love toward man, appeared, not
by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves,
but according to his mercy he saved us, through the wash­
ing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ
our Savior; that, being justified by his grace, we might be
made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Faithful
is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that
thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have be­
lieved God may be careful to maintain good works” (Tit.
3:3-8). We must obey, from a heart of faith, the gospel
in order to become children of God (Tit. 3:5; Rom. 6:
3-5, 17-18; Gal. 3:26-27), and we must live the Chris­
tian life. We do not therefore merit the eternal reward,
but we do have to accept Christ and walk in the light that
as faithful sons we may inherit eternal life.
It is clear, therefore, that Christians must live good
moral lives, but it is also clear that we are saved through,
the grace of God and not through any merit of our own.
But why, the good moral man may ask, do I need sal­
vation? First, because you are not good enough. To be
good enough to merit salvation one would need to be per-
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
19
feet. To be measured by the perfect law and to be declar­
ed guiltless would mean that one had never done what
was wrong nor left undone that which was good. To be
justified by the law, which involved being justified by a
life of merit, would mean that one did all that the law re­
quired, and that one did it all of the time. “For as many
as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all
things that are written in the book of the law, to do them”
(Gal. 3:10). No one has done all the law required and
done it all of the time.
Second, God has said that all have sinned and fallen
short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). When you say
that you are good enough as you are, you are saying that
God lied. “If we say that we have not sinned, we make
him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 Jno. 1:10). But
Paul said: “let God be found true, but every man a liar”
(Rom. 3:4).
Third, in your claim that you are good enough, you are
trying to be self-righteous. You are saying that Christ did
not need to die for you, for you are good enough. Thus
you are rejecting the grace of God, you are repudiating
the death of Him who died for you.
Fourth, but you say, wherein have I sinned? Doubtless
you would not have to look far into your life in order to
find sins of omission and sins of commission. What would
you say if we pointed out that you are living in violation
of the first and greatest commandment? If this does not
make you a sinner, it would be impossible to be a sinner.
The first and greatest commandment is to love God with
your whole being. Jesus “said unto him, Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul
and with all thy mind. This is the great and first com­
mandment” (Matt. 22:37-38). You are also violating
the second. “And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself’ (Matt. 22:39). In com-
20
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
meriting on the need of Cornelius for the gospel, J. W.
McGarvey brought out in the following quotation that
these self-righteous people are not doing their duty to
God, nor their full duty to their fellowman. “Our selfrighteous men of the world must then be deceiving them­
selves. They forget that while they are discharging in a
creditable manner their obligations [or rather, some of
their obligations, J.D.B.] to their fellow men, they are
neglecting the much higher obligation to render direct
service to God by observing the ordinances of his ap­
pointment. The most inexcusable of all sins is a refusal to
render to God, our Maker and Redeemer, the homage
which is his due. Moreover, in acting thus we do great
harm by our example to our fellow men, and most of all
to those who love us most.” (New Commentary on Acts
of Apostles).
Fellow Christians, does Cornelius’ life shame you?
Men of the world, will you not follow Cornelius’ example
of the receptive and obedient heart?
Chapter Two
"Thy Prayer Is Heard"
“And Cornelius said, Four days ago, until this hour, I
was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house; and
behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, and
said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are
had in remembrance in the sight of God” (Acts 10:3031). The angel also said: “Thy prayers and thine alms
are gone up for a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4).
A Memorial
“The angel’s language here is full of sacrificial ter­
minology such as we find in the early chapters of Leviti­
cus.” “Are gone up” or “have ascended,” “like the smoke
of a sacrifice. The Hebrew term for burnt-offering is
‘olah, which literally means an ‘ascending’. For the sacri­
ficial reference of the word ‘memorial’ . . . Lev. 2:2,
where this term is used in LXX of the part of the meal­
offering which was burnt, i.e. presented to God. For the
sacrificial efficacy of such religious acts as those of Cor­
nelius cf. Psa. 141:2 (‘the lifting up of my hands as the
evening sacrifice’) . . . Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:15f.” (F. F.
Bruce, op. cit., p. 216). As a sacrifice from a contrite
spirit was acceptable to God, just so had the prayers and
alms of Cornelius been accepted in some sense.
On the phrase for a memorial (10:4), Horatio B.
Hackett commented: “he was now to receive evidence of
his being remembered, inasmuch as God was about to
open a way for his attainment of the peace of mind which
he had so anxiously sought.” (Commentary on the Origi­
nal Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston: Gould and
22
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Lincoln, 1858, p. 175). Richard B. Rackham wrote that:
“The Jews had rightly perceived that the real punishment
to be dreaded was to be forgotten or forsaken of God
(Cp. Mt. 27:46); and their constant prayer was ‘Re­
member me, oh God,’ their anxious desire to find some­
thing to serve for a memorial of them before God. In
particular this name of memorial had been given to that
part of the meal offering—the handful of flour with oil
and incense—which the priest burnt upon the altar and
which ascended unto the Lord as a sweet savour (It oc­
curs in Leviticus ii 2, 9, v. 12, etc.: Isa. Ivi. . . . For
Noah cp. Gen. viii 21. . . .”) The fragrance of the in­
cense called Israel to remembrance before Jehovah, as
the sweet smell of Noah’s sacrifce reminded him of Noah.
This offering then accompanied the daily sacrifice and
putting the Lord in remembrance made the sacrifice
acceptable to him. It is evident that this was a fore­
shadowing of the ‘perpetual memory’ of the sacrifice
of Christ which, to use human speech, by reminding the
Father of the oblation upon the cross makes the Christian
prayer and sacrifice acceptable and efficacious ... in
the case of Cornelius who as a Gentile had no share in
the daily offering in the temple, his prayers and alms went
up to God and served as a memorial before him. God
then remembered Cornelius, but the revelation for which
he prayed was not to be given directly: like Saul he must
be told by the church.” (The Acts of the Apostles, Lon­
don: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1919, p. 149).
H. Leo Boles observed that “ ‘Memorial’ means a re­
membrance; it comes from the Greek ‘mnemosunon, and
is used only one other time in the New Testament by
Jesus concerning the act of Mary of Bethany. (Matt. 26:
13; Mark 14:9).” (A Commentary on Acts of the Apos­
tles, Nashville, Tenn.: Gospel Advocate Company, 1948,
p. 161).
Anthropomorphic language is used in speaking of
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
23
God; that is, language which is used to describe man and
the actions of man. Since we speak the language of man,
and not the language of heaven, God must make His
revelation to us in the language of man. Just as a sacrifice
and incense would catch the attention of a man, and call
to his remembrance the one who was making the sacri­
fice, just so the sacrifices of Israel were said to attract the
attention of God. Cornelius’ prayers and alms arose as a
memorial, calling God’s attention to Cornelius. Of
course, God knows of our existence and of our condition.
He does not need any act of ours to inform Him of these
matters. But His attention is turned toward us to bless
and favor us when we do that which is pleasing in His
sight.
Does God Hear a Sinner’s Prayer?
The Bible states that Cornelius’ prayer was heard. This
did not just mean that God knew that Cornelius prayed,
for God knows that people pray whose prayers He rejects.
The angel said: “Cornelius, thy prayer is heard . . .”
(Acts 10:31).
How do we harmonize this with the statement that:
“We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man
be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth”
(John 9:31). God does not hear a sinner’s prayer, but
God did hear Cornelius’ prayer. Therefore, Cornelius
was either not a sinner or the two passages contradict.
This is the conclusion which some draw. But Cornelius
was a sinner in need of salvation, for he had to hear
words whereby he should be saved (Acts 11:14). To put
it another way, he needed to have faith in Jesus Christ in
order to receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). Thus,
Cornelius was a sinner.
How do we harmonize Acts 10:31 and John 9:31?
First, let us remember that the Bible sometimes records
the words of Satan (Matt. 4:3, 9). We know that the
Devil said certain things, because the Bible says that he
24
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
said it. But we would not build a doctrine on the Devil’s
word. The Bible also sometimes records the words of
men, for example, of some of the enemies of Christ. It
also records the conversation in John 9 between one
whom Jesus had healed, but who himself was not inspir­
ed, and some of the enemies of Jesus. Jesus had healed
this man (John 9:1-12). The Pharisees asked the man
about it. He told what had happened. “Some therefore of
the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he
keepeth not the sabbath. But others said, How can a man
that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division
among them.” (9:16). The man who had been healed
maintained that Jesus “is a prophet.” (9:17). The Phari­
sees questioned his parents and then they questioned him
again. “So they called a second time the man that was
blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know
that this man is a sinner. He therefore answered, Whether
he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, where­
as I was blind, now I see.” (9:24-25). After further argu­
ment the man said: “We know that God heareth not
sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do
his will, him he heareth.” (9:31). Unless we have more
evidence than this man’s word, a good man though he
was, we could not build a doctrine on this statement and
conclude that no sinner is in any sense heard by the Lord,
t seems to me that the man’s reasoning, as applied to
esus, is good reasoning. If Christ was a rebel against the
law of God, if He were truly a sinner, God would not
have given Him the power to work miracles, such as it
was evident that He had worked on this man who had
been born blind.
Furthermore, the man’s own statement indicates that
he is speaking of a particular type of sinner, since he said
that God did hear the man who worshipped God and did
His will (9:31). All, even those who worship God and
follow Him, have sinned and fallen short. So the man is
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
25
saying that Christ was evidently one who worshipped
God and did His will, for God had heard His prayers and
healed the blind man. Cornelius was not a man who was
in rebellion to the will of God. He was walking in the
light which he had. The law had not required that others
become Jews, and thus as a Gentile he was not under a
command from God to become a Jew. But he was wor­
shipping God, living a good life, doing alms and praying.
He was willing to do God’s will and God heard his prayer.
Some may ask: Did the man in John 9:31 have any
passage of Scripture in the Old Testament upon which he
may have based the position that God does not hear
sinners? There is a passage that says this, but the context
shows that the passage is speaking about a certain type of
sinner. The passage is speaking of the sinner who has
turned his ear from the word of God. “He that tumeth
away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an
abomination” (Prov. 28:9). If we refuse to listen to God,
God refuses to listen to us. The rebellious sinner who is
deaf to God’s word is not heard by the Lord. But this is
quite different from saying that the sincere sinner, who
wants to do God’s will, will not be heard in any sense.
Cornelius was not a man who had turned his ear away
from hearing God. As a fearer of God he was living a
good life, walking in the light which he had. Thus a state­
ment that God does not hear the rebellious sinner does
not contradict the fact that God did hear a sinner who
wanted to do God’s will.
We do not know for what Cornelius was praying. At
least we cannot know for a certainty. It is likely that he
was praying for more light. At any rate, God sent him
more light through the light of the gospel which he re­
ceived from Peter.
Praying Through
There are some who, when they speak of God hearing
a sinner’s prayer, have in mind the following. They be-
26
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
lieve that the sinner should pray for salvation and that
finally he can pray through and God speaks peace to his
soul and he is saved then and there. This is contrary to the
Bible. No sinner seeking salvation was ever told to pray
through. The people on Pentecost wanted to know what
to do. Peter did not tell them to pray through. Instead, he
told them to repent and to be baptized (Acts 2:38). Peo­
ple who tell sinners seeking salvation to pray through are
not guided by the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles in
the New Testament.
Furthermore, two individuals who were praying in the
New Testament were not told that they had prayed
through. Instead, they were told what to do. Saul was told
by the Lord to go into the city and “it shall be told thee
what thou must do." (Acts 9:6). As a devout Jew, or as
any devout man undergoing such a shocking experience,
who had learned that he had been persecuting the Mes­
siah, it was natural for him to lose all thought of food and
to pray. Thus, while waiting he prayed (Acts 9:9, 11).
When Ananias came he did not say that Saul had prayed
through. Instead, he said: “And now why tarriest thou?
arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on
his name” (Acts 22:16). This instruction would empty
every mourner’s bench in the country. If those who use
the mourner’s bench would listen to the voice of the Spirit
through His word, they would tell sinners to obey the gos­
pel, just as they were told in the first century (Acts 2:38;
22:16; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:2-5).
Cornelius prayed. In some sense his prayer was heard,
but not in the sense that he was told that he had prayed
through and that he was now saved. Instead, the angel
told him to send for Peter who would tell him words
whereby he should be saved (Acts 11:14). The gospel
has been committed to earthen vessels and neither Saul
nor Cornelius were told what they must do in obeying the
gospel. Instead, they were placed in contact with a teach-
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
27
er of the gospel who told them what they must do. Will
you not listen to the word of the Spirit, the Bible, instead
of listening to the words of men?
Chapter Three
Miraculous Elements Involved
Although there are cases of conversion in the book of
Acts where no miracles were wrought, yet in certain
cases miracles were involved. In the case of Cornelius
God used various miracles in order to establish, once for
all, the truth that the Gentiles are to be saved on the terms
of the gospel rather than on the terms of the law. These
miracles are not essential to conversion as such, for if
they were essential they would have to be present in every
case of conversion. But men were converted without
these miracles in other situations, so we know that these
miracles were not essential to conversion.
The Vision of Cornelius
“He saw in a vision openly, as it were about the ninth
hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and
saying to him, Cornelius. And he, fastening his eyes upon
him, and being affrighted, said, What is it, Lord? And he
said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up
for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa,
and fetch one Simon, who is sumamed Peter: he lodgeth
with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side.
And when the angel that spake unto him was departed,
he called two of his household servants, and a devout sol­
dier of them that waited on him continually; and having
rehearsed all things unto them, he sent them to Joppa”
(Acts 10:3-7).
This angel of the Lord, a holy angel, is also called a
man in bright apparel (Acts 10:3, 22, 30). He appeared
as Cornelius was “keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my
house” (Acts 10:30). This was around three p.m., at the
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
29
time of the evening oblation (cf. Ex. 29:39ff). “Josephus
says that public sacrifices were offered in the temple
‘twice daily, in the early morning and about the ninth
hour’ (Antiquities xiv.4.3). A service of public prayer
accompanied these two sacrifices . .
(F. F. Bruce, op.
cit., p. 83). “That he observed one of the Jewish hours of
prayer (iii.l), the hour of evening incense, is additional
proof that he owed his religious character to Jewish in­
struction.” (J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts
of Apostles, p. 199).
“Let us not fail to observe that here is the prayer of a
man not yet wholly converted [I would say not yet con­
verted, and leave out wholly, J.D.B.] to Christ, and that
the prayer is answered. But how different is the answer
from that which persons in a similar spiritual condition
are taught to expect in our own time. The angel does not
bring him word that his sins are forgiven; nor does he
leave him rejoicing in the forgiveness of sins because he
is assured that his prayers are heard. Instead of this, he is
told to send for a man who will tell him what he must do
to be saved. If similar prayers were answered now, who
can doubt that the same God would answer them in the
same way, by telling the inquirer to send for a preacher,
or for some other disciple, who would rightly instruct
him?
“It is interesting and instructive to observe that we here
have another instance of the intervention of an angel in
securing the conversion of a man. In comparing the
angel’s work with that of the one who appeared in the
case of the eunuch (viii.26), we observe that though the
latter appeared to the preacher, and the former to the per­
son to be converted, both appeared for essentially the
same purpose; that is, to bring the preacher and the sub­
ject for conversion face to face. Thus we learn that super­
natural interventions never superseded the indispensable
work of the human agent. Even when the Lord himself,
30
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
as in the case of Saul’s conversion, appeared to the sinner,
the human agent was still indispensable, and the Lord
himself directed Ananias to go to the still unforgiven
Saul. These facts can not be too urgently pressed upon
the attention of an age like ours, in which they are totally
ignored by the majority of religious teachers. In all three
of these instances the supernatural intervention became
necessary, because without it the parties would not have
come together at all. Philip would not otherwise have
known that there was an Ethiopian on the road to Gaza;
Ananias would not have dared to approach Saul; and
Cornelius would not have known that it was his privilege
to send for Peter.” (J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 200202).
It must be kept in mind that this was the period of time
when the gospel was being revealed and confirmed by
those who had been with Christ (Heb. 2:3-4). The gospel
has long ago been revealed and confirmed, and we have
in the Bible the faith which was once for all revealed to
the saints (Jude 3). But even while the gospel was being
revealed and confirmed, men were not told directly from
heaven what they must do to be saved. The gospel had
been committed to earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). Thus,
neither the Spirit nor the angel told the eunuch what to
do. They spoke to Philip and placed him in contact with
the eunuch (Acts 8:26, 29). Saul was not told directly
from heaven the plan of salvation, but told to “rise and
enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou
must do.” (Acts 9:6). Ananias was placed in touch with
him and told him what to do (Acts 9:10-18; 22:16).
The angel did not tell Cornelius the plan of salvation, but
placed him in touch with Peter who preached unto him
Jesus the Christ.
Thus no one should instruct anyone that they must
pray until they see an angel or hear from the Spirit what
they must do to be saved. Anyone who says that he saw
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
31
an angel and that therefore he is saved, or that the Spirit
spoke peace to his soul as he prayed for salvation, is
wrong. No teacher has any scriptural authority to teach
such doctrine; in fact, it is contrary to the Scriptures.
And yet, some who claim to be guided by the Spirit teach
such doctrine. Their false doctrine is in itself proof posi­
tive that they are not guided by the Holy Spirit; for if they
were, the Holy Spirit in them would sanction what the
Holy Spirit teaches in the Bible, instead of contradicting
the Bible. So regardless of what spirit they may think that
they have, they do not have the Holy Spirit.
It has been the writer’s experience that when people
claim to have heard the Spirit speaking directly to them,
or when they claim to have seen an angel in a vision, that
it is useless to argue with them as to whether or not they
have seen something. They were there, and they claim
that they saw something. To argue that they did not have
any kind of experience is fruitless because they say that
they had an experience. And we know that people have
been taught that they must hear the Spirit or see an angel,
or otherwise pray through, and as a result, they may get
all wrought up and think they see something or they feel
something. What this writer does is as follows: Instead of
arguing with them as to whether or not they have seen
anything, he asks: What was said to you? Then you can
show that it was contrary to the experience of Saul and
of Cornelius, for these were placed in contact with a
teacher of the gospel from whom they learned the gospel.
Second, I ask: What do you teach now? If they saw the
Lord, and if He placed them in contact with a teacher of
the gospel, they would teach what the Bible teaches on
various subjects. For the Spirit in them, if they have the
Spirit in a miraculous way, would not contradict what
He, the Spirit, taught through the apostles in the first
century. Third, I ask: What works do you do? If you saw
the Lord, as did Saul, then you should have become an
32
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
apostle of Jesus Christ and do the miraculous works
which the apostle Paul did. Or, like Cornelius, you should
have had the Spirit fall on you while you were listening to
the gospel preacher, and should have spoken in other
tongues, or languages, which you had not learned.
It has been my experience that one cannot get any­
where with these individuals by arguing whether or not
they Lad some sort of experience. But by asking the
above questions one can direct their attention to what the
Bible teaches, and regardless of whether they had some
sort of experience or not they had the wrong experience.
They raw, in their mind’s eye or in their deluded illusions,
the wrong thing and heard the wrong thing.
There are some who have so misunderstood the Scrip­
tures that they make such mistakes as follows concerning
Cornelius. First, since he was such a good, praying man
who feared God and whose prayer God heard (Acts 10:
4, 31), some would say that he was already a Christian.
Second, especially after they learned that he had seen in a
vision an angel of the Lord who had spoken to him with a
message from God, they would have concluded that this
must be a saved man who is now ready to preach the gos­
pel. And yet, Cornelius still did not know what he must
do to be saved. Instead, he was told to send for Peter who
would tell him words whereby he should be saved (Acts
11:14).
Cornelius' Vision Corroborated
It is instructive that we have a confirmation of Corne­
lius’ vision. That is, we do not only have his word for it,
but it is confirmed by the experience of Peter. These two
fit together so perfectly that we know that God’s hand
was in both of them. The same thing is true concerning
Saul and Ananias. Saul saw the Lord (Acts 9:4-5), and
the Lord in a vision told Ananias about it and placed
Ananias in touch with Saul (Acts 9:10-17). Cornelius
had a vision, and the Lord also gave a vision to Peter
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
33
(Acts 10:10-16), spoke to Peter through the Spirit so
that he would know that God sent the men from Corne­
lius (10:19-20), and brought Cornelius and Peter to­
gether. The vision of each was confirmed by the vision of
the other.
This is an important point. There are individuals today
who claim that they have had a vision, that they have seen
an angel, that the Spirit has spoken directly to them, that
they have seen the Lord; and yet, the Lord did not supernaturally inform a teacher of the gospel so that he will
know about the case. Both Saul and Cornelius were told
that someone would teach them, and both Ananias and
Peter were told about the ones whom they were to in­
struct. Both were prepared by the Lord, in supernatural
manifestations, to meet one another. We know that indi­
viduals today who claim to have seen the Lord, but who
are not thus placed in contact with teachers of the gospel,
have not seen the Lord. They have not seen the right
thing, they have not been taught the right thing, they do
not teach the Bible as it is written and they do not do the
mighty works that those did who saw the Lord. The con­
clusion is that they have not seen the Lord.
Peter’s Vision
The great commission had commanded that the gospel
be preached to every nation and to every creature, and
that those who believed were to be baptized into Christ.
They were to be baptized on their reception of the gospel.
Nothing is said about their being made Jews first, through
being circumcised, and then becoming Christians. How­
ever, the Jewish Christians had been brought up under
the law, and after they became Christians they were not
clear in their own minds as to these facts. Thus God
through the case of Cornelius made it clear that the Gen­
tiles were to be received on gospel-terms, not on lawterms. In doing this it was important not only that a Gen-
34
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
tile be involved, but that also a Jewish Christian be in­
volved. Thus the Lord not only prepared Cornelius,
through a vision, so that he would get in contact with
Peter, but the Lord also prepared the mind of Peter so
that he would preach the gospel to Cornelius with the full
assurance that this was God’s will.
Cornelius sent two of his house-hold servants, accom­
panied by a devout soldier, to find Peter. “Now on the
morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh
unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray,
about the sixth hour; and he became hungry, and desired
to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance;
and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel
descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four
corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of
the heaven. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter;
kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord: for I have
never eaten anything that is common and unclean. And a
voice came unto him again the second time, What God
hath cleansed, make not thou common. And this was
done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up
into heaven.
“Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what
the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men
that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for
Simon’s house, stood before the gate, and called and ask­
ed whether Simon, who was sumamed Peter, were lodg­
ing there. And while Peter thought on the vision, the
Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. But
arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing
doubting: for I have sent them. And Peter went down to
the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what
is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cor­
nelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that feared
God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews,
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
35
was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee into
his house, and to hear words from thee. So he called them
in and lodged them.
“And on the morrow he arose and went forth with
them, and certain of the brethren from Joppa accompa­
nied him. And on the morrow they entered into Caesarea.
And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called to­
gether his kinsmen and his near friends. And when it
came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and
fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter rais­
ed him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. And
as he talked with him, he went in, and findeth many come
together: and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how
it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join him­
self or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me
hath God showed that I should not call any man common
or unclean: wherefore also I came without gainsaying,
when I was sent for. I ask therefore with what intent ye
sent for me. And Cornelius said, Four days ago, until this
hour I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house;
and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, and
saith, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are
had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore
to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is sumamed
Peter; he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the
sea side. Forthwith therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast
well done that thou art come. Now therefore we are all
here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that
have been commanded thee of the Lord. And Peter open­
ed his mouth, and said,
“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of per­
sons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:9-35).
The visions of Cornelius and of Peter were not the only
supernatural manifestations in connection with the con-
36
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
version of Cornelius. Cornelius and his household were
baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Baptized in the Holy Spirit
There are several ways in which the coming of the
Spirit on the household of Cornelius is expressed. (1)
“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell
on all them that heard the word” (10:44; 11:15). (2)
“And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed,
as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit” (10:45).
(3) “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as
we?” (10:47). (4) “And I remembered the word of the
Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but
ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.” (11:16). (5) “If
then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto
us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was
1, that I could withstand God?” (11:17). (6) “And God,
who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them
he Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us” (15:8).
Did the Holy Spirit come on the household of Corne­
lius to the extent that they were baptized or overwhelmed
in the Spirit? Yes. “And as I began to speak, the Holy
Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning” (Acts
10:15). What beginning? Certainly not the beginning of
creation, or the beginning of the personal ministry of
Christ. It was at the beginning of the church. Peter had
to go all of the way back to the time of the establishment
of the church in order to find a case similar to what took
place at the household of Cornelius. This verse helps us
to understand Peter’s statement that “God gave unto
them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed
on the Lord Jesus Christ. . .” (11:17). But Peter and
the apostles believed on Christ during the personal mini­
stry, and years before the events on Pentecost when they
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
37
were baptized in the Holy Spirit. What, then, does Peter
mean? Notice that in verse fifteen he said that the Spirit
“fell on them, even as on us at the beginning." But in
verse seventeen he stated that it was given “unto us, when
we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.” These two verses
refer to the same event—the baptism of the apostles who
were Jews (see James D. Bales, The Hub of the Bible,
pp. 29-36), and to the same time—the beginning and
when they believed. They believed at the beginning, they
believed on that first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection.
But they believed in Jesus before this, how can we explain
Peter’s statement that they believed at the beginning?
E. H. Plumptre maintained that the “Greek construction
gives a somewhat different meaning: if then God gave to
them an equal gift as to us, upon their believing . . .”
(The Acts of the Apostles, London: Cassell Petter and
Galpin, 1879, p. 186). If, however, the American Stand­
ard Version is correct in its translation, is not the expla­
nation the following. Long before Pentecost and their
baptism in the Spirit the apostles believed in Jesus. But
they did not yet understand and believe that He was the
Lord Jesus Christ in the sense that they believed it on
Pentecost. Before Pentecost they did not know whether
Christ had finished His work of purification for our sins.
When Pentecost came, the Holy Spirit thus showed them
that Christ had made purification for our sins and had sat
down at the right hand of God to reign until all of His
enemies are conquered (Heb. 1:3, 13). Although Christ
was born king of the Jews (Matt. 2:2), with the right to
the throne of David (Lk. 1:32-33), yet He did not
ascend and exercise His right until after His personal
ministry, death, resurrection, a period of time with His
disciples and then after His ascension, His purification
for our sins. Then came His reign. Thus it was on Pente­
cost that the apostles were first informed of this fact when
the Spirit came to begin the process of guiding them into
38
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
all truth. They proclaimed Christ as reigning on the
throne of David; or to put it another way, as reigning at
the right hand of God in fulfillment of the prophecy in
Psalm 110:1. The Old Testament promised but one reign
of the Messiah, although it expressed it in different ways.
That the throne of David, and the reign at God’s right
hand, are the same is evident from the fact that Peter tells
us of the promise of His reign on David’s throne, gives us
the meaning of the promise and then the fulfillment of the
promise. Thus we read: “Being therefore a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that
of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ,
that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see
corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all
are witnesses. Being therefore by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father, the promise
of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see
and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens: but
he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on
my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of
thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore know assur­
edly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom ye crucified” (Acts 2:30-36). God had now
made Christ Lord in that Christ now reigned at the right
hand of God. As Lord he is One who rules. He is the
Christ, in that He has been anointed our prophet, priest
and king. And we know that He could not be priest, and
thus could not be king and priest on His throne, as long as
He was on earth. For in another place one saith: “We
have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand
of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of
the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, not man.. . . Now if he were on earth, he would
not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the
gifts according to the law.” (Heb. 8:1-4). The law was
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
39
in force while He was on earth. He had to die to take it
away (Col. 2:12-17; Eph. 2:13-16). Since Christ was of
the tribe of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing
concerning priesthood, it is evident that the law had to
be taken away before He could be made both king and
priest (Heb. 7:11-17).
So it was on Pentecost that they could know assuredly
and believe that Jesus was now reigning as Lord and
Messiah at God’s right hand. This, I believe, is the way in
which to explain Peter’s position that it was at the begin­
ning—Pentecost—that they received the Spirit and be­
lieved that Jesus was Lord and Messiah (Acts 11:15,
17).
Furneaux’s explanation of Acts 11:17 was based on
his translation: “If then God gave to them the like gift
that he gave to us, because of belief in the Lord Jesus
Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” “The
Spirit had fallen on themselves at Pentecost, not because
they were Jews and circumcised, but because they believ­
ed in Jesus.” (William M. Furneaux, The Acts of the
Apostles, p. 168). Of course, the apostles did not receive
the Spirit just because they believed, for there were many
other people who believed but who did not receive the
baptism in the Spirit. But they had believed Christ’s
promise that they would be baptized not many days hence
in the Spirit (Acts 1:2-5, 8). Furthermore, it had been
in their character as believers, not in their character as
Jews, that they had received the Spirit.
On Pentecost the apostles had been baptized in the
Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). “The Holy Spirit fell on them
[Gentiles, J.D.B.], even as on us at the beginning” (Acts
11:15). Therefore, the household of Cornelius was bap­
tized in the Holy Spirit just as surely as were the apostles
on Pentecost.
The fact that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit is
also established by Peter’s statement that what took place
40
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
in Cornelius’ household called to his mind Christ’s prom­
ise to baptize in the Holy Spirit. “And I remembered the
word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit" (11:
16). Why would this have reminded him of Christ’s
promise to baptize in the Holy Spirit if this was not a case
of Holy Spirit baptism? This is also clear from the conclu­
sion that Peter drew. “If then God gave unto them the
like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the
Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand
God?” (Acts 11:17). Like means the “same” or “equal”
(Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 381).
There was a difference in the following respect, how­
ever. On Pentecost the Spirit came on the preachers of
the gospel and in the household of Cornelius the Spirit
came on the audience. This was necessary in order to
prove, once for all, to the Jewish Christians that the Gen­
tiles were to receive the gospel on gospel-terms and not
on law-terms.
In two other books, Miracles or Mirages? and The
Hub of the Bible, we have discussed in some detail the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. In this present book let us
briefly present certain characteristics of the baptism of
the Holy Spirit, of which only two cases are mentioned in
the New Testament and a third one is implied. The two
which are mentioned are the one on Pentecost and the
one in connection with Cornelius’ household. The one
which is implied is that of Paul. He was not a whit behind
the other apostles (2 Cor. 11:5), and it was necessary
that he, too, be baptized in the Spirit that he might do the
work of witnessing for Christ, just as did the other apos­
tles (Acts 1:5, 8; 2:1-4, 32).
Characteristics of Holy Spirit Baptism
First, Holy Spirit baptism was a promise, not a com­
mand. No one was ever commanded to be baptized in the
Holy Spirit, nor was anyone told what he should do in
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
41
order to obey a command to be baptized in the Spirit.
John promised that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit
(Matt. 3:11), and Jesus promised it to certain people
“not many days hence” (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 4-5;
2:33, 1-4; 11:16). A promise can be received if the
promise has been made to a person, but we have not been
promised baptism in the Holy Spirit.
The baptism mentioned in the great commission is a
command, men can therefore obey that command. That
baptism is water baptism (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15-16;
Acts 2:38; 8:36; 10:47; 22:16). The baptism of the
great commission is required of all (Matt. 28:19; Mk.
16:15-16), and thus it must be the one baptism which is
one of the aspects of the faith (Eph. 4:4).
Second, Holy Spirit baptism was administered by
Christ Himself, and not by man. Without going through a
human agent, Christ baptized the apostles on Pentecost
in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4, 17, 32-33), and later the
household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44; 11:15-17; 15:7-9).
The baptism in the great commission was administered
by man. “Go . . . teach . . . baptizing . . .” (Matt. 28:
19; Acts 8:38).
Third, Holy Spirit baptism was accompanied by in­
spiration and the miraculous. The apostles on Pentecost
were inspired, for the Spirit then began the work of guid­
ing them into all truth and bringing to their remembrance
what Jesus had taught (John 14:26; 16:12-14; compare
John 13:2 and Matt. 26:20). The speaking in other
tongues or languages was miraculous (Acts 2:4, 6, 7, 8,
11). In the case of Cornelius, he and his household also
spoke in tongues (Acts 10:46), although there is no in­
dication that there was the sound of a rushing mighty
wind and tongues, parting asunder, as of fire as there was
on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Although others had the
gift of tongues, who had not been baptized in the Holy
Spirit (Acts 19:1-6; 1 Cor. 12:10), yet tongues were
42
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
connected with Holy Spirit baptism. Tongues had refer­
ence to languages and not to jabbering sounds (Acts 2:
4, 6, 7, 8, 11).
The baptism commanded in the great commission did
not in itself confer miraculous power. If it had done so,
everyone in the first century and everyone today who was
baptized would speak in other languages. Philip baptized
people in Samaria but there is no evidence that they
worked miracles, although Philip worked miracles (Acts
8:6, 13). The Spirit did not come in miraculous mani­
festations on the Samaritans until the apostles laid hands
on them. They had been baptized (Acts 8:12), but the
Spirit had not fallen on any of them (8:16). When the
apostles laid hands on them they received the Spirit (8:
17). We know that the apostles could confer gifts
through the laying on of their hands (Acts 19:6; Rom.
1:11; 2 Tim. 1:6). Something happened when the apos­
tles laid hands on the Samaritans, for “Simon saw that
through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy
Spirit was given” (Acts 8:18). If nothing took place, how
could Simon have seen that the Spirit was given in this
manner? If nothing happened when the apostles laid
hands on them, if nothing took place similar to what took
place when Paul an apostle laid on hands (Acts 19:1-6),
why did Simon want this power. “Give me also this
power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may re­
ceive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:19). If nothing happened
when the apostles laid on hands, Simon already had
“power” to do this for he could lay on hands and nothing
happened. So something miraculous must have happen­
ed. But it did not happen just when they were baptized
by Philip. And yet Philip did for them all that was requir­
ed in the great commission with reference to making
them Christians. He had preached to them and baptized
them into Christ.
Four, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not unto the
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
43
remission of sins, but the baptism of the great commission
was unto the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:
15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). Cornelius, therefore, had to
be baptized in water even though he had been baptized
in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47-48).
Some have raised the question as to whether or not
Cornelius and his household continued to enjoy for the
rest of their lives the miraculous manifestations. The
record does not say. There was doubtless the need for at
least some of them to be inspired in order that they might
have reliable teachers when the apostle Peter left them,
for after his going they would not have the benefit of be­
ing taught by an inspired apostle. There are some who
maintain that since the purpose of this baptism was to
convince the Jews that the Gentiles were to be received
without having to go through the law, that when this pur­
pose was accomplished the baptism of the Spirit was with­
drawn. If it was, doubtless the apostle Peter laid hands on
some that they might have some gifts which would enable
them to be taught by inspired men, since, for example,
although the church in Corinth was not baptized in the
Holy Spirit, yet various individuals did have various gifts
(1 Cor. 12). Regardless, however, of the question raised
in this paragraph, people today are not promised the bap­
tism of the Spirit nor do they receive it. Those who claim
that they have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit
contradict the teaching of the Spirit in the New Testa­
ment, and thus prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
they are not guided by the same Spirit who guided the
apostles and prophets whose message is recorded in the
New Testament.
Although we today do not have the baptism of the
Holy Spirit, yet we today profit by what was accomplish­
ed as a result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For we
today have the message which the apostles, who were
baptized in the Spirit, revealed and confirmed in the first
44
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
century. Thus we today have the message of salvation
which was confirmed by those who revealed it. We have
no more confirmers today for we have no more revealers.
The gospel was revealed and confirmed in the first cen­
tury by those who had been with Christ (Heb. 2:3-4;
Jude 3). And we today as Gentiles have the gospel, with­
out being bound by the law, because the baptism of the
household of Cornelius in the Spirit proved once for all
that the Gentiles are to be saved through the gospel with­
out having to be bound by the law of Moses.
The Like Gift and the Gift in Acts 2:38
There are those who maintain that all Christians must
be baptized in the Holy Spirit. For Peter promised the gift
of the Spirit to those who were baptized into Christ (Acts
2:38), and of the household of Cornelius Peter said: “If
then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto
us, . (Acts 11:17). These two gifts—the one in Acts
2:38 and in 11:17—were gifts of the Spirit which differ­
ed the one from the other, as the following considerations
show.
First, Peter specifically showed that the like gift, or
gift similar to that which was received by Cornelius, was
the one received by Jews on Pentecost. “. . . the Holy
Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.” (Acts
11:15). When we go back to Pentecost, to the beginning,
we find that the apostles were baptized in the Spirit, and
not the audience. The audience was perplexed, and some
even mocked, until the apostles explained to them what
had taken place (Acts 2:1-4, 12, 13, 14, 33). The aud­
ience was not promised that they would receive the Spirit
in this way if they were baptized into Christ. In fact, even
though they were baptized there is no record of anyone
else, other than the apostles, working miracles at this
time (Acts 2:41, 43).
It was the apostles who had been promised baptism in
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
45
the Holy Spirit, not many days hence, which promise to
them was fulfilled on Pentecost. Speaking to the apostles
(Acts 1:2), Jesus “charged them not to depart from
Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father,
which, said he, ye heard from me: for John indeed bap­
tized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy
Spirit not many days hence.” (Acts 1:4-5). They waited
in Jerusalem, and not many days hence the Spirit came
(Acts 2:1-4). They were thus baptized in the Holy Spirit,
for Jesus said that they would be. Furthermore, Jesus had
said: “But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is
come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). They did re­
ceive power on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), and began their
special work of witnessing (Acts 2:32; 10:39, 41).
Since Cornelius received the gift like they received on
Pentecost, his household must have been baptized in the
Holy Spirit, for the apostles were so baptized at the be­
ginning, that is on Pentecost. Cornelius, of course, did
not become a special witness, as they did, for he was not
an ^eyewitness and apostle (Acts 1:8, 22; 2:33; 10:39,
In speaking of this like gift, Peter called it baptism in
the Spirit, for he said: “And I remembered the word of
the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water;
but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:16).
And Christ spoke of that which the apostles were to re­
ceive, not many days hence, as baptism in the Spirit
(Acts 1:4-5).
Second, Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit before he was baptized into Christ, so the baptism
of the Spirit was not the gift mentioned in Acts 2:38. For
in Acts 2:38 the gift of the Spirit was promised on the
same condition as remission of sins. In other words, to
receive this particular gift of the Spirit was dependent on
46
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
one repenting and being baptized into Christ (Acts 2:
38) . Therefore, when Cornelius was baptized into Christ
he received the gift of the Spirit which was promised to
baptized believers, or else Peter taught a different doc­
trine in Cornelius’ household than he taught on Pente­
cost. But we know that Peter was an inspired apostle and
that he taught the same doctrine to the Gentiles that he
taught to the Jews. Therefore, we know that Peter prom­
ised the same things—the remission of sins and the gift of
the Spirit—to Cornelius and on the same conditions that
he promised the people on Pentecost (Acts 2:38). (See
E. C. Fuqua, “The Truth About Cornelius,” Sound Doc­
trine, July 10, 1944, p. 5). “Cornelius received ‘the gift
of the Holy Spirit’ after baptism, or Peter did not preach
the truth on the day of Pentecost, when he preached—
repentance — baptism — remission — gift of the Holy
Spirit. Peter preached that same thing to Cornelius, or he
was guilty of preaching two contradictory systems. Could
an inspired teacher have done that? especially after posi­
tively stating (Acts 2:39) that the promise offered by
him in verse 38 was to extend to both Jews and Gentiles
—all whom God would call. . . . This included Corne­
lius, of course, who accordingly, had to follow the steps
preached by Peter in verse 38, for Peter was the preacher
on both occasions, preaching the same thing to all alike.”
(ibid., p. 5). The Gentiles were included in the promise
of Acts 2:38, for Peter said: “For to you is the promise,
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.” (Acts 2:
39) . The Gentiles were those who were afar off (Eph. 2:
11-12, 13, 17), and God was also calling the Gentiles
through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14; Acts 15:14).
Third, since the gift in Acts 2:38 was as universal as
the remission of sins, if an individual has not received this
gift he has not received the remission of sins. If this gift
is the miraculous gift of the Spirit which Cornelius re-
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
47
ceived, then it must follow that every saved person has
been baptized in the Spirit. But this would mean that each
saved person must speak in tongues, in languages which
he has not learned but which he speaks by inspiration of
the Spirit. But there is no proof that the people on Pente­
cost who were baptized spoke in tongues. The only ones
mentioned as working miracles were the apostles (Acts
2:43; 3:1; 5:12). It was not until the apostles had laid
hands on some others that anyone else was recorded as
having wrought miracles (Acts 6:6, 8). Although Philip,
on whom the apostles had laid hands (Acts 6:5-6),
worked miracles (Acts 8:13) the people whom he bap­
tized did not have the Spirit in a miraculous way. For it
was only after the apostles laid on hands that something
happened which Simon saw, and which enabled Simon to
understand that the apostles had power to confer the
Spirit (Acts 8:15-19). We know that apostles could con­
fer the Spirit in a miraculous way so that, for example,
the recipients could speak in tongues (Acts 19:1-6).
However, since the Spirit was promised to those who are
baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38), those who were bap­
tized by Philip in Acts 8:13 must have received the Spirit
in the sense in which the Spirit was promised in Acts 2:
38. No apostles were there to lay hands on the eunuch,
and yet he. too, must have received the Spirit as promised
in Acts 2:38-39 for he had met the conditions on which
the promise was conditioned (Acts 8:36-40).
What was the gift mentioned in Acts 2:38? It was
not something miraculous for all Christians in the first
century had this gift, but they did not all have the power
to work miracles. And all who claim the baptism of the
Spirit today do not all claim to work miracles, and those
who claim to work miracles do not really do so (see
James D. Bales, Miracles or Mirages?}. The gift of Acts
2:38 was promised to all baptized believers, and all bap­
tized believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The
48
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Spirit dwells in them (1 Cor. 6:19-20). In fact, God,
Christ and the Spirit dwell in us (Jno. 13:20; 12:49).
How does the Spirit dwell in us? The Bible does not say.
We know that it is not in a miraculous way. Instead of His
presence being manifested in miracles, His presence is
manifested in moral and spiritual qualities which are call­
ed the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25). As to how the
Spirit dwells in us, my judgment is that He dwells in our
hearts by faith, just as Christ does (Eph. 3:17). How can
we know that the Spirit dwells in us? How do we know
that our own spirit dwells in us? We know because we
show the signs of life. We can know that His Spirit dwells
in us because we believe that He is faithful to His prom­
ise, and that therefore when we were baptized into Christ
we received the gift of the Spirit and our bodies became
the temple of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 6:19-20). We
have God’s word for it, and this is sufficient for the be­
liever. Furthermore, we can know by whether or not we,
in addition to meeting the conditions of Acts 2:38, bring
forth the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25).
Cornelius, we conclude, not only received the baptism
of the Spirit before his baptism into Christ, which bap­
tism in the Spirit was for a special purpose, but he also
received the gift of the Holy Spirit when he was baptized
into Christ (Acts 2:38).
Chapter Four
Why the Spirit Came on Cornelius
In reasoning against the idea of the baptism of the be­
lieving penitent into the death, burial and resurrection of
Christ and unto the remission of sins, one person wrote:
“You mention Cornelius (Acts 10) as an example of sal­
vation through baptism. Actually, this passage is a pow­
erful argument for the position that baptism is an out­
ward symbol and testimony that the subject is already
saved. Indeed, it is a rite of initiation into the Christian
church on the basis of that salvation. In 10:44 the Holy
Spirit fell on those who heard while Peter was still preach­
ing (is the Holy Spirit given to the unsaved?), after which
they were baptized.
“Peter, in fact, has to overcome Jewish prejudice
against accepting Gentiles into the family of faith. So he
says (v. 47), ‘can any forbid water that these should not
be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well
as we?’ That is, they were the first Gentiles to receive full
entrance into the Church—an entrance symbolized by
baptism. Notice: Cornelius had been seeking God, he
heard the Gospel, believed; in his believing received the
Spirit (the seal of our inheritance, Eph. 1:13, 14), and
upon this was baptized, not to confer salvation, but to
recognize its presence.
“Baptism is a step of obedience which the enlightened
Christian will want to take, and the Holy Spirit in him
will produce good works of all sorts. These do not save
him, but are rather evidences of his faith (James 2:18).”
50
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Baptism an Act or Work of the Christian?
Let us start with the last paragraph. If baptism is an act
of obedience performed by the Christian, a good work
which the Christian does, why is not the act repeated
from time to time? What good works are there which are
bound on the Christian which should not be performed
more than once if the individual has the opportunity and
ability to do the good work? Why among all the works
that a Christian should perform—if it be simply a good
work which the Christian is to do—is baptism the only
one which is done once for all? Observance of the Lord’s
supper is a privilege and a responsibility of the Christian.
Does anyone maintain that it should be done once for all?
that we should not partake of it but once in a life time,
even though we have opportunity to partake of it more
than once?
Does not the fact that baptism is once for all—when it
s done scripturally—indicate that it is not in the category
)f works which a Christian should perform?
Save Him?
Works do not save one, but are evidences of one’s
faith, according to the letter on which we are comment­
ing. There are no works of merit wherein we earn our sal­
vation (Rom. 3:26-28; 4:4), but there are works of faith
which are essential. We show our faith by our works, but
“as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith
apart from works is dead.” (Jas. 2:26).
James also said: “But wilt thou know, O vain man,
that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham
our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac
his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with
his works, and by works was faith made perfect', and the
scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believ­
ed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness;
and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
51
a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like man­
ner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in
that she received the messengers, and sent them out an­
other way?” (Jas. 2:20-25). The works of faith are
necessary to perfect faith both in becoming a child of
God and in remaining a child of God. Abraham’s case
the offering of Isaac—was done long after he was already
a child of God. His case shows that the individual must
continue to have works of faith in order to continue to be
justified before God. The case of Rahab, who was not al­
ready a child of God but was a Gentile, shows that her
faith had to work in order for her to be accepted of God.
Notice, also, that the expression, “Abraham believed
God,” is used to cover not only the faith that existed in
his heart, but also the work of faith, the obedience of
faith. It was thus that the “scripture was fulfilled whic
saith, And Abraham believed God . . .”
Into the Church?
The people in Acts 2:37, who wanted to know what
they must do, were not told that faith only would save
them. Instead, they were told to repent and to be baptiz­
ed (Acts 2:38).
Baptism is into the church, but what is the church?
The church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:2223). We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). How
could we be a Christian before we are in the body of
Christ? The Lord purchased the church with His own
blood (Acts 20:28). Can we be a Christian and be out­
side of the purchased? The Lord is the Savior of the body
(Eph. 5:23). Are we safe outside of the body? We are
perfectly content to leave the judgment of all men to
Christ, but this does not mean that we have the right to
promise them what Christ has not promised.
Paul also said, speaking of Christ, “in whom we have
our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our
52
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
trespasses, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:
7). Salvation is by grace, we are cleansed by the blood,
but we must, from a heart of faith, be baptized into the
death of Him who died for us, and be raised to walk in
newness of life (Rom. 6:3-5).
Ephesians 1:13-14
“In whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth,
the gospel of your salvation,—in whom, having also be­
lieved, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemp­
tion of God’s own possession, unto the praise of his
glory.”
We must be in Christ, and we are baptized into Christ
(Gal. 3:26-27).
The term “believe” or “faith” is used not merely to in­
clude the intellectual assent of the mind to divine truth,
but—when faith is said to accomplish something—it also
includes the obedience of faith. “By faith the walls of
Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about
for seven days.” (Heb. 11:30).
Paul spoke of being sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise. Although some Christians in the first century
received miraculous gifts from the Spirit, as Cornelius did
when he spake in other tongues after the Spirit had come
on him, the Spirit in this way was not promised to all
Christians. So if the miraculous falling of the Spirit on
Cornelius was an example of a Christian being sealed
with the Holy Spirit of promise, then the same miraculous
manifestations would have to take place today when we
are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. The Spirit, on
the other hand, is promised to all Christians, to all who
are baptized into Christ. Thus Peter said to those who
wanted to know what to do about their sinful condition,
“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
53
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the
promise . .
(Acts 2:38-39). The Holy Spirit is prom­
ised to those who are baptized into Christ, but this in­
dwelling of the Holy Spirit is not something miraculous.
We have discussed this in The Hub of the Bible.
But what Cornelius received was miraculous. Why did
the Spirit come on the household of Cornelius?
Before studying that question, let us observe that it is
in Christ (“in whom”) they were said to be sealed in
Ephesians 1:13. It was not out of Christ that they were
sealed. But we are baptized into Christ, in whom we are
sealed. To be in Christ is to be in the kingdom. “Who de­
livered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us
into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have
our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins” (Col. 1:1314). We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). To put
it in other words, we are bom into the kingdom; but we
are born of water and the Spirit (Jno. 3:1-5).
One Condition May Be Mentioned and
The Others Implied
Cornelius was a Gentile who feared God. He was not
a proselyte to the law (Acts 10:2; 11:2). He was devout,
a giver of much alms, he prayed, he was a just or right­
eous man, well reported of by all the nation of the Jews
(Acts 10:2-4, 22), and yet he needed to hear words
whereby he should be saved (Acts 11:14). Although he
had a vision, and was spoken to by an angel of God, this
did not mean that he did not need the gospel. For he “was
warned of God by a holy angel” to send for Peter “and to
hear words from thee” (10:3-5, 21). The gospel had
been committed to men, to earthen vessels, and thus Cor­
nelius had to hear the word of the gospel from a man.
Sometimes the Bible speaks of one condition—or
cause, as the case may be—of salvation and the rest of
the conditions are implied. Consider the different ways in
54
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
which Cornelius’ salvation is spoken of. (1) “Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every
nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is
acceptable to him.” (10:34-35). This did not mean that
Cornelius was all right without obeying the gospel. It did
not mean that he could work righteousness in the sense of
meriting justification. It is through the faith which func­
tions, by which we lay hold on Christ and become right­
eous in Him through His blood, that we are actually ac­
cepted. In Christ we are to work righteousness in that we
are to live the Christian life and walk in the light (1 Jno.
l:5-2:6).
(2) “To him bear all the prophets witness, that
through his name every one that believeth on him shall
receive remission of sins” (10:43). Faith is here set forth
as the condition of remission of sins, but we must remem­
ber that faith, which lays hold on the benefits of His
ieath, includes baptism into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27).
(3) “Now the apostles and the brethren that were in
udaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the
ivord of God" (11:1). The entire conversion is here call­
ed receiving the word of God. But we know that it meant
more than just receiving it into their ears; it included their
baptism into Christ (10:48).
(4) Peter “shall speak unto thee words, whereby
thou shah be saved, thou and all thy house” (11:14).
Words saved him, not just by hearing them, but because
they were the words which set forth the Savior and be­
cause Cornelius and his household received and obeyed
the words of salvation.
(5) “And when they heard these things, they held thenpeace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles
also had God granted repentance unto life.” (11:18).
Repentance is a commandment (Acts 2:38), for man
must do the repenting. But it is also a gift in that God
grants man the opportunity to repent, and the motivation
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
55
to repent, through the gospel. The fact that man does the
repenting does not mean that in any way anything is de­
tracted from the grace of God.
(6) . Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren,
ye know that a good while ago God made choice among
you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word
of the gospel and believe" (15:7). Faith came by hearing
the word of God (Rom. 10:17), and Cornelius had to
believe the word which was spoken to him.
(7) God “made no distinction between us and them,
cleansing their hearts by faith” (15:9). Faith is mention­
ed, but repentance is not mentioned in this passage. And
yet, we know that it is implied for it is taught in other pas­
sages.
(8 ) “But we believe that we shall be saved through the
grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they” (15:11).
Without God’s grace, our faith could not avail, no mat­
ter how strong our faith might be. Without God’s grace,
repentance could not help us. Although salvation is here
attributed to the grace of God—grace is the underlying
cause of salvation—yet we do not conclude that there are
no conditions which man must meet. All agree that man
must believe and repent. For man to meet these condi­
tions does not make void God’s grace. It is not an effort
to merit salvation. Neither is it an attempt to merit salva­
tion when we are baptized into Christ.
The Spirit Did Not Come To:
There are some who think that the Spirit came to make
Cornelius acceptable to God, but “in every nation he that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to
him (11:35). The Spirit did not come to make him ac­
ceptable to God.
The Holy Spirit did not come on Cornelius in order to
prove that he was already a child of God. Neither in this
passage nor elsewhere is it taught that Cornelius received
56
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
the Spirit in order to prove that one is saved before bap­
tism. Who can find where it is said or intimated that Cor­
nelius received the Spirit in order to prove that salvation
is by faith only apart from the obedience of faith?
Did the Spirit come to give him remission of sins? No,
since “through his name every one that believeth on him
shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).
On the question of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and
also other miraculous gifts which were given through the
laying on of the apostles’ hands, J. W. McGarvey wrote:
“The baptism of Cornelius and his friends in the Holy
Spirit previous to their baptism in water has been urged
as evidence that remission of sins takes place before bap­
tism. It could furnish such evidence if remission of sins
was simultaneous with the miraculous gift of the Spirit;
but such is not the case. In every other instance of a mir­
aculous gift, remission of sins preceded it. This is true of
the apostles on Pentecost, for they had long before been
Accepted disciples of Christ; it is true of the Samaritans,
.or they had been baptized by Philip before the apostles
sent Peter and John to them to impart the miraculous
gift; it is true of the twelve disciples in Ephesus, to whom
Paul imparted this gift after he had baptized them (19:
1-7); and it is true of all the Corinthian church who had
received similar gifts (1 Cor. 1:4-7; 12:1-7). In none of
these instances was it connected with the remission of
sins; therefore such a connection can not be assumed in
the present instance. If it be thought incongruous that this
miraculous power should be manifested in persons whose
sins are not forgiven, let it be remembered that it was a
miracle wrought upon these persons for a purpose exter­
nal to themselves (see below under 47, 48); and that, al­
though they were unpardoned, they were godly persons
according to Jewish faith. There is no greater incongrui­
ty, if the thought of incongruity could be tolerated at all,
in their receiving a momentary miraculous gift of the
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
57
Spirit, than in the previous mission of an angel to Corne­
lius to assure him that his prayers were heard and that his
alms were had in remembrance by God.
“This incident in the conversion of Cornelius can not
in any way be held as a precedent for subsequent ages; for
it was certainly a miracle, and no miracles are now
wrought. We may as well expect sinners now to see an
angel, as Cornelius did, before their sins are forgiven, as
to receive the Spirit as he did.” (op. cit., pp. 215-216).
The Spirit did not come to sanctify him. Jesus said:
“Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth” (Jno. 17:
17).
The Spirit did not come to beget him. “Having been
begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorrupti­
ble, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth”
(1 Pet. 1:23).
The Spirit did not come to bring him forth. “Of his
own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that
we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (Jas.
1:18).
The Spirit did not come to take the place of water bap­
tism, for Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ” (10:48).
The Spirit did not come to save him, for he was to hear
“words, whereby thou shalt be saved” (11:14). He was
“saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (15:11).
The Spirit did not come to give him faith, for “God
made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles
should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (15:7).
The Spirit did not come to cleanse his heart. God
“made no distinction between us and them, cleansing
their hearts by faith” (11:9).
The Spirit did not come to make him a child of God,
for we are children of God by faith, for as many of us as
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal.
2:26-27).
58
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Why the Spirit Came
We have seen some reasons why the Spirit did not
come on the household of Cornelius. Why then did the
Spirit come in this case?
We can determine the answer in two ways. First, what
Peter said about this case. Second, what Peter used this
case to prove.
What did Peter say about the case? “And God, who
knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the
Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no
distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by
faith. Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye
should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we be­
lieve that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord
Jesus, in like manner as they” (15:8-11).
God gave them the Spirit to bare them witness. Bare
witness about what? That they were already children of
God before putting on Christ by faith, as taught in Gala­
tians 3:26-27? No. What was the subject under consid­
eration? Judaizers were saying that you must be circum­
cised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved (15:
1-5). The issue was whether or not the Gentiles had to be
bound by the law in order to be saved. God through the
sending of the Spirit on these Gentiles showed that they
did not have to become Jews in order to become Chris­
tians. By this act He bore them witness that they were to
be saved by grace, cleansed by faith.
Why did the Spirit come on them before baptism? In
order for the Jewish Christians to know for a certainty
that the Gentiles were to be baptized into Christ—with­
out going through the law—they had to have this proved
to them so that they would not object to uncircumcised
Gentiles being baptized. Peter pointed out that the com­
ing of the Spirit proved that the Gentiles were to be bap­
tized (Acts 10:47-48).
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
59
Peter had not promised the household of Cornelius
that the Spirit would come on them. There is no proof
that Peter knew that this would happen. For “as I began
to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the
beginning” (11:15). God through this act bore the Gen­
tiles witness that they were to be saved through the gos­
pel and not through the law.
What did Peter use the case to prove? There are some
who claim to have the Spirit in a miraculous way, and
who also claim that everyone should receive the Spirit as
did Cornelius. They further claim—some of them do—
that the Spirit came to burn out the sin in Cornelius’
heart, or to make him a child of God, or to show that
water baptism is not into Christ. Peter never used it to
prove any of these things, and neither did he say that it
proved any of these things. The Spirit in the apostle Peter
knew why He, the Spirit, came on the household of Cor­
nelius. If people had the Spirit in a miraculous way today,
the Spirit in them would know why He came on the
household of Cornelius. The very fact that they claim to
be Spirit-guided and yet so misunderstand the case of
Cornelius, proves that they do not have the miraculous
guidance of the Spirit. The Spirit through Peter did not
use the case to prove what some people today use it to
prove.
What was the case used to prove? Although this case
was unique, it never happened again, yet it was referred
to three times; and each time it was used to prove that the
Gentiles were to receive the gospel without being bound
by the law. In other words, they were to become Chris­
tians without having to become Jews. Notice the three
times that Peter used the case.
(1) Peter had taken six Jewish brethren with him (11:
12). “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit
fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the cir­
cumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came
60
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured
out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak
with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be
baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ” (10:44-48).
(2) Peter was challenged by some when he got back to
Jerusalem (11:1-3). He expounded the matter “unto
them in order, saying . .
(11:4). “And as I began to
speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the
beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how
he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them
the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on
the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand
God? And when they heard these things, they held their
peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles
also hath God granted repentance unto life” (11:15-18).
To have refused to have baptized them would have been
to try to withstand God.
(3) In Jerusalem later Peter told how God had borne
the Gentiles witness, and then he said: “Now therefore
why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon
the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we
were able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as
they” (15:10-11). To bind the law on the Gentiles was
to act in disobedience to God and to make “trial of God.”
For God in sending the Spirit had demonstrated that the
Gentiles were to receive the gospel without having to be
bound by the law.
Commanded Them
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ” (10:48). Why did Peter command them
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
61
to be baptized? Because Christ had commanded it. In the
great commission it was made clear that the believing
penitent is to be baptized into Christ. “. . . and that re­
pentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk.
24:47). “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all na­
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt.
28:19-20). “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15-16).
Saved through the Grace
“But we believe that we shall be saved through thi
grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they" (Acts
15:11). Jew and Gentile were saved alike—through the
gospel. How were Jews saved in Acts 2? The gospel was
preached to them. They were shown that Jesus was both
Christ and Lord. “Now when they heard this, they were
pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of
the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).
Do about what? What shall they do about their sinful
condition, is what they meant. This is evident from the
fact that they were deeply disturbed about their rebellious
condition. It is also clear from the fact that Peter in an­
swering their questions told them what to do about their
sins (Acts 2:38). Did Peter answer their question? Yes.
What did he tell them to do? “And Peter said unto them,
Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Did
they do it? “They then that received his word were bap­
tized: and there were added unto them in that day about
62
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). This is what Jews
did. But Jew and Gentile were to be saved alike. Thus
Cornelius also had Christ preached to him (Acts 10:3643). He heard, believed, repented, and was baptized into
Christ (Acts 15:7; 11:18; 10:47-48). In both cases it
was through the grace of God, but they had to lay hold
on God’s grace in the way which He had ordained.
In both cases the conditions of remission of sins were
the conditions which were set forth in the great commis­
sion, for the great commission embraced all nations and
thus embraced both Jews and Gentiles.
It Did Not Happen Again
The case of Cornelius was unusual. Peter could think
of no case like it other than when the Spirit had fallen on
certain Jews at the beginning, i.e., on Pentecost (11:1517; 2:1-4). Nothing like it happened after this happened
at the household of Cornelius. But it proved once and for
all, and for all times, the truth that the gospel is for all
and on gospel terms, and not on the terms of the law of
Moses.
It Is Not Stated Or Implied
The writer of the letter on which we have been com­
menting said that Cornelius was baptized “not to confer
salvation, but to recognize its presence.” When we study
the case of Cornelius it is not stated or implied that the
Spirit came on Cornelius to save him or to prove that he
was already saved before being baptized into Christ.
There is no passage in the Bible which teaches that the
Holy Spirit must come on a person in such a miraculous
way in order to show that he is saved. Instead, as we have
already shown, the Spirit came in this miraculous manner
to prove, once for all, to the Jews that the Gentiles were
to be saved on the terms of the gospel and not on the
grounds also of the law of Moses. A Gentile does not
have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian.
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
63
The World Cannot Receive (Jno. 14:16-17)
We have already seen that Cornelius’ reception of the
Spirit does not prove that he was already a Christian be­
fore he was baptized into Christ. Let us now consider
what is the strongest argument, so far as I know, that can
be made for the assertion that Cornelius was a Christian
before he was baptized into Christ. To His apostles, who
had been with Him in His personal ministry, Jesus said:
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you anoth­
er Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even
the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, be­
cause it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know
him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will
not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little
while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me:
because I live, ye shall live also.” (Jno. 14:16-19).
In brief, their argument is that the world cannot re­
ceive the Spirit; Cornelius received the Spirit (Acts 10:
44-45); therefore, Cornelius was a Christian, and not a
part of the world, before he was baptized.
This line of argument would prove that Cornelius was
a Christian before he received the Spirit. It would mean
that Cornelius had become a Christian “while Peter yet
spake these words,” since it was at that time that the
“Spirit fell on all them that heard the word” (Acts 10:
44). He would have become a Christian “as I began to
speak,” for Peter said that it was then the Spirit fell on
him (Acts 10:15). Thus those who argue for the baptism
of the Holy Spirit as the means of entrance into Christ,
would be defeated by this very passage—if Cornelius was
already in Christ before the Spirit came upon him.
There are those who would say: Yes, Cornelius was
already a Christian—by faith only—before the Spirit
came on him. But we have already seen that faith only is
not taught in the Bible, but rather that faith must func­
tion in obedience to the Lord in order to bring whatever
64
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
blessing Christ has promised to the faith which functions.
It has also been shown in this book that the baptism of the
believing penitent is into Christ.
What, then, is the meaning of John 14:16-17? What if
Cornelius was the exception to the rule that the world
does not receive the Spirit? Let us consider this.
The Rule or the Exception to the Rule?
Cornelius is not an exception to the rule that the be­
lieving penitent is to be baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:25; Gal. 3:26-27). He was not an exception to the rule
laid down in the great commission that he that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved (Mk. 16:15-16). Corne­
lius was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
(Acts 10:47-48).
Cornelius’ case is an exception in that he received the
Spirit before baptism. But it must be remembered that he
received the Spirit in miraculous manifestations. It was
not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, promised to the
Christian in Acts 2:38, but the presence of the Spirit
which was manifested in the miraculous speaking in
tongues or languages. “For they heard them speak with
tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can
any man forbid the water, that these should not be bap­
tized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”
(Acts 10:46-47). They were baptized in the Holy Spirit
as certain Jews, the apostles, had been on Pentecost. As
Peter told the church in Jerusalem, “as I began to speak,
the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the begin­
ning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he
said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized in the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 11:15-16).
The beginning referred to here is not the beginning of
creation, but the beginning of the church on the first
Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection. When we go back to
Acts 2 we find that the apostles received the Spirit in such
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
65
a miraculous manifestation. “And when the day of Pente­
cost was now come, they were all together in one place.
And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the
rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where
they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues
parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one
of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and
began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave
them utterance.” (Acts 2:1-4). “. . . the multitude came
together, and were confounded, because that every man
heard them speaking in his own language . . . how hear
we, every man in our own language where in we were
born? ... we hear them speaking in our tongues the
mighty works of God.” (2:5, 8, 11). This was in fulfill­
ment of the promise that “ye shall be baptized in the Holy
Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, 8).
Cornelius was baptized in the Spirit before water bap­
tism. So this was not the ordinary reception of the Holy
Spirit which is promised to the Christian, to the one bap­
tized into Christ (Acts 2:38). Therefore, this case does
not prove that Cornelius was already a Christian when he
received the Spirit.
Miracles were used to prove something, to signify
something, to underwrite something. What did this mira­
culous manifestation prove? It did not happen in order to
prove that Cornelius was a Christian before baptism, but
to prove that the Gentiles were to be baptized into Christ
without being bound by the law.
Therefore, the exceptional thing about Cornelius’ case
was not that he was an exception to the rule that baptism
is a part of the process of becoming a child of God. For
he, too, had to be baptized into Christ (Acts 10:48). It
was an exceptional case in that no one else received the
Holy Spirit in this way before he was baptized into Christ.
In fact, there is no other case after this (for the one on
Pentecost took place before this) where anyone was bap-
66
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
tized in the Holy Spirit either before or after water bap­
tism. Cornelius case was unprecedented and it was not
repeated, for no one else thus received the Holy Spirit in a
miraculous way as the gospel was being preached unto
them (Acts 10:44; 11:4, 15).
Even when an individual finds an exception to a rule,
ne should recognize that it is his responsibility to follow
e ru e rather than to try to be the exception. When have
i
jCn prom*sed that we are the exception to the rules
but own n* the Bible? Adam and Eve were not born,
but created directly by God, but we were not thus creatF„\V* appointed unto man to die (Heb. 9:27), but
kda-n^o See death (Heb‘ 11:5> nor did EliJah <2
th» i
' Because there were these two exceptions to
rule, are we thereby exempt from death?
Cannot Receive—In What Sense?
dlat tbe W01dd could not receive the Spirit.
(Jno u h? beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him”
had n n 7)-The world had beheld Jesus, although they
d not known who He really was (Jno. 17:3).
could r? ♦ k 7^rld Was not t0 receive the Spirit because it
wor d r Sh° d’Or see Him’ does it not follow that if the
the wn
See tbe Spirit that they could receive Him? If
world
c°u d see the Spirit can we suppose that the
not reci<U [ec“v® the Spirit? Certainly the world could
within thVe 1 t Spirit in the sense of the Spirit dwelling
is translated' “recrive’^R
SenSe °f thekword wbich
let nc
j receive ? Before answering that question,
told Hie
er
Context- Christ had long before fore­
now unOnetbaya and death (Matt- 16:21). The time was
crucified rhenLWhen the Son of man would be betrayed,
close of th 315 and ^orHied- As Jesus said, toward the
He beoan ?.same conversation with His disciples, when
(Jno S n nT7"’ “Father’ the hour is come . .
‘
Before ‘his He had told them that He would
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
67
be with them a little while (Jno. 13:33); that He would go
(13:36), and that He would prepare a place for them
(14:1-3). He knew that the hour of His departure was
there (Jno. 13:1). However, they were not to be distress­
ed by His departure, since He would send them another
Comforter who would take His place (Jno. 14:16-17).
The world could lay hold on and take Christ, but they
could not do this with the Spirit.
The word which is translated “receive” is the Greek
participle labein which is derived from the Greek verb
lambano. The primary meaning of this word is to take or
to lay hold upon. “I. To take, take hold of, grasp, seize.
II. To catch, come upon, overtake. III. To take in, re­
ceive hospitality, entertain. IV. To gain, win, procure,
acquire.. . . VII. To have given one, receive, get.” (Lid­
dell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon).
Jesus may be saying that the world cannot lay hold on,
or seize, the Spirit as it could lay hold on and seize Him,
and put Him to death, because the Spirit will not be visi­
ble as was Jesus when He was here in the flesh. In the
Pulpit Commentary v/e read: “The passage is very diffi­
cult, because, if the world cannot receive the Spirit by
reason of its own unspirituality and ignorance, how is the
threefold conviction to be realized?” We interrupt the
quotation here to suggest that to receive the word of the
Spirit, the instrument through which He convicts men of
sin, righteousness and judgment, is quite different from
receiving the Spirit to dwell within one. “May labein be
regarded in the sense of katalambanein, ‘to seize hold
of?’ Rost and Palm give the following instances of this
use of lambanein in Homer: ‘Od.,’ vi.81; viii.l 16; ‘11.,’ v.
273; Herod., iv.130, etc. (cf. ch. xix.l; Rev. viii.5). If
so, the whole of this passage would read, ‘He will give
you another Helper or Advocate, that he may be with you
for ever, even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot
seize (or take from you), because it beholdeth him not,
68
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
neither knoweth him; but ye are learning to know him,
because he, according to the eternal laws of his being,
dwelleth with you, and will be in you, and be altogether
beyond the malice of the world.”
What World?
Another explanation is that by the “world” is meant
that portion of the world which is not interested in doing
the will of God. Of this world Jesus spoke when He later
said: “If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated
me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world
would love its own: but because ye are not of the world,
but I chose you out of the world therefore the world
hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, A
servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted
me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word,
they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do
unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him
that sent me.” (Jno. 15:18-21). The world of which He
here spoke was not just every man who was not His
disciple but those who would be filled with the spirit of
the prince of this world (compare John 14:30), and re­
ject His word and oppose those who preached it. It was
the world which hated God and Christ. But there are
some in the world—in the sense of people who are out­
side of Christ, who are sinners in need of salvation—who
hunger and thirst after righteousness, who are willing to
receive the word of God and obey it.
Cornelius was in the world in the sense that he was a
sinner seeking salvation. But he was not of the world in
the sense that his heart was set against God and His word.
Instead, he loved the truth, he wanted to do the will of
God and he was receptive to the word of God.
If this be the sense of John 14:16-17, then it had no
reference to whether a man of Cornelius’ attitude would
or would not receive the Spirit in any sense.
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
69
Indwelling oj the Spirit?
There are those who think that Jesus has reference to
the ordinary indwelling of the Spirit in the believer—the
indwelling which is promised to the believing penitent
who is baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38); that is, to them
who obey Him (Acts 5:32). Thus this statement in John
14:17 is unrelated to whether or not someone would re­
ceive the miraculous baptism in the Holy Spirit before
baptism into Christ.
This, however, does not seem to me to be in harmony
with the context. The context is speaking of the Spirit
coming as the Comforter (Jno. 14:16), who as the Spirit
of truth (Jno. 14:16), would teach them all things and
bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them
(Jno. 14:26).
The author is not dogmatic as to whether or not the
proper explanation of John 14:16-17 is that the work
could not seize the Spirit, as it could Jesus; or whether
Cornelius’ case is simply an exception to a general rule
laid down in this passage; or whether it has reference to
the God-hating world, and not to those of the world who
want and seek the truth. In either case, or if some
other explanation be the explanation, it will harmonize
with the fact that Cornelius had not completed the obed­
ience which was necessary in order to bring him into
Christ until he had been baptized into Christ.
There are cases, both in the Bible and outside the
Bible, where an individual may not be certain as to which
of certain possible explanations is right, and yet he may
have abundant reason to know that a certain explanation
is not right. For example, you may not know who a cer­
tain person is, but you may be sure that it is not your
wife! Just so, in the light of a good many passages of
scripture we may know that the Holy Spirit’s descent on
the household of Cornelius did not prove that Cornelius
was a child of God before he was baptized into Christ.
Chapter Five
The Preacher and His Sermon
Although elsewhere in the Bible we find additional in­
sights into the character of Peter, a good many things are
revealed about him in connection with the case of Cor­
nelius. We can study not only some aspects of his charac­
ter, but also the substances of the sermon which he
preached.
Praying Man
Peter, as well as Cornelius, was a praying man. “Peter
went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour”
(Acts 9:9). All of us need to withdraw from time to time
to pray and to meditate. We should have certain times
when we pray, but we may also breathe prayers as we go
about our daily work.
Conscientious Man
Peter did not yet understand about the law and the
Gentiles. Furthermore, he still judged foods from the
standpoint of the law. Thus in the vision when he was told
“Rise, Peter; kill and eat,” Peter said: “Not so, Lord: for
I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean”
(Acts 10:14). He had been conscientious in keeping the
law. He may also, however, have been a man whom it
took a lot to convince. For seeing the vision one would
have thought that he would have been quick to respond
to the invitation of the voice. The voice had to go on to
tell him: “What God hath cleansed, make not thou com­
mon. And this was done thrice: and straightway the ves­
sel was received up into heaven.” (Acts 10:15-16).
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
71
Peter still did not understand what it meant. He “was
much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had
seen might mean” (Acts 10:17). “And while Peter
thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold,
three men seek thee. But arise, and get thee down, and go
with them, nothing doubting: for I have sent them” (Acts
10:19-20). When they told their story, Peter then under­
stood. And since he now understood, he was ready to
obey. “Wherefore also I came without gainsaying, when
I was sent for.” (Acts 10:29).
Attitude Toward the Gentiles
Just as Cornelius a Gentile had to send for a Jew to
teach him, just so Peter a Jew was sent to the Gentile.
Peter had been judging men from the standpoint of the
law. Although the law did not authorize the Jew to hate
the Gentile, yet in the very nature of the law it erected ;
wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile (Eph
2:11-16). Certain foods, for example, which the Gentiles
ate were unclean to the Jews. Thus Peter said: “Ye your­
selves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is
a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation;
yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any
man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28).
“Actually, the terms of his vision on the housetop at
Joppa taught him to call no food common or unclean if
God pronounced it clean; but he was quick to grasp the
analogy between ceremonial food-laws and the regula­
tions affecting intercourse with non-Jews. It was largely
because of their carelessness in food matters that Gentiles
were ritually unsafe people for a pious Jew to meet social­
ly. Intercourse with Gentiles was not categorically for­
bidden; but it did render a Jew ceremonially unclean, as
did even the entering of a Gentile building or the handl­
ing of articles belonging to Gentiles. The most ordinary
kinds of food, such as bread, milk or olive oil, coming
72
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
from Gentiles, might not be eaten by strict Jews, not to
mention flesh, which might have come from an unclean
animal or from one sacrificed to a pagan deity, and which
in any case contained blood. Hence, of all forms of inter­
course with Gentiles, to accept their hospitality and sit at
table with them was the most intolerable. However,
Peter’s lesson had so impressed itself upon his mind that
he accompanied Cornelius’ messengers without scruple
or protest.” (F. F. Bruce, op. cit„ pp. 222-223). It will
be recalled that later the accusation against Peter was
that: “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst
eat with them.” (Acts 11:3). It would have been an en­
tirely different matter if they had been circumcised.
A Gentile was still a Gentile. A Jew did not cease to be
a Jew when he became a Christian. There are swine and
dogs before whom we do not cast our pearls or give that
which is holy (Matt. 7:6; Phil. 3:2). A slave did not
cease to be a slave when he became a Christian. One was
not to ignore all the customs of society just because he
had become a Christian. But no man was to be consider­
ed common or unclean because of his race so that one
does not take the gospel to him. “. . . unto me hath God
showed that I should not call any man common or un­
clean.” (Acts 10:28). He was not to judge them by the
law as he had judged them. There may be those who are
physically unclean, and multitudes who are spiritually
unclean, but no one was to be denied the gospel because
of his race. The truth which Peter perceived is the truth
which all need to perceive: “And Peter opened his mouth,
and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and
worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:
34-35). The conditions for admission into the kingdom
are spiritual, not racial, conditions.
But for so long had the Jews viewed the Gentiles in the
light of the law, that it took special miracles in connec-
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
73
tion with Cornelius’ conversion to prove to them that the
Gentiles were to be received on the same basis as the Jews
—on the basis of the gospel. One of the evidences of the
truth of the miraculous account in connection with Cor­
nelius’ conversion is that so prejudiced were the Jewish
Christians that it would take tremendous miracles to
prove to them that the Gentiles were to be received, to
prove that no man was common or unclean. The Jewish
Christians would not easily be persuaded of this, as is evi­
dent from the fact that although the great commission
had been in force for several years, and although the
great commission showed that men were to be received
on gospel-terms, still the Jewish Christians did not see it.
It took some miracles to bring about a change in their
understanding and attitude.
The Humility of Peter
The humility of Peter is manifested in his refusal to
accept the worship from Cornelius which some religious
leaders demand. We know that Cornelius did not bow
before Peter to worship him as a god, as an idol. For
Cornelius was not a worshipper of idols, but rather one
who feared and worshipped God. Therefore, he was not
trying to pay divine worship to Peter. As the margin­
al note on Acts 10:25 says: “The Greek word denotes an
act of reverence, whether paid to a creature or to the
Creator.” Wives, for example, are told to reverence, or
fear, their husbands (Eph. 5:33). McGarvey suggested
that “Cornelius worshipped Peter only in the sense of
paying him that homage which, according to oriental cus­
tom, was due to one of greatly superior rank. The term is
frequently used in this sense, and his knowledge of the
true God forbids the supposition that he intended to pay
divine honors to a man.” (op. cit., p. 207). (See Matt. 2:
2, 8; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 20:20).
Although we should give respect to whom respect is
74
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
due, and we should show the proper respect toward
those in authority, yet in matters religious we find that
Peter rejected this prostration of man before man. He did
not reason as do some people when they say we give such
homage to our religious leaders because they represent
God to us. Cornelius knew that Peter was a messenger of
God, and yet Peter did not say that I accept this homage
from you since I know that you give it only because I
represent God as His messenger. “But Peter raised him
up, saying, Stand up, I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:
26). Peter was an apostle and thus held an office to
which no office in the church was superior. And yet, he
told Cornelius to stand up. “How strange that in the face
of this record men should have offered to Peter that very
worship which, in the presence of Cornelius as well as of
the witnesses of the Jewish and [after their baptism,
J.D.B.] of the Gentile Church, he had rejected as a thing
abhorrent to him!” (E. M. Knox, The Acts of the Apos­
tles, p. 163). There are religious leaders today who de­
mand the very homage which Peter rejected. And a reli­
gious leader who calls himself the successor to Peter is
thus worshipped by numerous people. He does not tell
them as did Peter: “Stand up; I myself also am a man”
(Acts 10:26). This is just one of the many ways in which
his teaching and practice is unlike that of the inspired
apostle Peter.
Peter Preached Christ
Although Peter’s sermon was interrupted by the out­
pouring of the Spirit, what sort of sermon was he preach­
ing? It centered around Christ, since the plan of salvation
is embodied in the person of Jesus Chirst, and draws its
meaning from Him.
Peter preached Christ as the one who was approved of
God in His work. “The word which he sent unto the chil­
dren of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
75
Christ (he is Lord of all)—that saying ye yourselves
know, which was published throughout all Judaea, be­
ginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John
preached; even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him
with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about do­
ing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil;
for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things
which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jeru­
salem . .
(Acts 10:36-39). As Peter had told the
people on Pentecost: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved
of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs
which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye
yourselves know” (Acts 2:22). God had accredited or
backed Christ with miracles. If Christ had been a false
teacher, God would not have supported His claims with
miracles.
Christ used His power not for self advancement, but to
do good. He “went about doing good,” and His influence
today is increasingly for good. He could not have been
such a tremendous source of good, if He were not good.
Even evil men are often influenced for good, either
directly or indirectly, by Him.
Peter also preached the resurrection as a proof of
Christ being sent of God. “Him God raised up the third
day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the
people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of
God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he
rose from the dead.” (Acts 2:40-41). J. W. McGarvey
commented thusly: “Here, by way of commending the
evidence of the resurrection, Peter states to his hearers a
fact which has been so differently construed by unbeliev­
ers as to be made a ground of objection; that is, that the
witnesses were chosen beforehand. He says that they were
chosen by God; but he doubtless has reference to their
choice by the Lord Jesus [God is said to do what He does
through others, for example, the Spirit is said to have sent
76
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
the men from Cornelius, because the angel sent by God
had instructed Cornelius to get Peter, Acts 10:5, 8, 19,
J.D.B.]. Whether Peter or the unbelievers are right in
this, depends entirely on the grounds of the choice. If
they were chosen because of their willingness to testify
without regard to facts, or because of the ease with which
they might be deceived, it might be rightly regarded as a
suspicious circumstance. But the reverse is true in both
particulars. Such was the situation of the witnesses that
there was imminent danger to both property and person
in giving their testimony, and therefore every motive to
dishonesty prompted them to keep silence. They were
also the least likely of all men to be deceived, because of
their long and intimate familiarity with him who was to
be identified. On the other hand, if he had appeared to
all the people, a large majority of them would have been
unable to testify with entire certainty to his identity.
Peter, then, was right; for the fact that such witnesses
were chosen beforehand proves that no deception was in­
tended; but that, on the contrary, the aim was to provide
the most reliable witnesses then living.” (op. cit., pp.
210-211).
On the fact that Christ appeared “not to all the people,
but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God,” Wil­
liam Paley commented: “If their point had been to have
their story believed, whether true or false, or if they had
been disposed to present their testimony, either as person­
al witnesses or as historians, in such a manner as to ren­
der it as specious and unobjectionable as they could—in
a word, if they had thought of anything but the truth of
the case as they understood and believed it—they would,
in the account of Christ’s several appearances, at least
have omitted this restriction. At this distance of time, the
account as we have it is perhaps more credible than it
would have been in the other way, because this manifes­
tation of the historian’s candor is of more advantage to
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
77
their testimony than the difference in the circumstances
of the account would have been to the nature of the evi­
dence. But this is an effect which the evangelists could
not foresee, and is one which by no means would have
followed at the time when they wrote.” (As quoted by
McGarvey from Paley’s Evidences of Christianity).
“From the days of Celsus it has been argued that the
evidence for the Resurrection would have been stronger
if it had been offered to all, even to sceptics. The answer
usually made is (i) that the Jews had received in Jesus’
miracles and teaching sufficient evidence of His Divinity
and had rejected it, and were therefore denied more con­
vincing proof; (ii) that identification of the Risen Lord
by those who knew His Person intimately was alone trust­
worthy. It is, however, better, and more profoundly true,
to say that it was not possible for the Risen Lord to come
again into contact with the world and its sin. To have
done so would have been to renew His Passion after the
cup had been drained and ‘it was finished’.” (William M.
Furneaux, The Acts of the Apostles, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1912, p. 163).
Although these things are true, the Jews of that day
had already had presented to them the credentials of
Jesus Christ. They had acknowledged His miracles (Acts
2:22), but under the influence of their leaders they had
taken the position that He did these miracles by the
power of the devil (Matt. 12:22-37), even though they
had to admit that His miracles destroyed the work of the
devil and of his agents. Furthermore, that generation also
had presented to them the testimony of those who had
seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 2:32). This testimony
was not only underwritten by the miracles which they
wrought in the name of Jesus, but also by the sacrifices
made by the apostles to sustain their testimony in the face
of persecution and death. From every standpoint that one
can evaluate human testimony, their testimony comes
78
THE CASE UF CORNELIUS
through with flying colors. The methods whereby indi­
viduals attack their testimony to the resurrected Christ
can be used to discredit all human testimony, including
the testimony of the objector who says that he does not
believe in the resurrection. Furthermore, the way where­
by individuals show that certain testimony should be ac­
cepted—by showing that the witnesses were in a position
to know the truth to which they testify, and that they are
honest enough to tell the truth—we can show that one
ought to accept the testimony of the apostles to the resur­
rected Christ.
Mr. Furneaux is also right in pointing out that Christ’s
personal ministry to the world, the ministry of humilia­
tion and suffering, had already been accomplished. God’s
plan concerning this aspect of the work of Christ had
been fulfilled and there was no reason to prolong it.
Furthermore, the fact that Christ did not appear to
memies is not the real reason that men reject the resur­
rection. For Christ did appear to an enemy, to Saul, and
convinced him. But these objectors immediately try to
explain this away, and some of them say that Paul had a
fit. Lord Lyttleton’s essay on the conversion of Saul well
answers such objections to the reality of Paul’s view of
the resurrected Christ. The point, however, which we are
making here is that when they ask why Christ did not ap­
pear to any enemies, and you show that He did appear to
an enemy, that the way in which they deal with this an­
swer to their objection reveals that their stated objection
—that Christ should have appeared to enemies, if the
resurrection is to be established as true—is not their real
reason for rejecting the resurrection.
If Christ had appeared to the entire Jewish nation, and
convinced all of them, this same type of objector would
have rejected the resurrection and explained it away. One
of the explanations that some would have given was that
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
79
since the entire nation believed it, it is obviously an at­
tempt at self-aggrandizement on their part!
Man, without the light of divine revelation, lives in
darkness. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He cannot
establish any real purpose for life. Through Christ, God
has revealed that there is purpose in life and that there is
life beyond the tomb. Instead of man trying to lay down
the conditions which God must meet before man will ac­
cept this message of salvation, men should be grateful to
examine the credentials of Christ which God has seen fit
to present. It is the height of human pride for man to say
that God must meet man’s conditions. God has given to
man, it is true, sufficient evidence on which to base our
faith in Christ, and man should examine that evidence in­
stead of closing his eyes to it and saying that other con­
ditions must be met before he will believe.
As a matter of fact Christ did appear to one of his
enemies—Saul—and convinced him of the truth of the
resurrection (Acts 9). Saul gave the rest of his life to
bearing testimony to the resurrected Christ.
The apostles had scientific evidence that Jesus had
arisen from the tomb. He had been put to death, but now
they saw Him with the seeing of the eye, they heard Him
with the hearing of the ear, they touched Him, they walk­
ed with Him, they “ate and drank with him after he rose
from the dead.” (Acts 10:41). We have examined some
of the reasons for believing in the resurrection in two
brief lessons in a booklet on why believe the Bible.
Peter preached Christ as having died. “And we are wit­
nesses of all things which he did both in the country of
the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hang­
ing him on a tree.” (Acts 10:39). Cornelius was doubt­
less informed that Christ had died for our sins (1 Cor.
15:1-5). Death, of course, did not keep Him, for God
raised Him up the third day (Acts 10:40).
One of the credentials of Christ which Peter presented
80
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
was the testimony of the prophets, who centuries before
had predicted of Christ and His work. “To him bear all
the prophets witness, that through his name every one
that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins”
(Acts 10:43).
Peter preached Christ as Lord of all (Acts 10:36). As
he had told the people on Pentecost, God had made this
same Jesus, whom they had crucified, both Lord and
Christ (Acts 2:36).
Christ is also the Judge. “And he charged us to preach
unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is or­
dained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead”
(Acts 10:42). This message Paul later preached to the
Athenians (Acts 17:31).
Salvation, Peter brought out, was to come to man
through faith. “. . . that through his name every one that
believeth on him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts
0:43). Sonship is through faith in contrast with sonship
hrough the law (Gal. 3:26-27).
Salvation through faith included baptism into Christ,
so Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). Philip preached Jesus
unto the eunuch, and as a result the eunuch was baptized
into Christ (Acts 8:35-39). Peter preached Christ unto
Cornelius and his household and as a result they were
baptized into Christ.
We can sum up Peter’s sermon in the following way:
First, he proclaimed the offer of salvation (Acts 10:36).
Second, he preached this salvation through Jesus Christ
who died for us and rose again, and who is now Lord of
all (Acts 10:36, 39-40). Third, he preached the neces­
sity of salvation, since man is to be judged by Christ
(Acts 10:42). Fourth, he preached the way in which
man appropriates salvation through the faith which func­
tions in leading one to be baptized into Christ (Acts 10:
43, 48). Of course, in Christ we not only have privileges,
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
81
but also obligations. Baptism is not only an ending place,
a burial, but it is also a beginning place in that we are
raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:2-5).
With an audience that wanted to hear all that God
commanded (Acts 10:33) and with the inspired preacher
who preached Christ and His will (Acts 10:34-48), the
results were foreseeable—the audience accepted Christ.
May we all have the receptive hearts which this audience
had. May we all have the determination, the courage and
the message which this preacher had.
Chapter Six
The Purpose of Cornelius' Baptism
“Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water,
that these should not be baptized, who have received the
Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:46-48).
What was the purpose of Cornelius’ baptism? There
are those who maintain that he was baptized as a seal or
symbol of the fact that he was already saved. Baptism was
not unto the remission of sins, but it was administered be­
cause he was already a child of God. Acts 10:47-48 does
.ot say that this was the purpose of Cornelius’ baptism,
n fact, the passage does not say what was the purpose of
his baptism. The objector may reply that, other passages
show that such is the purpose of baptism. This would be
satisfactory if other passages did so show, but as a matter
of fact they show otherwise. However, the objector has
indicated in saying that we find this in other passages,
that the student of the Bible must go to other passages to
find the purpose of baptism. And this is true. Acts 10:4748 does not tell us the purpose of baptism. Is it not ob­
vious, therefore, that in order to learn the purpose of bap­
tism we must go to some other passages? We must go to
the passages that teach on the matter under consideration
rather than to passages that do not teach on it. A thous­
and passages which did not teach on a certain subject are
not the passages which we must study in order to learn
what is taught on the subject in other passages.
So it is to other passages we must go, since Acts 10:
47-48 mentions the fact of baptism but not the purpose
of baptism. Why did Peter command them to be baptiz­
ed?
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
83
The Great Commission
Peter’s work was carried on under the great commis­
sion. Although it took a special series of miracles to get
the Jewish Christians to understand that the Gentiles as
such, without being bound by the law, were included in
the great commission, it is still true that this work being
done by Peter was commanded by Christ in the great
commission. However, the same commission which said
go also said baptize. “Go ye therefore, and make disciples
of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you:
and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world.” (Matt. 28:19-20). A person must be a disciple
before he can become a Christian. To be drawn to God
we must be taught. “No man can come to me, except the
Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in
the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall
all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the
Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” (Jno. 6:4445 ). The reason the great commission was given was that
men might be taught of God. Teaching is first, and com­
ing to Christ follows the believing reception of the word
of God. So one must be a learner of Christ before he is
baptized into Christ. Of course, he does not cease to learn
after he is baptized, since he is to be taught to observe all
that Jesus commanded.
The word “in” in the King James Version is the same
word that is translated “into” in the American Standard
Version. The Greek word is eis and means into, in, to­
ward, to, in order to (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur
Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa­
ment and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 227-228). To be
baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit indicated that one was baptized into
84
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
their possession. Thus the one who is baptized belongs to
them. Paul indicated that baptism into the name of Christ
resulted in one coming into the possession of Christ. In
rebuking the division in Corinth he said: “Now this I
mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divid­
ed? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into
the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:12-13). If Christ was
divided, if Paul was crucified for you, or if you had been
baptized into Paul’s name, you would have belonged to
Paul. Christ was not divided, so they should be of Christ.
Christ, not Paul, was crucified, so they should belong to
Christ. Into Christ’s name, not Paul’s, they had been bap­
tized, so they belonged to Christ.
In the Greek papyri “into the name” was “a common
phrase for transferance of ownership” (Stephen L. Caiger, Archaeology and the New Testament, London: Cas­
sell and Co., 1948, p. 164. Adolf Deissmann, Light
From the Ancient East, New York: George H. Doran
Co., 1927, p. 121. Adolf Deissmann, Biblical Studies,
Edinburgh: T. andT. Clark, 1909, pp. 146-147. George
Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament,
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954, p.
451).
W. F. Flemington thought that “in view of the frequent
occurrence of name in the Septuagint, the origin of the
New Testament phrases about the ‘name’ may surely be
sought with greater probability within Judaism, and,
especially in those Old Testament passages where the
‘name’ refers a mark of ownership, a token whereby
something is designated as belonging to someone else,
(cf. 2 Sam. 12:28; Isa. 4:1; 63:19; Jer. 7:10; 14:9; 15
16.)” (The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, p. 45).
In either case, baptism into the name indicates that one
belongs to the one into whose name he is baptized. In
baptism we are baptized into the name of the Father, the
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
85
Son and the Holy Spirit. We enter into their possession.
Since Peter worked under the great commission, we
can see why he commanded Cornelius and his household
to be baptized into the name, into the possession, of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. No wonder he at­
tached such importance to baptism.
As recorded in Mark the great commission again em­
phasized the importance of baptism by saying: “Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole
creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mk. 16:
15-16). Faith and baptism are both placed before salva­
tion. It is the baptized believer, not before baptism, who
was promised salvation. It may be replied that Jesus did
not say that he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall
be condemned. But is not the reason quite clear. Al­
though the great commission in Mark mentioned two
things one must do to be saved, it showed that only one
thing was essential to condemnation; that is, disbelief.
It takes air and food to keep a person alive, but take away
his air and he will die whether food is taken to him or not.
Obviously the individual who did not believe also re­
fused to be baptized. Refusing to take the first step he
certainly would not take the second step (baptism) which
is mentioned in Mark.
What Peter Said About the Purpose of Baptism
What did Peter himself teach concerning the purpose
of baptism? He mentions baptism in two places, and since
he was an inspired apostle we know that his teaching
concerning baptism, when he was in the household of
Cornelius, was the same as when he spoke elsewhere. He
did not contradict himself when preaching to Cornelius.
He taught the same doctrine on baptism, since God is not
the author of contradictions. In Acts 10:47-48 Peter did
not tell us the purpose of baptism, but what does he say
86
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
when he speaks about the purpose of baptism? Surely we
must accept what he says about the purpose of baptism,
instead of using the place where he said nothing about its
purpose, to prove that baptism means something which
neither Acts 10:47-48 nor any other passages say is the
purpose of baptism.
Peter stated the purpose of the baptism of the believing
penitent when he said: “Repent ye, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission
of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit” (Acts 2:38). What was the purpose of baptism?
We can answer this question by a consideration of the
following approaches to Acts 2:38. First, let us ask some
simple questions which help us to decide what was the
purpose of baptism. What did the people want to know?
They wanted to know what to do about their sinful condi­
tion. How do we know that this is what they wanted to
know? Peter had established the following conclusion in
ris sermon: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know
assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ,
this Jesus whom ye crucified.” (Acts 2:36). This deeply
disturbed them. They realized that the one whom they
had crucified by the hands of lawless men (Acts 2:23),
was now reigning and would reign until all of his enemies
were made the footstool of His feet (Acts 2:34). They
realized that they had been a part of his enemies. “Now
when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart,
and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren,
what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Such deeply disturbed
men were asking Peter what they could do about their
condition.
Furthermore, Peter in answering their question told
them what to do about their sins. Since his answer to their
question told them what to do about the remission of their
sins, does it not follow that their question dealt with the
problem of their sins? In other words, they were asking
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
87
what they could do about their sinful condition. This is
also established from the fact that he exhorted them to
save themselves from that crooked generation (2:40).
Did Peter answer their question? There are some cases
where the Lord did not answer the question of some in­
dividuals because of their attitude. In other cases, He lead
them to answer their own questions. But Peter did not an­
swer their question with a question; instead, he told them
what to do.
What did he tell them to do? Peter answered their
question by telling them what to do. “Repent and be bap­
tized.” Since this is what he told them to do about their
sinful condition, it is obviously what they were required
to do.
Did Peter care whether or not they did it? “And with
many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying,
Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:
40). He was not telling them to save their reputation, for
how would this have saved their reputation? What reputa­
tion in the sight of God did they have to save? God knew
their nature, and thus they had no reputation with Him.
Someone has said that character is what we are, but that
reputation is what people think that we are. Furthermore,
to be baptized into Christ would not save their reputation
with that crooked generation. In fact, to become a Chris­
tian, to become a follower of the One whom that genera­
tion had rejected, would damage—not help—their repu­
tation with that crooked generation.
Did they do what Peter said for them to do? They
could not save themselves in that they could merit salva­
tion. Man does not merit salvation. But they could save
themselves by coming into Christ and accepting the par­
don which He offered. In answer to his instructions to re­
pent and to be baptized, they were baptized into Christ.
“They then that received his word were baptized: and
there were added unto them in that day about three
88
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). This was how they saved
themselves. It should be noticed that nothing is said about
belief. Peter did not command them to believe. Why? Be­
cause it is obvious that they already believed. This is clear
from their being pricked in their hearts and wanting to
know what to do (Acts 2:37). It is unnecessary to tell
them to believe, for they already believed. Thus it is clear
that the believer who wants to know what to do, and who
has not yet repented and been baptized, should be told to
repent and to be baptized. Is it not just as clear that the
believer who wants to save himself from this crooked
generation must be baptized into Christ? He exhorted
them to save themselves, and in response to their exhorta­
tion they were baptized (Acts 2:40-41). If you believe,
if you want to save yourselves from this crooked genera­
tion, you should repent and be baptized into Christ.
Anyone who is not baptized into Christ has either not
heard the right instruction on baptism, or he has not re­
ceived the instruction in the right attitude. For these peo­
ple were rightly taught, being taught by an apostle, and
they received Peter’s word and were baptized.
In the second place, there is another way that we can
learn the purpose of baptism as set forth in Acts 2:38.
Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the remis­
sion of sins. What does for mean? In English the word for
may mean because of—it may point backward, or it may
mean in order to—it may point forward. However, the
Greek word that is here translated for does not mean be­
cause of. The word is eis. The Baptist scholar E. D. Bur­
ton wrote: “ ‘unto' in the telic sense, ‘in order to obtain’:
Acts 2:38.” (International Critical Commentary on Ga­
latians, p. 205. See also G. C. Brewer, Contending for the
Faith, p. 162; Forty Years on the Firing Line, pp. 89-92;
Gospel Advocate, August 18, 1949; Guy N. Woods, Gos­
pel Advocate, April 14, 1949, p. 229). J. W. Willmarth,
a Baptist writer, said that: “Its general English equivalent
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
89
is, Into. But unto, in order to, for, until, and other Eng­
lish prepositions, translate it better in certain cases, ow­
ing to difference of idiom.” (“Baptism and Remission,”
The Baptist Quarterly, July 1877, p. 298). An example
of its use is found in Matthew 26:28, where Christ said
that His blood was shed for, in order to, the remission of
sins. He shows that the same word is found in Acts 2:38
and that it means in order to. To those who say that it
means because of, Willmarth said: “This interpretation
was doubtless suggested, and is now defended, on purely
dogmatic grounds. It is feared that if we give to eis its
natural and obvious meaning, undue importance will be
ascribed to Baptism, the Atonement will be undervalued,
and the work of the Holy Spirit disparaged. Especially it
is asserted that here is the vital issue between Baptists and
Campbellites.” (Wilmarth has a footnote here which
says: “We use this term as a well known designation, like
‘Calvinists’ and ‘Arminians,’ without intending any dis­
courtesy.” However, the term is not accepted by the peo­
ple to whom he applies it, and neither should it be since
they follow Christ, not Campbell. J.D.B.) “We are grave­
ly told that if we render eis in Acts ii:38 in order to, we
give up the battle, and must forthwith become Campbel­
lites; whereas if we translate it on account of, or in token
of, it will yet be possible to remain Baptists.
“Such methods of interpretation are unworthy of
Christian scholars. It is our business, simply and honestly,
to ascertain the exact meaning of the inspired originals, as
the sacred penmen intended to convey it to the mind of
the contemporary reader. Away with the question—
‘What ought Peter have said in the interest of orthodoxy?’
The real question is, ‘What did Peter say, and what did he
mean, when he spoke on the Day of Pentecost, under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit?’
“But having entered this caveat, as a lawyer might say,
it may do no harm to show that dogmatic dangers here
90
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
exist only in imagination. The natural and obvious inter­
pretation cannot give undue importance to Baptism, for
Baptism is here united with Repentance and Faith. It
cannot undervalue the Atonement, for Baptism is one
resting upon, and deriving all its value from, the name of
the Lamb of God; and this is distinctly understood by the
person baptized, who submits to the rite as a believer in
that name. It cannot disparage the work of the Spirit,
since he alone effectually calls men to Repentance and
Faith; and it is by (Greek, in, within the influence of)
one Spirit that we were all baptized into one body, i.e.,
the Spirit leads the penitent believer to Baptism and
blesses the rite. (1 Cor. xii.13). And as to Campbellism,
that spectre which haunts many good men and terrifies
them into a good deal of bad interpretation, shall we gain
anything by maintaining a false translation and allowing
the Campbellites to be champions of the true, with the
world’s scholarship on their side, as against us? Whoever
carries the weight of our controversy with the Campbel­
lites upon the eis will break through—there is no footing
there for the evolutions of the theological skater. Shall we
never learn that Truth has nothing to fear from a true in­
terpretation of any part of God’s word, and nothing to
gain by a false one?
“The truth will suffer nothing by giving to eis its true
signification. When the Campbellites translate in order to
in Acts ii.38, they translate correctly. Is a translation
false because Campbellites endorse it?” {Ibid., pp. 304305).
Julius R. Mantey, another Baptist scholar, wrote:
“Notice that he said ‘every one’. It is a sad commentary
on our own twentieth century remissness that some of our
ministers, as far as practice is concerned, seem to claim a
fuller knowledge of Jesus’ mind than Peter, who was an
intimate companion of Jesus, had. The 41st verse indi­
cates that every one who gave heed to Peter’s advice
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
91
[command, J.D.B.] was baptized. So he not only urged
baptism but also demanded it as a sine qua non [that
without which nothing, J.D.B.] to discipleship. Observe,
too, that he used the imperative mood. The aorist impera­
tive occurs here in the Greek and it is the most urgent
form of command that can be uttered in that language,
according to the late Dr. A. T. Robertson, the great
Greek grammarian.” (“Should Baptists Abandon Bap,
tism,” Cleveland 14, Ohio: Roger Williams Press, 3734
Payne Ave., p. 11). Dr. Mantey was writing against the
practice of accepting people without baptism—“open
membership.” Although so far as I understand his writ­
ings elsewhere, he does not believe that baptism is unto
the remission of sins, yet he did pen the above strong
statement, (cf- Journal of Biblical Literature, 1951).
Let us consider another place where Peter dealt with
the purpose of baptism.
7 Peter 3:20-21
Peter spoke of the ark, “wherein a few, that is, eight
souls, were saved through water: which also after a true
likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a
good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.”
It will be observed that Peter is not speaking of their
salvation in the ark from water. It is true that they were
saved from the waters of the flood by the ark. But if that
were the point of comparison, with baptism, he would be
saying that we are saved from any contact with the
waters of baptism. This would mean that we are saved
from baptism. But we know that baptism is taught in the
New Testament, so one is not saved from baptism. We
are told by Peter that the eight were saved through water.
Water was the dividing line between them and the old
corrupt and corrupting world. The waters of the flood
92
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
which destroyed that old world swept away the corruption
so that the eight stepped out on a cleansed earth. The
comparison is between water and water—the water of the
flood and the water of baptism. The Pulpit Commentary
suggested that: “It saved them, perhaps, from the malice
of the ungodly; it saved them from that corruption which
was almost universal; it was the means of saving the race
of men as by a new birth through death into a new life, a
new beginning; it washed away the evil, those who suffer­
ed for evil-doing, and so saved those who had doubtless
been suffering for well-doing.”
Peter does not say that we are figuratively saved by
baptism. He is saying that the waters of the flood were a
type of the waters of baptism, the antitype. Thus the mar­
gin of the American Standard Version reads: “which also
in the antitype doth now save you,” or as it is given in the
text, “which also after a true likeness doth now save you.”
Although the physical body is involved in baptism it is
tot the purpose of baptism to cleanse the physical body,
t is not a ceremonial purification of the flesh. It has a
spiritual meaning and involves the heart or soul of man.
Through baptism the conscience which is tender and well
taught appeals to God. There has been some discussion as
to the meaning of the word which is variously translated
“interrogation,” or “inquiry,” or “appeal” in 1 Peter 3:
21. The Pulpit Commentary thinks that “inquiry” is the
proper translation and that “the genitive is probably sub­
jective. The inner meaning of baptism is not that the flesh
puts away its filth, but that a good conscious inquires
after God. The outward and visible sign doth not save if
separated from the inward and spiritual grace. The first
is necessary, for it is an outward sign appointed by Christ;
but it will not save without the second; those who draw
near to God must have their bodies washed with pure
water, but also their hearts sprinkled from an evil con­
science (Heb. 10:22). The inner cleansing of the soul
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
93
results in a good conscience, a consciousness of sincerity,
of good intentions and desires, which will instinctively
seek after God. And that good conscience is the effect of
baptism, when baptism has its perfect work, when those
who have once been grafted into the true Vine abide in
Christ. ... If the genitive is regarded as objective, the
meaning will be ‘an address to God for a good con­
science;’ the soul, once awakened, seeks continually full­
er purification, hungers and thirsts after righteousness.
This gives a good sense, but seems less suitable in this
context.”
Guy N. Woods comments: “An ‘interrogation’ is a
question, an inquiry; baptism thus becomes an act
through which an individual seeks to manifest a good
conscience; indicates thereby that his conscience is sensi­
tive, and that he is desirous of doing exactly what the
Lord has commanded. That the conscience is here declar­
ed to be good prior to baptism is no objection to the con­
clusion that baptism is essential to salvation. Saul of Tar­
sus possessed a good conscience while in unbelief and a
persecutor of the church (Acts 23:1).” (A Commentary
on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude,
Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Co., 1954, p.
104). It should also be recalled that the heart which was
receptive to the word of the kingdom, and held it fast and
brought forth fruit, is called good. “And that in the good
ground, these are such as in an honest and good heart,
having heard the word, hold it fast, and bring forth fruit
with patience.” (Lk. 8:15). These hearts were good and
honest before they heard the word, for the word when
sown fell into these good and honest hearts. They were
good, not in that they had not sinned, but that they want­
ed to do right. They evidently were hungering and thirst­
ing for righteousness. They were honest enough to admit
the truth about Christ, and the truth about their sinful
condition. In other words, they were not like those who
94
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
had no love for the truth and who took pleasure in un­
righteousness (2 Thess. 2:10-12).
Baptism is an act of faith of a person who is trusting in
the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom.
6:3-5, 17-18). If it were not for the resurrection of Jesus
Christ, baptism would be a vain, empty symbol. We are
raised to a new life, we are saved in Christ, because death
did not hold Him, but instead He was raised and ascended
on high where He now rules at the right hand of God (1
Pet. 3:22).
Baptism, Peter said, “doth now save you.” We must
not contradict him and say that baptism doth not save
you. Water is not the savior, but Christ the Savior has
ordained that we be baptized into Him. It was the power
of God, for example, that healed Naaman, but he was
not cleansed from leprosy until he obeyed God and dip­
ped as he had been commanded (2 Kgs. 5:14). Faith, we
know, has no power within itself to save man, but God
has ordained that in order to be saved man must believe.
Thus it can be said that faith saves us.
From what, we may ask of those who deny that bap­
tism is unto the remission of sins, does baptism save us?
It does not save us from suffering in this present life, since
Christians do suffer for well doing (1 Pet. 3:17). Bap­
tism does not save us from physical sickness, for Chris­
tians do get sick. It does not save us from death, for it is
appointed unto men once to die. It does not save us from
making any mistakes or committing any sin after we are
baptized, for John in writing to Christians said: “If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us.” (1 Jno. 2:8). “My little children, these
things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any
man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our
sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.”
(1 Jno.2:l-2).
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
95
Baptism saves the sinner from his past sins. Thus Peter
told alien sinners—sinners who had not yet become
Christians—to repent and be baptized unto the remission
of their sins. And Peter stated that baptism doth now save
you. It is not through the waters of the flood but through
the waters of baptism. It is not a ceremonial purification
of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience
toward God, through Christ’s resurrection.
Thus we have seen, from an examination of Acts 2:38
and 1 Peter 3:21, what the apostle Peter himself taught
concerning the purpose of baptism. No wonder he com­
manded Cornelius and his household to be baptized into
Christ (Acts 10:47-48). And no wonder that Cornelius
and his household obeyed. For Cornelius had been told
to send for Peter who would tell him words whereby he
should be saved (Acts 11:14), and Cornelius and his
friends had gathered together “to hear all things that have
been commanded thee of the Lord.” (Acts 10:33). Ob­
viously the Lord had commanded Peter to preach Jesus
and to command the believing penitents to be baptized
into Christ, for Peter preached Jesus and commanded
them to be baptized (Acts 10:36, 47-48).
Household Baptism
There are those who believe that household baptisms,
such as the household of Cornelius, justify infant bap­
tism. John Murray, however, states that: “We cannot
prove conclusively that there were infants in these house­
holds.” (Christian Baptism, p. 68). Thus he cannot prove
conclusively infant baptism, even on his own admission.
But he argued that doubtless more household baptisms
took place in the first century than are recorded in the
New Testament, and that “it would be practically impos­
sible to believe that in none of these households were
there any infants.” (ibid., p. 69).
It might as well be argued that since there are many
96
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
households in which only some individuals believe, that
household baptism authorizes the baptism even of those
who are old enough to believe but who do not believe. If
it be replied that such cannot be baptized because they
do not believe, it must be replied that faith does precede
baptism for baptism is an act of faith and therefore in­
fants who cannot believe cannot be baptized.
The household of Cornelius does not furnish any
justification for infant baptism for several reasons. First,
Peter was working under the great commission and it
authorized the baptism of believers (Matt. 28:19-20;
Mk. 16:15-16). Second, all in Cornelius’ household fear­
ed God (Acts 10:2). Third, all who had gathered, at the
call of Cornelius (Acts 10:24), had gathered to hear.
“Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of
God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of
the Lord.” (Acts 10:33). Fourth, Peter preached that
faith was essential to the remission of sins. “To him bear
all the prophets witness, that through his name every one
that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.”
(Acts 10:43). Peter later said: “Brethren, ye know that
a good while ago God made choice among you, that by
my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gos­
pel, and believe.” (Acts 10:7). Infants cannot hear the
word of the gospel and believe. God “made no distinction
between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.”
(Acts 10:9). The Gentiles and the Jews had to have their
hearts cleansed by faith. Infants cannot have faith. Fifth,
the household of Cornelius repented. When the church in
Jerusalem “heard these things, they held their peace, and
glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God
granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18). Infants
cannot repent; in fact they have nothing of which to re­
pent. Sixth, the household of Cornelius received the word
of God. “Now the apostles and the brethren that were in
Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
97
of God.” (Acts 11:1). They did this as a result of hearing
(Acts 10:33) the words that Peter spoke. For Cornelius
sent for Peter “who shall speak unto thee words, whereby
thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.” (Acts 11:
14). Infants cannot hear the words of salvation, they
cannot receive the word, therefore baptism is not appli­
cable to them. If Cornelius could have heard for the in­
fants, he could have heard for the entire household, and
thus to Cornelius only would the message have been
preached. But they had all gathered to hear “that which
has been commanded thee of the Lord” (Acts 10:33).
Seventh, in line with the fact that the household of Cor­
nelius needed to hear words whereby they were to be sav­
ed, in line with the fact that they gathered to hear, Peter
came as a preacher of the word. “And he charged us to
preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who
is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the
dead.” (Acts 10:42). Peter was not charged to preach to
infants. It is impossible to preach to infants. His work in
the household of Cornelius thus did not involve infants
Those who baptize infants imply that the command tc
baptize is larger than the command to preach. The com­
mand to preach is limited to those who can hear the
preaching and understand, but infants cannot do so;
therefore, the command to preach is not a command to do
a work with reference to infants. But if we are to baptize
infants as well as believers, then the command to baptize
embraces far more people than the command to preach.
But the great commission shows that the command to
baptize does not embrace more people than the command
to preach. In fact, the command to baptize is more limit­
ed than the command to preach. We are to preach the
gospel to the entire world, but we are not commanded to
baptize the entire world regardless of whether they be­
lieve or not. Eight, the Spirit fell only on those who heard
the word. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy
98
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Spirit fell on all them that heard the word." (Acts 10:
44). Those on whom the Spirit fell spake with other
tongues. “For they heard them speak with tongues, and
magnify God.” (Acts 10:46). Those who received the
Spirit, and manifested it by their speaking in different
languages, were baptized. “Then answered Peter, Can
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ.” (Acts 10:46-47). Infants could not have heard
the word, therefore the Spirit did not fall on infants. In­
fants did not speak in different languages and magnify
God. It follows, therefore, that no infants were baptized.
Ninth, those who were baptized were those who were
commanded to be baptized. “And he commanded them
to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10:
48). Infants cannot be commanded to be baptized, and
thus again we see that no infants were included in the
baptism of the household of Cornelius.
Chapter Seven
Your Analysis of the Conversion
It takes more than an analysis of conversion to Christ
to convert an individual. If a person does not have faith in
Christ, for him to learn what he must do to become a
Christian does not move him to become a Christian.
However, if a person believes in Jesus Christ, but is con­
fused as to what he must do to be saved, an analysis of
conversion, which brings out the basic principles which
are involved in conversion, can instruct him more per­
fectly in the way of the Lord. Each reader is urged to
analyze conversion to Christ so that he may compare his
conversion with what is required in the Bible. One can
use the following questions in analyzing the conversion of
Cornelius, as well as the other conversions in the book of
Acts.
(1) What is said or implied about the work of God
in the conversion?
(2) What is said or implied about the work of the
Spirit in the conversion?
(3) What is said or implied about the work of Christ
in the conversion?
(4) How do these cooperate in the conversion?
(5) What is said or implied about the work of the
preachers or teachers in the conversion? What evidence
and teaching did they present to the audience?
(6) What is said or implied about the work of the
word of God in the conversion?
(7) What is said or implied about the work of the
audience in the conversion? That is, what did those who
were converted do?
(8) What miracles, if any, were connected with the
conversion?
100
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
(9) Were any people converted in any other case
without these miracles? If so, are these, or any miracles
essential to conversion? Can one be converted without a
miracle being wrought?
(10) How is this conversion like other conversions?
(11) How is this conversion unlike other conversions?
(12) How does the conversion fit in with what is
taught in the great commission (Matt. 28:19-20; Mk.
16:15-16; Lk. 24:44-49).
(13) From a consideration of all the conversions,
what are the essentials of conversion? In other words,
what had to be present in each case in order for conver­
sion to take place?
(14) Are there any cases like that of Cornelius today?
(15) Are there any cases like that of Saul today?
Have any seen Him whom Saul saw? Did they become an
apostle as did Saul? Do they work the miracles which
Paul worked? Do they write inspired Scripture as did
Paul? Do they teach what Paul taught? Was what was
supposedly said to them when they supposedly saw the
Lord what was said to Saul? Was someone placed in con­
tact with them as Ananias was placed in contact with
Saul? Did that person tell them to do what Ananias told
Saul to do? (Acts 22:16).
(16) In what church were they after conversion?
(17) In what church are you?
(18) What does your conversion look like in the light
of what the New Testament teaches is essential to con­
version?
(19) What am I going to do about it if I lack something?
(20) Am I living the converted life?
(21) Am I helping share the truth with others, and
instructing others more perfectly in the way of the Lord?
(22) What hope do the converted have?