The Great Commission and Cornelius

Many people believe that Cornelius was saved the moment the Holy Spirit fell on him. I disagree. The account of his conversion is recorded in Acts 10. It is a topic worthy of discussion.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household before their baptism (Acts 10:47). At its core the issue is whether or not water baptism is for the remission of sins as stated in Acts 2:38 and many other passages (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, John 3:5, Mark 16:16). Or, is there some other way way God has designed for man to receive remission of his transgressions?

I want to address something I had overlooked until I was doing some reading where it was brought to my attention. In his preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter said in Acts 10:43, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (NKJV) In the very next verse (verse 44), we are told that "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." (Acts 10:44 NKJV)

I want you to take a closer look at verse 43, three words there that I had overlooked. What were they? The words "through His name." It was pointed out to me that words do have meanings and they are not just written to take up space. "Through His name, whoever believes in Him will have remission of sins." (Acts 10:43 NKJV)

Here is the point: the phrase "through His name" designates a relationship with the name. Meaning what? For that, we have to go back to the Great Commission Jesus gave himself in Matt. 28:18-20. Let me quote that:

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' Amen." (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Here is something the reader may not be aware of, a thing easily overlooked. Do you know the word translated "in," where it says "in the name," should correctly be translated by the word "into?" That is to say, the Greek means "into." If you do not believe that, check it out for yourself by getting a New American Standard original edition reference Bible and check the side margin or center column references. If you do not have one, here is what you will find: the exact words, "Lit., into". Lit. means literal, meaning "into" is the literal translation. The original American Standard translation of 1901 used the word "into" in the text itself, as does the more recent Literal Translation of the Bible.

So what is the big deal as I do not want to lose your attention by doing mere word studies? Jesus is teaching that when we are baptized in water, as per Acts 2:38, we are being baptized into a relationship not only with him but also with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Does this comport with other scriptures? Yes, it does. Here are some passages that do not just teach that we are baptized into Christ but specifically state it. (I add that no one doubts that the baptism of the Great Commission is water baptism since man is directed to perform it.)

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) Gal. 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (NKJV) One gets into Christ by water baptism.

Please note what Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:13, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (NKJV) Do you know that the word "in" here should be the word "into"? Again, check it out using the references I have already alluded to. The Corinthians were not being baptized into a relationship with Paul, or any other man, but with Christ, and he wanted them to know that.

I think it goes without saying that all agree the Christian has a relationship with the Holy Spirit, and the scriptures also teach the same relationship with the Father and Jesus. Hear Jesus, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (is baptism for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38, a part of the word?--DS); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14:23 NKJV) Jesus again speaks in John 17:20-21, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (NKJV) See also Rom. 8:9-11.

The point I am trying to make is that when we are baptized according to Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, we are put into that relationship with him where he dwells within us, as does the Father, and the Holy Spirit--we in them, they in us. In voluntarily coming into this relationship, we are willingly and gladly bringing ourselves into submission to their authority and receive all the blessings that go along with that.

That the baptism of the Great Commission was water baptism goes without saying, as the command was made to men to do this. Only God, not man, can baptize one in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, those they taught and baptized were to go out and do the same thing ("teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" Matt. 28:20 NKJV) and that perpetually down through time. This is the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5 and the baptism that establishes a relationship with Christ.

Now, let us make the application to the case of Cornelius. I quote again Acts 10:43, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (NKJV) So here is the argument. That which we are to receive through his name (remission of sins) is a little hard to receive, is it not, unless and until we have some relationship with that name (with him)? That relationship is granted via way of obedience to the Great Commission, wherein we are baptized into a relationship with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

But, there is more. What did the Great Commission of Jesus in Matt. 28 demand of a man? Two things--faith and baptism. (Matt. 28:19) Disciples were first to be made, from which it is evident that believers were to be made, and then they were to be baptized. Mark 16:16 makes it even clearer. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) I have said before and say again, the problem with denominational teaching on this subject is that the import of what they teach is the same as if Mark 16:16 read, "He who believes and is not baptized will be saved," for they say it is not essential. I believe Jesus' words are clear.

Do I think it was certain that Cornelius would be saved prior to his baptism? If we are talking about God’s foreknowledge, yes, absolutely, just as much as the faithful Old Testament prophets were who were given the Holy Spirit, but neither were saved without the blood of Jesus which we come into contact with via baptism in our dispensation of time, the Christian dispensation. Paul says we are baptized into Christ's death, which is where he shed his blood, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom 6:3 NKJV)

Now, would God place his spirit upon one not yet in a saved condition? He could; none of us would deny his power to do so. Would he do it? Who is to say he would not if he had a purpose in doing so? Might there be a purpose here? What?

The gospel was not being taken to the Gentiles as God intended. Some say as much as 10 years had transpired between that first sermon on the Day of Pentecost and Peter going to Cornelius, a Gentile. Even with Peter, an inspired apostle, it took a direct intervention from God himself to convince him he needed to go and talk with a Gentile about salvation. And, as all Bible students know, he took flak for it from the Jews back in Jerusalem and had to defend himself. What convinced those Jews that it was acceptable? Peter's recounting the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Would they ever have gone on their own to the Gentiles had this not happened?

When God has a purpose, he may give His Spirit to even a vile sinner. Certainly, I do not place Cornelius in any such class, but I do know he needed the blood of Jesus. But, what I have reference to here is the case of one so vile he was a ring leader in the death of Jesus--Caiaphas.

The Bible says, "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’ Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation." (John 11:49-51 NKJV)

Do I think the Holy Spirit remained with Caiaphas? Of course not. But, for a short period of time, because God had a purpose, it was given to him. God had a purpose in giving the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his household. He accomplished that purpose. The Holy Spirit was not given to Cornelius to save him, nor was it given to him because he was already saved. Like everyone else, Cornelius had to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, and that included being baptized for the remission of sins, or as Jesus put it, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) He did not say “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” as so many seem to proclaim.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Philip, The Miracle Working Evangelist

Philip, while not an apostle, not one of the twelve, was nevertheless an important figure in the earliest days of the church.  He along with Stephen were among the seven that were chosen by the church in Jerusalem to oversee the work of providing for the needs of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily administration, evidently an administration of food and sustenance by the church to widows in need.  The qualifications for these seven men as put forth by the apostles was that they be “men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” (Acts 6:3 NKJV)

That they were full of the Holy Spirit is readily seen by the historical account of both Stephen and Philip in Acts 6:8-8:40.  Of Stephen it is said he “did great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8 NKJV)  Philip did much the same as can be seen from Acts 8:6-7, 13.  The people of Samaria “heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Acts 8:6 NKJV)  Simon, the one we often call the sorcerer, in accompanying Philip “was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.” (Acts 8:13 NKJV)

How did these two men, and our emphasis is on Philip, come to have such power?  How was it granted to them and why?  Was it by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  We are told that was the way the Holy Spirit was conferred (Acts 8:18).  Stephen and Philip were men full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in Acts 6:6, read carefully Acts 6:3-6 with a view to chronology.  However, this could have been a second laying on of hands in Acts 6:6 that is recorded for us.  Perhaps the apostles had laid hands on them at an earlier date to confer the Holy Spirit.

Not every laying on of hands was for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:2-3).  It was on occasion an act showing support, approval, and fellowship when commissioning others for a task such as when Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them as they departed on their first missionary journey.

It may be that God conferred the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit directly himself in the early days of the church as well as through the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  I have always wondered how Philip’s daughters who prophesied came to have that gift.  Did one of the apostles lay their hands on them?

Joel quoted God as saying, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; You sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:17)  He did not say he would use an intermediary to do this.  See also Acts 2:18.  Acts 8:16 seems to imply to me, at least, that at times the Holy Spirit did fall on a baptized believer.  It reads, “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them.” (Acts 8:16 NKJV)  That implies to me that sometimes the Holy Spirit did fall on brethren without the laying on of hands.  I may be mistaken.

A number of prophets are mentioned by name in the book of Acts - Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen in Acts 13:1, Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32,  and Agabus in Acts 21:10?  Were they made prophets by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  How about the unnamed prophets in Acts 11:27?  Some were indeed made prophets that way (Acts 19:6) but did God not make any prophets without the laying on of hands?  That is the question.

The Corinthians were to “desire spiritual gifts”(1 Cor. 14:1 NKJV) and “earnestly desire the best gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31 NKJV) even though it seems the church was full of spiritually gifted people already (1 Cor. 14:26).  But, Paul was not present with them as an apostle when he wrote them.  How were they to acquire spiritual gifts if no apostle was present to lay hands on them if that was the only way spiritual gifts were transmitted?  Is it not possible that God would confer those gifts directly himself?

1 Cor. 14:13 says that one who speaks in a tongue ought to “pray that he may interpret.” (NKJV)  This was a gift if it was to come that would be conferred directly by God himself, not by a laying on of hands, or so it seems.  The individual already had a gift, the gift of speaking in a tongue, but if he was to receive a second gift, that of interpretation, it was prayer that was needed, not the laying on of the hands of an apostle.  Again, so it seems to me. 

Then one wonders about the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip would convert shortly after the Samaritans (Acts 8:26-39).  Philip, not being an apostle, could confer no spiritual gift to him.  Was the eunuch going to be able to do the Ethiopian people much good without one or more spiritual gifts?  How were they to be acquired if not directly from heaven?  Did the eunuch have Philip’s sermon memorized so he could teach others?  He did have the scriptures, at least Isaiah, so perhaps he could have evangelized without a spiritual gift but one does wonder.

One can go back even earlier in time.  When Jesus was a babe the Bible speaks of a man named Simeon who saw Jesus as a baby in the temple.  He had been promised he would not die before seeing “the Lord’s Christ.” (Luke 2:26 NKJV)  The Bible says “the Holy Spirit was upon him.” (Luke 2:25 NKJV)  This gift did not come by the laying on of hands.  In the same chapter in Luke, we read of Anna “a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” (Luke 2:36-38 NKJV)  Her gift did not come from the laying on of hands.  There were no apostles yet.

The point I am getting at is I think it likely God conferred spiritual gifts upon mankind independently of the apostles at his discretion during the infancy age of the church.  I am certainly not denying the apostle’s ability to confer the miraculous measure of the Spirit by the laying on of hands.  The question is only about whether or not that was the one and only means of receiving such a measure in those days.

But it is a minor issue and of no real importance in view of the fact the days of miraculous spiritual gifts have long since passed.  Such gifts accomplished their purpose for that day and age and for all time which brings us to what that purpose was.

Why did Philip and others receive the miraculous measure of the spirit beyond the ability to teach the truth without error?  What was the purpose of wonders, signs, and miracles?  The apostle John in his written account of the gospel says he recorded Jesus’ signs to create belief.  “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Joh 20:30-31 NKJV)  So, the signs Jesus’ performed were to create faith.

They were also provided to confirm the word that was preached was indeed the truth and from God.  “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Heb 2:3-4 NKJV)

These things have ceased today for they are no longer needed.  Once a truth has been confirmed how many times do you have to go back and reaffirm it?  Miracles, signs, and wonders that continue for centuries become commonplace and cease to amaze and create wonder.  They cease to be miracles, signs, and wonders and in doing so fail to convince of anything.

Philip’s ability to perform miracles had great effect in Samaria.  The biblical text says, “And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Act 8:6 NKJV)  And then, “When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” (Act 8:12 NKJV)  We thus see the purpose of miracles being fulfilled.

These people were now Christians.  However, they lacked spiritual gifts of any kind for Philip not being an apostle could not convey the Holy Spirit in its miraculous measure to them and God had not conveyed it to them directly.  It came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  “Through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” (Acts 8:18 NKJV)  Peter and John came to Samaria and did this for the brethren there (Acts 8:14-17).

These brethren were saved from their sins prior to receiving the miraculous measure of the Spirit.  Had Peter and John never come down to Samaria the brethren there would have still been saved.  However, without miraculous gifts it would have been hard for them to carry on once Philip left them.  They were babes in Christ.  There were no New Testaments.  Their knowledge and understanding was likely limited to the very first principles of the gospel.  One must also recognize the limitations of the human mind.  How well do we remember things?  How well can you argue spiritual matters from memory alone?  The apostles themselves were promised the Holy Spirit to help them to remember.  “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26 NKJV)

The need for spiritual help and guidance in every congregation established in the first century is one of the things that leads me to the belief that sometimes God likely bestowed gifts of the spirit directly as well as through the hands of the apostles unless we believe all congregations established in the first century were established by the apostles.  We know God did the bestowing directly with Cornelius and his household even if we believe, as I do, that on that occasion it was for a special purpose.

One other comment before closing this chapter on Philip’s preaching life.  Many think baptism is no part of the gospel.  Philip did not think that way.  He preached baptism as a part of preaching Christ and the kingdom of God.  How do we know?  The text does not say he did.  The text does say they were baptized, “both men and women were baptized.” (Acts 8:12)  How did the Samaritans know anything at all about baptism if Philip did not preach it?  Thus we see to preach “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12 NKJV) involves preaching baptism.

The final question – did Philip preach non-essentials?  He did if baptism is not essential to salvation as so many teach today.  You must remember Philip was a Holy Spirit inspired preacher.  Think on that before belittling baptism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]