Cornelius and the Holy Spirit
What was the significance of the Spirit coming on the godly and God-approved Cornelius?
The exaltation of Jesus the Messiah to the position of Lord of all (Acts 2:33-36) was marked out by the coming of the Spirit. In John 14:26 Jesus said the Father would send the Spirit in his name so when the Spirit came in fulfilment of scores of OT texts and the drift of the prophets his followers knew he had been glorified. See again, John 1:33.
But the promise of the Spirit was embedded in Jewish scriptures and it was addressed to the Jewish people so there was no reason to think “raw” Gentiles (righteous or decadent) would share in the Spirit.
In passages like Acts 2:38-39 the Spirit is promised to as many as God would call but that doesn’t settle the question about uncircumcised Gentiles. In the OT, blessing in the coming age is said to come only to Gentiles who come to Jews asking to be taught and allowed to engage in Jewish worship. See this in passages like Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23; 14:16-19.
Peter understood that God accepted righteous Gentiles. Peter understood that the Spirit was for Gentiles if they became part of the Jewish nation but he didn’t think that fellowship in the Messiah and the sharing of the outpoured Spirit was for Gentiles apart fromconversion to Judaism. It was the outpouring of the Spirit in the middle of Peter’s speech that astonished the Jewish contingent (10:45-46).
Although Peter knew the Spirit had sent Cornelius’ men to him and sent him to Cornelius (10:19-20; 11:12) he was still in the dark and wanted to know, “Why am I here?” (10:29). He tells Cornelius that he and his fellow-apostles had been commissioned to preach the resurrected and saving Lord Jesus to the Jews (10:42). He knew that Jesus could bring forgiveness to all men from any nation (10:43 and see 2:10) but what he did not know—because up to this point he did not need to know—was that uncircumcised Gentiles were to share in the Spirit given by the Messiah; the Spirit through whom the exalted Lord would dwell in a temple made out of Jews and Gentiles on equal terms (see Ephesians 2:11-27).
Paul said that that truth—of Gentile equality in the Christ—had not been made known earlier or had not been made clear until the Holy Spirit made it known through New Covenant apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:1-6).
It’s important to note that in Ephesians 3:4 Paul doesn’t say “the mystery of the church” but the “mystery of the Christ” (we need to take the Greek definite article seriously here). The mystery was about the Messiah! He was certainly the Jewish Messiah and they understandably claimed him as their own (Romans 9:5; 15:8; Ephesians 2:12, Matthew 15:24 and elsewhere in the Gospels). What wasn’t understood was that (the body of) the Christ would be made up of more than Jews. And note again that this was revealed “by the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:5).
The Jews maintained “the flesh” line of demarcation and restricted the Messiah to Jews. The Spirit called a halt to that the moment it pleased him. Acts 10 was just such a pivotal moment (see Acts 15:7). It wasn’t enough now to grant such Gentiles a place in the category of “righteous Gentiles”—accepted but still outsiders.
Peter regards the Spirit’s intervention as the destruction of the wall that stood between Jews and Gentiles. “In light of this, do any of you want to deny this man his place in Jesus Christ?” he wants to know (10:47). What could they say? The Spirit marked these people out—the very same Spirit they had received. In 11:15-17 he makes the same point but gives it an extra edge—“Did you want me to defy God when he gave them the same Spirit he gave us?”
In that text he wasn’t talking about going with the Gentiles to Cornelius’ house. He had already done that at the Spirit’s instruction. He wasn’t talking about laying hands on Cornelius and imparting the Spirit (see Acts 8:17-18); he quite literally didn’t a have a hand in the imparting of the Spirit to Cornelius. What galled the “conservatives” was Peter’s commanding him to be baptized and take on him the name of Jesus the Christ (10:47). It galled them that he widened the Messianic fellowship beyond the borders of the Jewish nation but they were stumped and accepted the obvious—Gentiles were embraced by God in Jesus Christ (11:18).
This entire narrative is not about God accepting Gentiles. Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 had settled all that. God now made it clear that Jews had no monopoly on Jesus and all he brought. Such a question would not be settled by Peter’s private vision or claims about Spirit instruction—note how quick his critics gathered in 11:2. His apostleship didn’t protect him from rebuke and accusation. The only way it would be settled (or, at least, the way God chose to settle it) was by replicating what had happened at the beginning (see 11:15)—look no hands!
The Spirit’s function here was complex but it was certainly to sound out the message that Jewish exclusiveness and Jewish national righteousness had come to an end. No one would have offered the gospel to this man and no one would have baptized him in the name of Jesus Christ if the Spirit had not acted ahead of them.
So the upshot of all this is what? This paradigmatic event was not about, “How is a man saved?” It’s about, “Does Jesus belong only to Jews or to all people?” The Spirit’s descent said, “Jesus belongs to this Gentile as surely as to any Jew!”
Peter and his fellows got the message and baptized him into the fellowship and covenant of the Lord of all in defiance of centuries of tradition. In light of the Spirit’s involvement in this from start to finish (Acts 10:19 and 11:12 with 10:44 and 11:15-17) Peter really wanted to know, “Does anyone still want to keep them out?” In the absence of protest and in the face of the Spirit’s witness he allowed them entrance into Jesus Christ. In the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God he offered them the privilege and the means by which they took on them the name of Jesus Christ.
[Some think that the Spirit was sent to save the man. I think he was already “saved” when Peter came to him. Some think the Spirit’s descent on the man meant he didn’t need to be baptized. Neither Peter nor his companions saw it that way. He commanded them to be baptized (10:47). Peter wasn’t about to let anyone else have the credit for giving the Spirit so he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ who sent the Spirit. Some insist, “Yes, but he was saved without baptism therefore everyone else can be.”
And should we conclude from this that all who refuse to be baptized are saved? Is that what the Cornelius case teaches us? If people refuse to be baptized are they really like the Cornelius who said he was anxious to do whatever God had in mind for him? (See 10:3-8, 32-33 and 11:11-13) Did Cornelius take the name of Jesus Christ on him in baptism? If so, and Peter thought that’s what was happening (compare Acts 2:39 and 19:5) should we conclude that those who refuse to take the name of Jesus on them in baptism are “saved like Cornelius”? And what was Peter thinking about? Having seen and heard all he had seen and heard, his first response is to challenge his companions with talk about baptism and then to command these people to be baptized in Jesus Christ’s name. Can you even imagine him saying, “Well, one thing’s clear from all this, this man doesn’t need to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”?
All such talk is so foreign to the narrative and occasion. We import such matters into Acts when we have our own agenda. I’m not suggesting we do it with sinister intent—but we do it. If we're to draw "lessons" from the incident it might be better to conclude that if someone like Cornelius had to be baptized the rest of us ought to get on with it without debate.]
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.