Introduction
A common example used by those who argue that baptism has no connection to salvation is the case of Cornelius and his household found in Acts chapter 10. The argument goes as follows: since Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, then it must follow that Cornelius was saved prior to being baptized. And since Cornelius was saved prior to baptism, then everyone must be saved prior to baptism.
Throughout this study we will show that the argument stated above does not hold. We will seek to clarify the events surrounding Cornelius’ conversion, show that the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius was not to indicate Cornelius’ salvation, and explain the purpose of the Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his household.
Do miraculous gifts from the Holy Spirit indicate the spiritual status of a person?
First off, we need to establish the fact that there is no necessary connection between a person receiving miraculous gifts from the Spirit and that person’s spiritual status. This is important for correctly understanding the events of Acts 10 & 11 since the use of Cornelius as an argument against baptism often assumes that the Holy Spirit giving miraculous gifts indicates a person’s salvation.
A common perception of the events in Acts 10 is expressed by I. Howard Marshall when he says, “the implication [of the Spirit falling on Cornelius’ household] is twofold: first, that the Gentiles present responded to the message with faith; and, secondly, that God accepted them and sealed their faith with the gift of the Spirit”.1 Implicit in this statement is the belief that all events of the Holy Spirit falling upon a person are salvation events.
The fact is, there are different ways in which the Holy Spirit acts upon a person, and only one, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38-39, establishes a person’s salvation. We can see this fact through a brief survey of the Bible.
Miraculous Gifts Do Not Imply Righteousness
First, we find that the Spirit has given wicked men miraculous gifts. In Numbers 22-24 we find the wicked prophet Balaam speaking prophecies as directed by the Lord. In Numbers 24:2 we read, “And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe. And the Spirit of God came upon him, and he took up his discourse and said…” (emphasis mine). In a similar manner we find king Saul, on his quest to kill David, traveling to the town where David was hiding when “the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied” (1 Samuel 19:23, emphasis mine).
We also find Judas Iscariot being given miraculous powers when Jesus “called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal” (Luke 9:1-2). While it is not stated explicitly in this case, it is implied that the apostles are being empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Miraculous Gifts Given After Salvation
Secondly, we see that the Spirit falls upon people to give them miraculous gifts after they are saved (i.e. after they have been baptized and have thus received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit). In Acts 8, many Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized, but, we are told, the Holy Spirit “had not yet fallen on any of them” (Acts 8:16). We know that the indwelling of the Spirit is promised when a person is baptized, so the falling of the Holy Spirit here must refer to miraculous gifts given by the Spirit, an assumption which is validated by subsequent events in the chapter.
Another instance showing a separation between the indwelling of the Spirit and miraculous outpouring of the Spirit is found in Acts 19. Paul finds a group of men who had only had John’s baptism. After Paul taught the men “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). At this point the men are saved and have received the promised indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, we continue reading and find that “when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:6). In this instance also we find that the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit, resulting in “speaking in tongues,” was subsequent to the people being saved.
No Necessary Connection Between Miraculous Gifts and Salvation
We see through the Spirit’s falling upon and giving miraculous gifts to both the wicked and to the already saved that there is no necessary connection between the salvific indwelling of the Holy Spirit that a person receives at baptism and miraculous gifts of the Spirit. As Jack Cottrell sums it up, “The main point is that the giving of the Spirit in these contexts [(Acts 2:1-4, 8:14-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-7)] is not the Spirit’s internal presence for the purpose of salvation as in Acts 2:38, but the bestowing of miraculous manifestations that functioned as signs that proved the truth of the accompanying revelation.”2
When did the Spirit fall upon Cornelius’ household?
We find in Acts 11 Peter recounting to the church in Jerusalem the events of Cornelius’ conversion. In Acts 11:15 Peter says, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them”. This brings up the question: at what point exactly did the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius’ household? In Acts 10 it appears that the Holy Spirit fell after Peter had been speaking at least a little while, but in Acts 11 Peter says that the Spirit fell “as [he] began to speak.” One of the two accounts must be a generalization, but which one is difficult to tell.
Timing Is Important, But In This Case Ambiguous
This is an important question because if the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius’ household at the very beginning of Peter’s speech, then the Spirit would have fallen not only before Cornelius’ baptism, but also before his chance to respond to anything that Peter said. This is the position taken by some such as James Burton Coffman when he argues that “This [falling of the Spirit] actually occurred “as Peter began to speak,” being intended not to save Cornelius (for Peter would tell him “words whereby he and his house should be saved” as in Acts 11:14), but for the purpose of convincing Peter and his companions that the gospel should be preached to Cornelius and company without reservation or prior requirement.”3
Marshall, on the other hand, asserts that “The point of Peter’s statement here is simply that he had not finished what he wanted to say, and the force of the verb ‘begin’ cannot be pressed in Hebraizing Greek.”4
There is, admittedly, some ambiguity regarding the exact moment that the Spirit fell upon Cornelius’ household, so we will refrain from drawing important conclusions from this question.
Did Peter’s message include baptism?
Another important question: what exactly was Peter’s “message by which [Cornelius’ household] will be saved” (Acts 11:14)? When Peter began his speech at Cornelius’ house he states to those present that “you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit…” (Acts 10:37-38) and he continues giving a very abbreviated account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Peter says that those listening know the events of Jesus’ life “beginning from Galilee,” but he does not indicate a stopping point of the people’s knowledge.
What Part of the Speech Was New To Cornelius?
At the time of Peter’s speech seven to ten years5 had passed since Jesus’ ascension which would have been plenty of time for Cornelius to become aware of all of the facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. The only part of Peter’s speech that we know for a fact was new to everyone was the command that the Gentiles be baptized. It could be that the message that Peter was sent to proclaim was the one piece of the gospel that Cornelius did not have: baptism of Gentiles into the church.
A counter-argument could be made that the Spirit fell after Cornelius heard from Peter “that everyone who believes in [Jesus] receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43) and thus it was Cornelius’ belief in this message (before baptism) and his being sealed by the Holy Spirit, that saved him. However, as we have shown, there is no connection between miraculous gifts and salvation and there is at least some ambiguity as to the exact moment that the Spirit fell. Also, “The similarity of [verse 10:43] to Acts 2:38 implies baptism, and the allusion is made explicit in 10:47.”6
It was in fact Cornelius’ response to Peter’s message that saved him, but that response culminated in Cornelius submitting to Peter’s command to be baptized which, as stated above, is the only part of Peter’s speech that we know for a fact was new to Cornelius.
Was Cornelius’ experience unique?
When people present Cornelius’ experience as normative they often fail to recognize the unique nature of the events in Acts 10. That the events surrounding Cornelius are unique is evident from the beginning of the account. We find that “Elaborate supernatural staging took place in order to bring the preacher (Peter) and the persons needing the message (Cornelius’ household) together.”7 This included visions given to both Cornelius and Peter and a direct command from the Spirit to Peter. We also see that the incident was unique by Peter’s introduction to his speech when he tells Cornelius’ household that “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Peter is, for the first time, preparing to enter into full fellowship with Gentiles.
Nothing Like It Since Pentecost
The uniqueness of the event is also made evident by the fact that Peter must go all the way back to the events of Pentecost in order to find an event with which to compare what happened to Cornelius. Peter tells those in Jerusalem that “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). Peter is here referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost where the apostles received miraculous powers (speaking in other languages) directly from the Holy Spirit.
The fact that Peter has to go all the way back to Pentecost in order to find a comparison to the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius’ household is very important for two reasons. One, it shows that the way in which the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius’ house had not occurred since Pentecost and was therefore not the normal experience of Christians. Two, this type of falling of the Holy Spirit was not to convert people “for Peter would only have had to refer to any case of conversion to prove his point.”8 Beasley-Murray drives the point home well when he explains that “This gift of the Spirit without baptism must be viewed as exceptional, due to a divine intervention in a highly significant situation, teaching that Gentiles may be received into the church by baptism, even when they have not removed their uncleanness through circumcision and sacrifice.”9
What was the purpose of the Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius’ household?
We have established that the falling of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius’ household was not a salvation event, but before we conclude this study we need to give a positive argument as to what the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s falling was. After all, such a unique event must have some purpose behind it. The primary purpose of the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius’ household was to make clear to everyone that uncircumcised Gentiles were in fact being accepted as full members of the church and that they too could be offered baptism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without being circumcised.
The Holy Spirit Guided the Entire Process
“Peter, who knew the purpose [of the miracle], plainly indicates what it was by the use which he makes of it,”10 which was to have the Gentiles baptized. All of the Spirit’s actions, from the visions given to Cornelius and Peter to the miraculous speaking in tongues were directed toward the objective of having the Gentiles baptized. The gift of speaking in other languages was, as also on Pentecost, “a preliminary demonstration that the indwelling Spirit was indeed being given on [this occasion].”11 Peter’s question to the Jews with him, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47) indicates that, had the Holy Spirit not demonstrated that the Gentiles were being accepted without circumcision, then there likely would have been a withholding of water by the Jews.
As made evident in Peter’s defense in Jerusalem in Acts 11, the biggest hangup for the Jews was not that Gentiles had accepted the gospel, but that Gentiles had accepted the gospel without first being circumcised. It took an act of the Holy Spirit to make it clear to everyone involved that circumcision was not necessary to become a Christian.
Conclusion
The case of Cornelius is a wonderful example of the fact that “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34-35). It’s an unfortunate fact that many people try to use Cornelius as proof that salvation precedes baptism. Upon closer inspection of the evidence we find that far from being an argument against baptism, Cornelius shows us the importance of baptism. Even after receiving miraculous gifts from the Spirit, the climax of the events in Cornelius’ house is that he and his household obeyed the gospel and were baptized.
Cornelius and his household took hold of the same promise that we have today: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39).
Further Reading
Notes
- Marshall, I. Howard. Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, Michigan,Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980, pp. 193-194.
- Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine For Today. Joplin, Missouri, College Press Publishing, 2002, pp. 295.
- Coffman, James Burton. “Commentary on Acts 10.” Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/acts-10.html, Abilene, Texas, Abilene Christian University Press, 1983-1999.
- Marshall, I. Howard. Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, Michigan,Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980, pp. 197
- Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles. Nashville, Tennessee, Gospel Advocate Company, 1941, pp. 179.
- Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eeardmans Publishing Company, 2009,pp. 176.
- ibid, pp. 176.
- Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles. Nashville, Tennessee, Gospel Advocate Company, 1941, pp. 179.
- Beasley-Murray, G. F.. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962, p. 108. (Quoted in Coffman, Commentary on Acts 10:44)
- McGarvey, J.W.. New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, Vol 1., Delight, Arkansas, Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1892, pp. 216. (Book review here)
- Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine For Today. Joplin, Missouri, College Press Publishing, 2002, pp. 299.
Studies in the Bible 