THE DUNAMIS WORD 2

UphCornelius, Was He Already A Believer? | The Dunamis Word 2 (wordpress.com) olding The Light Of
Jesus In A Dark World
 FRONTPAGE
RETURN HOME
 BROWSE
BY TOPIC
 SUBSCRIBE
RSS FEED

Search the archiv

Cornelius, Was He Already A Believer?

There are very few subjects that gender as much conversation as the subject of the Holy Ghost, spiritual gifts and the

use of tongues within the Christian church.

One Biblical character, Cornelius (Acts 10:1-33) and the Italian Band or regiment is vitally important in helping us

understand both the purpose, power and move of God among the early church and gentiles.

Now, I may not get many traditional scholars to agree with me beyond this point because a clear understanding of

what actually happened to Cornelius challenges the theological assumptions of many conservatives and

fundamentalists, however that doesn’t dissuade me from doing my best to set forth a clear and well reasoned

argument explaining the events recorded in Acts 10.

Who Was Cornelius?

Cornelius was a Roman Soldier (gentile), a centurion within the Italian Band which was a volunteer army from Italy.

He was part of a Regiment (Band or Cohort) of soldiers consisting of approximately 600 men. As compared to a

Legion of 3,000 to 6,000 men. As you can see 6 Centurions and their soldiers helped make up 1 Band or Cohort of

soldiers. 10 Regiments made up 1 Legion of soldiers. The headquarters of the Roman forces in Judea were at

Cæsarea.[1] Therefore, Cornelius oversaw approximately 100 men at what could be termed as the regional

headquarters.
What Was Cornelius’s Relationship To The early Church?

Cornelius along with his family, are said to have been the first gentile converts recorded in scripture and added to the

New Testament Church. While that has been a traditional understanding, I wish to challenge that assertion based on

the following observations:

1. Scripture suggests that Cornelius was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus and or his resurrection.
 2. Scripture suggests that Cornelius was a believer by confession and subsequent actions before he met
Apostle Peter.
3. Scripture suggests that Peter’s meeting with Cornelius was to accept him into the NT church and solidify his
relationship with the church and God with the evidence and sign of Holy Ghost Baptism.

These statements break with traditional scholarship on this issue and I will outline the reasoning and scriptural

evidences for each assertion in the remainder of this writing.

I: Cornelius, An Eyewitness To The Ministry Of Jesus Or His Resurrection

First, I wouldn’t make this assertion unless I believed that there was credible evidence from scripture to support it.

Let’s look at some of that evidence:

Part of understanding Cornelius’s relationship with the New Testament church (hereafter NT) and Apostles is buried

in understanding both his own testimony and the testimony of Apostle Peter as he began dialogue with Cornelius.

Acts 10:28 ~ “And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep

company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or

unclean”

Peter here is referring to the separation of the Jew from those individuals considered to be ceremonially and

religiously unclean. Similar to the discussion between Jesus and the Woman at the well from Samaria (Jn. 4:9) we

can better understand Peter’s nationalism and puritianism through religious, Semitic eyes. Although Peter is quick to

confess that the Lord has showed him that he should not call any man “common or unclean” he is yet wrestling with

the idea of having associations with a gentile, whether that gentile is a believer or not. Peter, however in this

confession acknowledges Cornelius’s understanding of these same traditions: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful

thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company…,“

In short not only did Peter have this “knowledge” of the tradition, but Cornelius had it also and Peter is speaking to

him using a “matter of fact” statment.

Acts 10:34-37: ~ “34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
35 36
persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word
37
which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye

know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;”

Concerning v. 37 ~ “37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee,

after the baptism which John preached;”

This verse (37) indicates that Cornelius also “knew” the word concerning Jesus that had been published. There is

also strong suggestion that Cornelius may have come to know that word “from the beginning” or when it was
published. Peter speaks as a matter of fact seemingly confirming or restating the facts that Cornelius already knows

not instructing or guiding him in any new knowledge that he may not have known.

Concerning the term “began from Galilee” NT scholar and author Richard Bauckham in his landmark work, “Jesus

and the Eyewitnesses” says the following:

“Later in Acts Luke depicts Peter preaching a summary of the gospel story with precisely the same parameters and

with the claim to witness linked specifically to the resurrection appearances:”… “Significantly, “beginning”

(arxamenos) occurs again, here referring to the message preached by Jesus which began from Galilee after the

baptism preached by John (10:37).” Richard Bauckham, “Jesus And The Eyewitnesses” 2006 Eerdman’s Publishing

Pg. 115 [2]

Peter was talking about the message of Jesus preached and known from the “beginning” (arxamenos) that Cornelius

“knew” or had come to know. Yes, Cornelius could have come to know that message after it “began” but Cornelius

could have also been a part of that message either during Jesus life or possibly even a eyewitness to the resurrection

itself. At either rate his introduction to the message and Jesus did not begin when Peter entered his home and began

to preach in Acts 10. Having this understanding may help explain the many characteristics that we observe about

Cornelius when he is introduced to us in Acts 10.

When did Cornelius possibly become an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus?

Mt.8:5-9 ~ “8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but

speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. 9For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me:

and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he

doeth it”

This story of an unnamed “centurion” is also found in Lk 7:6. This story is consistent with that found in Acts in the

following manner:
1.
1. Caesarea is approximately 45 miles South-West of Capernium. Certainly this was the region or area
that Cornelius and his band could have been given authority to oversee.
2. The Centurion acknowledges that he understands the Jewish tradition of restrained fellowship with
non-Jews (v.8b) This is consistent with Peter’s testimony in Acts 10:28, and in accordance with what
Cornelius already “knew”.
3. The centurion acknowledges that he is in authority and “under” authority simultaneously.(v.9) This is
consistent with what we know about Cornelius in Acts 10.
4. This man is a man of exceptional faith in Acts 10:2, Jesus confirms the same of the centurion, Lk.
7:9b “…I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”

Although these are only parallels, they are parallels that may offer some significant insights into who Cornelius

actually was and cannot simply be discounted for convenience sake as many do today.

II: Was Cornelius “Saved” or a “Believer” before he met Peter?

There is compelling textual evidence that Cornelius was a believer before he met Peter in Acts 10 we are introduced

to Cornelius in the following manner:

o He is a “devout” man(v.2)
o God fearer (v.2)
o He leads his family in worship (v.2)
o He is an abundant giver (v.2)
o He is faithful to God in prayer (v.2)
o He had a vision of an angel of the Lord (v.3)
o He offers prayers that availed before God (v.4)

Now these characteristics are not the characteristics of one who is merely a good gentile, pagan or pagan worshipper

of his day. Part of the problem is the understanding of the word “devout” which has been applied by many scholars to

describe a religious Greek. It has been traditionally held that this word does not carry a “Christian” religious

sentiment. There are 3 words that are commonly used as “devout” in the Greek:

Devout: Eulabes and Eusebus

1. eulabes (Strong’s 2126), lit., “taking hold well” (eu, “well,” lambano, “to take hold”), primarily, “cautious,” signifies

in the NT, “careful as to the realization of the presence and claims of God, reverencing God, pious, devout”, in Luke

2:25 it is said of Simeon, in Acts 2:5, of certain Jews; in 8:2, of those who bore Stephen’s body to burial; of Ananias,

22:12 (see No. 2). “In that mingled fear and love which, combined, constitute the piety of man toward God, the Old

Testament placed its emphasis on the fear, the New places it on the love (though there was love in the fear of God’s

saints then, as there must be fear in their love now),” Trench, Syn., Sec.xlviii.¶
NoteCf. the noun eulabeia, “reverence,” and the verb eulabeomai, “to reverence.”

2. eusebes (Strong’s 2152), from eu, “well,” sebomai, “to reverence,” the root seb- signifying “sacred

awe,” describes “reverence” exhibited especially in actions, reverence or awe well directed. Among the

Greeks it was used, e.g., of practical piety towards parents. In the NT it is used of a pious attitude towards

God, Acts 10:2, 7; (in some mss. in 22:12); “godly,” in 2 Pet. 2:9. ¶ In the Sept., Prov. 12:12; Isa. 24:16; 26:7;

32:8; Mic. 7:2.¶

Notes: (2) Cf. theosebeia, and theosebes, which, by their very formation (theos, “God,” and sebomai, express

“reverence” towards God. See Trench (Sec.xlviii).It is usage # 2 or eusebes (Strong’s 2152), that is reflective of the

use of the word as it pertains to Cornelius. This word indicates that he “reverenced” God or held God in “awe” by his

actions and lifestyle. These are hardly actions consistent with a pagan or a sinner who does not know God or the

message of Jesus, either by way of his life personally or in his resurrection.

(1) While eulabes especially suggests the piety which characterizes the inner being, the soul, in its attitude towards

God, eusebes directs us rather to the energy which, directed by holy awe of God, finds expression in
devoted activity.¶3. sebomai (Strong’s 4576), “to feel awe,” whether before God or man, “to worship,” is translated

“devout,” in Acts 13:43, rv (kjv, “religious”); 13:50; 17:4, 17. [3]

It would seem that the word “devout” is certainly not restricted or indicitave to gentile or pagan worship. In fact the

word used for devout in this context eusebus confirms an active and vibrant service toward God or religious faith.

That vibrance and good work is what Cornelius was known and reported for in the entire Acts 10 discourse.

Are There Textual Problems If Cornelius Wasn’t A Believer Prior To Meeting Peter?

Yes. I will point out at least two of them:

1- If Cornelius was not saved when we are introduced to him in Acts 10 what is his motivator to receive salvation?

The facts are that we are given a portrait of a man who already is in relationship with God in what many have said to

be an unregenerate state or condition. This would be a very difficult pitch of the Apostles to try convince this man that

there is a deeper relationship with God, when the evidence shows that he was experiencing visions, offering availing

prayer and living out a godly life daily. In fact his very relationship with God would fly in the face of all Old Testament

scripture especially that of 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Isaiah 59:1-2 which says,

“1Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2But your

iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”

Sin would have been a wedge between Cornelius and God. The scripture does not indicate that there was a gap

between God and Cornelius in any way. The testimony that Cornelius was already saved is highly consistent with the

Biblical narrative and scriptural evidence.

2- If God offers Cornelius some type of “provisional righteousness”, what does that say about the “blood atonement”

and the judgement of God upon all unrighteousness?

Many have taken the scripture in Acts 10:35 ~ ” 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness,

is accepted with him.” to indicate that God somehow “overlooked” Cornelius’s sin because he “worked

righteousness”. Once again this is very problematic as one would have to also believe in alternate methods or routs

of salvation outside of Jesus for “nations that work righteousness”. Once again this assertion does not stand under

the weight of scripture as Jesus states that “no one comes to the father except through me” John 14:6(b) NKJV

What Happens If Cornelius Was A “Believer” Before He Met Peter?

If we deduce that Cornelius was already “saved” when he met Peter, that eliminates all major obstacles in helping to

understand the Lord’s instructions to him.

In Acts 10:5-6 Cornelius was given instruction on what to do in order to get Peter back to him who would later be

responsible for telling him “words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” Acts 11:14 If this were referring to
the act of salvation, this would be a synergistic relationship whereby Cornelius takes part in his own salvation. For

those holding views against synergism, it should be noted that without Cornelius “sending men” by God’s instruction

salvation would not have come to him or his house. In others words Cornelius would be responsible or take part in

saving himself.

This observation is very problematic for those who hold views against synergism and for those who believe that

Cornelius was an unsaved individual when we meet him in Acts 10. This scripture alone would give Cornelius

“braggin’” rights to claim that he had to assist God in bringing salvation to himself.

Ephes. 2:8-9~ “8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of

works, lest any man should boast.”

Since we know that God would not and did not violate his word, we would defy scriptural reason and basis to believe

that Cornelius was an unbeliever BUT YET in deep relationship, communion with God and bringing salvation to

himself.

How could he already be saved if according to Acts 11: 14 salvation was to “come to his house”?

I believe that this is one of the greatest misunderstandings of the entire encounter. Peter recants:

Acts 11:14-16 ~ “14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15
And as I began
16
to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord,

how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.”

We already know that “salvation” is through faith by confession:

Rom. 10:9-11 ~ “9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that
God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him
shall not be ashamed.”

The act of Peter was not to provide salvation as a matter of faith, but salvation as a matter of divine inclusion in God’s

plan and among God’s people. A quick look at the word “salvation”

The verb was used in Acts 11:14 ~ “. swvzw soµzoµ, sode´-zo; from a primary sw`” soµs (contr. for

obs. savo” saoás, “safe“); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (lit. or fig.):— heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be

(make) whole. [4]

4982 sozo { sode’-zo} from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, “safe”); TDNT – 7:965, 1132; v
o AV – save 93, make whole 9, heal 3, be whole 2, misc 3; 110

o *
GK – 1751 { ejkswv/zw } & 5392 { swv/zw }
o 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
o 1a) one (from injury or peril)
 o 1a1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to
health1b1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue1b) to save in the technical
biblical sense
o 1b1) negatively
o 1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
o 1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance[5]

Upon examination of the scripture, this word has very little to do with the condition or position of “faith”. This has to do

with physical and spiritual preservation from danger or peril. Is this not the work of the Holy Ghost in the life of the

believer?

Jn. 16:13 ~ “13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of

himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me:
15
for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I,

that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

Once again, if we understand that what Peter was doing had nothing to do with bringing a sinner to repentant faith,

that makes the scripture much more understandable as to exactly what God was doing for Cornelius and what HE

was doing for Peter’s understanding of “gifts” that he thought were previously allocated only for the house of Israel.

III: What Was Peter’s Mission For Cornelius?

In order to understand this we must pay full attention to the conclusions that Peter gathered from the dream. Peter

recants something interesting that cannot simply be overlooked as it pertains to his vision.

Acts 10:15 ~ “15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou

common.”

Toward the end of Peter’s vision he questioned the food based upon what he knew about ceremonial righteousness.

We know that the vision is representative of the gentile’s whom God would save.

Notice how God speaks, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” This is rendered in the past tense. If

this was referring to Cornelius, all God would be asking Peter to do would be to accept him into the church

community because he is “already clean”. This is exactly what Peter does in verse 47 through extending to Cornelius

the rite of Baptism.

The mission of Peter was not to bring Cornelius to “saving faith”, but to extend the opportunity to him to be a part of

the church, experience the Power of the Holy Ghost and receive the protection of God.

Summary:
o There is strong scriptural evidence to suggest that Cornelius was either an eyewitness to Jesus ministry or
his resurrection.
 o There is strong scriptural evidence to suggest that Cornelius was a already saved and God fearing individual
before Peter came to his house.
o There is evidence that Cornelius had a deep personal relationship with God that was observed by those
around him. His faith was evidenced by his works. (James 2:20)
o If Cornelius was not “saved” before he met with Peter he partook in his own salvation and thereby added to
grace by his own works. This could be construed as synergism. Further his relationship with God would
contradict scripture as he outlines that he cannot fellowship with sin or a sinner.
o In light of all the evidence it is clear that Peter’s mission to Cornelius was not one to provide “saving faith” as
in personal relationship, but “salvation” as in preservation for his soul, family and household deliverance.

Resources:

[1] William Smith; revised and edited by F.N. and M.A. Peloubet, Smith’s Bible dictionary [computer file], electronic

ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997.

[2] Richard Bauckham, “Jesus And The Eyewitnesses” 2006 Eerdman’s Publishing Pg. 115

[3] W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament

words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[4] James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library

System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[5]Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc1995