CORNELIUS 101

`Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as

we?' (Acts 10:47).

Peter's ministry in the Acts concluded with the words `Forbidding' and `Withstand' both translations of the

Greek word koluo. Paul's ministry concludes with the words `No man forbidding' (Acts 28:31) where the Greek

word is akolutos. Peter maintained this attitude up to the tenth chapter of the Acts, he would have `forbidden' both

Cornelius and God, for the word `withstand' in Acts 11:17, is koluo.

The upshot of this work at Caesarea was that even Peter was called upon to give an account of himself.

`The apostles and brethren that were in Jud -a heard that the Gentiles had also 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).

We find no remonstrance from Peter to the effect that seeing that the Church began at Pentecost, the conversion

of Cornelius should have been anticipated and be a matter for rejoicing. No, Peter patiently, and humbly, and

apologizingly, rehearsed the matter, even to the pathetic conclusion: `What was I, that I could withstand God?' (Acts

11:17). Why should Peter ever think of withstanding God, if he knew that the Church began at Pentecost? It is

abundantly evident that neither Peter, the other apostles, nor the brethren at Jerusalem had the remotest idea of any

such thing.

`When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, THEN HATH GOD ALSO to the

Gentiles granted repentance unto life' (Acts 11:18).

We have devoted this much space to the story of Cornelius, because we believe that when once the attitude of Peter

here is realized, it will be utterly impossible to still retain the traditional view that `The Church' began at Pentecost.

Israel are associated with a covenant, old and new. Believing Gentiles during the Acts were blessed with faithful

Abraham, but by nature and in the flesh the Gentiles were strangers from the covenant of promise, and in the

teaching of the Prison Epistles, no covenant of any description is known. The English word `covenant' obviously

means `to come together', and is derived from the Latin con `with', venio `to come', and is cognate with such words

as `convention' and `convenient' where the basic idea of `coming together' either of persons, or the fitness and

aptness of circumstances underlies the meaning and usage of such words. A testament differs from a covenant, in

that there is no necessary agreement between the person who makes his will and the legatee, who may be

unconscious of the contents of the will. A testament has no force while the testator lives. It can only come into

operation after the death of the testator. The word `testament' does not occur in the writings of `The Law, the

Prophets and the Psalms' commonly called `The Old Testament'. The word thus translated is the Greek diatheke, a

word employed by the LXX to translate the Hebrew berith `covenant'.

Before we discuss the principle that must guide us when we come to the translation of diatheke, let us go back to

the Hebrew of the Old Testament and consider the meaning of the word there employed. The Hebrew word

`covenant' is berith, and this word refers to something that has been `cut'. So important is this conception of

`cutting' that in most cases where we read `made a covenant' the Hebrew karath, another word meaning `to cut' is

used - so literally `to make a covenant' is `to cut a cutting' - but this thus baldly stated makes no sense. Let us

attempt an illustration borrowed from our own language. The word `indent' means `to notch with teeth' yet an

`indenture' means in law `a deed under a seal, entered into between two parties' and so very similar to a covenant.

Now, when we read the term `to indenture an apprentice' we do not understand that anyone was supposed to have

`bit' the young fellow, the `indentures' refer to the zig-zag cutting that was made across the deed, so that they would

tally one with another.

`Whose tempers, inclinations, sense and wit,

Like two indentures did agree so fit' (Butler).

Here then is a parallel: