2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

For a few years, they preached the gospel to none but Jews; so that for that space, the ecclesia in that city was composed solely of the circumcised. It is not surprising, therefore, that the pagans should make no distinction between the Ecclesia and the Synagogue.

They regarded them all as Jews; so that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to depart from Rome [Acts 18:2], Aquila and Priscilla, though Christians, had to leave. But, before the publication of this edict, Peter had opened the door of faith to Gentiles, as recorded in Acts 10 and 11.

The of this soon reached Rome, and the Mouth of Deity was opened there to the same effect. Pagans were invited to "the obedience of faith for His name," that they might become "the tabernacle of the Deity, and dwellers in the heaven," together with the saints already separated from the Synagogue.

But for this extension of the Ecclesia, the edict of Claudius would have left none of the saints in Rome. It expelled all natural Jews, without regard to their belief; so that, in this crisis, the Ecclesia there would become in appearance entirely Gentile. But, when the edict became obsolete, the Jewish members would many of them return; nevertheless, the Jewish influence in the Ecclesia would predominate no more.

Eureka 13.13.

3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

They were a company of Christadelphians, Christou adelphoi, or Brethren of Christ, who believed into him through the word of Peter and the Eleven (John 17:20). This was the day of small things, which they did not despise. They had no temple, cathedral, or synagogue in which they could meet on their return, A.D. 33. Even seventeen years after they met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, two Jews, who made tents for a living, Acts 18:2; Rom. 16:5.

Eureka 13.13.

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Power being in the hands of their enemies the Christians of the Hebrew nation still continued to observe the seventh day according to the custom. Hence we find the apostles frequenting the synagogues on the sabbath days and reasoning with the people out of the Scriptures (Acts 27:2, 17; 18:4; 19:8).

To have done otherwise would have been to create an unnecessary prejudice, and to let slip one of the best opportunities of introducing the gospel to the attention of the Jewish public. They did not forsake the synagogues until they were expelled. While they frequented these, however, on the seventh day, they assembled themselves together with the disciples whose assemblies constituted the ecclesias of the saints and of God.

... On what day, then, did the ecclesias of the saints meet to exhort one another so as to provoke to love and to good works? Certainly, not on the seventh day, for then the apostles were in the synagogues. What day then more appropriate than the Lord's day, or first day of the week?

Now it cannot be affirmed that the saints were commanded to meet on this day, because there is no testimony to that effect in the New Testament. But, it is beyond dispute, that they did assemble themselves together on the first day of the week, and the most reasonable inference is that they did so in obedience to the instruction of the apostles from whose teaching they derived all their faith and practice, which constituted them the disciples of Jesus.

Elpis Israel 1.2.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

According to the constitution of the human intellect, the knowledge of truth must precede the belief of it...

...Now, to these baptized believers he writes, and tells them that

"God made Jesus, who knew not sin, to be sin (that is, sinful flesh) for them, that they might be constituted God's righteousness in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21)

; so that, being introduced into Him (for an individual cannot be in a federal person unless introduced into Him) the crucified and resurrected Jesus became

"the Lord their righteousness" (Jer. 23:6);

as it is written,

"of Him, Corinthians, are ye IN Christ Jesus, who of God is constituted for us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).

So that, whosoever is in Him, is said to be "complete in Him;" in whom he is circumcised "in putting off THE BODY OF THE SINS of the flesh;" that is, all past sins; being buried with Christ in the baptism, in which also he rises with Him through the belief of the power of God evinced in raising Him from the dead (Col. 2:10-12).

Now, because the unconstituted, or unrighteous, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, the law is revealed which says, "ye must be born again;" for, says the King,

"except a man be born again he cannot behold the kingdom of God."

This saying is unintelligible to men whose thinking is guided by the flesh. They cannot comprehend "how these things can be:" and, though they profess to be "teachers of Israel," "Masters of Art," and "Bachelors," and "Doctors of Divinity," and of "Canon and Civil Law," they are as mystified upon the subject of "the new birth," as Nicodemus himself.

But to those who understand "the word of the kingdom" these "heavenly things" are distinguished by the obviousness and simplicity of truth. To be born again, as the Lord Jesus expounds it, is to be "born of water and the spirit:" as it is written,

"except a man be born out of water and of spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:3-10)

This is surely very explicit, and very intelligible; who can misunderstand it, unless it be against his will to receive it?

Elpis Israel 1.4.

21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

...the clear and healthy and saving example of Paul.

His recognition of God even in common things, is constant and natural. He is, in fact, a good example of what James means when he refers deprecatingly to those who say,

"Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain."

Says James (4:14),

"Ye know not what shall be on the morrow . . . Ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this or that."

Seasons 1.70.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Apollos knew only the baptism of John;"

This is all Apollos knew of baptism, or of that "Way of God" John the Baptizer preached. Apollos was an Alexandrine, or Egyptian Jew, eloquent, and mighty in the prophetic scriptures, fervent in spirit, and a diligent teacher of what he knew. But he knew nothing about Jesus.

His teaching, therefore, was all to prove that the time had come for Messiah to be manifested to Israel, and that Jews ought to repent, and be baptized, that he might acknowledge them when he appeared. John taught this until Jesus was baptized; and Apollos only knew John's teaching.

But Aquila and Priscilla, two Christians, who knew John's baptism and that of the Apostles too, heard him in the synagogue. They saw that he was just the man for the whole truth, so they invited him home with them; and

"expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly,"

or more accurately. Yes, says our friend, "more perfectly, yet he was not required to be baptized." Now to this we say, that our friend has not a shadow of proof to justify such a conclusion; on the contrary, the context proves the opposite, as we shall see.

After Apollos had left Ephesus, Paul arrived there, and found twelve men in precisely Apollos' former condition, knowing only the baptism of John. But Paul taught them the way of God more accurately; for he showed them that the Messiah whose coming John announced, had appeared, and that Jesus was he.

When these disciples of Apollos heard this, they accepted Jesus. Paul had

"expounded the way of God more perfectly;"

but was this exposition regarded as complete without rebaptism? The very reverse; for it is testified, that when they heard Paul's exposition

"they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus;"

and thus knew the accurate way of God in practice as well as in theory. Will our friend say, that it was necessary for these twelve cases, identical with that of Apollos, to be rebaptized, but not for him? There is no respect of persons in regard to God's way; hence, what is indispensably necessary for one is indispensable for all.

In those days, precept and practice went together. Repentance and remission of sins were ordered to be announced in the Name of Jesus; and apart from that name, no man, however eloquent or mighty in the scriptures, or fervent in spirit, could obtain them.

Baptism alone can unite an enlightened believer to the name. It is instituted for that purpose; and cannot be omitted, if Apollos, or any other man, would obtain the things it communicates.

Peter commanded the persons of the Centurion's family "to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Upon what ground could Apollos claim exemption from obedience to the same? Upon none. We conclude, then, that Apollos in being taught the way of God more accurately was rebaptized, even as the twelve—Acts 19.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, July 1858

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

[did more exactly expound to him the way of God - YLT]

The Responsibility of Examining Brethren

THE household of faith is united by one common bond, being all members of one body, whose increase unto the edifying of itself in love is dependent upon the effectual working of the individual members of the body. The whole body is honoured and strengthened in proportion to the integrity and zeal of each member, but it is also dishonoured and weakened by the inconsistency and laxness of any within it.

We are abundantly admonished to preserve the purity of the faith, to strive together for that end as much as possible, in peaceful relations with all men, but still in conformity with the divine order—first pure, then peaceable. Peace is obtainable only in the absence of a disturbing element; where that element exists peace is more or less impossible.

From what cause do disturbances in the ecclesias generally spring, with whom do they originate? Is it not generally from the action of brethren weak in the faith, men who retain something of the old leaven which tends to leaven the whole lump, so that many are led to follow their pernicious ways? It is the heresy "privily brought in," which affects the soundness of the faith and disturbs the effectual working of the members of the body.

Experience has shown that envying, strife, railing and evil surmisings originate with such minds and are stimulated by them. Who are to blame for this state of things? Examining brethren are largely responsible. To them is entrusted the charge of keeping pure the household of faith so far as admitting the alien to fellowship is concerned. But there have been admitted to fellowship some who were practically deficient in a knowledge of the first principles of the faith.

This has been proved by many who subsequently came to see with increased knowledge that they had in the first place been immersed with a deficient knowledge of the truth, and without an adequate recognition of their responsibilities in becoming connected with Christ's brethren. With their new light and knowledge, these good and honest hearts were anxious to be placed in a proper relationship to Christ, and hence they sought re-immersion—an acknowledgment that their first immersion was invalid.

These had gone on to perfection, but how many may be like them in their first experiences, having need to be taught again what be the first principles of the oracles of God. Admission to fellowship is obtained by baptism; but baptism ought only to be performed upon an understanding of the one faith being shown by the candidate, and a recognition on his or her part of the responsibilities of the step about to be taken.

It is for the examining brethren to determine whether such an understanding and recognition exists, because it is upon these that the validity of the immersion depends. It is here that the responsibility of the brethren is greatest. There is unfortunately in many cases a desire, laudable in one sense, to see an increase in numbers, and sufficient care is not always taken to ascertain the motive which leads to the wish to become connected with the ecclesia, and an accommodative examination is made in order that one more may be added to the roll.

It is hoped that the candidate will understand the subjects better afterwards, in the meantime, with an imperfect knowledge and with little appreciation of the responsibilities of the step about to be taken, there passes in fellowship of the household one that may prove a root of bitterness and a cause of offence. Let any brother or sister of standing in the truth reflect upon their conversations with brethren and sisters elsewhere and they will be surprised at the extent of the deficiency of knowledge in things that are essential to a proper basis.

Here a brother is ignorant of the nature of Christ, there a sister has doubts as to the personality of Satan in the orthodox sense, and so on. But how came they to be in fellowship holding these views? They have not developed since becoming acquainted with the truth, but they are the old leaven which was brought in with them, of the doctrines of which the truth would bid them beware.

The ecclesia of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, has a duty to itself as well as to those outside, and if into the holy city there shall in no wise enter anything that defileth or worketh abomination, it is surely necessary as far as possible to keep out similar elements of the world from the household of faith.

The examining brethren must see to this. There is no need for austere judgment or pharisaical treatment of the candidate for immersion in attempting to secure this object. In the gentlest manner, but with the firmness which the importance of the occasion requires, the examining brethren should deal with all the points of doctrine, and where there is deficiency let them show the way of God more perfectly.

But if it is evident from the manner of the candidate that he or she fails to comprehend the import of the doctrine, there should be delay in admission. The mere intellectual grasp of the facts is, however, of less importance than the perception of the responsibilities of baptism. Let the death which baptism symbolises to the individual be clearly impressed upon him as his dying to his former carnal life, and that in his rising into newness of life in taking Christ's name he also takes his yoke upon him, learning to follow his footsteps, to cultivate his mind and disposition, so that they may dwell in Him as they dwelt in Jesus.

Were these things gently yet gravely set before all who come before the examining brethren, there might be fewer who would accept the conditions of fellowship, but these would be less likely to cause heart-burnings and strife in the ecclesias with which they become identified.

A word as to the attitude to be assumed to those who speak of being re-immersed. If in that frame of mind they ought not to be allowed to break bread until they have openly spoken out their difficulties and the ecclesia has had a chance to judge whether such brethren are really in Christ.

To be in Christ necessitates the belief of Christ 's mission and the obedience to his commandments. But if there has been disbelief or misconception of a kind that amounts to unbelief of that mission, can such a person be said to be in Christ? The subject to my mind is of great importance to the peace and welfare of the ecclesias, and these reflections are offered in a spirit of love to such as are the door-keepers of the house of God.

A. Morris.

Wimborne.

The Christadelphian, Sept 1889

Sisters of the New Testament

Priscilla

She is brought before us in a threefold character. The first work which is mentioned in connection with her is the more perfect instruction of Apollos in Scripture truth (Acts 18:26). A man of Apollos' type, who was already founded on a strong Scriptural basis, would not be one to yield readily to another's opinions. Priscilla would have to prove her position up to the hilt. This brings out Priscilla's ability in the capacity of an expert handler of the sword of the spirit.

A careless Bible-neglecting sister could not have taken part in such a work. If we would be Priscillas we must be careful to keep our memories well stored with Bible truths, and be diligent in making use of these truths whenever we have opportunity.

The second feature in Priscillas character is her great courage. Paul speaks of her as having (in conjunction with her husband) laid down her neck for his sake (Rom. 16:3, 4). Priscilla had evidently rendered Paul service when to do so was to risk her own life. She could hardly have been prompted to this merely by friendship.

The disciples loved Christ, but forsook him when brought face to face with impending death. Priscilla must have been inspired by a strong sense of duty. Those who have been placed in danger of losing their lives could most fully estimate Priscillas courage, nevertheless the instincts of self-preservation, common to the human family, will aid us in realising, to an extent, what it must have cost Priscilla to have thus jeopardised her life.

The bravest and hardiest give way when it comes to a question of life and death, especially if the threatened death be ignominious. The secret of Priscilla's bravery must be sought, not in mere animal courage, but in that courage of which faith is the basis. All the courageous acts of Bible heroes have been the outcome of faith (Heb. xi). Priscilla evidently placed implicit confidence in the promise: "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee" so that she could

"boldly say the Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man shall do unto me."

If it were God's will that she should escape, no man could hurt her. If it were God's will that she should die, then let man do his worst. Thus must she have reasoned. God in His mercy has not called us to serve Him in times of persecution such as those in which Priscilla lived. Nevertheless there are many duties in the discharge of which we stand in apprehension of bodily hurt. We can only fulfil these duties by displaying similar courage (though not perhaps in the same degree) to that displayed by Priscilla.

...God does not expect His children to court unnecessary danger—to take an unsafe road when they could choose a safe one—to leave their doors open when they could shut and lock them; but when they have to face unavoidable danger, He would have them do their duty, leaving the consequences in His hands.

The third feature in Priscilla's character comes out in the phrase, twice repeated,

"the ecclesia that is in their (Priscilla and Aquila's) house" (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19).

This reveals Priscilla's steady, persevering fidelity to the service of the truth. We know—seeing that none are yet perfect—that for a community of believers to meet or dwell in Priscilla's house would mean some inconvenience and much to bear with. Priscilla evidently fortified herself for the strain.

Let us strive to cultivate Priscilla's forbearance and steadfastness. Let us not be turned from work in which we might engage by difficulties great or small. Let us think less of serving ourselves and more of serving the truth, and whether we are called on to lend our hands, our voices, our feet, or our houses, let us do it joyfully—bountifully—not in a grudging, half-hearted way.

The Christadelphian, Dec 1889