Acts 16:13

13-15. Upon entering this strange city, the first on the continent of Europe visited by an apostle, Paul and his companions must have looked around them with great anxiety for some opportunity to open their message to the people. The prospects were sufficiently forbidding. They knew not the face of a human being; and there was not even a Jewish synagogue into which they might enter with the hope of being invited to speak "a word of exhortation to the people." By some means, however, they learned that on the bank of the river Gangas, which flowed by the city, some Jewish women were in the habit of congregating on the Sabbath-day, for prayer. Thither the apostles directed their steps, determined that here should be the beginning of their labors in Philippi. (13) "And on the Sabbath-day we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and sat down, and spoke to the women who had collected there. (14) And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God, was listening; whose heart the Lord opened, so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul. (15) And when she was immersed, and her house, she entreated us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and remain there. And she constrained us."

With Bloomfield, I reject the criticism of the most recent commentators, who render the second clause of verse 13 Acts 16:13>, "where was wont to be a place of prayer." Besides the reasons suggested by this learned author, I would observe, first, that the term proseuche is nowhere else in the New Testament used in the sense of a place of prayer, but always means prayer. Nothing but a contextual necessity, therefore, would justify a different rendering here. Again, the expression enomizeto einai means was accustomed to be, and it is never said of a place, or building, that it is accustomed to be where it is.

We now see one reason for that singular prohibition which had been steadily turning Paul aside from the fields which he had preferred, until he reached the sea-shore; and of that vision which had called him into Europe. These women had been wont to repair to this river-bank for prayer. God had heard their prayers, as in the case of Cornelius, and he was bringing to them the preacher through whose words they might obtain faith in Christ, and learn the way of salvation. Long before either they or Paul knew anything of it, God was directing the steps of the latter, and timing the motion of the winds at sea, with reference to that weekly meeting on the river's bank, as he had once done the flight of an angel and the steps of Philip with reference to the eunuch's chariot. Now, as in those two cases, he has brought the parties face to face. He answers the prayers of the unconverted, not by an enlightening influence of the Spirit in their hearts, but by providentially bringing to them a preacher of the gospel who knows the way of salvation.

First: The term open is evidently used metaphorically, but in a sense not at all obscure. To open the mind is to expand it to broader or more just conceptions of a subject. To open the heart is to awaken within it more generous impulses. What exact impulse is awakened, in a given case, is to be determined by the context.

Second: The impulse awakened in Lydia's heart was not such a disposition that she listened favorably to what Paul said, but, "that she attended to things" which he spoke. The facts, in the order in which they are stated, are as follows: 1st. "We spoke to the women." 2d. Lydia "was listening." 3d. God opened her heart. 4th. She attended to the things spoken. The fourth fact is declared to be the result of the third. It was after she "was listening" that God opened her heart, and after her heart was opened, and because of this opening, that she attended to what she had heard. What the exact result was, then, is to be determined by the meaning of the word "attended." The term attend sometimes means to concentrate the mind upon a subject, and sometimes to practically observe what we are taught. The Greek term prosecho, here employed, has a similar usage. It is used in the former sense, in Acts 8:6 Acts 8:6>, where it is said the people, "attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought." It is used in the latter sense in 1 Timothy 4:13 1 Timothy 4:13>, where Paul says, "Till I come, attend to reading, to exhortation, to teaching;" and in Hebrews 7:13 Hebrews 7:13>, where to attend to the altar means to do the service at the altar. That the latter is the meaning in the case before us is clearly proved by the fact that she had already listened to what Paul spoke, or given mental attention to it, before God opened her heart so that she attended to the things she had heard. Now, in hearing the gospel, she learned that there were certain things which she was required to attend to, which were, to believe, to repent, and to be immersed. To attend to the things she heard, then, was to do these things. That immersion was included in the things which Luke refers to by this term is evident from the manner in which he introduces that circumstance. He says, "And when she was immersed," etc., as if her immersion was already implied in the preceding remark. If such was not his meaning, he would not have used the adverb when, but would simply have stated, as an additional fact, that she was immersed.

Having the facts of the case now before us, we inquire whether it is necessary to admit an immediate influence of the Spirit, in order to account for the opening of her heart. We must bear in mind, while prosecuting this inquiry, that the opening in question was such a change in her heart as to induce her to believe the gospel, to repent of her sins, and to be immersed, thereby devoting her life to the service of Christ. Her heart had been contracted by the narrowness of Jewish prejudices, which were obstacles, in some degree, to the reception of the gospel; but she was a "worshiper of God," which inclined her to do whatever she might learn to be the will of God. In seeking to account for the change effected, we must also bear in mind the well-settled philosophical principle, that when an effect can be accounted for by causes which are known to be present, it is illogical to assume a cause which is not known to be present. Now, in Lydia's case, it is not asserted that an immediate action of the Spirit took place in her heart; neither can it be known that such a cause was present, unless this is the only cause which could produce the effect. But it is known that all the power which can be exerted through the words of an inspired apostle preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, was present. And it can not be denied, that when the gospel, thus presented, is listened to by one who is already a sincere worshiper of God, as Lydia was, the heart may be so expanded by it from the narrowness of Jewish prejudice as to admit of faith, repentance, and obedience. The assumption, therefore, that her heart was opened by an abstract influence of the Spirit, is entirely gratuitous and illogical, while the real cause is patent upon the face of the narrative in the preaching done by Paul.God opened her heart, and not Paul, we answer, that God by his Spirit was the real agent of all that was effected through the words of Paul. For it was the Spirit in Paul who spoke to Lydia, and it was the fact that the Holy Spirit was in him which compelled her to believe what he might say, and gave his words all their power. Hence, so far is the statement of the text from being inconsistent with our conclusion, that the opening of her heart through Paul's words is the clearest proof that it was effected by the Holy Spirit as the prime agent.

If, in conclusion of this inquiry, we compare Lydia's case with that of the eunuch, or of Cornelius, who were in similar states of mind previous to conversion, and needed a similar opening of the heart, we find that it was effected in the same way, through the power of miraculously attested truth, and that the only difference is in the phraseology in which Luke chooses to describe it. If, from these facts, we attempt a general conclusion, it is, that when any narrowness of heart, produced by improper education, or otherwise, stands in the way of salvation, the Lord removes it, and opens the heart, by the expanding and ennobling influence of his truth. This is true of the saint as well as the sinner, as is well illustrated by the case of Peter and the other apostles in connection with the family of Cornelius. her household should be understood as including infant children." He also affirms that "There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles, nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism." Dr. Alexander also remarks that "The real strength of the argument lies not in any one case, but in the repeated mention of whole households as baptized." But Dr. Barnes states the argument in the more popular style, thus: "The case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. For, (1) Her believing is particularly mentioned. (2) It is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not. (3) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed."

Dr. Alexander's statement of the argument is that generally employed by debatants; that of Dr. Barnes the one most common among preachers and teachers who have no opponent before them. In reference to the former it is sufficient to say, that "the repeated mention of whole households as baptized" affords not the slightest evidence in favor of infant baptism, unless it can be proved that in at least one of these households there were infants. It there were infants in one, this would establish the presumption that there might be in some others. But until there is proof that there were infants in some of them, it may be inferred that the absence of infants was the very circumstance which led to the immersion of the whole family. Indeed, a fair induction of such cases fully justifies this inference in reference to Lydia's case. There is positive proof that there were no infants in any other family whose immersion is mentioned in the New Testament. There were none in the household of Cornelius; for they all spoke in tongues, and believed. There were none in that of the jailer; for they all believed and rejoiced in the Lord. None in the household of Stephanas; for they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Now, inasmuch as one of the peculiarities of all households who were immersed, of whom we know the facts, was the absence of infants, we are justified in the conclusion, no evidence to the contrary appearing, that this was also a peculiarity of Lydia's household. The argument, therefore, as stated by Dr. Alexander, is not only inconclusive, but, when properly viewed, establishes a presumption quite the reverse.

The argument, as stated by Dr. Barnes, is based entirely upon the silence of the Scriptures. He says: "Her believing is particularly mentioned;" but "it is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not." Now, if the mere silence of Luke in reference to their faith implies strongly that they did not believe, his silence in reference to Lydia's repentance implies as strongly that she did not repent. In some cases of conversion, the repentance of the parties is "particularly mentioned." "It is not intimated" that Lydia repented; therefore, says the logic of Dr. Barnes, "there is a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of" baptism without repentance. If men are allowed thus to prove what is Scripture doctrine, by what the Scriptures do not mention, there is no end to the doctrines and practices which the Bible may be made to defend. If Dr. Barnes were compelled to meet the argument in reference to Lydia's repentance, he would do it very easily, and, in so doing, would refute his own in reference to the baptism of her children. He would show that we know that Lydia repented, because none but those who repented were admitted to baptism on other occasions. Just so, we know that all baptized on this occasion believed, because none but believers were baptized on other occasions. Not till he can prove, from other statements of the Scriptures, that persons were baptized by the apostles without faith, can he establish the presumption that these parties were not believers, simply because their faith is not mentioned.

Dr. Barnes concludes his note on this case, by saying, "It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent." This is true. But it is equally true, that it is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized without an infant among them. The presence, therefore, of one or more infants, which is essential to the argument, remains absolutely without proof.First, That some of the household were baptized without faith. Second, That Lydia was, or had been, a married woman. Third, That she had children. Fourth, That one or more of her children were infants. Fifth, That her infant children were so young as to necessarily be brought with her from Thyatira to Philippi. Now, so long as it remains possible that all the parties baptized were believers; or that Lydia was a maiden; or that she was a married woman or widow without children; or that her children were of a responsible age; or that her younger children were left at home in Thyatira when she came to Philippi to sell her purple cloths; so long as any one of these hypotheses can possibly be true, so long will it be impossible to prove an instance of infant baptism in her household.

One more suggestion is necessary to a full statement of the argument in this case. When Lydia invited Paul's company to lodge in her house, they were backward about complying, as is evident from the remark that "she constrained us." Now there can be no probable reason assigned for this reluctance, but the fact that it was her house, and the brethren felt it a matter of delicacy to be the guests of a woman. To the full extent of the probability of this supposition, which is heightened by the fact that she calls the house her own, is it probable that she was an unmarried woman, and, therefore, improbable that she had infant children. Thus we find that all the known facts in the case are adverse to the argument in favor of infant baptism.