Acts 16:15

Acts 16:15. And when she was baptized, and her household. This passage has been a little hastily quoted in support of ‘infant baptism.' It is, however, quite uncertain whether, by the words ‘and her household,' we are to understand her children, her slaves, or the working-people busied in her industry connected with the purple dyes, or all these collectively. The practice, however, of infant baptism rests on surer ground than on the doubtful interpretation of any solitary text. We have direct allusions to ‘the connections of Chloe' (1 Corinthians 1:11); ‘the household of Stephanas' (1 Corinthians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 16:15); the church in' the house of Aquila and Priscilla' (Romans 16:5), etc. Is it credible, asks Bengel, that in so many families there was no child? But our Lord's action, when He laid His hands on the little child-heads (Matthew 19:15), is of all warrants for this most ancient practice the most authoritative. As it has been well said, ‘If infants were capable of spiritual blessings then, why, it may be well asked, should they be thought incapable now?'

She besought (us), saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. As a rule, St. Paul was reluctant to accept anything at the hands of his converts. He was surrounded by enemies, and he determined, at least, that the reproach of mercenary motives should never hinder his work for his Master. Her persistent entreaty perhaps, united with circumstances not known to us, induced St. Paul to deviate for a few days from his stern practice of refusing all kindly help, even from his most loving disciples (see his words, for instance, in Acts 20:33-34; 2 Corinthians 12:17-18). There are other passages which also bear on this point. There were, of course, exceptions to this stern rule of his in the case of dear friends like Philemon, when he was in prison and in captivity (see Acts 24:23; Acts 28:10).