Baptism for the dead--did Calvin get Chrysostom wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SRoper

Puritan Board Graduate
I was reading interpretations on 1 Cor. 15:29, "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" Calvin in his commentary says, "Before expounding this passage, it is of importance to set aside the common exposition, which rests upon the authority of the ancients, and is received with almost universal consent. Chrysostom, therefore, and Ambrose, who are followed by others, are of opinion that the Corinthians were accustomed, when any one had been deprived of baptism by sudden death, to substitute some living person in the place of the deceased -- to be baptized at his grave."

But I had just read Chrysostom prior, and I don't see him saying that at all. He attributes the substitution interpretation to the Marcionites, "Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, 'They who are baptized for the dead.' Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness?" and then Chrysostom goes on to give an explanation that seems at least in harmony with Calvin's.

So what gives?
 
Ad fontes! Calvin relates Chrysostom's view fairly frequently. I guess I know now to double check the source.
 
What was the secondary source?
Chris, to a certain degree I am speculating, but the footnote that the editor posted in Calvin's commentary with respect to Chrysostom reads as follows: "This," it is stated by Barnes, "was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose." -- Ed. Thus, I think that Calvin may have taken it for granted that what Grotius and/or Michaelis affirmed to be the view of Chrysostom was accepted by him uncritically. To be sure, Calvin offers no citation or source for this error he attributes to Chrysostom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top