Irenæus and Matthew 28:19

The reliability of the writings of Irenæus of Lyon's is problematic because it only exists in a very faulty and in many cases unintelligible post-Nice Latin version, written approximately 200 years after Irenæus’ autograph  (Dodwell), and at a time when the grossest of interpolations were being written into Christian documents in support of the developing Trinity. Here I quote from the Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies: 

“The great work of Irenæus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extent in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with exception of the greater part of the book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of copyist quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain. Only three manuscripts of the work Against Hiresies are at present known to exist. Others, however, were used in the earliest printed additions put forth by Erasmus. And as these codices were more ancient than any now available, it is greatly to be regretted that they have disappeared or perished. One of our difficulties throughout, has been to fix the reading we should adopt, … . Varieties of readings, actual or conjectured, have been noted only when some point of special importance seem to be involved.

“The Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote.… Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavored to give as close and accurate translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.”

Therefore, when Irenæus’ single mention of Matthew 28:19 is referenced as evidence of its canonicity, one should not be surprised when it is questioned.

In Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XVII, 1 we find this statement: “And again, giving the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This supposed statement of Irenæus has an uncomfortable reminiscence of the trine formula from Matthew 28:19 in two ways. First, just as Matthew 28:19 is the Bible’s only reference to baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So, too, is this statement from Irenæus the only place he mentions baptism in the triune formula. Secondly, as the triune formula of Matthew 28:19 has all the ear markings of an interpolation, and breaks the sense of its context, so, too, does the triune reference from Irenæus seem to be a parenthetical statement that has been artificially injected into the text that also breaks the said sense of its context. 

The following reason is why I make the above comparison: When we consider the context of Irenæus’ reference to the triune formula, it seems blatantly out of joint with the text above it and below it. For example the preceding statement has as its subject the Holy Spirit. One would think that the very next statement would be a pneumatological one which would be within the same context—but it is not. Coming immediately after the statement concerning the Holy Spirit is an injected parenthetical statement on baptismal regeneration in the triune formula. However, coming immediately after that is a third statement which continues the thought from the first statement which has the Holy Spirit as its subject. This order of events smacks of the same hand (or at least the same ideology and methodology) of the hand that gave us the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19 in the codices post-Nicea. 

Illustration:
I present Irenæus in three statements: A, B, and C.

A. “But what really was the case, that did they record, [namely,] that the Spirit of God as a dove descending upon Him; this Spirit, of whom it was declared by Isaiah, ‘And the Spirit of God shall rest upon him,’ as I have already said. And again: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me.’ That is the Spirit for whom the Lord declares, ’For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.’”

B. “And again, giving the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 

C. “For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaidens, that they may prophesy; wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man,…" 

Dear Friend, can we not see that statement “B” breaks the context and sense of the passage? That it is a parenthetical statement that in all likelihood is the work of a later hand and not that of Irenaeus. In fact it is most natural to remove statement “B” and proceed directly from the last statement of “A”, “For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you” to the first statement of “C”, “For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaidens, that they may prophesy; …"

The same pattern is evident in Matthew 28:18-20. Notice the following:

I. Evidence of the Context 

When the context is examined, we find that in the AV the sense of the passage is hindered, 

A. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

One would expect a Christological statement, but instead:

B. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

In “C” the Christological subject from “A” is picked back up and continued.

C. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Dear Friend, can we not see that statement “B” breaks the context and sense of the passage? Can we not see that it is a parenthetical statement that reflects no other statement of Christ nor of any of His disciples?

But if we read as the pre-Nicea rendering of Eusebius, Aphraates and Justin, etc., the whole context fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete: 

“All power is given unto ME ... “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations in My Name. teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.” And lo I am with you…”

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

See The debate between Bishop Hayes and Dr. Michael Burgos on the Canonicity of Matthew 28:19 at the following link:
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/12/canonicity-of-matthew-2819-debate.html