Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: The First "BibLit" Textbook!

Every student at LeTourneau University has to take a class called Biblical Literature, otherwise known as "BibLit". I teach at least one section of this class every semester, and I thoroughly enjoy it. The goal of the class is to help students understand the big picture of the Bible (its central themes, characters, events, and how it all fits together) and how they can be more faithful to what God is calling them to be and do. As a department we decided that a narrative approach would be the best way to accomplish our goals, which led us to an excellent book written by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen called The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the  Biblical Story.

Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus (2nd century), is a similar kind of book, written to show how the Bible points to the essentials of the faith as well as to strengthen Christian faith(fulness). Perhaps we could say that Demonstration was the first BibLit textbook!

As I worked through the book I paid particular attention to the way in which Irenaeus "fit" the Bible together: what was his approach for organizing the biblical content? What did he think were the central themes, characters, and events of the Bible? In short, what were the similarities and differences with the way in which we teach BibLit and the way in which Irenaues would have taught it?  Below are a few observations about what was in Demonstration and what was not!

What Was In Demonstration


1. What I found to be most fascinating with Demonstration is the starting point. In our BibLit class, we begin by talking about (1) how humans make sense of the world through some sort of narrative, and (b) how the Bible is a metanarrative which offers a unique interpretation of universal history. From this we advocate a narrative approach to the Bible as the best way learn the essentials of the faith and our place in God's mission.  Irenaeus starts in a different place. He begins with faith. Seeking biblical support, Irenaeus cites from Isaiah 7.9: "if you do not believe, you will not understand". It appears that for Irenaeus one is unable to apprehend the Scriptures without first being rightly and fully aligned to God. (Incidentally, Augustine has a similar starting point, and also cites Isaiah 7.9. Curiously, the only way that Irenaeus and Augustine were able use Isaiah 7.9 in order to support their "believe-in-order-to-understand" epistemology is by citing the Greek OT translation. The Hebrew version of the same passage reads: "If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all"). For Irenaeus, then, the starting place is theological--not empirical or philosophical.

2. In a related manner, Irenaeus has a kind of proto-trinitarian inclusio in Demonstration, which envelopes his exposition of the Scriptures. In section 7 he writes that the order of the "rule of our faith" is (1) God the Father, not made, not material, invisible, one God, the creator of all things; (2) The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord; and (3) the Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesized, and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God. He concludes his exposition in section 100 be stating that people stray from the truth of God by either (1) rejecting  the Father; (2) by not accepting Jesus' incarnation; (3) or by not receiving the Spirit, which is to reject prophesy. I recognize that it is anachronistic to speak of Irenaeus' reflections on the Trinity, but I do think it is quite instructive that the grid through which all of the Scriptures must be interpreted, for Irenaeus anyway, is a right appraisal of The Father, the Son, and the Spirit. (Augustine advocates a similar approach in De Doctrina Christiana.) In other words, rather than reading the Scriptures objectively, putting aside all theological assumptions and "biases", Irenaeus suggests that one cannot read the Scriptures faithfully without a theological (dare I say Trinitarian?) prejudice.

3. Some other interesting features of Demonstration: (a) Irenaeus regarded Shem to be a central figure of the Scriptures?! (b) He develops the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus (e.g. section 51), the deity of Jesus (section 47), the inspiration of the Scriptures (section 49); (c) central to his exposition of how the Scriptures fit together are the creation accounts; (d) the Old Testament is integral in proving that Jesus is the Messiah; (e) I detected allusions to Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians. He used all of these texts as authoritatively as the Old Testament.

What Was Not In Demonstration 


There were three features that were notably missing from Irenaeus' work (these observations perhaps say just as much about my own ecclesial context).

1. Covenant theology? Irenaeus did not try to fit the Bible together through the covenants of Abraham, Moses and David. In fact, there was almost no mention of the covenant as a framework for understanding what God was doing in Jesus Christ. (Cf. Barth Dogmatics 4.2 or The Drama of Scripture).

2. Justification by faith? The central theme of Protestant Christianity was nowhere to be found in Demonstration. The closest mention of something resembling soteriology or the atonement was in section 98: "The Son of God, who received power from the Father over life...brought it down to us who were far off from Him, when He appeared on earth and was conversant with men...that man might be after the image and likeness of God." [More on this in another post]

3. A narrative approach? I am still trying to make my mind up on this. Did Irenaeus read the Scriptures narratively, or was he simply explaining who Jesus was chronologically?

There is something special and irreplaceable about reading primary sources!