Irenaeus — Ground Zero for the Rapture Controversy in the Early Church

THE RAPTURE DEBATE AND THE EARLY FATHERS
One of the most heated debates in the church today is whether the rapture of the church occurs before or after the tribulation. Will the church be on earth during the tribulation? Will she suffer under the antichrist? This controversy involves several intriguing historical questions. For instance, is the pretribulation rapture a recent innovation? Does it have a demonstrable history prior to 1830? Did any of the early church fathers teach a pretribulation rapture?

My investigations have convinced me beyond all shadow of doubt that some of the early church fathers did indeed teach a pretribulation rapture. There are numerous clear pretribulation rapture references in the early church fathers, and this body of evidence is growing. Recent research in the untranslated Greek writings of the early church fathers has led to some amazing discoveries in the writings of both Ephraim the Syrian and Eusebius.

IRENAEUS IS GROUND ZERO
In many ways, Irenaeus has become ground zero for the controversy regarding the rapture views of the early church fathers. There are two reasons for this. One, his presentation on the events of the last days in the fifth book of his Against Heresies is the earliest extensive treatment of prophecy in the early church. Two, he had personally known men who were associates of the apostles, including Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus, in fact, claims that he obtained his prophetic views from the aged brothers who had personally interacted with the apostles. This is very significant. Because of his proximity to the apostles, his sentiments on subjects like the rapture and the tribulation are presumably close, if not identical, to the sentiments of the apostles themselves.

DIFFICULTIES IN IRENAEUS
The biggest difficulty we face in determining Irenaeus’ view of the rapture is that, superficially, he appears to be on the both sides of the fence.

In Against Heresies 5.29.1 he says, “And therefore, in the end when the Church is suddenly caught up from this, it is said, «There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.» For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption.” This looks like a pretribulation rapture.

But in Against Heresies 5.26.1 we read, “«And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast» … And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” Notice the express statement regarding the church in the tribulation. This looks like a post-trib rapture.

Because of this apparent contradiction, prophecy students have tended to divide over whether Irenaeus was post-trib or pretrib, with most inclining toward the post-trib understanding. Even men solidly in the dispensational camp have been hesitant to regard Irenaeus as pretrib.

PATH TO THE SOLUTION OF THE DIFFICULTY
Now I confess that at first glance, especially for casual readers or dabblers in the fathers, this passage looks like incontrovertible proof that Irenaeus believed that the church would go through the tribulation. But all that glitters is not gold. One of the first principles of exegesis (for both the Bible and historical pieces) is determining the author’s intended sense of critical terms. To the degree that men fail to do this, they fail to engage in exegesis. When men drop the ball in this regard, the text becomes a lackey for the expositor’s theological prejudices. This is precisely the situation that we have here. We have a moral obligation to determine how Irenaeus used the word church—to get a handle on his ecclesiology—and not merely assume that his use was identical to ours.

Anyone who has even a modicum of understanding in the field of historical theology knows that the replacement camp and the dispensational camp differ significantly on the meaning and usage of the word church—a problem as old as Irenaeus. Those armed with this information know that it is a distinct possibility that Irenaeus may have used the word church differently than modern evangelicals.

IRENAEUS’ USE OF THE WORD “CHURCH”
As it turns out, Irenaeus uses church in a way that differs from how it is used in both the dispensational camp and the post-tribulational (replacement) camp.

He writes in Against Heresies 5.34.1, “Now I have shown a short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason, that we may know that He who in the New Testament «raises up from the stones children unto Abraham,» is He who will gather, according to the Old Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations. Jeremiah says: «Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, who led the children of Israel from the north, and from every region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own land which He gave to their fathers.»”

Notice the two distinctive features of Irenaeus’ ecclesiology. First of all, he envisions two distinct redemption programs: the New Testament Gentile program and the tribulation program when God saves, gathers, and rewards the nation of Israel according to the Old Testament promises. Secondly, he includes both of these programs—the saved Gentiles of the New Testament program and the saved tribulation Jews of the Old Testament program—under the heading church. He does this because he uses church for all the seed of Abraham, both the Gentile stones of this age (spiritual seed) and the saved Jews of the tribulation (physical seed). He appears to encompass all who are blood-redeemed under the new covenant under the banner of the church.

This two-program view differs from the replacement theology of post-tribulationism which repudiates the twin notions that God will return to the nation of Israel during the seventieth week and that the tribulation program is distinct from the Gentile program of this age. But it corresponds precisely with modern dispensationalism.

Nonetheless, Irenaeus’ dispensationalism is not identical to contemporary dispensationalism. We limit the term church to the saints from Pentecost to the pretribulation rapture and regard those saved during the tribulation as tribulation saints. Irenaeus uses church for all the seed of Abraham, both the Gentile stones of this age (spiritual seed) and the saved Jews of the tribulation (physical seed).

Now, if I am correct that Irenaeus actually did distinguish the saints of the present age from the tribulation Jews in 5.34.1 (one of the core components of dispensationalism), then we would expect to find the other two core components (Jews in the tribulation and a pretribulation rapture) elsewhere in the fifth book of Against Heresies, for it is a rather extensive treatment of eschatology. This, as a matter of fact, is precisely what we find.

THE TWO-PROGRAM VIEW CONFIRMED BY PASSAGES WHICH PORTRAY GOD HONORING JEWS PRACTICING JUDAISM IN THE TRIBULATION
His observations include several other passages which portray God honoring Jews practicing Judaism in the tribulation. Here are two that forcefully make the point.

In Against Heresies 5.25.4 he writes, “a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise … then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: «And in the midst of the week,» he says, «the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.» Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.”

Notice that he qualifies saints here with the expression they who offer a pure sacrifice to God. Notice further that the pure sacrifice here clearly refers to offering literal sacrifices in the literal temple. This language unequivocally refers to saved Jews in the seventieth week offering sacrifices which are honored and received by God.

Similarly, in Against Heresies 5.28.2 he writes, “For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy … sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ [annointed one] … «and blasphemy and power was given to him during forty and two months. And he opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven … Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints.»”

Notice that he refers to the physical temple in Jerusalem as the temple of God and the tabernacle of God. This is manifestly recognizing that during the seventieth week God has returned to the Jews, to Israel, to Jerusalem, to the temple. How can I be certain of this? Because when Irenaeus is addressing the Gentile program in the current age (which dispensationalists call the church age), he clearly teaches, as we do, that Christ is the end of the law for the believer (5.14.3, 5.21.1). He doesn’t confuse Christianity and Judaism. He wasn’t sloppy in his theology.

This information is paradigm shattering, and the conclusion is inescapable—unless, of course, we let our prejudices trump the facts in determining what Irenaeus believed. If Irenaeus has saved men during the seventieth week offering pure sacrifices that are acceptable to God, in a temple owned by God, then he believes in a pretribulation rapture and God’s return to the Jewish economy for seven more years. He believes that God will finish up the last seven years of his Jewish program which he foretold in Daniel 9:24-27.

TWO FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE TWO-PROGRAM VIEW
Two further thoughts on the two-program view are worth bearing in mind. First of all, Irenaeus’ portrayal of the tribulation saints reminds me of the Bible. Every passage in sacred writ which presents saints in the tribulation portrays them as practicing Jewish believers not as practicing Christians. For instance, Matthew 24 presents believers who worship at a temple owned by God and are obligated by God to keep the sabbath. Revelation 11 presents God as owning the temple and those who worship in its precincts. Such things are absolutely contrary to the Christianity of this age. But they perfectly harmonize with a seventieth week that is of the same Jewish stamp and dispensation as the sixty-ninth.

Secondly, God returning to the Jewish temple and owning it as His is absolutely critical for the antichrist scenario to play out. If the Jews built a physical temple today in the church age (when the church is the temple of God), and an ungodly man sat in that temple and declared himself god, that act would be sacrilegious, but it would not be the abomination of desolation. The antichrist’s actions are an abomination precisely because the temple is the temple of God. God owns it, and it alone, as his temple on earth. His name and His honor are there, the same way it was until the day that the vail was rent and the temple was disowned.

THE TWO-PROGRAM VIEW CONFIRMED BY PASSAGES WHICH PORTRAY A PRETRIBULATION RAPTURE OF THE SAINTS OF THIS AGE
Not only does Irenaeus portray the tribulation saints as practicing Jews whose Judaism is honored of God, he also portrays the Gentile saints of the present age as making their departure from this defiled realm before the tribulation starts. This we see in several passages.

Against Heresies 5.29.1, “And therefore, in the end when the Church is suddenly caught up from this, it is said, «There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.» For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption.”

Notice the clear, unmistakable grammatical structure. “When the church is suddenly caught up, there shall be tribulation.” “When the church is suddenly caught up” is a circumstantial clause that tells us the circumstance upon which the action of the main verb hinges. The main verb clause is “there shall be tribulation.” Notice that the action is couched in the future tense. When the sudden catching up of the church is a present disconcerting fact for the world, then there shall be tribulation. This usage places the tribulation after the rapture. There is no way under the sun that this sentence can mean, “the church shall be suddenly caught up after the tribulation.”

The force of the grammar in the English translation cannot be vacated by appealing to the Latin translation behind the English. The Latin says, cum … Ecclesia assumetur, erit tribulatio, “when the church is caught up, there shall be tribulation. Here again, the use of the future verb form erit “there shall be” presents the tribulation as following the rapture.

Nor does referring to the original Greek change anything. The Greek says, τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀναλαμβανομένης, ἔσται, φησίν, θλῖψις, “when the church is caught up, there shall be tribulation.” The rapture is presented in a circumstantial present participial phrase—τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀναλαμβανομένης, “when the Church is caught up.” Once again, the tribulation is grammatically connected to the preceding circumstance with the future tense—”there shall be tribulation.” This informs us that the tribulation follows the rapture.

In Against Heresies 5.5.1 we read, “For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. … Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who are translated are translated to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable … ), and that those who have been translated shall remain there until the consummation [the end], as a prelude to incorruptability.”

Notice the flow of thought here. In the days of Irenaeus, there were aged men yet alive (like Polycarp) who had been disciples of the apostles themselves. These patriarchs taught that Enoch was translated to heaven prior to judgment as a typology of the coming translation event (the rapture) which occurs prior to the end. All who participate in this translation will remain in heaven until the consummation (the end of the age). This translation is a prelude to the incorruptibility that shall be introduced at the second coming and kingdom.

Another testimony is found in Against Heresies 5.31.2. “For as the Lord «went away in the midst of the shadow of death,» where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up, it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God.”

Notice that Irenaeus doesn’t portray the church staying here on earth at the time of the resurrection, which is what he would portray if he were presenting the post-tribulation rapture understanding. Rather, he portrays the church rising into the presence of God. This translation to heaven in association with the resurrection— a recurring theme in his eschatology—exudes the same spirit as John 14:1-3. The next time the church engages bodily with the Lord, she will embark, not on a sideways journey to another location on earth, but on a vertical journey to the third heaven, even the New Jerusalem.

Yet another testimony in this regard appears in Against Heresies 5.32.1. “But it is necessary to say on these things, that it behoves the righteous to be the first in this condition which is being renewed, rising up to the appearance (visible observation) of God to receive the promise of inheritance which God promised to the fathers: afterward to be a judge.”

Notice that the church is the first to receive the renewed condition, which implies that others will later receive the same renewing. This agrees with the statement above that the resurrection of the church is a prelude to the full plan of incorruptibility. Notice again the upward rise to the visible presence of God. Finally, observe that the church first rises and receives her promised inheritance, then afterwards engages in her work of being judges. This implies the return of the church to earth at the second coming to rule with Christ.

These passages are decisive. If Irenaeus taught that the church ascends to heaven at the rapture, stays there until the end of the age, and receives the resurrection renewal before the wholesale renewal at the second coming, and if he makes a temporal distinction between the church receiving her reward and the church operating in the office of judge, then Irenaeus adhered to a pretribulation rapture.

CONCLUSION
I trust that my readers will agree that the pretrib status of Irenaeus has been handily vindicated in this paper. It was demonstrated that Irenaeus taught all three core tenets of dispensationalism—a distinction existing between the Gentile saints of the current age and the Jewish saints of the Tribulation, the tribulation saints being Jews practicing Judaism that is honored of God, and the church being raptured to heaven prior to the start of the tribulation.

This is explosive evidence on the debate concerning the rapture views of the early fathers. Irenaeus got his prophetic views from the aged men (like Polycarp) who personally knew and interacted with the apostles. This establishes the truth of the claim by dispensationalists that the pretrib rapture was the view of the earliest fathers (because it was taught in the Bible and by the apostles) and that the departure was on the part of those who rejected the pretrib rapture. Very early on, in the second century, men began drinking from the heady fountain of allegorical hermeneutics and replacement theology. This wrenched the millennium and the tribulation out of the category of Jewish prophecy and placed them in the camp of Christian experience.

May this information help reverse the devastation caused by replacement theology, both the full-fledged form (amillennialism) and the partial version (post-tribulationism).

Here is a link for my book Recent Pre-Trib Findings in the Early Church Fathers which contains my pretrib rapture passage discoveries in Ephraim the Syrian, Eusebius, Irenaeus, and the Didache, along with evidence that Irenaeus taught a fairly developed version of dispensationalism. 

Eyes wide open, brain engaged, heart on fire,
Lee W. Brainard

For more information on the pretribulation rapture in the early fathers, please refer to my articles on Ephraim the Syrian and Eusebius.