Svigel, Irenaeus and Pretrib

 

I recently read Michael Svigel's book "The Fathers on the Future" which shows that several early church Fathers were futurists, and especially Irenaeus. 

Svigel discusses a statement by Irenaeus that he believes supports a pre-70th week rapture (Svigel is a pre-70th week rapturist, that is "pretrib"). 

“When in the end the Church shall be 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.” (Against Heresies V, 29, 1)

The statement by Irenaeus seems unclear and maybe contradictory because elsewhere Irenaeus speaks of Christians on earth during the tribulation (pretribs usually identify the whole 70th Week as "the tribulation"), but Svigel seeks to explain this as Irenaeus believed faithful Christians (those "truly" saved) will be caught up before the tribulation, while the unfaithful (professing Christians that are not really saved) are left behind to face the antichrist.

“And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings… 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.” (Against Heresies V, 26, 1)

“…so that when this man comes WE may avoid him, being aware who he is.” (Against Heresies V, 30, 3–4)

“…the resurrection of the just… takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.” (Against Heresies V, 35, 1)

From   "Search Assist"

• Caught Up Statement: Irenaeus wrote, “When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’” This statement is frequently referenced by proponents of the pretribulation rapture.

• Context of Tribulation: Despite the above statement, Irenaeus also indicated that the Church would face persecution during the tribulation. He described the tribulation as “the last contest of the righteous,” suggesting that believers would endure trials before being rewarded.



While some interpret Irenaeus' writings as evidence for a pretribulational rapture, a closer examination reveals that he did not have a clearly defined rapture theology. His belief that the Church would face tribulation before being caught up aligns more closely with a post-tribulation perspective.

From joelstrumpet.com:

Few debates in eschatology today are as heated as the question of whether the early church fathers taught a pretribulational rapture. In recent years, teachers such as Lee Brainard and Mike Golay have made the audacious claim that Irenaeus, one of the most significant second-century fathers, supported a pretribulational view. Does the evidence support this? 

 The answer is clear: no. Both the academic consensus and Irenaeus’ own words demonstrate that he expected the church to face the Antichrist and the tribulation before being gathered to Christ. Attempts to portray him as pretribulational are either careless or deliberately misleading.

Scholars across the spectrum—whether premillennial, amillennial, or dispensational, agree that the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, did not teach a pretribulational rapture.

  “The Church Fathers believed that the Church would be on earth during the tribulation period. This is seen in the earliest writers and there is nothing in the other writers to contradict this.” —Charles August Hauser, Jr., The Eschatology of the Early Church Fathers

 “…the early fathers largely held to a period of persecution that would be ongoing when the return of the Lord takes place and most would see the church suffering through some portion of the tribulation period.” —James Stitzinger, The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation

 “The preponderance of evidence seems to support the concept that the early church did not clearly hold to a rapture as preceding the endtime tribulation period…. the early church fathers … should be classified as posttribulational.” —John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation

 “One of [the early Church’s] distinctive features is that it places the Rapture of the Church at the end of the Tribulation, combining it with the Second Coming as one event.” —David Reagan, Wrath and Glory

Even dispensationalist historian and director of the Pretribulational Research Center, Dr. Tommy Ice concedes: “When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus’ writings, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism.”

Richardson writes:

Svigel suggests that Irenaeus may have envisioned something like a “partial pretribulation rapture.” 

 He argues that when Irenaeus speaks of the Church being “suddenly caught up” (Against Heresies 5.29.1), he may have meant that the truly “spiritual” Christians, those living faithfully like Enoch and Elijah, would be taken before the tribulation. 

Meanwhile, the “carnal” or “unprepared” Christians would remain and endure the persecutions of Antichrist, being purified through that ordeal. 

Svigel grounds this reading in Irenaeus’ pre-Augustinian soteriology (salvation as a process) and in parallels with the Shepherd of Hermas, which also depicts some escaping tribulation while others are tested. In this way, Svigel tries to reconcile Irenaeus’ seemingly contradictory statements: one passage possibly suggesting the Church being caught up before the tribulation, and another showing the Church facing Antichrist, and yet another showing survivors entering the kingdom.

While Svigel’s approach... still strains against the plain reading of Irenaeus’ words, as we summarized above. 

Again, briefly: 

 1. Irenaeus makes multiple explicit Post-Trib statements: 

 • He says the resurrection of the just occurs after the Antichrist (5.35.1). Since Paul unites resurrection and rapture (1 Thess 4:16–17), this is decisively post-trib. 

 • He warns believers to recognize the Antichrist (5.30.3–4). This only makes sense if they are present during his rise. 

 • He states that the Antichrist will “put the Church to flight” (5.26.1), which contradicts any safe removal beforehand. 

 2. One can also argue that even the “Caught Up” passage itself (5.29.1) points to a post tribulational scenario. Irenaeus explicitly connects the Church’s assumption with “the last contest of the righteous”—a climactic trial to be endured, not an escape to be avoided. 

 3. The “partial rapture” theory, proposed as a solution, while interesting and possible, is not actually found in Irenaeus’ words. Irenaeus doesn’t divide believers into two classes with separate destinies. 

 4. Scholarly consensus remains to view Irenaeus as postribulational. Even Svigel concedes that Irenaeus cannot be straightforwardly claimed for pretribulationism. At most, he sees ambiguity. The broader scholarly consensus, from Hauser, Stitzinger, Walvoord, and Ice, still classifies Irenaeus as post-trib. 

To suggest that Irenaeus contradicted himself, teaching both pretrib and posttrib in different passages, makes him incoherent. A far better solution is to take him at his word: 

 • The Church will face the Antichrist. 

 • Believers must be prepared to recognize him.

 • The resurrection and rapture occur after his destruction. 

 • The gathering of the Church is one climactic event at Christ’s return. 

This interpretation is consistent across his writings and with the broader early church tradition.