Disclaimer: In this article, I do not unequivocally endorse any specific eschatological position—be it pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, or post-tribulation. Rather, my aim is to critically assess the claims made by Joe Schimmel in his DVD Left Behind or Led Astray? and the implications of those claims. I am particularly concerned about the divisive rhetoric used to attack those who do not adhere to a post-tribulation view, particularly the accusation that these individuals are part of a Jesuit, Roman Catholic, and occultist conspiracy leading many away from the gospel. Although I deeply respect Schimmel’s work in exposing the so-called “Satanic agenda” in Hollywood and the music industry, as well as his stance on gay rights, I am increasingly troubled by some of the theological stances he is promoting in his recent work.
In Left Behind or Led Astray?, Joe Schimmel argues that the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is not just a misinterpretation of scripture but that it represents a grave error with dire consequences for the gospel itself. Schimmel claims that this theological viewpoint is not only misguided but dangerous, asserting that it undermines the very essence of salvation. This claim is serious and merits a deeper examination. Schimmel does not merely critique the pre-tribulation view as a matter of secondary theological difference; rather, he labels it as a harmful doctrine that contributes to the suppression of the gospel. According to Schimmel, those who subscribe to this view, which he believes is grounded in false teaching, are engaging in the suppression of truth, a concept he draws from Romans 1:17, which states, “the just shall live by faith,” but the unrighteous suppress the truth in their unbelief. This, Schimmel suggests, opens the door for the wrath of God to befall pre-tribulation believers.
One of the more troubling aspects of Schimmel’s argument is his treatment of eschatology as an essential doctrine—one that he believes is integral to salvation itself. He and others at Good Fight Ministries (GFM) have gone so far as to equate adherence to the pre-tribulation rapture view with the rejection of the gospel, framing this disagreement as one that has eternal consequences. This perspective not only risks oversimplifying a complex theological issue but also sets a dangerous precedent by making a matter of personal conviction into a salvation issue. In doing so, Schimmel and GFM are drawing a line in the sand that, I believe, could lead to unnecessary and damaging divisions within the body of Christ.
Moreover, Schimmel’s view on the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is problematic because it invokes a broader, more conspiratorial narrative. In his documentary, Schimmel suggests that the promotion of the pre-tribulation rapture is part of a Jesuit and Roman Catholic plot, which, in his view, is actively deceiving believers and leading them away from the true gospel message. At the 3:35 mark in the Left Behind or Led Astray? trailer, Schimmel strongly implies that pre-tribulation believers are being duped by this supposed Catholic conspiracy, which he asserts has its roots in the Occult. This is a dramatic and inflammatory accusation, and it is troubling that Schimmel offers little to no substantive response to those who have critiqued this viewpoint. Rather than engaging in a thoughtful discussion, he is quick to dismiss opposing views as part of an elaborate, sinister plot.
This is especially concerning when one considers the involvement of certain prominent figures in Schimmel’s film, such as Kirk Cameron. Cameron’s ties to Ray Comfort, a well-known proponent of Lordship Salvation and a figure associated with ecumenism, raises questions about the broader theological affiliations of Schimmel’s work. Cameron’s own relationship with Glenn Beck, a Mormon, adds to the complexity. Despite his close association with Beck, Cameron has not publicly denounced the theological errors of Mormonism. Instead, he has publicly endorsed Beck’s views, even going so far as to invite former evangelical pastors who have converted to Roman Catholicism onto TBN—a network that has also been accused of promoting ecumenical and compromising theology. Cameron’s promotion of films such as Saving Christmas and his urging Christians to celebrate Halloween further muddy the waters, as these actions are not rooted in sound biblical teaching but instead reflect a broad ecumenical stance that compromises core Christian principles.
It is deeply troubling to see Schimmel, a man who has done much to expose the darker side of culture and the entertainment industry, overlooking these very real theological compromises in the people and organisations he associates with. Schimmel’s stance, while commendable in many respects, appears inconsistent in its application of discernment, especially in relation to issues of doctrinal purity and theological compromise. The inconsistencies and oversights in his work should cause us to pause and critically evaluate his teachings.
Additionally, Schimmel’s documentary touches on the views of early Church Fathers, yet it fails to offer a balanced and comprehensive representation of their teachings. Notably, several significant Church Fathers, including Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, are mentioned but not in the context of their contributions to the broader ecclesiastical tradition that eventually led to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The omission of these Fathers is not a trivial matter, as they were key figures in the development of Christian doctrine, including the understanding of the sacraments, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Some of these figures, such as Augustine, were instrumental in laying the theological groundwork for what would later become Vatican I, which further solidified the central authority of the Pope.
Moreover, there was no unified consensus among the early Church Fathers on eschatology, particularly regarding the nature and timing of Christ’s return. It is clear from reading the writings of the early church that disagreements existed over significant doctrinal issues such as the Eucharist, baptism, and the nature of the kingdom of God. To suggest that the early Fathers were in complete agreement on the matter of eschatology is misleading, as their views were complex and often contradictory. It is far more prudent to turn to Scripture itself as the ultimate authority on matters of doctrine, rather than relying on the often conflicting teachings of early Christian thinkers.
Furthermore, the very premise of Schimmel’s argument—that the pre-tribulation position is part of a larger Jesuit conspiracy to deceive the church—is flawed, as it overlooks a critical fact: the Roman Catholic Church itself has historically advocated for a post-tribulation rapture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in multiple places, strongly affirms the post-tribulation view, which leads to the question: if the Catholic Church supports post-tribulation eschatology, why is Schimmel accusing pre-tribulation believers of being part of a Jesuit conspiracy? This glaring contradiction suggests that Schimmel’s argument is based more on theological presuppositions than on a careful and nuanced reading of historical and doctrinal sources.
It is crucial to ask: who is truly leading whom astray? Schimmel’s divisive rhetoric on eschatology risks sowing further discord within the body of Christ, where unity should be the goal. While disagreements over eschatological views are inevitable, making them a litmus test for salvation is dangerous and unbiblical. There is room within the church for a variety of interpretations on the timing of the rapture, and such differences should not lead to the kind of theological warfare that Schimmel seems to be promoting.
In conclusion, while I commend Joe Schimmel for his dedication to exposing cultural and theological corruption, I cannot support his divisive and conspiracy-laden approach to eschatology. The pre-tribulation rapture, though a topic worth debating, should not be elevated to the level of a salvation issue. Schimmel’s failure to engage in thoughtful dialogue, his selective presentation of Church history, and his promotion of conspiratorial thinking contribute to unnecessary division within the church. The focus of the body of Christ should be on the essentials of the gospel, not on secondary issues like the timing of the rapture. Unity, not division, should be the goal. Let us seek to honour Christ through charity, humility, and a commitment to biblical truth, rather than fighting over theological differences that are ultimately not essential to salvation.
Who’s leading who astray????
Who’s Leading Who Astray? A Deeper Analysis of Joe Schimmel’s Allegations and the Catholic Church’s Position on Eschatology
It is truly fascinating, if not ironic, that Joe Schimmel’s recent assertions promote the idea that Jesuits, often associated with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), have an agenda to push the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, when in fact the RCC itself holds a firmly post-tribulation view. Schimmel’s claims in Left Behind or Led Astray? suggest a vast and sinister conspiracy within Catholicism, allegedly designed to lead Christians away from biblical truth. However, this narrative overlooks one crucial fact: the Catholic Church, particularly in its official teachings, does not support the pre-tribulation rapture theory but aligns itself with a post-tribulation eschatology.
Let us take a closer look at the teachings of the Catholic Church, specifically as articulated in the Catechism, to understand why Schimmel’s claims regarding Catholic influence on eschatology need closer scrutiny.
The Catholic Church and the Final Trial
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the understanding of the final events surrounding Christ’s return is quite clear. According to CCC 2642, the Revelation of what must soon take place is closely linked with the heavenly liturgy, and the faithful who have endured the great tribulation are depicted as having “gone before us into the Kingdom.” This view implies that the Church will face significant tribulation before Christ’s return, not be spared from it. Such a position fundamentally contradicts the pre-tribulation rapture theory, which claims that believers will be taken up before the tribulation begins. The Church’s perspective, therefore, is more aligned with a post-tribulation viewpoint—one that expects believers to endure hardship and suffering in the final days.
Furthermore, CCC 675 speaks of the Church’s anticipation of a “final trial” before Christ’s second coming, a trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution faced by the Church will “unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity,'” culminating in the appearance of the Antichrist, who will deceive many. This passage highlights the Church’s view that believers will face a time of immense tribulation, not be whisked away before it even begins. For Schimmel to suggest that a Jesuit-led conspiracy is promoting a pre-tribulation view in the Catholic Church, when the very heart of Catholic eschatology teaches otherwise, raises serious questions about his interpretation of these doctrinal positions.
The Deception of Millenarianism
Moreover, CCC 676 warns against the “pseudo-messianism” of the Antichrist, identifying any attempt to establish a “messianic hope” in history as a false narrative. The Church has historically rejected forms of millenarianism, particularly those that suggest a utopian or political kingdom of God before the end of history. Schimmel’s conspiracy theory seems to conflate millenarian movements with Catholic teaching, but the Church itself has consistently rejected such ideologies. The Catechism’s teaching warns against the very kind of historical or political optimism that Schimmel attributes to a supposed Catholic agenda. Instead, Catholic doctrine asserts that God’s triumph will only be fully realised at the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval, not through the establishment of an earthly kingdom prior to Christ’s return.
The Tribulation and the Imminent Second Coming
The RCC’s position is clear: contrary to the rapture doctrine that Schimmel critiques, the Church teaches that Christians will not be spared from the great tribulation. CCC 675 further reinforces this by stating that before Christ’s return, the Church must pass through a final trial. This trial will expose the “mystery of iniquity”—the religious deception led by the Antichrist, who offers an apparent solution to humanity’s problems at the cost of apostasy from the truth. Schimmel’s framing of this issue as a Catholic-driven conspiracy fails to account for the Catholic Church’s own doctrinal stance, which does not envision an escape from tribulation but instead calls for endurance and vigilance.
Even in the context of the messages from Catholic mystics, the narrative is far more nuanced than Schimmel’s conspiratorial claims. The EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) explicitly states that while some approved Catholic mystics predict a period of apostasy and tribulation, these predictions align with the Church’s broader understanding of the end times, where Christians face tribulation before the rise of the Antichrist and the subsequent Second Coming. This interpretation is not considered official Catholic doctrine but fits within the Church’s broader eschatological framework, which is far removed from Schimmel’s suggestion that the pre-tribulation rapture is somehow a Catholic plot.
The Apparition of Our Lady of Fatima and the Church’s End-Times Vision
Schimmel and others have pointed to the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima and the so-called “Immaculate Heart” as key elements in their critique of Catholic eschatology. Some claim that the Church teaches an eschatological view that suggests the faithful will be protected from tribulation. However, when examining these apparitions more closely, the message becomes clearer. As noted by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, the message of Fatima does not suggest a pre-tribulation rapture but rather points to a period of suffering and trials, followed by a final purification of the Church.
EWTN’s teachings on the subject emphasise that, while Catholic mystics speak of a minor apostasy and tribulation before the final reign of peace, the Immaculate Heart is seen as a symbol of the Church’s ultimate triumph through enduring these trials. The notion of an “Era of Peace” does not correspond to an escape from tribulation but points toward a final, divine resolution after a time of great struggle. This is a far cry from Schimmel’s interpretation of Fatima as endorsing a pre-tribulation view. The Catholic understanding aligns more closely with post-tribulation eschatology, where the faithful are called to endure the final tribulation in preparation for Christ’s return and the ultimate establishment of God’s kingdom.
Conclusion: Who is Leading Who Astray?
The question arises: if Schimmel’s accusations about the Jesuit agenda and the supposed Catholic conspiracy to promote the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine are accurate, why does the Catholic Church itself explicitly teach a post-tribulation eschatology in its official documents? How can Schimmel claim that the RCC is part of a grand deception, when the Church’s core teachings stand in stark opposition to the pre-tribulation view?
In truth, it is Schimmel’s framing of the issue that is misleading. His suggestion that pre-tribulation believers are being led astray by a Catholic, Jesuit-inspired conspiracy not only misrepresents the official Catholic position but also creates unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ. By falsely attributing the promotion of pre-tribulation doctrine to the RCC, Schimmel fails to recognise that the very church he accuses of deception is teaching a view that contradicts the rapture doctrine altogether.
The ultimate takeaway is this: rather than engaging in conspiratorial rhetoric and divisive accusations, we must seek unity and truth. Eschatological views, while important, should not become a basis for division or condemnation. The focus of the Church should remain on the gospel message and the call for believers to live faithfully in anticipation of Christ’s return, whether that comes before or after the tribulation. Let us leave behind the unhelpful conspiracies and instead focus on building the Church in love and truth, while respecting the legitimate differences that exist on issues like the timing of the rapture.
On Accepting Some Teachings in the Catholic Catechism
Is it possible to selectively accept certain teachings from the Catholic Catechism while rejecting others? Some suggest that we should focus on areas of agreement rather than areas of disagreement, hoping to find common ground. However, this raises a significant issue: if we believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false institution that does not represent biblical truth—an understanding commonly held by those who adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura—then the logical consequence is that we must reject the entire Catechism. This is because the Catechism stands as a body of authoritative teaching for the Catholic Church, and by its very nature, it is designed to shape belief and practice within the Church. If we believe the Church itself deviates from biblical truth, then we cannot accept its teachings in part without compromising the integrity of our understanding of Scripture.
The challenge is that, for many Christians, the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrines are seen as diverging from biblical teachings in areas such as salvation, the authority of the Pope, and the nature of the sacraments. If we take the stance that the Church is fundamentally wrong, then logically, we must reject its teachings, including the Catechism, and affirm Scripture alone as our ultimate authority.
While some suggest that we should focus on what we agree on and downplay differences, the reality is that where doctrine diverges from Scripture, we must take a stand for biblical truth. To allow space for the authority of the Catechism would contradict the foundational principle of Sola Scriptura, which upholds that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice. This brings us to a broader point about maintaining the purity of the Gospel and ensuring that it is not diluted by human traditions or systems that contradict biblical teaching.
Furthermore, it would be unwise to align ourselves with certain ministries—such as Moriel Ministries, Good Fight Ministries, Way of the Master, and Living Waters—on this matter. While these ministries are often respected for their evangelistic efforts, we must be cautious about their approach to the Catechism and the broader issues at hand. Much like the ongoing debate within eschatology, such as differing views on the timing of the rapture (pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib), these discussions are secondary to the central issue of the Gospel. What ultimately matters is not which eschatological position we hold, but whether we are faithfully proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the salvation He offers.
The Authority of Scripture and the Early Church Fathers
In general, we must not place the early Church Fathers on the same level as Scripture or the Apostles, even if there is a direct link between their teachings and the Apostolic tradition. While many early Christian writers may have held views that align with biblical teaching, the writings of the early Church Fathers are not infallible. They are valuable for historical context, but they should never be placed on par with Scripture. The Bible itself must remain our ultimate source of authority.
It is crucial that we always interpret the teachings of the early Church Fathers through the lens of Scripture. While some of their teachings may coincide with the truths of the Bible, it is only because those teachings are in alignment with the Word of God. We must not treat their writings as binding or authoritative in the same way we do the Bible, which is the divinely inspired Word of God. As we discern truth, Scripture should always be the final arbiter, and we must use it to judge all other writings, whether ancient or modern.
To clarify, I did not specifically target Joe Schimmel or Good Fight Ministries in my previous statement about the early Church Fathers. My comments were more general and aimed at helping believers navigate the complexities of Church history and avoid elevating human writings to the status of Scripture. Joe’s response to my article seemed to misinterpret my point, which is why I am addressing it here.
The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Debate
Regarding the pre-tribulation rapture position, the controversy often centres on whether this teaching was a product of the 19th-century theologian John Darby or whether it has roots in earlier Christian thought. While some argue that Darby “invented” the pre-trib rapture, others assert that certain early Church Fathers alluded to a pre-tribulation rapture in their writings. It is worth examining this claim in more detail, not only to understand the historical development of this doctrine but also to recognise that eschatological views—whether pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib—should not be sources of division within the body of Christ.
In a healthy Christian community, our focus should not be on arguing over secondary issues like the timing of the rapture, but on uniting around the central message of the Gospel. The teachings of Scripture, particularly concerning the death and resurrection of Christ, are clear and unambiguous. These teachings should take precedence over speculative eschatological positions, which, while important, should never eclipse the Gospel.
Clarification of Misunderstandings in My Response to Joe Schimmel
In response to Joe Schimmel’s public critique of my article, I would like to address a few key misunderstandings:
- I made efforts to reach out to Joe privately before publishing my article. It’s possible that my message didn’t reach him or that he was too busy to respond. Regardless of the reason, I believe it’s important to address the misunderstandings in his public response to my article. I do not wish to escalate conflict but rather to clarify the points I raised.
- It was never my intention to suggest that Joe Schimmel does not uphold Sola Scriptura. In fact, I merely posed a question to the reader, leaving it open for personal reflection. My comment was intended to provoke thought, not to attack Joe’s personal position. I also did not make any false claims about Kirk Cameron, as my statement was supported by the evidence.
Joe mistakenly assumed I hold to a pre-tribulation rapture position, but my stance is actually Pan-Trib—meaning I believe we should be prepared for any of the possible scenarios regarding the timing of Christ’s return. My view is that we should not be dogmatic about any specific rapture timing, but should instead focus on the importance of being ready for Christ’s return at any moment. I believe that the pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib positions should not divide the body of Christ, as they are secondary issues compared to the Gospel itself.
- It is not helpful to label believers who hold a different eschatological position as heretics or as part of a “Jesuit Satanic plot.” This kind of divisive rhetoric is counterproductive and leads to unnecessary conflict. It’s worth noting that the same logic could be applied to accuse other eschatological views—such as pre-wrath or mid-trib—as being influenced by external, non-biblical sources. The truth is that eschatology is a complex subject, and many different views exist within orthodox Christianity. It is important that we engage in these debates with humility and grace, avoiding the tendency to demonise those with whom we disagree.
Addressing Broader Concerns in the Church
One of my concerns is that, in some quarters of American Christianity, there is a tendency to view eschatological events as primarily concerning the United States, neglecting the broader biblical context of prophecy. While it is certainly true that the U.S. plays a role in global events, biblical prophecy primarily centres on Israel, and we must not lose sight of this. Many eschatological discussions are overly focused on America’s role in end-time events, while the Bible consistently points to Israel as the central player in God’s prophetic plan.
Furthermore, the rapture itself should not become a divisive issue. We should not treat it as the central element of our Christian hope, as if the “blessed hope” is simply a matter of escaping tribulation. Rather, our true hope is in Christ’s return and the redemption He offers, not in speculative theories about when or how He will return. The focus must remain on the Gospel—the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ—as the core message we proclaim.
Finally, it is important to note that my original article was never intended as a personal attack on Joe Schimmel or his ministry. I appreciate the work he has done in preaching the Gospel and reaching the lost. However, I do believe that his response to my article missed the mark in several areas, particularly in his treatment of eschatology. I would hope that, in future discussions, we can focus on the essential points of Christian doctrine and avoid unnecessary division over secondary issues.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD) was a prominent bishop of the Church in Lyons, France, and one of the most influential early Church Fathers. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John, the author of the Book of Revelation, and a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was taught by the Apostle. Irenaeus is best known for his seminal work, Against Heresies, a five-volume treatise in which he exposed and refuted the heresies, false religions, and cults of his time. In addition to his theological contributions, Irenaeus offered guidance on how to effectively evangelise those caught up in these false beliefs.
When it comes to biblical prophecy, Irenaeus is particularly notable for his interpretation of the phrase “a time, times and dividing of times” found in Daniel 7. He recognised this as referring to the 3 ½ years of the Antichrist’s rule prior to the Second Coming of Christ. Furthermore, Irenaeus affirmed the belief in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth, following the Second Coming and the resurrection of the righteous.
In Against Heresies (5.29), Irenaeus wrote about the Rapture, using language that strongly suggests an early church understanding of the event. He wrote:
“Those nations, however, who did not raise their eyes to heaven, nor give thanks to their Maker, nor desire to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance— in fact, as nothing.’ So far as useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, 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.”
Irenaeus uses the term “caught up” here, a direct reference to the Rapture, as this is the same terminology used in 1 Thessalonians 4, where Paul writes about the Church being “caught up” (from the Greek harpazo). He also quotes Matthew 24:21, where Jesus speaks of the unprecedented tribulation that will occur: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” In Irenaeus’ view, the Church will be taken out of the world before this Great Tribulation commences.
Cyprian
Cyprian (c. 200–258 AD) was the bishop of the Church in Carthage, North Africa. His leadership was marked by his guidance of the Church through intense persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. After enduring months of confinement, Cyprian was martyred by beheading in 258 AD. His writings, particularly Treatises of Cyprian, have survived and continue to influence Christian thought.
In one of his treatises, Cyprian addresses the end times and the Great Tribulation, offering a perspective that aligns with an early Church understanding of the Rapture. He writes:
“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give thanks to God, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”
Cyprian uses language that strongly evokes the idea of the Church being taken away before the impending judgments of the Great Tribulation. He speaks of Christians having an “early departure” and being “delivered” from the coming disaster. His understanding is consistent with the biblical teaching found in 1 Thessalonians 5:9, where Paul writes, “For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation.” Cyprian, in this sense, affirms the belief that the Church will be removed before the Great Tribulation begins.
Furthermore, Cyprian references the promise made by Jesus in John 14:1-3, where He assures His followers: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions… I go to prepare a place for you… I will come again, and receive you unto myself.” The Greek word used here, paralambanō, meaning “to receive” or “to take,” is the same word used in Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 to describe the Rapture. This suggests that Cyprian, like Irenaeus, believed in the Rapture occurring prior to the Great Tribulation.
Ephraim the Syrian
Ephraim (306–373 AD) was a deacon in the Church in Syria and later became the bishop of Nisibis. While Ephraim was eventually canonised as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, it is important to note that his theological perspective was distinct from Roman Catholic doctrine, and he did not live under the influence of the Roman Empire for most of his life. One of Ephraim’s most significant writings is the Pseudo-Ephraim, a work that later became associated with his name due to authorship disputes. Within this text, Ephraim offers a compelling view on the Rapture.
In On The Last Times 2, Ephraim writes:
“We ought to understand thoroughly, therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been fulfilled (consummated), and there is nothing left except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom. Why, then, do we occupy ourselves with worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that He may draw us from the confusion which overwhelms the world?”
Ephraim’s writing conveys a strong sense of urgency, urging believers to reject worldly distractions and prepare for Christ’s return, which he suggests is imminent. He further affirms that the saints and elect will be gathered “prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord, lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” This aligns with the biblical teaching that believers will be spared from the coming wrath, a theme found throughout Scripture (1 Thessalonians 1:10, Revelation 3:10).
Ephraim’s reference to the Day of the Lord aligns with the understanding that the Great Tribulation and the end times judgments are part of the same event. He also echoes the warning from Amos 5:18, “Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! To what end is it for you? The day of the LORD is darkness and not light.”
Understanding the Early Church’s View on the Rapture and Its Implications for Salvation
One of the central teachings in the writings of Ephraim the Syrian is the recognition that the Day of the Lord is drawing near, and that Christians should be acutely aware of the signs of the times. In his work On the Last Times, Ephraim stresses the need for believers to understand what is imminent, writing:
“We ought to understand thoroughly, therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord; they have already been fulfilled (consummated).”
In these words, Ephraim is describing the early signs of the end times – wars, famines, and plagues – which closely resemble the same events that Jesus Christ spoke of in Matthew 24. These are the same signs that mark the beginning of the end, as Jesus describes in Matthew 24:3-8:
“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.”
Jesus notes that these are the beginning of sorrows, but they do not yet signal the end. Ephraim agrees with this interpretation, acknowledging that while these signs were already evident in his time, the full tribulation – the Great Tribulation – had not yet begun. This interpretation is consistent with the position laid out in Beginning and End’s Rapture series, which explains that the first four seals of Revelation were opened at the time of Christ’s ascension, and the Rapture occurs only after the opening of the 6th seal.
Ephraim’s urgency in these passages highlights the Christian’s responsibility to keep their focus on Heaven and to prepare for the return of Christ. He warns believers not to be distracted by the temporal world, as its current form is passing away. As the Second Advent or Coming of Christ draws nearer, Christians must set their hearts on pleasing God, and not on the fleeting pleasures of the world. Ephraim specifically distinguishes between the Second Coming of Christ and the Rapture, suggesting that the Rapture takes place before the Great Tribulation. This distinction is crucial in understanding the biblical timeline and the nature of the eschatological events.
The Early Church Fathers and the Pre-Tribulation Rapture
The writings of the early church fathers are an invaluable source of theological insight into the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Although these writings are not considered inspired Scripture, they offer a glimpse into the theological discussions and beliefs of the early church. Among these early Christian leaders, many held to the belief in the Rapture occurring before the Great Tribulation, commonly referred to as the pre-tribulation view.
Early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ephraim the Syrian wrote extensively about eschatology, and their teachings support the idea that the Rapture will occur prior to the Great Tribulation. Irenaeus, in particular, referred to the coming of the Antichrist and the trials that Christians would face, but he also affirmed that God would deliver His people before the final tribulation. Similarly, Cyprian wrote about the suffering of Christians during tribulation, but he also expressed the hope of deliverance, aligning with the pre-tribulation position.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the doctrine of the Rapture, as well as the timing of its occurrence, has been a matter of interpretation and debate among Christians for centuries. While the early church fathers leaned toward a pre-tribulation view, other views, such as the mid-tribulation and post-tribulation positions, have also been developed and supported by scriptural evidence. These differing perspectives are not a result of any inherent contradiction in Scripture, but rather reflect diverse interpretations of the same biblical texts. All three positions – pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib – draw upon Scripture, offering compelling arguments for their respective views.
For example, proponents of the pre-tribulation Rapture argue that the church will be taken up before the onset of the Great Tribulation. They point to passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, where it speaks of believers being “caught up” to meet the Lord in the air. This event, according to pre-tribulation advocates, occurs before the outpouring of God’s wrath on the earth. Additionally, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 emphasizes that believers are not appointed to suffer wrath: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Mid-tribulation proponents argue that the Rapture will occur halfway through the tribulation period, during the first 3½ years of the Antichrist’s reign. They often point to the timing of the trumpets and the breaking of the seals in the Book of Revelation as evidence that the church will be present for part of the tribulation but will be removed before the more severe judgments fall. They highlight the specific references in Revelation 11 and 12 that seem to suggest a mid-tribulation Rapture.
Finally, post-tribulation supporters argue that the church will endure the full seven-year tribulation and will be raptured at the end, just before Christ’s Second Coming. They often reference Matthew 24:29-31, where Jesus speaks of the gathering of the elect “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” In this view, the church will experience the full wrath of the Antichrist and his followers, but will be delivered by Christ’s return at the end of the tribulation period.
The Post-Tribulation View and Roman Catholic Teaching
While the pre-tribulation Rapture view is popular among Protestant denominations, it is important to acknowledge that the post-tribulation view has historical connections to Roman Catholic teachings, which have influenced many Christian traditions. The post-tribulation position aligns closely with the teachings found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Catechism discusses the return of Christ and the final judgment in ways that resonate with the post-tribulation perspective, emphasizing that the Church will face tribulation before the Second Coming:
“Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675.
This passage from the Catechism highlights the notion that the Church will undergo a period of intense tribulation before Christ’s return. While this does not explicitly state the timing of the Rapture, it echoes the post-tribulation view that believers will experience the trials of the Great Tribulation before Christ gathers them at His coming. This teaching has shaped Roman Catholic eschatology and influenced many traditional Christian views on the end times.
Theological Implications of the Rapture Debate
While these differing views – pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib – all have valid scriptural support, it is crucial to understand that the timing of the Rapture is not a salvation issue. It is a matter of interpretation, not a doctrine that affects one’s relationship with Christ. Unfortunately, some, such as Joe Schimmel, have made the mistake of elevating the timing of the Rapture to a central issue of salvation. By suggesting that one’s view on the Rapture could determine their standing with God, such a view leads to unnecessary division within the body of Christ.
The Bible is clear that salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Rapture – whether pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib – is a secondary issue that should not be made a test of fellowship or salvation. The early church fathers, despite their differences in eschatological views, consistently emphasized the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is the gospel that should remain central to our faith.
To elevate the timing of the Rapture to the level of a salvation test is divisive and undermines the unity of the body of Christ. Christians may differ on the timing of the Rapture, but these differences should not result in condemnation or division within the church. The Apostle Paul addresses such issues in Romans 14:1, encouraging believers to accept one another despite differences in non-essential matters, writing:
“Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarrelling over disputable matters.”
The Importance of Unity and the Gospel
What should remain central for Christians is not the timing of the Rapture, but the gospel of Jesus Christ. Salvation comes through faith in the finished work of Christ alone – His life, death, and resurrection. While Christians may study the Scriptures to understand the end times, it is paramount that these secondary issues do not lead to division or animosity. Whether one believes in a pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib Rapture, all Christians share in the same hope: the return of Jesus Christ and the eternal life that He offers to all who believe.
In the end, what unites Christians is not a specific interpretation of the Rapture, but the shared faith in the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. While it is important to study and discuss the end times, it should never overshadow the central message of the gospel. The Apostle Paul encourages the church to maintain unity in essential doctrines and to show grace in matters of personal conviction (Romans 14:5-6). The unity of the body of Christ should always take precedence over secondary theological differences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the belief in the Rapture, and its timing, has been a subject of debate for centuries, with Scripture providing support for pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib perspectives. The early church fathers, including Ephraim the Syrian, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, taught that the Rapture would take place before the Great Tribulation, a view consistent with many modern pre-tribulation teachings. However, it is essential to recognise that all three positions – pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib – draw upon Scripture and represent different interpretations of the same biblical text.
What is critical for the church to remember is that the timing of the Rapture is not a salvation issue. Salvation is based solely on faith in Jesus Christ, and not on the precise timing of eschatological events. While Christians can and should study the Scriptures and seek to understand the end times, we must never allow secondary issues like the timing of the Rapture to divide us. Instead, let us maintain our unity in Christ, focusing on the gospel and the hope we share in His return, no matter when that may be.
Sources:
- Ephraim the Syrian, On the Last Times 2, Early Christian Writings.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.29, New Advent.
- Cyprian, Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise 3, Early Christian Writings, New Advent.
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 – Bible.
- Matthew 24:3-8 – Bible.
- Ephesians 2:8-9 – Bible.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:9 – Bible.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church 675, Vatican Website.
You must be logged in to post a comment.