You are the one who is reading your own interpretation of scripture into what Irenaeus said. You have not cited a single statement by Irenaeus to back up your imagination that Irenaeus interpreted Matthew 24 the same way you do. Actually you cannot do this, because he did not interpret it this way.
But as to your interpretation of Matthew 24, The scriptures indeed use the term "the elect" in reference to "the church." But they also use that same term in reference to Israel. So your argument lacks merit.
I just found this on another forum by a poster going by the handle Origen.
He backs up what I initially said only he does a far better job.
The problem in regard to the Church Fathers is that isolated quotes are not understood within the context of their respective theologies as a whole or even within the immediate context of the passage. It seem that very often that someone will latch on to something (i.e. a word. phrase, sentence) that person thinks supports the same view, but careful reading and study of the passage reveals that is not the case.
That is basically what I said you had done, so lets see If I was correct.
Lets examine the whole context of
Against the Heresies Book 5 Chapter 29, Section 2:
In the previous books I have set forth the causes for which God permitted these things to be made, and have pointed out that all such have been created for the benefit of that human nature which is saved, ripening for immortality that which is [possessed] of its own free will and its own power, and preparing and rendering it more adapted for eternal subjection to God. And therefore the creation is suited to [the wants of] man; for man was not made for its sake, but creation for the sake of man. Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished 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 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.
The first part of this passage contains a flow of thought that is relevant to the second part.
(a) All creation was made for the benefit of man.
(b) However the nations did not turn to God in spite of this fact.
(c) Nevertheless they are still useful and serviceable.
(d) Because they serve as a means to refine gold.
Now lets examine the second part of the same passage.
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.
There are several important points concerning what this passage does and does not say that need to be addressed.
(1) The phrase "caught up" is one of those terms that is latch on to because of it relationship to
1 Thess. 4. However, this is merely an appearance of simulatity.
In the Latin text of Irenaeus'
Against the Heresies the verb used is
assumo. In the Latin N.T. (
1 Thess. 4:17) the verb is
rapio. Clearly it is not the same verb. Moreover, the Latin N.T. never used the verb
assumo to translate the Greek word.
Thus Irenaeus is not referring to a rapture. If that were the case, it is inexplicable why the key word used to support the rapture is not found there nor does it explain why the verb
assumo is never used to translate the Greek word in the Latin N.T.
Therefore, since (a) none of the key phrases found in
1 Thess. 4 are found in this section of Irenaeus, (b) the fact that the key verb used to support the rapture is not present (i.e.
rapio) and (c) the verb
assumo is never used in the Latin N.T. to translated the Greek word, it is clear that the whole case is based English translations of Irenaeus and the N.T. but has no support from the actual texts themselves.
In other words, someone said: look this English text says "caught up" and this other English text says "caught up," they must talking about the same thing. Not really an argument at all but just a poor and mistaken assumption based on the English.
(2) The first part has a clear flow of thought. If the Church was raptured, the first part simply makes no sense given the context.
(a) All creation was made for the benefit of man.
(b) However the nations did not turn to God in spite of this fact.
(c) Nevertheless they are still useful and serviceable.
(d) Because they sever as a means to refine gold.
Where would the Church fit into this flow? Irenaeus whole point was it does not matter what the evil nations do, because they are still useful and serviceable as a means to refine the people of God. His point was not that, while the evil nation are useful and serviceable to refine gold, don't worry about it because that won't be a problem for the Church because you won't be here.
(3) The last point concerns "the righteous" who "overcome" and "are crowned with incorruption."
So who are "the righteous"? There is only one other group in this passage which is referred to with a collective noun and that is "the Church." "The righteous" cannot refer to the 12 tribes, or Israel, for there is nothing in the passage to even suggest such a thing. Furthermore, the link between the two collective nouns makes sense given the flow of Irenaeus' thought in regard to tribulation "
when they [i.e. righteous = the Church]
overcome they are crowned with incorruption."
(4) Lastly, Irenaeus is very clear that he thinks that God has rejected the Jews and given the kingdom to the Gentiles.
For inasmuch as the former [i.e. the Jews] have rejected the Son of God, and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him, God has justly rejected them, and given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation. (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. 36, Section 2)
Thus in light of the evidence against your view you might want to edit your book.