The Orthodox and Eastern Reading

The Orthodox and Eastern Reading

SermonIndex

What the Greek, Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopic Fathers and the Orthodox churches taught about the Antichrist, with a note on how well each point is sourced.

The Orthodox and Eastern Reading

The Fathers whose language was Greek, Syriac, Coptic or Ethiopic are a large share of this book. This part sets what they say beside what the Orthodox churches later did with it: in commentary, in worship, in the ascetic life, and in the history of Russia. The oldest witnesses come first and the modern writers last. How far to trust this part. The quotations from the Fathers in the rest of this volume are word for word. What follows is a different kind of material: summaries of what scholars and Orthodox writers say about the sources, compiled from books and web pages, many of which the compiler could read only in part. Each item carries a rating of how well it is sourced, a note of what could not be checked, and the pages read. Only items rated “well sourced” or “partly verified” are printed here; leads that could not be confirmed are left out. This part was prepared with the help of artificial intelligence and may be wrong. Check any of it against the primary text before relying on it.

How the Orthodox Reading Is Different

Anyone raised on modern evangelical charts of the end will find a few things unfamiliar in the Eastern churches. We list them here with a note of how sure we are of each, since most of what follows comes from reading about the sources and not from the sources themselves. A fixed centre and an open edge. The Creed settles that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and that his kingdom will have no end. The details a modern reader likes to chart, the Antichrist’s biography, the order of events, the length of the tribulation, are not articles of faith. Orthodox writers say the Church stresses that Christ will come, and not when, and they criticize date-setting. The picture of the end that Orthodox believers do hold is mostly received tradition, with John of Damascus as its classic summary. No “rapture” and no earthly millennium. The Orthodox writers we read treat a pre-tribulation rapture as a nineteenth-century development, and a literal thousand-year reign as chiliasm. Revelation 20 is read, following Andrew of Caesarea, as the time between the two comings. Two older sentences that pre-tribulation writers sometimes cite, one in Pseudo-Ephrem and one in Andrew on Revelation 3:10, are disputed, and the sources we found for them are advocates on both sides.

Revelation is read differently. Revelation is the one New Testament book that is not read in the Church’s daily lectionary, and its acceptance in the East took centuries. Most Orthodox commentary on it descends from Andrew, who, on the account of the scholars we read, wrote to guide readers to a good end and not to supply a timetable. The end-time figures live in the calendar. The compiler could not find the Antichrist named in any hymn we could open. He appears in the Life of the prophet Elijah on 20 July, where Elijah is to be slain by him, in the Gospels of Great Monday and Tuesday of Holy Week (Matthew 24), and in homilies for the Sunday of the Last Judgment. The figures the feasts keep before the faithful are Elijah, and in the tradition Enoch beside him, as the two witnesses. The ascetic and sacramental reading. For the ascetic tradition the Antichrist is first met as delusion, prelest, in which the soul takes a counterfeit of grace for the real thing. A contemporary Greek bishop, Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, says that the “many antichrists” of John are already at work, and that Christians tell Christ from Antichrist by the anointing of chrismation, which he links to the seal of Revelation 7. This puts the question differently: not only “who is he?” but “what is the seal on me?”.

A political and ecclesial dimension. The old sources tie the end to the Roman empire. For Tertullian and Chrysostom the restrainer is Rome. In Pseudo-Methodius and the Tiburtine Sibyl a last Roman emperor lays his crown on the cross at Jerusalem and the Antichrist follows. After the Arab conquests the same pattern was repainted in Syriac, Coptic and Arabic apocalypses. In Russia the imagery produced the Old Believer conviction that the Antichrist already ruled church and state after Nikon’s reforms; the Church did not teach this, and St Dimitry of Rostov wrote against it.

The Greek commentators

The line from Andrew of Caesarea through Theophylact and the Byzantine writers who read Paul and John in the Fathers’ light.

Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse [Partly verified]

Date and language: c. 600-614 (date debated: late 6th to early 7th c.) · Greek (Byzantine), Cappadocia. The oldest surviving Greek patristic commentary on Revelation, and the base of nearly all later Orthodox commentary on the book. Andrew reads it on several levels (historical, moral, heavenly) and writes to console and guide readers toward a good end, not to supply a doomsday timetable. Reviewers of Constantinou’s 2011 translation describe a ‘de-eschatologizing’ tendency. Secondary summaries say he took the first beast of Rev 13 to be the Antichrist, expected him to rule as a ‘king of the Romans’ and to kill the two witnesses in Jerusalem. The Slavic, Armenian and Georgian churches took the work over. • Andrew was Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Wikipedia gives c. 563-614 and says the late 6th/early 7th c. is now ‘unquestionable’; the Schaff-Herzog article only fixes a post-533 terminus because he cites ‘Dionysius the Areopagite’.

• His commentary became the standard patristic commentary for the Greek East and was translated into Church Slavonic, Armenian and Georgian; English translation by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou (Catholic University of America Press, 2011), per Wikipedia and Whiteford. • The HFS Books listing of Constantinou’s 2024 study says Andrew recast Revelation from a doomsday text into a guide ‘to a blessed end’ and helped secure its acceptance in the East; reviewers there call his approach ‘de-eschatologizing’. • Per Froom (secondary, Adventist historicist), Andrew identifies the dragon with Satan, the sea beast with the Antichrist and the second beast with the false prophet, and links 666 to a name-title he renders ‘iniquitous lamb’. • Per Froom, Andrew expects the Antichrist to arise in the Euphrates region, to claim the title ‘king of the Romans’, and to kill the two witnesses in Jerusalem. Caution. The compiler could not open Andrew’s own text (the CUA Press translation page was blocked by robots rules and a Scribd copy was declined). The Antichrist details come from Froom, an Adventist historicist writer who selects early authorities that fit his scheme; check them against Constantinou’s translation before relying on it. Dating still varies by source.

Read for this item: Silouan Thompson, summary of Constantinou’s dissertation (611; ‘most important patristic…; Wikipedia: Andrew of Caesarea; Schaff-Herzog: Andrew of Caesarea; HFS Books: Constantinou, Guiding to a Blessed End (2024); Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers vol. 1, p. 570 (Andreas).

Andrew on the 'thousand years' and the binding of Satan [Partly verified]

Date and language: c. 600 · Greek (Byzantine). Orthodox writers cite Andrew for a non-literal reading of Rev 20. According to Fr John Whiteford, who quotes the Constantinou translation, Andrew takes the thousand years as an indefinite time between the first and second comings, and the binding of Satan as a restraint (linked to Christ binding the ‘strong man’) until the end of the age. This is the root of the Orthodox rejection of an earthly millennium and sits behind the idea that the Antichrist is let loose only at the end, not during a ‘Kingdom age’ after Christ returns. • Whiteford says Andrew reads the thousand years as indefinite. • Whiteford says Andrew ties Satan’s binding to Christ’s words about the strong man (Matt 12:29). • Whiteford links the binding to the ‘restrainer’ of 2 Thess 2 in his own reasoning. • Whiteford’s series is anti-chiliast (it treats premillennialism as a heresy) and quotes Constantinou’s 2011 translation.

Caution. Secondary quotation from an Orthodox priest writing a polemic, not Andrew himself. The ‘link to the restrainer’ is Whiteford’s inference. Read for this item: Fr John Whiteford, ‘If Satan is Alive, Why Not Millennialism?’ (OrthoChristian, 2015).

Who or what 'restrains' (2 Thess 2:6-7): the Church, Rome, or the Gospel [Partly verified]

Date and language: 4th c. onward · Greek and Latin. The ancient and Byzantine commentators did not agree on the restrainer. A scholarly survey names the Roman Empire (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and the Pseudo-Methodius Latin text) and the preaching of the Gospel with Paul himself (Theodoret and others). Modern Orthodox monarchists, e.g. a popular Substack essay, defend the Roman-Empire reading and extend it to Orthodox emperors and tsars, citing Chrysostom and Theophan the Recluse, but that essay is not scholarship. Wikipedia notes Orthodox and Catholic readers also treat the katechon as a future Orthodox emperor, and that Russian thinkers such as Dugin make Russia the katechon. • Tertullian (Apol. 32) and Hippolytus are cited for Rome as restrainer; Chrysostom is cited for the same and for Nero as type of the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (Domínguez & Ellis). • Pseudo-Methodius (Latin) quotes 2 Thess and treats the Roman Empire as the restraining power until it is removed (Colavito’s translation of Sackur’s edition).

• Theodoret is grouped with the ‘Gospel/Paul’ reading (same article). • A Substack essay by Michael Stefan cites Chrysostom (Hom. 4 on 2 Thess), Jerome, Augustine, Adso and Theophan the Recluse for a monarchist katechon. • Wikipedia says some readers treat the katechon as ‘a new Orthodox Emperor’, and tags the Dugin claim ‘citation needed’. Caution. The Substack and Wikipedia statements are weak. The compiler did not open Theophan the Recluse’s own words. The ‘Church as restrainer’ / ‘Eucharist as restrainer’ angle is a modern popular idea The compiler could not verify in any Orthodox source. Read for this item: Domínguez & Ellis 2023; Colavito, Pseudo-Methodius (Latin, Sackur); Michael Stefan, ‘The Katechon Argument’ (Substack, not scholarly); Wikipedia: Katechon.

John of Damascus on the Antichrist (Exact Exposition IV.26) [Partly verified]

Date and language: 8th century · Greek (Palestinian monk). OrthodoxWiki’s whole entry ‘Antichrist’ is built on John’s chapter in the Exact Exposition. He distinguishes every denier of Christ’s incarnation as ‘an antichrist’ in a loose sense from the one Antichrist who comes at the consummation. The Gospel must first be preached to all nations; the Antichrist is received by the Jews instead of Christ, feigns holiness, becomes a tyrant, persecutes the Church and deceives with false wonders; Enoch and Elijah are sent before him; the Lord then destroys him with the breath of his mouth. The summary is one of the best known standard Orthodox statements. • Two senses: every denier of the incarnation is ‘an antichrist’; the end-time figure is the Antichrist ‘in a peculiar and special sense’ (OrthodoxWiki summary). • The Gospel is preached to all nations before the Antichrist appears. • Enoch and Elijah are sent before him; the Lord returns from heaven and destroys him.

• OrthodoxWiki also lists Molchanoff (1976), Rassophore-monk Vsevolod (1998) and Mileant (2002) as modern sources. Caution. The compiler read only OrthodoxWiki’s rendering, not the CCEL/Schaff text. The site may already host John of Damascus; use the hosted text for any quotation. Read for this item: OrthodoxWiki: Antichrist (John of Damascus).

Life of St Andrew the Fool (Salos) and 'The Revelations of Andrew' [Partly verified]

Date and language: set in 5th c.; Greek vita 9th-10th c. · Greek, Constantinople; Slavonic. The popular Greek Life of Andrew the Fool-for-Christ contains an apocalyptic dialogue in which his disciple Epiphanius asks when and how the world will end. According to OrthodoxWiki, the answer ties the end to the fall of Constantinople (‘shortly’ afterward, perhaps 100 to 1,000 years) and says Hagia Sophia will be only partly spared. The same OrthodoxWiki page does not mention the Antichrist. The Life was translated into Old Russian by the late 11th or early 12th century and survives in over 200 copies. Dating is disputed. • Wikipedia: the vita is set under Leo I (457-474) but some historians date it to the 9th-10th c.; over 110 Greek manuscripts; earliest a 10th-c. fragment. • OrthodoxWiki: Andrew answers Epiphanius’s question about the end; the end follows soon after the fall of Constantinople. • Wikipedia: first Old Russian translation late 11th/early 12th c., over 200 copies.

• Velimirovic’s Prologue entry (via Sanidopoulos) gives Andrew’s death as 911, OrthodoxWiki gives 936. Caution. Antichrist is not mentioned in any of the pages the compiler opened. The full Revelations section (Rydén’s edition) may mention him; The compiler could not check. Dates disagree across sources. Read for this item: OrthodoxWiki: Andrew the Fool-for-Christ; Wikipedia: Andrew the Fool; Velimirovic Prologue entry on Andrew (Sanidopoulos).

The Greek Apocalypse of Daniel [Partly verified]

Date and language: c. early 9th c. · Greek (Byzantine). A pseudonymous Greek text of about the early ninth century, surviving in 15th-century manuscripts and not part of any canon. Chapters 1-7 are a prophecy-after-the-event covering the eighth-century Arab wars and Charlemagne’s enthronement. Chapters 8-14 describe the Antichrist’s origin and traits and place him before the Day of Judgement. The compiler verified only the outline given by Wikipedia, which relies on Zervos’ translation in Charlesworth; the Antichrist chapters are the part most relevant here. • Greek text of c. early 9th century; three surviving 15th-century manuscripts. • Chapters 1-7 retell 8th-century Byzantine-Arab war and Charlemagne’s enthronement as prophecy. • Chapters 8-14 describe the Antichrist’s origin and characteristics. • Zervos translated it in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (1983). Caution. Encyclopedia-level source only. Its popular label ‘Apocalypse of Daniel’ is shared by other texts. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Greek Apocalypse of Daniel.

The Tiburtine Sibyl [Partly verified]

Date and language: earliest version perhaps c. 380; Latin form 10th-11th c. · Latin (Sibylline tradition). A prophecy of a final ‘king of the Greeks’ who conquers Christianity’s enemies and defeats Gog and Magog, then goes to Jerusalem and gives up his crown. After the Roman Empire ends the Antichrist arises from the tribe of Dan, deceives with magic and sits in the Lord’s house in Jerusalem; the two witnesses (Elijah and Enoch) oppose him and are killed, and Michael slays him on the Mount of Olives. Wikipedia says the surviving form (early 11th c.) shows the influence of Pseudo-Methodius; the Last Emperor legend came to the West through such texts. • Wikipedia: first Latin version 10th century; the surviving form was written early in the 11th century. • The final emperor lays down crown and robes in Jerusalem. • The Antichrist is from Dan; the two witnesses are identified with Elijah and Enoch; Michael slays him on the Mount of Olives.

• Wikipedia notes the influence of Pseudo-Methodius and cites Bonura (2016) on the relationship. Caution. A Latin text; included because Wikipedia ties it to Pseudo-Methodius and the Last Emperor tradition that also reached the East. The compiler did not verify a Greek original. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Tiburtine Sibyl.

Gregory Palamas, homily on the Second Coming (Matthew 25) [Partly verified]

Date and language: 14th century · Greek (Athonite hesychast, Thessalonica). Palamas’s homily for the Sunday of the Last Judgment (Meatfare), as posted by Sanidopoulos, says the Antichrist will come first, opposing and threatening the faith, and that the days of that trial will be shortened. People will worship and obey him and God’s judgment will fall on his followers. Christ then returns in glory with the angels and judges all nations by works of mercy. This is a short, verified Palamite mention, and it links the Antichrist directly to the liturgical Gospel of the day. • The homily is for the Sunday after the Prodigal Son, on Matthew 25 (Last Judgment). • It says the Antichrist comes first and opposes the faith. • It says the days of the trial will be shortened. • It states that those who worship and obey him will meet God’s judgment. • Elijah and Enoch are not mentioned in that homily (per the page).

Caution. The compiler read the web version through a summarizer, not the print translation; the homily number was not given. Symeon the New Theologian: The compiler found nothing and made no claim. Read for this item: Sanidopoulos: Homily on Christ’s Second Coming (Palamas); Sanidopoulos: Palamas on the Ascension of Enoch and Elijah.

Syriac apocalypses and the Last Emperor

Texts written under the pressure of the Arab conquests, in which a Roman emperor stands between the faithful and the end.

Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius (the Last Roman Emperor) [Well sourced]

Date and language: late 7th c. · Syriac (Miaphysite), then Greek, Latin, Slavonic. Written in Syriac in northern Syria in the wake of the Arab conquests, and falsely ascribed to the martyr Methodius, it reads history from Adam to the end. Muslims, the ‘sons of Ishmael’, scourge Christians for their sins. A last Roman emperor then defeats them, goes to Jerusalem and lays his crown on the cross. Gog and Magog break out and the Antichrist appears. A Latin excerpt quotes 2 Thess 2 and treats the Roman Empire as the force that holds back the lawless one. It was translated into Greek, Latin (by Petrus Monachus, earliest codex 727) and Slavonic. • Original Syriac, late 7th century; Wikipedia says most likely after 692, OrthodoxWiki says recent historians place it 644-691 (so the date is disputed). • The author is anonymous and the work is pseudepigraphic (attributed to Methodius of Olympus/Patara).

• The Last Emperor is the main innovation: he defeats the Ishmaelites then lays his crown on the cross. • A Latin excerpt identifies the restrainer of 2 Thess 2 as the Roman Empire (Colavito’s translation of Sackur 1898). • Over 100 Greek and about 220 Latin manuscripts survive; the earliest Slavonic manuscript is 12th c. Caution. Date and the author’s church (Miaphysite per Wikipedia) are scholarly judgments. The compiler did not open the Garstad/Alexander translations (PDFs came through as binary). Read for this item: Wikipedia: Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius; OrthodoxWiki: Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius; Colavito: Latin excerpt (Sackur).

Pseudo-Ephrem, On the End of the World (De fine mundi, Latin) and the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephrem [Partly verified]

Date and language: 6th-7th c. (disputed) · Latin sermon (origin disputed: Syriac, Greek or Latin); a separate Syriac poem also exists. Two works circulate under Ephrem’s name: a 560-line Syriac verse Apocalypse and the Latin sermon De fine mundi. The Latin says the saints and elect are ‘gathered’ and ‘taken’ before the coming tribulation, and some pre-tribulation writers cite this. Roger Pearse shows the sentence came into De fine mundi from another Latin text, De beatitudine animae, whose Greek source speaks only of ‘gathering’. Textual variants (adsumentur / a Domino / ad Dominum) complicate the reading. Scholars date the text variously from the 4th century to after 640; others argue the Latin and Syriac are unrelated. • The Latin text survives in five medieval manuscripts (P, A, B, G, K); Caspari (1896) and Verhelst (1983) edited it with slight differences at the key sentence. • Pearse argues the sentence was copied from the Latin De beatitudine animae, which adds ‘assumuntur’; the Greek source (Beatitudines aliae) says only ‘gathered’.

• Dating: Caspari and P. Alexander: late 6th/early 7th c., before about 630; Reinink: 640-680; Bousset: 4th c.; Pearse suggests a Latin speaker in Constantinople c. 450. • Pre-trib readers (Grant Jeffrey, 1995) cite it; Gundry and Frazier dispute the reading, and Wikipedia notes other passages assume Christians endure the tribulation. • Pearse concludes two words in one sentence cannot prove a belief in a rapture. Caution. Do not present as Ephrem the Syrian. The ‘Antichrist of the tribe of Dan, Elijah and Enoch killed and raised’ details come from Watson, an advocate, not from the text itself. The Wikipedia summary the compiler read did not describe Antichrist content, while Watson says the Latin text has a full Antichrist narrative; check the Latin (Caspari/Verhelst) or Cameron Rhoades’ translation. Read for this item: Roger Pearse: Did pseudo-Ephraim believe in the Rapture? (manuscripts, passage, Greek…; Wikipedia: Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem; Watson (pre-trib) summary of Pseudo-Ephrem’s Antichrist.

Syriac Alexander Legend (Gates of Alexander, Gog and Magog) [Partly verified]

Date and language: early/mid 6th c. (older view: 629-630) · Syriac. The first narrative to combine Alexander’s iron-and-bronze gate against the northern tribes with the biblical Gog and Magog. It says the Huns will break through the gate to start the apocalypse and that the Romans will win a world war. Wikipedia says it influenced both Pseudo-Methodius and Pseudo-Ephraem, which in turn shaped the later Last Emperor and Gog-Magog traditions in Greek, Latin and Slavonic. Dating moved from c. 629-630 to an early-to-mid sixth century original with a later addition. It does not mention the Antichrist by name in the article the compiler read. • Dating: Nöldeke’s 629-630 versus recent scholarship preferring the early-to-mid 6th century. • It is the first text to give Gog and Magog an apocalyptic role (Wikipedia). • Named as an influence on Pseudo-Methodius and Pseudo-Ephraem. • Key scholarship cited: Tesei (OUP 2023), Van Donzel & Schmidt (Brill 2010), Debié (2024).

Caution. Encyclopedia source only; no Antichrist content here. Use as background for Gog and Magog. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Syriac Alexander Legend.

Dogma and tradition

What the Church has defined about the return of Christ, and what it has left open.

The Creed: the Second Coming is dogma; the Antichrist is not an article [Well sourced]

Date and language: 325/381 · Orthodox (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith). The Orthodox Church’s defined faith on the end is carried by the Creed: Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his Kingdom ‘shall have no end’, with the hope of the resurrection and the life of the world to come. OCA says Nicea (325) produced the statement and Constantinople (381) added the section on the Holy Spirit and the last articles. The Antichrist, the order of the end-time events and the identity of the witnesses are not articles of the Creed; the Church’s concern is that the Lord will come, not when (see the St John parish article). • OCA’s text: Christ comes again with glory to judge the living and the dead; ‘whose Kingdom shall have no end’. • OCA: the Creed ends with the hope of ‘the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come’.

• The Creed is used at baptism and in the Divine Liturgy (OCA). • A parish article stresses that the Church emphasizes that He will come, not when, and leaves timing open. • The Creed does not mention the Antichrist (the text quoted contains no reference). Caution. OCA says the Symbol came from Nicea and Constantinople; The compiler did not verify which clause was added where (the OCA text lumps ‘whose Kingdom shall have no end’ under the Nicene portion). Check a patristic or conciliar source for the precise history. Read for this item: OCA: The Nicene Creed (Orthodox Faith); Saint John Church (Beaver Falls): The Second Coming of Our Lord.

No 'rapture': the Orthodox position on 1 Thess 4 and the tribulation [Partly verified]

Date and language: 19th-21st c. (modern debate) · Orthodox popular and pastoral writers. Orthodox writers in print and online say the Church does not teach a separate pre-tribulation rapture. Fr Peter Preble says the doctrine is not taught before the 1830s, that Orthodox look for one Second Coming, judgment and eternal life, and that the faithful will pass through the tribulation (Matt 24:9). A parish comment says 1 Thess 4 concerns the resurrection and the Second Coming. A Greek Orthodox article (Kalomiris) argues from Scripture that the rapture and the Parousia are one event and that 2 Thess 2 puts the Day after the Antichrist is revealed. None of these is an official statement. • Preble: rapture not taught before the 1830s (he cites Margaret MacDonald and Darby). • Preble: the faithful will go through the tribulation; he cites Matt 24:9 and OCA material. • Parish comment (Saint John Church): the Church does not teach a separate secret pre-tribulation rapture; the pre-trib view is a modern development.

• Kalomiris (Explorer of the Truth no. 24): 2 Thess 2 puts the Lord’s day after the apostasy and the revelation of Antichrist; Rev 3:10 and John 17:15 speak of protection within the world. • None cites an individual Father; none is presented as an official statement. Caution. No official Orthodox statement or conciliar text on the rapture was opened; these are individual authors. Preble’s dates and claims about MacDonald come from his own page and Wikipedia. Say ‘Orthodox writers say’, not ‘the Orthodox Church has declared’. Read for this item: Fr Peter Preble: Orthodoxy and the Rapture; Saint John Church: The Second Coming of Our Lord; Kalomiris, Explorer of the Truth (OODEGR): the rapture.

Dogma versus tradition on the end-time details [Partly verified]

Date and language: n/a · Orthodox. What is defined: Christ will come again to judge, the dead will rise, and His kingdom has no end (Creed). What is received tradition but not defined: an individual Antichrist who comes at the end (John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem), the return of Elijah and Enoch, the tribe of Dan, the 3.5 years. What is contested or left open: the identity of the restrainer, the meaning of ‘many antichrists’, the sealing of the 144,000, and the timing, which Hierotheos and a parish article both say should not be fixed. Revelation itself has an unsettled liturgical and canonical history in the East. • The Creed’s second-coming articles are the settled core (OCA). • Hierotheos: an end-time Antichrist exists but ‘many antichrists’ are at work now; he criticizes date-setting. • A parish article: the Church leaves the timing open and warns against speculation. • OCA and De Young: Revelation is not read in the lectionary and its canonical standing is not simple.

• The restrainer has been read as Rome (Chrysostom), or the Gospel/Paul (Theodoret), per Domínguez & Ellis. Caution. This classification is the compiler’s own synthesis of the sources named; no Orthodox source the compiler opened lists ‘dogma vs tradition’ for the Antichrist explicitly. Phrase as ‘the Church has defined X; the rest is tradition and opinion’. Read for this item: OCA: The Nicene Creed; Hierotheos, ‘The Antichrist and Chrismation’; Saint John Church: The Second Coming; De Young: Is Revelation canonical in Orthodoxy?; Domínguez & Ellis 2023.

Chiliasm (a literal earthly millennium) rejected [Partly verified]

Date and language: 4th c. onward · Orthodox dogmatic theology. Orthodox writers say the clause ‘whose kingdom shall have no end’ excluded a temporary thousand-year earthly kingdom and that premillennialism is a heresy. Fr John Whiteford, quoting Fr Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, says the Second Ecumenical Council condemned Apollinarius’ teaching of a thousand-year reign and added the clause. Reading Rev 20 as a future event after the Second Coming would conflict with Matt 25 and 1 Thess 4, he argues. Andrew of Caesarea is cited for an indefinite thousand years between the two comings. On this reading there is no earthly ‘kingdom age’ after the Antichrist. • Pomazansky (quoted in the OrthoChristian ‘Error of Chiliasm’): the Council of 381 condemned Apollinarius’ thousand-year reign and added ‘And His Kingdom will have no end’. • Whiteford: Revelation 20 read as after the Second Coming would delay the general resurrection and leave room for rebellion.

• Whiteford: Andrew reads the thousand years as indefinite. • Whiteford cites Montanism and modern groups as fruits of premillennialism, which is polemical language. • The article cites Augustine’s City of God XX.7-9 and Scripture. Caution. Historians often connect the clause ‘whose kingdom shall have no end’ with the debate over Marcellus of Ancyra rather than with chiliasm, and the compiler did not verify this in a source the compiler opened. Treat the Pomazansky and Whiteford statement as an Orthodox dogmatic reading and check before calling it historical. Read for this item: Fr Michael Pomazansky, The Error of Chiliasm (OrthoChristian); Fr John Whiteford, If Satan is Alive, Why Not Millennialism?.

In the liturgy and the calendar

Where the Antichrist and his opponents show up in worship: the feast of Elijah, Holy Week, the Sunday of the Last Judgment, baptism.

Feast of the Prophet Elijah (20 July): troparion and the Antichrist in the Life [Well sourced]

Date and language: annual, 20 July · Orthodox Menaion. The OCA life for 20 July says that according to Holy Church’s Tradition Elijah will be ‘slain by the Antichrist’, a sign of the end of the world, and calls him the Forerunner of the Dread Second Coming. The OCA troparion (Tone 4) names him ‘the second forerunner of the coming of Christ’, though neither it nor the kontakion (Tone 2) names the Antichrist. Velimirovic’s Prologue for the day says Elias will appear again at the end of the world ‘to break the power of the antichrist’ (Rev 11). So the Antichrist is present in the day’s synaxarion-style material, not in the hymns the compiler could verify. • OCA life: Elijah will be ‘slain by the Antichrist’ as a sign of the end. • OCA troparion, Tone 4: ‘the second forerunner of the coming of Christ’. • OCA kontakion, Tone 2, is about the drought; it does not mention the Second Coming or Antichrist.

• Prologue of Ohrid (Velimirovic, Lazarica 1986, bk 3 pp. 86-87): Elias returns at the end to break the antichrist’s power. • Neither the OCA life nor greekcitytimes mentions Enoch. Caution. The compiler did not see the full Menaion Vespers/Matins texts (stichera, canons), which could contain more. The Prologue text is a web reprint. Enoch’s place in the Church’s liturgical material is not verified. Read for this item: OCA: Lives of saints, 20 July (Prophet Elijah); OCA: troparia and kontakia, 20 July; Greek City Times: Feast Day of Glorious Prophet Elias; OrthoChristian: Prologue from Ohrid, The Holy Prophet Elias.

Elijah and Enoch as the two witnesses; where did they go? [Partly verified]

Date and language: patristic to modern · Orthodox tradition. Orthodox writers widely identify the two witnesses of Rev 11 as Elijah and Enoch, who were taken up alive and come back to preach against the Antichrist. Archbishop Averky (Taushev), writing in ROCOR, says they will prophesy in his reign and be killed and revived after three and a half days. Arethas (per Froom) admits Enoch’s coming has no scriptural proof, only tradition. Gregory Palamas teaches that neither Elijah nor Enoch was taken to heaven but to a place on earth, and Metropolitan Hierotheos infers Elijah’s translation was a kind of death, which affects the ‘they will return to die’ picture. • Averky (OrthoChristian reprint): Elijah, ‘the second forerunner’, and Enoch will prophesy as God’s witnesses and be killed by the Antichrist. • OrthodoxWiki’s rendering of John of Damascus: Enoch and Elijah are sent before the Antichrist. • Palamas (via Sanidopoulos): Elijah did not leave the earth’s atmosphere; Enoch was taken to a place on earth.

• Hierotheos (via Sanidopoulos’ Spanish summary): this implies Elijah’s translation was in a way a kind of death. • Romanian popular belief also develops the motif (see Agignoaei). Caution. The Palamas excerpts were read through summaries. The Hierotheos inference appeared in a Spanish-language rendering. The Averky piece cites no specific Fathers by name. Read for this item: Archbishop Averky, On Prophet Elijah and the Antichrist (OrthoChristian); OrthodoxWiki: Antichrist (John of Damascus); Sanidopoulos: Palamas on Enoch and Elijah; Sanidopoulos: Palamas on the translocation of Elijah (Hierotheos).

Great (Holy) Monday and Tuesday: Matthew 24 at the Presanctified Liturgy [Well sourced]

Date and language: Holy Week · Orthodox Triodion/Lectionary. The Bridegroom services of Holy Week begin with the Gospel of the end. At the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on Great Monday the Gospel is Matthew 24:3-35, the first half of the Olivet discourse (the signs, ‘false christs’, ‘abomination of desolation’), and on Great Tuesday Matthew 24:36-26:2, ending with the call to be ready. The Matins troparion calls the faithful to watch for the Bridegroom. OCA, St Jonah and Saint Sophia DC agree on Monday 24:3-35; one cantor-institute page gives a different Monday range. • OCA: Monday Presanctified Gospel is Matthew 24:3-35, ‘the great eschatological discourse’. • OCA: Tuesday Presanctified Gospel is Matthew 24:36-26:2, which closes with the Last Judgment parables (10 virgins, talents). • Matins troparion of the first three days: ‘Behold, the bridegroom comes in the middle of the night’. • Monday Matins Gospel: Matthew 21:18-43; Tuesday Matins: Matthew 22:15-46 and 23:1-39.

• No page the compiler opened links these readings to the Antichrist by name. Caution. The reading sets out Christ’s own teaching about the end; it is not an Antichrist doctrine as such. Monday’s range differs on the Cantor Institute page, probably a local practice; the OCA is the safer authority. Read for this item: OCA: Great and Holy Monday; OCA: Great and Holy Tuesday; St Jonah: Presanctified Liturgy for Great Monday; Saint Sophia DC: Great Monday Bridegroom services; OCA: Holy Week (Bridegroom services); Cantor Institute: Great Monday (differs: gives Mt 24:36-26:2).

Sunday of the Last Judgment (Meatfare Sunday) [Well sourced]

Date and language: third Sunday of the Triodion · Orthodox Triodion. The third Sunday before Great Lent has the Gospel of Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats, and a Tone 1 kontakion that addresses Christ coming in glory to judge, with the books opened. OrthodoxWiki’s page contains no mention of the Antichrist. The Antichrist is connected to this Sunday through the homiletic tradition: Palamas’s homily for the day says the Antichrist comes first and his trial will be shortened, and Brianchaninov’s Meatfare sermon ‘On the Second Coming’ is the only end-times item in his sermon collection The Harvest. • Gospel: Matthew 25:31-46; Kontakion Tone 1 on Christ’s coming in glory (OrthodoxWiki). • Third Sunday of the Triodion, after the Prodigal Son and before Forgiveness Sunday. • Palamas’s homily for this Sunday (Sanidopoulos) mentions the Antichrist and shortened days. • The Harvest (Holy Trinity Publications) lists Brianchaninov’s sermon 7 ‘On the Second Coming of Christ’ on Meatfare Sunday.

• The OrthodoxWiki page does not mention the Antichrist. Caution. The compiler verified readings and the kontakion, not the full Triodion service texts (stichera), which The compiler could not open. The St John Maximovitch homily on this Sunday is a secondary web reprint (see its own item). Read for this item: OrthodoxWiki: Sunday of the Last Judgment; Sanidopoulos: Palamas, homily on Christ’s Second Coming; Holy Trinity Publications: Brianchaninov, The Harvest; Orthodox Ethos: Maximovitch on the Sunday of the Dread Judgment (1956).

The baptismal renunciation of Satan (and the Antichrist question) [Well sourced]

Date and language: ancient rite, in use today · Orthodox Euchologion. Before the font the candidate (or godparent) faces west, the place of darkness, and is asked three times to renounce Satan ‘and all his works, all his worship, all his angels and all his pomp’, then turns east, joins Christ and confesses the Creed. Kogarah Greek Orthodox’s page says the godparent is also asked to ‘blow down on Satan’ and that facing west signifies ‘natural darkness’, and the OMS GSA parish summary renders the last item as ‘pride’. The rite does not mention the Antichrist; the connection, drawn by Hierotheos, is that baptism and chrismation are the seal against the beast’s mark. • A parish baptism booklet asks, three times, ‘Do you renounce Satan, and all of his works’ and continues with his worship, angels and pomp. • Kogarah Greek Orthodox: after exorcisms the godparent faces west, renounces Satan three times and is asked to ‘blow down on Satan’.

• Another parish (OMS GSA) renders the last item as ‘pride’ rather than ‘pomp’. • Hierotheos reads the seal of Rev 7/14 as the Spirit’s anointing in chrismation. • Neither booklet nor the Kogarah page mentions Antichrist. Caution. Wording differs by jurisdiction and translation; The compiler did not read a standard Euchologion. The OMS GSA page did not give the full wording. The link to the Antichrist is interpretive. Read for this item: St Paul’s Irvine: baptism service booklet; Kogarah Greek Orthodox: Ceremony of baptism; OMS GSA: Baptism; Metropolitan Hierotheos, ‘The Antichrist and Chrismation’.

Revelation is not in the Orthodox daily lectionary [Well sourced]

Date and language: canon history, 4th-8th c. · Orthodox lectionary. The OCA says Revelation is the only New Testament book not read in the Orthodox liturgical cycle ‘because of its apocalyptic character’. Fr Stephen In a comment De Young adds that a continuous reading from the Sabbaite typikon (the ‘Great Reading’ at all-night vigils) does include it, but that this is not the lectionary proper and comes centuries after Andrew of Caesarea. He also says Athanasius includes Revelation in 367 while Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian and Chrysostom omit it, and that Maximus the Confessor in the late 7th century still doubted its canon. His conclusion is that its standing is not a simple yes or no. • OCA: Revelation is the only NT book not read liturgically. • De Young: acceptance took about two centuries after Andrew popularized and revised Oecumenius’s commentary. • De Young: Athanasius’s Paschal Letter (367) includes it; Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom omit it.

• De Young: Orthodox commentaries on Revelation are essentially commentaries on Andrew. • De Young (comment): the ‘Great Reading’ at some all-night vigils, from the Sabbaite Typikon, does include Revelation. Caution. De Young is a respected Orthodox priest-scholar writing for a blog; the claims about Maximus and about the ‘Great Reading’ come from him and his comment. Check the Typikon before saying anything detailed about vigils. Read for this item: OCA: The Epistle (Divine Liturgy); Fr Stephen De Young, Is the Book of Revelation Canonical in the Orthodox Church?.

The ascetic and sacramental reading

The Antichrist as delusion in the soul, and the seal and anointing that answer it.

Prelest (spiritual delusion) and the counterfeit of grace [Partly verified]

Date and language: 4th-19th c. ascetic literature · Orthodox ascetic (Brianchaninov, Climacus, Isaac). Orthodox ascetic writers treat deception as the central danger of the spiritual life. Brianchaninov defines prelest as ‘wounding of human nature with falsehood’, accepting falsehood as truth, and teaches two kinds, imagination and self-conceit. Demons use pride to offer false gifts: visions, healings, clairvoyance. OrthodoxWiki ties this to the end: the Antichrist will come with false signs, appearing loving and merciful while excusing the passions. For Orthodox writers the Antichrist is therefore met first as a method of deception that must be resisted now through humility and discernment. • OrthodoxWiki: Brianchaninov’s definition is ‘wounding of human nature with falsehood’; two kinds, imagination and self-conceit. • Demons exploit pride with false gifts such as visions, healing, clairvoyance and prophecy (OrthodoxWiki summary). • The article cites Matt 7:21-23 and Matt 24 on false miracles and false prophets, and 2 Cor 11:13-15 on false visions.

• Citing Fr Nikita Grigoriev, it says the Antichrist will appear loving, but his ‘love’ will condone passions rather than call to repentance. • Brianchaninov’s Ascetical Experiments vol. 1 contains ‘On the Jesus Prayer, Part II: On Prelest’ (chapter 27 in Azbyka’s list). Caution. The compiler read OrthodoxWiki through a summarizer and did not open Brianchaninov’s chapter. OrthodoxWiki cites ‘Theophan, Archbishop of Poltava’, not Theophan the Recluse; do not conflate. It also reports a priest’s claim that St Francis of Assisi showed traits of Antichrist; The compiler did not use that. Read for this item: OrthodoxWiki: Prelest; Azbyka: contents of Ascetical Experiments, vol. 1.

Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos): 'The Antichrist and Chrismation' [Well sourced]

Date and language: 2006 · Greek Orthodox, hesychast pastoral reading (citing Nikodemos the Hagiorite). A contemporary Greek metropolitan, in articles of June and August 2006, argues that Antichrist is both the figure of the end and a spirit already at work. Citing 1 John 2:18 and Nikodemos the Hagiorite, ‘many antichrists’ in every age are forerunners and heralds, including heretics and Christians who live in passion without inner prayer. Christians distinguish Christ from Antichrist through the ‘anointing’ of chrismation, not books. He reads the sealed servants of Rev 7 and 14 as those sealed with the Spirit and the ‘new song’ as noetic prayer of the heart, and criticizes date-setting. Pastoral care is hesychasm. • The Antichrist comes near the end, but ‘many antichrists’ and forerunners already act in every age (1 John 2:18, Nikodemos). • Christians discern Christ from Antichrist by the anointing of chrismation, not by reading books.

• The seal of Rev 7:2-4 and 14:1 is linked to chrismation, and the ‘new song’ to noetic prayer of the heart; those so sealed escape the Beast’s seal. • The article criticizes those who try to fix a date for the Antichrist’s arrival. • Martyrdom is described as the activation of chrismation. Caution. Contemporary bishop’s pastoral reading, not a conciliar text. Originals: Ekklesiastiki Paremvasi no. 122 (June 2006) and Orthodoxos Typos no. 1654 (4 Aug 2006). Nikodemos’s own work was not named in the article. Read for this item: Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, ‘Prophecy and Revelation? or oracle-mongering and….

St Ignatius Brianchaninov: last times, sermon on the Second Coming, and the 'essay on the Antichrist' [Partly verified]

Date and language: 1807-1867 · Russian Orthodox bishop, ascetic writer; glorified 1988. Brianchaninov (1807-1867), Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea, is the leading 19th-century Russian writer on delusion and prayer, glorified in 1988. A chapter from his work, as described on roca.org, is titled ‘Troubles are the Special Lot of the Monks of the Last Times’; he warns that apostates who call themselves Christians can persecute true ones. Holy Trinity Publications lists a Meatfare sermon ‘On the Second Coming of Christ’. The compiler could not find any essay of his titled or devoted to the Antichrist: the Azbyka work list and volume 1 contents show none, so The compiler cannot confirm that such a work exists. • Born 15 Feb 1807, monk 1831, bishop 1857, retired 1861, died 30 April 1867; glorified by the 1988 Local Council (Wikipedia). • roca.org: his chapter ‘Troubles are the Special Lot of the Monks of the Last Times’ warns of weakened instruction and apostates who call themselves Christians.

• Holy Trinity Publications’ The Harvest includes sermon 7, ‘On the Second Coming of Christ’. • Azbyka’s list of his works and volume 1 contents contain no title on the Antichrist. • An unsigned web article (ecerkva) attributes to him a paraphrased claim that the Antichrist deceives through apparent goodness; it gives no citation. Caution. The brief’s ‘Brianchaninov essay on the Antichrist’ is NOT verified. The roca.org chapter is described in a web summary; The compiler does not know which of his books it is from. Check the Russian Complete Works (vols. 4-5) before attributing any Antichrist teaching. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Ignatius Brianchaninov; roca.org: on Bishop Ignatius and the last times; Holy Trinity Publications: The Harvest; Azbyka: Ignatius Brianchaninov author page; Azbyka: Ascetical Experiments vol. 1 contents; ecerkva.com: Is Putin the Antichrist? (unsigned; weak).

Popular 'prophecies of Elder Paisios' [Partly verified]

Date and language: 20th-21st c. · Athonite, Greek. Many end-time ‘prophecies’ circulate online in the name of Elder Paisios of Mount Athos. Monk Moses the Athonite, writing for the Orthodox press, calls recent claims that Paisios appeared and told people to hoard food baseless, ‘fantasies of the naive’, warns against people with a taste for ‘fearful eschatology’, and says the Elder’s words were often for one person and should not be generalized. His main counsel is that the present situation can only be met spiritually. The list is not verified; none are used in this study. • Monk Moses calls the claims about Paisios appearing and telling people to gather food baseless. • He warns against those inclined to fanaticism and ‘fearful eschatology’. • Some of Paisios’s words were meant only for the person he was addressing; generalizing them is wrong. • The page links to a separate piece titled ‘Holy Community of Mount Athos responds’; The compiler did not open that statement.

Caution. Any specific ‘Paisios prophecy’ (Turkey, Russia, the Antichrist, the Third World War) should be treated as unverified rumour unless it appears in a printed, authorized source. Read for this item: Monk Moses the Athonite on Elder Paisios’s prophecies (Sanidopoulos).

Russia and the Slavic world

The same material in a different history, including the Old Believers, who took the Antichrist to be already reigning.

Slavonic reception of Greek apocalyptic texts [Partly verified]

Date and language: 11th-14th c. · Church Slavonic, Rus’ and South Slavic. Eastern Christian apocalypses reached Orthodox Slavs in translation. Pseudo-Methodius exists in three Slavonic recensions (earliest manuscript 12th c.) and Russian Christians invoked it in the 13th-century Mongol invasions; the Life of Andrew the Fool was first translated into Old Russian by the late 11th or early 12th century (200+ copies) with a South Slavic version by the 14th; Andrew of Caesarea’s Apocalypse commentary was translated into Church Slavonic. The compiler could not verify the ‘Slavonic Tale of Antichrist’ you mentioned, nor any copy-by-copy list of Slavic Antichrist tales. • Pseudo-Methodius: three Slavonic recensions (S1-S3), earliest manuscript 12th century; invoked in the 13th-century Mongol invasions (Wikipedia). • Life of Andrew the Fool: first Old Russian translation c. late 11th/early 12th century; South Slavic (likely Serbian) by the 14th. • Andrew of Caesarea: translated into Armenian, Georgian and Church Slavonic.

Caution. Transmission facts only. The compiler found no source the compiler could open on a distinct Slavonic ‘Tale of Antichrist’. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius; Wikipedia: Andrew the Fool; Wikipedia: Andrew of Caesarea.

Romanian popular eschatology of Elijah and the Antichrist [Partly verified]

Date and language: medieval to modern · Romanian Orthodox folk religion. A Romanian doctoral article (Agignoaei, 2020) compares the ‘doctrinal’ scenario of Revelation 11 (Elijah and Enoch confront the Antichrist, are killed and raised) with the Romanian popular version. Folk belief expands the biblical motif with vivid details not found in Scripture, many traced to apocryphal apocalypses that circulated in medieval Romania. Elijah is also a weather and crop patron celebrated on 20 July. It is a good illustration of the gap between formal doctrine and village apocalyptic. • Elijah and Enoch confront the Antichrist, are killed by him and raised by God (Rev 11), according to the abstract. • Romanian folk tradition expands the motif with many details absent from Scripture. • The author traces many details to apocryphal apocalypses circulating in medieval Romania. • Elijah is celebrated on 20 July and is patron of weather, crops and beekeepers in folk belief.

Caution. Abstract only (partly cut off). The article is in Romanian. Read for this item: Agignoaei, STODN 3.1 (2020) abstract.

Old Believers: Nikon's reforms and the reign of Antichrist [Partly verified]

Date and language: 1650s-18th c. · Russian Church schism. Patriarch Nikon’s liturgical reforms (from 1652) were rejected by Old Believers, who held that the changes were a diabolical plot heralding the Last Judgment and that Antichrist already ruled church and state. Ukrainian apocalyptic miscellanies after the 1596 Union of Brest pointed to 1666 and the number of the beast; Avraami later recalculated to 1691. The 1666-67 Moscow Council anathematized resisters. Mass self-immolation was treated as martyrdom, with Wikipedia citing perhaps 20,000 deaths in the next generation. The Old Believer church’s own site says some first named Nikon himself as Antichrist because of the titles ‘Great Sovereign’ and ‘New Jerusalem’. • Old Believers saw the reforms as a diabolical plan and the church/state as under Antichrist (Wikipedia: Old Believers). • Britannica: they refused the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1652-58). • Churchmotherofgod.org history: the belief that ‘the reign of Antichrist had begun in the official Church’ followed the 1666 schism.

• The Old Believer Moscow Metropolitanate: some named Nikon as Antichrist because he took ‘Great Sovereign’ and named a monastery ‘New Jerusalem’; that view faded when he fell. • Wikipedia: self-immolation as martyrdom; perhaps 20,000 died; Efrosin’s 1691 treatise argued against it. Caution. Wikipedia’s 20,000 figure is an estimate. The churchmotherofgod page is an Orthodox history of uncertain scholarly standard and does not itself name Nikon or Peter as Antichrist. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Old Believers; Wikipedia: Avvakum (1666-67 Council); Britannica: Old Believers (summary); History of the Russian Church (p. 7), churchmotherofgod.org; Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (Moscow Metropolitanate): Divisions among Old….

Old Believers: 'sensual' versus 'spiritual' Antichrist; priestless groups [Partly verified]

Date and language: late 17th-19th c. · Russian Old Believers. Old Believers split over what ‘Antichrist already reigns’ means. The ‘material’ (sensual) view expects one person with scriptural marks at a set time, so ordinary life and priests could continue. The ‘spiritual’ view treats Antichrist as an evil power already pervading the world, which led the priestless (bezpopovtsy) to judge the official church graceless, reject its priests and sacraments, and in extreme cases (Runners/Beguny) avoid money and papers bearing his seal. The Old Believer Church site says the spiritual doctrine arose among persecuted believers and caused a split dialogue might have prevented. • Wikipedia: material vs spiritual Antichrist; the spiritual doctrine was held by radical, priestless groups and had no time limit. • Priestless groups regarded the official church as corrupted by Antichrist and without grace; the Beguny refused to touch money bearing the ‘seal’. • The priested (popovtsy) were generally more moderate in applying the Antichrist doctrine to the present.

• The rpsc.ru page: bezpopovtsi rebaptized converts and relied on lay teachers; Pomortsy and Chasovennie are the largest groups today. • Crummey’s book The Old Believers and the World of Antichrist (1970), on the Vyg community, is the standard English study of this. Caution. The compiler did not open Crummey’s book itself. The Slavic Review notice only supplies the title, year (1970) and a one-line characterization. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Old Believers; rpsc.ru: Divisions among Old Believers; Slavic Review memorial notice (confirming the title and its ‘institutional and political’….

Archpriest Avvakum (c. 1620-1682) [Partly verified]

Date and language: c. 1620/21 - 14 April 1682 · Russian Old Believer leader. Avvakum, archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square, led resistance to Nikon’s reforms (two fingers to three, revised books, Greek-style vestments). He read the fall of Constantinople to the Turks as a judgment on Greek ‘heresy’. Exiled to Siberia in 1653, he was condemned at the 1666-67 Council, held in an earthen pit at Pustozyorsk from 1670 and burned in a log house in 1682. Wikipedia says opponents’ texts framed the schism as a cosmic contest with Nikon cast as Antichrist; his own Life, written 1669-75, is a classic of Russian literature. • He opposed Nikon’s reforms from 1652; exiled to Tobolsk in 1653. • He argued Constantinople fell to the Turks because of Greek ‘heretical’ practices. • 1666-67: the Great Moscow Synod anathematized those who rejected Nikon’s changes; 1667: sent to Pustozyorsk. • He was burned alive on 14 April 1682.

• The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum, by Himself, was drafted 1669-72 and first printed in 1861. Caution. The Wikipedia page ties the Antichrist language to ‘opponents’ texts’ and does not quote Avvakum himself. Use Brostrom’s translation of the Life (Michigan Slavic Publications, 1979) or Michels (2000) for quotations. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Avvakum.

Peter I as Antichrist in popular and Old Believer belief [Partly verified]

Date and language: late 17th-18th c. · Russian. Many Old Believers considered Tsar Peter the Antichrist. Michal Siažik (Religio, 2009) says the wandering Old Believers (stranniki) held a ‘divided Antichrist’ in which Peter is the first of a line of ruler-Antichrists who usurped regal, religious and divine authority, which justified rejecting his successors too. A Gateway to Russia popular article lists the reasons given: Western dress, shaving beards, tobacco, and abolishing the patriarchate for the Holy Synod in 1721. That article is not scholarly. The tsarist state meanwhile presented Peter as dynasty founder. • Siažik: wanderers saw Peter as the first ruler-Antichrist, usurping a threefold authority. • Wikipedia (Antichrist): many Old Believers considered Peter the Antichrist, for subordinating the church to the state and taxing clergy. • Gw2ru: beards, tobacco, Western clothes and the Synod (1721) are given as reasons. • The Old Believer picture is compared with tsarist propaganda in Siažik.

Caution. Siažik’s page was an abstract in Czech/English; the Gateway to Russia article (Egorov) is a state-funded popular piece without citations. This was an Old Believer and popular belief, never an Orthodox Church teaching. Read for this item: Siažik, Starověrci-poutníci a Petr I. jako Antikrist (Religio 17.1, 2009); Wikipedia: Antichrist (Eastern Orthodox section); Gateway to Russia: Why was Peter the Great considered the Antichrist?.

Modern Orthodox writers (for contrast)

Twentieth-century voices, placed last, so that the older witnesses come first and can be read on their own terms.

Orthodox America, 'The Last Chapter of Time and the Coming of Antichrist' [Partly verified]

Date and language: late 20th c. · ROCOR (Jordanville) devotional exposition. An article in Orthodox America (vol. VI, no. 51, archived on roca.org) assembles a standard ROCOR picture of the Antichrist from John of Damascus, Ephrem the Syrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Brianchaninov and ‘Blessed Theophilact’. It says most Fathers hold he will be Jewish of the tribe of Dan, comes in three periods (hidden youth, public rise as a solver of world problems, a final 3.5-year reign), deceives with false signs, and that Elijah and Enoch warn people and are killed. It cites as sources ‘Apostasy and Antichrist’ (Jordanville 1978), Archpriest Boris Molchanoff and Hieromonk Alexis Rosentool (1982). • Cites John Damascene, Ephraim the Syrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Brianchaninov and Theophylact. • Says ‘most Fathers’ hold the Antichrist will be Jewish, of the tribe of Dan. • Three periods: hidden youth, public rise (one-world government, Temple), final 3.5-year reign. • Elijah and Enoch are sent, turn Jews to Christ and are killed.

• Does not use the term ‘restrainer’; the ‘falling away’ (2 Thess 2:3) is the condition. Caution. A magazine article without individual authorship or footnotes in the version the compiler read; it reflects one strand (ROCOR). Not an official teaching. Read for this item: Orthodox America (roca.org): The Last Chapter of Time and the Coming of Antichrist.

Fr Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future (1975) [Partly verified]

Date and language: 1975; 2nd ed. 1979 · ROCOR (American convert), St Herman Brotherhood. Eight chapters on the ‘new religious consciousness’: Eastern religions, ecumenism, the charismatic revival, UFO phenomena and the Jonestown tragedy. Per Wikipedia, Rose reads these as parts of a ‘religion of the future’ that is the religion of the Antichrist, driven by demonic influence, and offers Orthodox tradition as the frame to resist it. Internet Archive’s description speaks of the ‘coming time of antichrist’. Rose also wrote The Apocalypse in the Teachings of Ancient Christianity (1985), and wrote the introduction to Archbishop Averky’s Orthodox commentary on the Apocalypse (1998). Critics call it polemical; Chapnin criticizes edition changes. • First published 1975; 2nd edition 31 Dec 1979 with an epilogue on new spiritual movements. • Wikipedia: Rose identifies the ‘religion of the future’ as the religion of the Antichrist. • Internet Archive description: addresses the ‘coming time of antichrist’ and the question of being caught up in the Apostasy.

• Rose (1934-1982) was a ROCOR hieromonk; not glorified as of the OrthodoxWiki page. • Critics include Jakub Jurga; Chapnin criticizes ecclesiology changes between editions. Caution. The compiler did not read the book. The Wikipedia note on reception is the editors’ summary. Rose is a controversial popular author, not a Father or Council; his ‘toll-house’ teaching is disputed. Read for this item: Wikipedia: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future; OrthodoxWiki: Seraphim (Rose); Internet Archive listing of the book.

Archbishop Averky (Taushev), Orthodox commentary on the Apocalypse and article on Elijah [Partly verified]

Date and language: 20th c. (ROCOR, Jordanville) · ROCOR. Averky’s The Apocalypse of St John: An Orthodox Commentary (introduced by Seraphim Rose, 1998 English) is a modern ROCOR Orthodox commentary. The OrthoChristian reprint of his short article on Elijah reads Elijah as ‘the second forerunner’ and, with Enoch, God’s witnesses in Rev 11 killed by the Antichrist. It warns against compromise with the Antichrist’s servants and against false shepherds who preach peace with everyone. It cites no named Church Father, only Scripture and ‘the ancient Fathers’. • Elijah is ‘the second forerunner of the coming of Christ’ (Mal 4:5). • Elijah and Enoch will be God’s two witnesses and be killed and revived after three and a half days (Rev 11). • The article treats the Antichrist’s followers as already gathering and warns against compromise. • OrthodoxWiki lists the Rose introduction to Averky’s commentary (1998). • The article names no individual Father.

Caution. The compiler did not read the commentary itself. The article’s ‘followers are already gathering’ point is a contemporary application. Read for this item: OrthoChristian: On Prophet Elijah and the Antichrist (Averky); OrthodoxWiki: Seraphim (Rose) (lists the Averky commentary).

St Nikolai Velimirovic and the Prologue from Ohrid [Partly verified]

Date and language: 1881-1956 · Serbian Orthodox bishop. The Prologue from Ohrid is Velimirovic’s calendar of saints’ lives, hymns and homilies for each day. Its entry for the Prophet Elias says that at the end of the world Elias will appear again ‘to break the power of the antichrist’ (Rev 11), so the Antichrist reaches Orthodox daily reading through the Prologue. Wikipedia’s biography does not mention any writing of his on the Antichrist, and it records serious controversies over his wartime and earlier statements. The compiler found no separate Antichrist essay or sermon by him that the compiler could open. • Prologue from Ohrid (1928): lives, hymns and reflections arranged by feast day (OrthodoxWiki). • The Prologue entry for 20 July: Elias will appear again ‘to break the power of the antichrist’ (reprint, Lazarica Press 1986). • He was glorified by the Serbian Church in 2003; died 18 March 1956.

• Wikipedia records criticisms of antisemitic statements and wartime associations, with defenders disputing their weight. Caution. Quote from a web reprint of the Prologue. Because of the controversy over his political writings, handle with an honest note if he is featured. The compiler found no other Antichrist writing by him. Read for this item: OrthodoxWiki: Prologue from Ohrid; OrthoChristian: The Holy Prophet Elias (Prologue); Wikipedia: Nikolaj Velimirovic.

Patriarch Kirill on the Antichrist and the web (2019) [Partly verified]

Date and language: January 2019 · Russian Orthodox Church. In an interview on Russian state television, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow warned that smartphone users should be careful with the worldwide web of gadgets, which gives the chance to gain global control over mankind, and said the Antichrist could end up leading it. He added that the Church opposes the system aimed at controlling a person’s identity, not technology itself. Coda Story, relying on a BBC report, notes many Russian users mocked the remarks and some read them as lending divine authority to restrictions on the internet. Wikipedia gives the date as 2018; Coda gives January 2019. • January 2019 interview with Rossiya 1 (Coda Story, via BBC). • Kirill said the Antichrist could end up leading a global web of gadgets. • He said the Church opposes a system of controlling a person’s identity, not technology itself. • Wikipedia dates the interview 2018; Coda dates it January 2019 (discrepancy).

Caution. Interview remarks, not a teaching of the Church; the political context is contested. Kirill’s own words were not seen directly. Read for this item: Coda Story: The Antichrist is coming through your smartphone; Wikipedia: Antichrist. Eastern items printed: 36.