Antichrist

Antichrist

Writer: Kepenes D. Evangelos (04/17/2017)

Preface

The figure of the Antichrist is one of the most misinterpreted subjects in the Scriptures. Over the centuries, many myths and prejudices have been built around this name, distancing people from the truth of the biblical text.

The present study returns the discussion to the only safe starting point: the clear and objective investigation of the written word. Turning directly to the biblical text itself, this work overturns the theories reproduced today from pulpits, the media, and popular religious commentary. The key to understanding the Scriptures lies in reconstructing the world of the Apostles, rather than in modern fantasies that even influence political agendas.

This research strips the Antichrist of later fictions and reveals to the reader the real message that the authors of the Scriptures addressed to the early church. Through examining the social, religious, and political environment of the 1st century AD, as well as the prophetic sayings, it is proven that the Antichrist was not a future threat of a global dictator at the end of history. On the contrary, it was a tangible reality of that era within the context of biblical Judaism, inextricably linked to the end of the old economy of the age of the Law, the destruction of the earthly Temple of Jerusalem, and the parallel coming of the Almighty Jesus.

The Authentic Testimony of the Apostolic Writings

To understand the true meaning of the term, we must begin with the text of the New Testament itself. During the 1st century AD, John—an apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:9)—wrote to the children of the promise, clarifying the chronological framework of events:

"Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." (1 John 2:18-20, cf. 2 Thess. 2:3).

This departure ("they went out from us") signals the apostasy and the separation from the early Church of those who opposed (the "adversaries") the apostolic teaching concerning the Son (1 John 2:22).

The early Church was fully aware—as certified by the verbs "you have heard", "we know", and "you know all things"—that the coming of the Antichrist would take place in its own present through the working and power of Satan, by means of false signs and wonders. The use of the perfect tense "have come" ("γεγόνασιν") proves that this activity was already unfolding as a living reality back then ("even now many antichrists have come") among the "perishing" Jews and Judaizers of that era, who refused to accept the love of the truth so as to be saved (2 Thess. 2:10).

This event constituted the historical and prophetic milestone for the consummation of the "ministry of death": of the Mosaic Law and the rituals by mortal priests, who functioned based on an earthly pattern of a Temple in Jerusalem and a shadow of the heavenly things (Heb. 8:5). The complete fall of this earthly system—which Jesus in Revelation signaled with the phrase

"Fell, fell Babylon the great..." (Rev. 14:8, Grk. text)—demarcated at the same time the coming and the eternal kingdom of the Almighty Jesus (2 Thess. 2:1-4, 2 Cor. 3:7-8, Rev. 1:8).

In the exact same spirit, Paul urges his contemporaries to stand firm: "And not being frightened in anything by the opponents, which to them is a demonstration of destruction, but to you of salvation, and this from God." (Phil. 1:28).

Retrospection into the Apostolic Writings for Understanding the Historical Accomplished Facts

Symeon revealed to Mary concerning the then eight-day-old Jesus: "Behold, this one is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel and for a sign spoken against—and a sword will pierce through your own soul also—so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35). This prophecy harmonizes fully with the apostolic knowledge of God: "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword [...] and α judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12 Grk text).

The events recorded by the authors of the New Testament fully verified the words of Symeon. The acceptance of Jesus was the cause for the rising of many in Israel (Salvation); conversely, the rejection, the speaking against, and the opposition to His person were the cause for the fall of many (Destruction), as well as of that very Jewish legalistic system.

The Historical Contradiction and the Responsibility of Biblical Fleshly Israel

The Apostle Paul targets the Jews for the opposition and contradiction he faced, characteristically noting: "But because the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not as having anything of which to accuse my nation" (Acts 28:19). Examining this historical and legal contradiction of theirs from the perspective of the original recipients of the epistles, it is proven that biblical fleshly Israel lacked any excuse of ignorance, as their spiritual hardening was the direct result of a conscious and prophesied negative stance toward the seed of promise, Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:16).

The Apostle establishes this historical responsibility by invoking the prophetic word of the Scriptures: "But I say, did they not hear? Indeed they did: 'Into all the earth their voice went out, and to the ends of the inhabited world their words'" (Rom. 10:18). Using Psalm 18:5 LXX, Paul affirms that during the apostolic generation, the voice of those "bringing good news of good things" had already spread throughout the entire land of Israel and to the geographical boundaries of the then-understood inhabited world.

The Inhabited World (Oikoumene)

In the historical context of the era, the term "oikoumene" designates, on one hand, the geographical and political territory of the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1), and on the other hand, the distinct, extended network of the existing Jewish diaspora among the nations—a position consistently confirmed by the modern academic community. A characteristic indication of this geographical scope is Paul’s intention to extend his preaching as far as Roman-ruled Spain (Rom. 15:24)—a region which, as confirmed by contemporary historical sources (Flavius Josephus) and later archaeological findings (such as the synagogue of Elche), possessed organized Jewish communities. For Paul, Spain constituted a pristine missionary space where the name of Christ had not yet been heard (Rom. 15:20), a fact that rendered his journey there a matter of highest priority within the narrow chronological limits of his own generation.

This broad geographical horizon of the diaspora is exemplarily captured in Acts (2:5-11), where it is described that in Jerusalem there were "dwelling Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven." This network—which included both ethnic Jews and proselytes—extended within the Roman domain from metropolitan Judea and Egypt to the provinces of Asia Minor, Greece, Crete, Rome itself, reaching even as far as Roman-ruled Spain. At the same time, it spread beyond the eastern borders of the Empire, covering the autonomous communities of Mesopotamia and the Parthian Empire (Parthians, Medes, Elamites), as well as the Arabian Peninsula.

Consequently, the Jews of both Palestine and this entire geographical diaspora were absolutely accountable (Acts 2:11, Rom. 9:4). The Gospel had already traversed and covered the entire breadth of their legalistic, religious, and administrative world, prior to the coming wrath "upon this people" and the destruction of 70 AD (cf. Matt. 3:7, 24:14, Luke 21:23). The execution of the wrath did not concern a distant future. The Apostle Paul uses the present tense "the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 5:6), demarcating its fulfillment within the limits of his own generation (Matt. 24:34).

The Apostolic Strategy: "To the Gentiles" and "To the Circumcision"

The use of the diaspora network by Paul requires a necessary clarification regarding the nature of his mission. Based on the Jerusalem agreement, as well as the unique calling each received—on one hand Paul as "this one is a chosen vessel to Me to bear My name before Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel" (Acts 9:15), and on the other hand Peter with the command "shepherd My little sheep", that is, the sons of Israel (Psalm 73:1 LXX)—the "pillars" of the early Church (James, Cephas, John) undertook the work "to the circumcision" (the house of Israel), while Paul and Barnabas went "to the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:9, Acts 13:47).

The domestic synagogues of Palestine maintained a strict ethnic homogeneity—with the exception of the autonomous synagogues of Greek-speaking Jews and proselytes of the Diaspora residing in Jerusalem, such as that of the Libertines (Jewish freedmen who had been slaves to the Romans) and the rest of the groups recorded in Acts: "But some of those from the synagogue called that of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up, disputing with Stephen" (Acts 6:9)—however, the corresponding synagogues of the Diaspora in the inhabited world (oikoumene) were by definition mixed, consisting of ethnic Jews, full proselytes who had undergone circumcision, and a broad layer of those "worshiping" or "fearing" God (Acts 13:16, 17:4). The latter were Gentiles who, although attracted by monotheism and having rejected idolatry, remained uncircumcised, thus constituting the ideal "fertile ground" for Paul’s preaching concerning salvation through faith without the works of the Law.

Applying the principle "both to Jew first and to Greek" (Rom. 1:16), Paul used the Jewish synagogues of the inhabited world as his primary operational "gateway" to the Gentile world. He presented the Gospel first in the local synagogue and, when facing the rejection of the majority of the Jews, turned immediately and entirely to the Gentiles of the same city (Acts 13:46, 18:6).
  In this manner, the inhabited world of the diaspora did not become a field of joint apostolic missions, but the object of an admirable internal apostolic coordination. In this way, the Apostles strategically divided the geographical domain so that one would not build upon the foundations of another:

• James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), although having an immediate ministry within Jerusalem, addresses his encyclical letter globally: "To the twelve tribes in the dispersion, greeting" (Jas. 1:1). He thus transcends the physical and historical return of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Southern Kingdom) to earthly Jerusalem. He highlights the reality of the gathering of the two ancient kingdoms (of Israel, Northern Kingdom, and of Judah, Southern Kingdom) inside the local churches, building upon the prophecy of Hosea: "And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together to the same place, and they shall appoint for themselves one head" (Hos. 1:11, cf. 1:10). Concurrently, he illuminates the spiritual integration of the chosen remnant from all twelve tribes under the author of life, Jesus, fulfilling the words "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26). In this manner, he reminds that God did not break His promise: "The Lord knew those who are His" (2 Tim. 2:19) and "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).

The Stoning of James and the Fall of Jerusalem:
 The steadfast and leading presence of James in Jerusalem concluded with his martyric end in 62 AD. The historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 9, 1) preserves a striking detail: following the death of the Roman procurator Festus, and before his replacement, Albinus, arrived, there was a political power vacuum.

This vacuum was immediately exploited by the high priest Ananus the younger (the son of the well-known Annas). He unlawfully convened the Sanhedrin—since under Roman law it was forbidden to pass a death sentence without Rome's approval—and handed James, the brother of Jesus, along with other believers, to be stoned under the charge of violating the Law. This arbitrary action enraged the Roman authorities. As soon as the new governor Albinus assumed his duties, he enforced the immediate deposition of Ananus from his high-priestly office, just three months after he had taken it. This decision of the high priest was so unjust that even the most law-abiding Jews of the city were deeply displeased.

This event constituted the moral and spiritual point of no return. It was the final straw that triggered the upcoming divine wrath and the definitive destruction of the city in 70 AD. The church historian Eusebius highlights the ancient testimony of Hegesippus, who notes that immediately after this crime, the divine judgment commenced: "And straightway Vespasian besieged them" (Church History, Book II, Chapter 23, par. 18).

• Peter writes his epistles to the "chosen sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 1:1), executing his mission from major centers of the Jewish element, such as Babylon of Egypt (1 Pet. 5:13)—regions where Paul never went.

Babylon of Egypt, which is geographically located in modern-day Cairo (where a Patriarchal Monastery still stands today), constituted a significant hub of Jewish population. As Claudius Ptolemy certifies (Geography 4, 5, 24), the city pre-existed since the pharaonic era as Letopolis near Memphis, while the historian Josephus preserves the name of the destroyed Letopolis and adds that it was refounded and renamed by the Persian king Cambyses: "For a Babylon is built there later, when Cambyses was subduing Egypt" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, 315). This historical reality and its geographical identification are fully validated by modern historical research (see P. Christou, Theological Studies, vol. 1, p. 170, 1971, and S. Papadopoulos, Great Greek Encyclopedia, vol. 29, p. 129).

Although Peter opened the door of evangelism to the Gentiles through Cornelius (Acts 10), his permanent ministry remained dedicated to the Jewish diaspora of the circumcision.

• John ("the elder") focuses on the "chosen lady and her children" (2 John 1:1) and specifies his prophetic experience "to the seven churches that are in Asia" (Rev. 1:4). These regions had the presence and institutional power of Judaism deeply rooted. When John writes "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10), he is not referring to a day of the week (this naming was established much later in history). He describes how the Holy Spirit transported him into the very "Day of the Lord"—the day of His manifestation, presence, and judgment. This proves once again the remarkable apostolic coordination. Paul and his co-workers (such as Epaphras, Timothy, and Philemon) paved the way and founded the churches in the major Roman centers of Asia (Acts 19:10). Later, after Paul's martyrdom in Rome, John undertook their spiritual shielding against Jewish opposition, foretelling the fall of the Jewish legalistic system within the chronological limits of that generation.

The Historical Prerequisite for the End of the Ministry of the Law and of Ritualistic Judaism

Jesus Christ Himself, whose geographical activity was restricted to the land of Judea, Galilee, and Jerusalem (Acts 10:39)—since He merely passed through Samaria without it becoming a field of His systematic public ministry (cf. John 4:3-4)—had set as an unalterable eschatological prerequisite for the consummation of the age of the Law—in the sense of its historical completion, since it constituted an unprofitable ritualism (see Heb. 7:18)—that: "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole inhabited world for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come" (cf. Matt. 24:14, Mark 13:10).

This historical fulfillment and response to the Lord's calling, "for Christ is the end of the law" (Rom. 10:4), is sealed in the most categorical way by the Apostle Paul. Writing a few years before the fall of Jerusalem, he affirms in his Epistle to the Colossians that the hope of eternal life, which they first heard through the Gospel of truth, now "in all the world is bearing fruit" (Col. 1:6). Concurrently, he urges them not to be moved away from the Gospel "which was preached in all creation under heaven" (Col. 1:23). The use of the perfect passive participle "which was preached" (τοῦ κηρυχθέντος) here is decisive; the apostle does not refer to a future missionary endeavor spanning centuries, but to an already accomplished reality of his era, which proves that the work of the Apostles had been fulfilled within the limits of their own generation.

This geographical coverage essentially meant that the "time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10) of the old types had now arrived, since "in saying a new, He has made the first old; and that which is becoming old and growing aged is near disappearing" (Heb. 8:13). The Jewish diaspora functioned as the necessary historical bridge and starting point so that the message of salvation would spread with momentum toward the Gentile Greco-Roman world, where the worship of god-men, incarnate gods, Caesar, and Rome as a protective power was widespread. The Gospel was not restricted to an ethnocentric affair of Israel. Preaching to the Jews was a priority; however, Paul and Barnabas, after the rejection by the former and being fully aware of the divine command, stated boldly to the opponents:

"To you it was necessary first for the word of God to be spoken; but since you thrust it away and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the nations; for so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you for a light of nations, for you to be for salvation unto the end of the earth'" (Acts 13:46-47).

This gradual detachment from the narrow Jewish framework is exemplarily captured also in Paul’s subsequent defense (Acts 25:8), where he defends his mission by separating it from the Law and the sanctuary of Jerusalem, while at the same time appealing to Caesar, definitively opening the way for the Roman Inhabited World (Oikoumene) which constituted the mosaic of all ethnicities of the then-formed world, rendering the message of the gift of immortality universal and eternal—"and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David" (Isa. 55:3, cf. John 1:29, Rev. 14:6, Acts 13:34).

[1] Footnote

Regarding the decree (dogma) of Augustus in Luke 2:1, historical research confirms that the census did not exclusively concern the Jewish element, but the entirety of the inhabitants (Roman citizens and subjects) within the borders of the Empire. Its practical implementation, however, was differentiated geographically: the occupied Jews of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, Judea) were mandatorily registered in their place of origin ("according to ancestral houses"), whereas the Jews of the Diaspora were registered on-site, as permanent residents of their respective Roman provinces (e.g., Achaea, Asia, Egypt). As confirmed by papyrological research of the Roman administration (e.g., the Edict of the Prefect of Egypt Gaius Vibius Maximus, 104 AD), the census was conducted for tax purposes, with the aim of recording land ownership and economic production. Consequently, registration was enforced at the location of each subject's permanent economic and domestic base. Conversely, Jews living outside Roman borders—such as in the Parthian Empire, Ethiopia, and the Arabian Peninsula—remained outside the jurisdiction of the decree. Luke's use of the term oikoumene underlines precisely this universal Roman administrative and fiscal territory.

The Historical Shift of the Ministry of Justification to the Nations

Going deeper, the Apostle Paul reveals that Israel had been warned in time about the shift of God's grace toward the nations: "But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: 'I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, by a foolish nation I will anger you'" (Rom. 10:19, cf. Deut. 32:21).

Isaiah had also clearly prophesied this calling of the nations, showing that peoples who did not know the God of Israel would call upon Him and flee to Him: "nations that did not know you shall call upon you, and peoples who do not understand you shall flee to you for the sake of your God, the Holy One of Israel, because He has glorified you." (Isa. 55:5, cf. Isa. 45:22, Psalm 71:11 LXX).

Continuing in the Epistle to the Romans, Paul emphasizes that Isaiah "boldly" declares this sovereign calling of the Gentiles. People who were not seeking God eventually found Him: "I was found by those who were not seeking Me, I became manifest to those who were not asking for Me" (Rom. 10:20, cf. Isa. 65:1). Conversely, concerning fleshly Israel the prophet says: "All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contradicting people" (Rom. 10:21, cf. Isa. 65:2).

The phrase "I have stretched out My hands" depicts the long-suffering of God, who during the earthly activity of Christ and the ministry of the Apostles was incessantly calling His people. However, the persistence in fleshly ordinances and the dependence of institutional privileges on a compromising transaction with Roman power—which primarily concerned the ruling religious and political leadership, members of which were not always purely Jewish—functioned as a trap. The people themselves, led astray by their leaders for reasons of national and material self-interest, aligned completely with this choice. As their collective confession reveals, "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15, cf. 11:48), this walking together definitively transformed them into a "disobedient and contradicting" people.

This stance of theirs activated the fulfillment of the prophecy made for the last days of the kingdom of fleshly Israel: "I will turn away My face from them and I will show what will happen to them in the end, because it is a perverted generation, sons in whom there is no faith" (Deut. 32:20, cf. Acts 2:40), culminating in the judicial verdict: "behold, your house is left to you desolate" (Matt. 23:38). This historical outcome confirmed the full accomplishment of the prophetic warnings of the Law itself, vindicating the word of Jesus: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17).

"The Law Works Wrath" (Rom. 4:15): Historical Testimonies Concerning the Wrath of God Against the Ungodly and Opponents

Eusebius of Caesarea preserved the information of Josephus regarding the calamities that befell the Jewish nation. He chronicles that in the 12th year of the reign of Nero, the war began, during which many prominent Jews were crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Gessius Florus. The cities of the province were filled with unburied corpses due to the mutual slaughter among the Jews, while everyone anticipated even greater evils than those already occurring (Church History, II, 26:1-2).

Furthermore, Vespasian, after the capture of Jerusalem, ordered that all who were descended from the lineage of David be hunted down (Church History, III, 12).

Eusebius also notes that the long-suffering of God waited for the Jews for forty years after the Crucifixion of Jesus, granting them room to repent and be saved, so as not to suffer the coming evils (Church History, III, 7:8-9).

Regarding this divine long-suffering toward the Jews, Peter also wrote in his second epistle: "The Lord is not slow concerning the promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:9, cf. 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Flavius Josephus himself, an eyewitness to the destruction, recognizes the righteous divine judgment in the fall of the city, characteristically noting: "I suppose that had the Romans delayed to punish these wicked wretches, either the earth would have swallowed up the city, or it would have been swept away by thunderbolts like Sodom, for it brought forth a generation far more godless than those who suffered these things" (The Jewish War, 5.13.6).

Concurrently, the Roman historian Tacitus—based on Roman criteria—describes the supernatural signs that preceded the capture, such as the flashing of weapons in the sky and the sudden opening of the Temple gates, emphasizing that the Jews were "abandoned to superstition and opposed to [Roman] religious rites of expiation" (Histories, 5.13); consequently, they refused to appease the divine, misinterpreting the signs of the upcoming wrath as omens of their own triumph.

Finally, the duration of this period of grace, which Eusebius determines to be forty years, is also confirmed by Clement of Alexandria, who calculates with precision that forty-two years and three months intervened from the Crucifixion of the Lord until the destruction of Jerusalem (Stromata, 1.21). This fact highlights that the final destruction was not a random historical coincidence, but the deterministic outcome of a prolonged rejection of divine long-suffering.

The Political and Religious-Political Environment and the Socio-Cultural Context in the Era of Jesus' Public Ministry

This historical period is the most decisive, because during its course, world-historic changes were brought about by God in the manner of exercising divine omnipotence: "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). The subsequent course of humanity was shaped by the consequences of the acceptance, the rejection, or the exploitation of this new sovereignty by the respective religious and political systems.

Within this framework, the Jewish people had already received intense influences from the cultures of the powers that had conquered them from time to time, such as Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Especially the momentum of the Greek culture—which had intellectually conquered Rome itself—constituted the main focus of conflict between the supporters of Hellenization and the defenders of traditional Jewish identity.

As the sayings of the prophets were fulfilled during the era of the activity of Jesus and the Apostles, the understanding of these historical developments becomes necessary. It allows us to perceive the conditions that led to the formation of various groups and, ultimately, to the birth of a "rival body" within the ranks of the early Church, which functioned as an antichrist power.

Political Environment:

• Roman Authority (Pax Romana): This was the dominant power controlling the wider inhabited world (oikoumene) and Palestine. In the region of Judea, the Romans exercised power through procurators (meaning governors, such as Pontius Pilate), who held the exclusive authority to impose the death penalty. Concurrently, the Romans had granted certain religious privileges to Israel, recognizing it as a distinct nation with its own internal autonomy.

• The Herodians: Civil conflicts among the leaders of the Jews resulted in the loss of the nation's independence. Thus, in 63 BC, Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria. Later, it became part of the kingdom of Herod the Great, who loved Greek culture and was declared "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate in 40 BC. The policy of the Herodian dynasty was thoroughly pro-Roman, blindly serving the interests of Rome.
    The Herodians, therefore, were a political faction of Jews who supported this dynasty of King Herod and Roman sovereignty. When the Jewish War broke out in 66 AD, Herod Agrippa II was the king of a portion of the region. He was hated by the Jews because he sided with the Romans. In fact, he himself besieged the city of Gamala—which belonged to his territory—when its inhabitants joined forces with the rebels (Josephus, The Jewish War, IV, 1). Archaeology confirms this political stance of his, as the coins struck by Agrippa bore the faces of the Roman emperors. In cooperation with the Pharisees, they devised accusations against Jesus and plotted His execution: "And the Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him." (Mark 3:6).

• The Zealots: This was an extreme nationalist and revolutionary group fighting for liberation from Rome. They originated primarily from the ranks of the Pharisees, organized by Judas the Galilean. Along with other extreme factions, they would not tolerate Roman dominion. They rejected "mortal masters" (Josephus, The Jewish War, II, 118) and refused to pay taxes to Caesar. Supporting armed struggle, they considered traitors anyone who did not align with them. They were the instigators of the armed rebellion that led to the catastrophic war of 66–70 AD. They turned with particular ferocity against wealthy Jews because the latter maintained a more tolerant stance toward Rome. During the period of the siege, the Zealots prevailed in Jerusalem and seized the Temple. There, they put a multitude of wealthy people to death and plundered their properties, thus verifying the stern warning of James: "You have stored up treasure in the last days" (Jas. 5:3).

• The Sicarii: This was an extreme and highly violent group that originated from the Zealots. They took their name from a small, curved dagger (called a sica in Latin) which they kept hidden beneath their clothes. They used these daggers within crowds to assassinate political opponents, as well as many moderate Jews who did not want war with Rome and preferred peace.

Religious-Political Environment:

• The Sanhedrin: This was the supreme domestic judicial and administrative body of the Jews (with political, religious, and social jurisdictions). It was considered the continuation of the ancient councils of elders founded by Moses. There were local (provincial) councils with 23 members and the "Great Sanhedrin" in Jerusalem with 71 members. This Great Sanhedrin consisted of high priests, priests, scribes, and elders. Its president was the respective "high priest of the year" (the active high priest for that year). The Sanhedrin exercised judicial, religious, and administrative authority always under Roman supervision, and its power ceased definitively with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

• The High Priests: This was the supreme religious leadership and the administrators of the Temple. The office of the high priest was originally hereditary, held for life (lifelong), and constituted the pinnacle of the hierarchy. The Jewish priesthood consisted of the high priests, the priests, the Levites, and the captains of the temple. During the era of Jesus' activity, the regular succession (according to the Law of Moses and the order of Aaron) had essentially been abolished. The high priest was appointed by the Romans following a bidding process—meaning the office was given to whoever offered the most money. Thus, the high priests served Roman interests in exchange for favors and played a primarily political role.The active high priest during the trial of Jesus was Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas. Annas had been appointed high priest by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, in 7 AD, but was removed from his position by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus in 15 AD. Annas had five sons, all of whom became high priests, as the lifelong tenure of the office had also been abolished. The fact that Jesus was led first to Annas and not to the active Caiaphas (John 18:13) demonstrates the hidden yet immensely powerful influence that Annas exercised over political and religious life. As administrators of the massive revenues of the Temple, the high priests had amassed wealth completely unsuited to their spiritual office.The historian Josephus refers to Jerusalem as a city that "the whole inhabited world (oikoumene) worshiped" (The Jewish War, IV, 262). The countless multitude flocking to Jerusalem had to exchange foreign currencies for the specific currency of the Temple, purchase animals for the sacrifices, and offer gifts and dedications. In this manner, the house of God had been transformed into a "house of merchandise" and a "den of robbers," forming the basis of the wealth and power of the high-priestly class.

• The Sadducees: This was the aristocratic and oligarchic religious group of the era, from which most high priests originated. Their origin remains historically disputed, but they were a faction highly friendly toward the Romans. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels or spirits, nor did they accept the oral traditions of the elders. They were well-versed in the Greek language and philosophy, adopting the Greek lifestyle, as did most of the wealthy and powerful of that era. Because of this, the blending of the Hebrew faith with ancient Greek thought was inevitable within their circles. They maintained close ties with the Temple priesthood and the captain of the temple. Despite the deep hostility they shared with the Pharisees, they were forced to cooperate with them to eliminate Jesus. According to rabbinic sources, a group that broke away from the Sadducees was the Boethusians.

• The Elders: This group comprised social leaders and heads of the major Jewish families. Along with the Sadducees, they formed the ruling class of Jewish society. They participated in the Great Sanhedrin, defining the political and religious course of the nation in close cooperation with the high priests and the scribes.

• The Scribes (Teachers of the Law): These were the expert scholars who studied, copied, and interpreted the Mosaic Law, while also guarding the oral traditions of the elders. In the gospels, they are frequently referred to as "lawyers." They consistently defended the interests of the wealthy, served as the primary collaborators of the Pharisees, and held significant positions within the Sanhedrin (being the expert scholars and interpreters of the Mosaic Law).

• The Pharisees: This was the strict religious faction with the greatest influence over the common people, fully dedicated to the observance of the Mosaic Law and the oral traditions. In contrast to the Sadducees, they rejected official Hellenization, while they believed in the resurrection of the dead and in spirits. They knew the Scriptures very well, yet failed to apply them in practice, as the majority of them were characterized by love of money, injustice, and hypocrisy: "But all their works they do to be seen by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and enlarge the fringes of their garments." (Matt. 23:5).
    The "woes" of Jesus did not apply horizontally to all Pharisees. Several of them believed later (such as the Apostle Paul), while others maintained a positive stance toward Jesus (such as Nicodemus and Gamaliel) or rushed to warn Him about Herod's plots (Luke 13:31).
    According to the historian Josephus, the Pharisees had accepted external influences, as they admitted—much like the Greek philosophers—the immortality of the soul, the passage of good souls into other bodies, as well as the eternal punishment of the ungodly after death (The Jewish War, II, 163).

• The Officers of the Temple Guard (Στρατηγοί): These officers (Luke 22:4, traditionally rendered as "captains" in older English versions) originated from the Levite class. They were primarily responsible for policing, guarding, and maintaining order inside the Temple complex, having the gatekeepers and guards under their charge. They served under the command of the chief officer—the "captain/commander of the Temple" (ὁ στρατηγός τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Acts 4:1)—who was the highest-ranking official immediately second to the High Priest. Characteristically, the historian Flavius Josephus notes: "the guards of the Temple reported to the captain" («οἱ τοῦ ἱεροῦ φύλακες ἀνήγγειλαν τῷ στρατηγῷ», The Jewish War, VI, 294). 

•  The Samaritans: This was a schismatic ethnic community with its own temple, which insisted that God should be worshiped on Mount Gerizim (Deut. 11:29) and was in constant hostility with the Jews. Samaria had previously been the capital of the northern Israelite kingdom of the ten tribes, dominated by the tribe of Ephraim. Following its capture, the King of Assyria, Sargon II (2 Kings 17:24)—and later Asenappar or Ashurbanipal (Ezra 4:10)—transferred and settled foreign populations there from Babylon and other regions. This resulted in the intermingling of the populations as well as their religious worship. For this reason, the Jews deeply despised them and considered them foreigners. The Samaritans lived in isolation, yet maintained their faith in the God of Abraham and accepted exclusively and solely the Pentateuch (the first five books) of Moses.

• The Judaizers: These were Jews who became Christians and infiltrated the early Church, forming a dangerous internal apostate power. They persistently demanded that believers from the nations observe the Mosaic Law, considering circumcision a prerequisite for salvation: "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).
    This attempt of theirs to compel the Gentiles to live like Jews (Gal. 2:14) became the primary reason for convening the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in 49 AD, which definitively rejected their demands. The Judaizers insisted on circumcision—the old covenant upon the flesh (Gen. 17:13)—because they knew it constituted the "gateway" to total submission to the works of the Law. As Paul warned: "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law" (Gal. 5:3). By this stance of theirs, they threatened to nullify the sacrifice of Christ and deprive believers of justification through faith without the works of the law (Rom. 3:28), shortly before the judgment of 70 AD.

• The Essenes: The Essenes were an isolated, ascetic religious community that had rejected the Jerusalem priesthood as corrupt. The etymology of their name is connected to the concept of purity or silence. They formed a distinct Jewish group that lived communally (sharing everything together). They called themselves "sons of light," "members of the New Covenant," or "men of perfect holiness," and believed they were fighting against the "sons of darkness." They called their founder the "Teacher of Righteousness" and anticipated the Messiah for the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
    According to modern scientific research, the Essenes were the authors and guardians of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in the Qumran region between 1947 and 1950.They lived by their own strict rules, completely withdrawn from the rest of society, awaiting the end of the world. They were devoted to the study of the Law, medicine, and astronomy, while placing immense emphasis on daily ritual baths for purification. Their schedule was rigorous, including prayers, communal meals, and manual labor exclusively to earn a living. They had no individual property nor did they engage in trade. The majority did not marry, instead adopting and raising children according to their principles, while a very few married solely to bear children.According to the historian Josephus, their beliefs regarding the soul had been intensely influenced by the philosophy of Plato (The Jewish War, II, 119-121, 154-158). Any attempt to identify the Essenes with the early apostolic Church lacks historical and biblical foundation.

Socio-Cultural Context:

• The Hellenistic Jews: These were Jews (mainly of the Diaspora) whose mother tongue was Greek, who had been influenced by Greek culture, and in the New Testament were frequently called "Greeks." A characteristic biblical example is John 7:35, where the Jews wondered concerning Jesus: "Is He about to go to the dispersion of the Greeks and teach the Greeks?". They were socially and linguistically distinguished from the Aramaic-speaking "Hebrews" of Palestine. Their desire to see Jesus (John 12:20-21) signaled the prophetic fulfillment of the reunification of the dispersed two houses of Israel and Judah under Christ (Hos. 1:10-11).This historical event—which Paul interprets as the fulfillment of the irrevocable promises of God toward the twelve-tribe body, where "in this way all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26) through the mercy and the provoking to jealousy by the nations: "I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, by a foolish nation I will anger you" (Rom. 10:19)—was a prerequisite for the Son of Man to be glorified and for the saving message to expand universally, as He Himself revealed: "But Jesus answers them, saying: 'The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified'" (John 12:23; see also Acts 6:1). 

Concurrently, other smaller groups with unique religious or ascetic views were distinguished, such as the Nazirites (Acts 18:18) and the Therapeutae who operated mainly in Egypt.

Violent Reaction of the High Priests and the Rulers to the Activity of Jesus

To the ruling class of the Jewish nation—the Herodians, the high priests, the Sadducees, the elders, the Pharisees, and the scribes—Jesus was considered directly dangerous. They feared that they would lose their social standing, their economic power, and the privileges they had secured through their pro-Roman policy: "If we leave Him thus, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:48).

"Now the Passover and the Unleavened Bread were after two days. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how, having seized Him by stealth, they might kill Him." (Mark 14:1).

The chief priests, the scribes, and the elders led Jesus to the Sanhedrin. Subsequently, they extracted the verdict of the death penalty from the fifth Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, deceitfully accusing Jesus of being an insurgent against the empire: "And they began to accuse Him, saying: 'We found this one perverting our nation and forbidding to give taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a king.'" (Luke 23:2, cf. 23:14).

During Pilate's attempt to release Him, the high-priestly leadership countered with the deceitful weapon of political blackmail: "From this time Pilate was seeking to release Him; but the Jews were crying out, saying: 'If you release this one, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone making himself a king speaks against Caesar.'" (John 19:12).

"Pilate says to them: 'Shall I crucify your king?' The chief priests answered: 'We have no king but Caesar.' Then therefore he delivered Him to them that He might be crucified." (John 19:15-16).

This blackmail by the high priests worked immediately, because Pilate knew well the severity of Emperor Tiberius and feared an official denunciation to Rome regarding instability in his province. Although he handed Jesus over to save his position, history shows that he did not escape. A few years later (in 36/37 AD), due to another bloody suppression against the Samaritans, the locals finally denounced him to Rome. This resulted in his definitive deposition and his exile to Gaul.

Even after His crucifixion, the opposing high priests and elders tried once again by deceitful means to prevent the spreading of His resurrection. Since Pilate, exercising his Roman authority, had granted them a detachment of the Roman guard, telling them "you have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how" (Matt. 27:65), the soldiers were placed temporarily under their directives. When the guards returned terrified and gave a report to the Jewish leadership about the miracle (Matt. 28:11), the leadership, in order to obliterate the truth, resorted to the bribery of the soldiers, buying their silence: "And having gathered together with the elders and having taken counsel, they gave sufficient silver pieces to the soldiers, saying: 'Say that His disciples came by night and stole Him while we were sleeping. And if this is heard before the governor, we will persuade him and make you free from worry.' And they, having taken the silver pieces, did as they were instructed. And this story was widely spread among Jews until this day." (Matt. 28:12-15).

Violent Reaction of the High Priests and the Rulers to the Activity of the Church

The opposition of the Jewish leadership continued with unabated intensity against the body of the Church as well, verifying the words of Jesus:

"But all these things they will do to you because of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me." (John 15:21).

"If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you also." (John 15:20).

"But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and spoke against the things being said by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming." (Acts 13:45).

The "plots of the Jews" (Acts 20:19) verified the words of Jesus. In every city where the apostolic ministry extended by command of Christ, the disciples faced persecutions, physical assaults, or assassination attempts from the local synagogue leadership and the adjacent Jews of the Diaspora ("Hellenists", Acts 9:29). Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Thessalonica, Berea, Jerusalem, and Damascus were theaters of continuous persecutions, with the Sanhedrin and the opponents seeking the execution of the Apostles (Acts 5:33).

"For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because you also suffered the same things from your own fellow countrymen, just as they also did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and do not please God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the nations so that they might be saved, so as to fill up their sins always. But the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." (1 Thess. 2:14-16).

The Historical Testimony of Justin Martyr Regarding the Plots of the Jews

The organized nature of these plots is confirmed by the historian and apologist Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 17:1). He notes that the leadership of Jerusalem not only rejected the Christian preaching, but also organized a global campaign. They selected and sent special emissaries throughout the then-inhabited world (oikoumene). Their purpose was to slander the Christians and present them everywhere as atheists and lawless.

This historical reference by Justin illuminates and fully confirms the biblical text itself. When the Apostle Paul arrived as a prisoner in Rome, he called the local leaders of the Jews to speak to them. Regarding the Christians, they replied to him: "for concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against" (Acts 28:22).

This proves that the organized slanders and the propaganda of the emissaries from Jerusalem had already managed to traverse the empire and reach as far as Rome, confirming the continuous and coordinated opposition of the adversaries to the apostolic teaching.

The Stance of the Roman Authority During the Early Christian Period

During this period, the Roman State did not view Christianity as a distinct religion, but as an internal sect or faction of Judaism. Consequently, Rome consistently refused to get involved in the religious accusations of the Jewish leadership and did not conduct state persecution against the Church. A characteristic example is the decision made by the proconsul of Achaea, Gallio, in Corinth:

"But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaea, the Jews rose up with one accord against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying: 'This one is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law.' But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews: 'If indeed it were some injustice or wicked crime, O Jews, with reason I would bear with you; but if it is a question concerning words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I do not wish to be a judge of these things.' And he drove them from the judgment seat." (Acts 18:12-16).

Similar was the realization of the Roman governor Festus and King Agrippa II in Caesarea. These rulers openly confessed the innocence of Paul:

"And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and those who sat with them; and having withdrawn, they spoke to one another, saying: 'This man is doing nothing worthy of death or of bonds.' And Agrippa said to Festus: 'This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.'" (Acts 26:30-32, cf. 28:16-20).

Rome intervened only when public order was disrupted. A characteristic example is the decree of Emperor Claudius (49 AD) for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, which inevitably swept along the Christians as well, since they were accounted as a Jewish sect. This event forced Aquila and Priscilla to flee to Corinth, where they met Paul (Acts 18:2). This specific decision is mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius, who records that the Jews were expelled because they were constantly causing disturbances instigated by a certain "Chrestus" (impulsore Chresto) (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, "The Deified Claudius", 25.4).

Note on the name "Chrestus / Χρηστός":

Suetonius uses the corrupted spelling Chrestus (Χρηστός) instead of Christus. This proves that in Rome in 49 AD, Christians and traditional Jews were already clashing within the synagogues over whether Jesus is the Messiah. The Roman authorities, unable to comprehend the theological difference, perceived the entirety of the community as followers of some insurgent "Chrestus."

This misunderstanding was due to the ignorance of the Gentiles, who replaced the term Christus (Anointed)—which was unknown to them—with the then very common name Chrestus (Useful / Good), often borne by many slaves in Rome. This specific nominal confusion is later confirmed also by the church writer Lactantius:

"The meaning of this name must be explained because of the error of the ignorant, who, by changing one letter, are accustomed to call Him Chrestus" — Lactantius, Divine Institutes (Book IV: "Of True Wisdom and Religion", 7.5).

This gradual hostility and the rejection of the preaching by the synagogues ultimately led the Apostle Paul to the definitive separation of the disciples. He proceeded with the independent formation of Christian assemblies. This occurred, for instance, in Ephesus, with the relocation of the teaching to the school of a certain Tyrannus (Acts 19:9, cf. 18:6).

The Penetration of the Preaching into the Roman Environment

This tolerance of the Roman authorities permitted the very rapid spread of the Gospel. The preaching reached even the circles of the imperial court in Rome, with which the Apostle Paul was in communication: "All the saints greet you, but especially those of Caesar's household." (Phil. 4:22).

This official Roman tolerance is confirmed in the clearest possible way by the very conclusion of the book of Acts. Luke informs us that Paul, even though he was under house arrest in the capital, was able to teach freely: "And he remained two whole years in his own rented lodging, and welcomed all who came in to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness unhindered." (Acts 28:30-31).

The word "unhindered" (ἀκωλύτως) proves that the Roman authorities saw nothing illegal, insurgent, or dangerous in the Christian faith, allowing the Gospel to take root in Rome itself.

The Legal Shield of Roman Citizenship

The Apostle Paul, in order to escape the fury and the murderous plots of the opposing Jews (Acts 25:11), invoked the right of a Roman citizen to be tried before Caesar. He knew that Christianity had not been placed under prohibition by Rome, which demonstrated religious tolerance, integrating diverse worshiping communities into its domain.

This initial neutral stance of the empire was so intense that in the subsequent centuries, even legends were created around it. For instance, the church writer Eusebius Pamphili preserves a tradition according to which Emperor Tiberius had proposed to the Senate the official recognition of Christ (Church History, II, 2.1-6).

Although modern historical research considers this proposal by Tiberius to be a later legend, the very existence of such traditions confirms a great truth: the early Church had deeply imprinted in its memory the initial Roman protection against the persecutions unleashed by the Jewish establishment.

The Fire of Rome in 64 AD and the Persecution of Nero

Modern historical research points out that the persecution unleashed by Nero in 64 AD was limited only to the city of Rome and lasted for a short time. This persecution did not concern the faith or teaching of the Christians. The purpose of the Roman authority was simply to punish in an exemplary manner those it considered responsible for the great fire, treating them as common criminals.

Based on ancient Roman law (the so-called Twelve Tables), the penalty for arsonists was death by fire or being torn apart by wild beasts. At the same time, as the Roman historian Suetonius preserves (Lives of the Caesars: Nero, 16.2), during the same period Rome took various strict measures against many social groups to maintain order (such as the expulsion of actors and the prohibition of the unruly festivals of the charioteers—chariot races in honor of gods).

The severity of this punishment, as well as the explosive expansion of the Church, is confirmed by the prominent Roman historian Tacitus in his Annals (15.44). Describing how Nero attempted to pin the blame for the fire on the Christians, he records:

"Christus, the founder of this name, had been put to death during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition had been suppressed temporarily, but broke out again, not only in Judea—which was the source of the evil—but also in the capital [Rome] itself... Thus, a vast multitude was arrested first... and they were condemned not so much for the crime of arson, as for their hatred of humanity."

Tacitus's phrase concerning a "vast multitude" of believers inside Rome itself in 64 AD constitutes a striking historical proof. It confirms that within a very few years of the Crucifixion, the Gospel had already traversed and "filled" the empire, exactly as Jesus and the Apostles had prophesied.

The Slander and Targeting of the Church

The Christians of the first century had no reason to burn Rome. The teaching of Jesus and the Apostles categorically excluded violence and rebellions. Historically, those who slandered and pointed the Church out to the Roman authorities were the opposing Jewish rulers.

As the professor of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Apostolos Glavinas, notes (The Persecutions of the Church in the Pre-Constantinian Era, "Tertios" Publications, Katerini 1992, pp. 41-42): "The Jews found the opportunity to feed the political power of Rome with flammable material against the Christians."

In the same study (pp. 49-50), the legal status of that era is underlined: "The Christians were not outlaws; no law had been issued against them, and they had not been considered a separate religion from Judaism and prohibited."

False Prophets and False Christs: The Political Exploitation of Messianic Expectation

In Jewish history, false prophets consistently constituted a powerful link between religious and political power, guiding the people according to the agendas of the respective ruling class (cf. Jas. 2:6). Just as Ezekiel had already warned from the Old Testament that "like foxes in the deserts, your prophets, O Israel, have become" (Ezek. 13:4), so also Jesus predicted the appearance of such figures in the generation of the Apostles, which experienced the abolition of the legalistic Jewish system. Christ placed particular emphasis on their deceptive wonders, stressing:

"For false christs and false prophets will rise and will give signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22).

This warning is fully confirmed by the historical reality of the period. Flavius Josephus, describing the final moments before the destruction of Jerusalem, mentions that a multitude of deceivers and false prophets were deceiving the people, promising a fraudulent divine intervention of salvation (The Jewish War, VI, 288-289). While the Jews refused to interpret the true warning signs, they became blindly trapped in the political exploitation of messianic expectation by the false christs of the era.

The term "false christ," which Jesus Himself introduces (Matt. 24:24), denotes the usurper of the messianic identity who provides deceptive promises of earthly restoration. The apostles knew well that the hope of the believers was not found in earthly kingdoms, proclaiming: "for here we do not have a remaining city, but we seek the one to come" (Heb. 13:14, cf. 11:16). Conversely, the activity of the Jewish false prophets during the apostolic era (Matt. 7:15) aimed to prepare the ground for these false messiahs, cultivating the illusion that God would raise a military leader to rescue the earthly Temple and crush Rome.

This nationalistic messianism, which envisioned a political kingdom modeled after David, triggered continuous and bloody rebellions against the Roman authorities (cf. 1 Pet. 2:17). Characteristic examples of this trend include revolutionary figures such as Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:36-37), but also the sorcerer Bar-Jesus (or Elymas), who attempted to exert influence on the highest circles of the Roman administration in Cyprus (Acts 13:6-8).

Jesus categorically refused this very political expectation. In fact, when the crowd forcefully sought to declare Him an earthly ruler, He secretly withdrew:

"Therefore Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and seize Him that they might make Him a king, withdrew again to the mountain Himself alone" (John 6:15, cf. Acts 1:6).

Christ's refusal to assume the role of a worldly liberator led many of His then followers to abandon Him (John 6:66). This erroneous identification of the heavenly Kingdom with a fleshly restoration of Israel did not fade away with the destruction of 70 AD. It survives to this day in interpretive circles that persist in "Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth" (Tit. 1:14), with its main exponent being the modern theory of Dispensationalism, which expects the repetition of already fulfilled promises within an earthly, national framework.

The Term "Antichrist" in the Apostolic Writings

The term "antichrist" (one who opposes Christ or attempts to usurp His position) is introduced into the New Testament exclusively by the Apostle John. The Evangelist clarifies that the era of the early Church constituted the "last hour" prior to the dissolution of the Jewish system of the Temple and the Mosaic Law:

 "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18).

Body of Christ vs. Body of the Antichrist

In the early Church, the believers had all received the anointing of the Holy Spirit ("But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things," 1 John 2:20), constituting the one and unified body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:27, Rom. 12:5, Eph. 1:22-23). Within this context, the "antichrist" was not described as an isolated Gentile or political leader with a prospect of a global dictatorship. On the contrary, it concerned an organized, collective body of people with a specific ideology of opposition, operating during the very same era as the Apostles, and possessing its own leaders (cf. Acts 20:30).

Although these terms are frequently conflated, "false christs" and "antichrists" represent two different forms of aberration. On one hand, the false christs appeared on the scene as religious-political usurpers of the messianic identity; operating outside the Church, they exploited the intense eschatological expectations of the Jewish people for an earthly liberator. Characteristic historical examples include Theudas, Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:36-37), as well as the later leader of the Jewish rebellion, Simon bar Kokhba—figures who presented themselves as Messiahs to stir up the crowds.

On the other hand, the power of the antichrists was the product of an internal apostasy. These were figures originally integrated into the Christian assemblies—either born Jews or proselytes—who remained fanatical zealots of the Law (cf. Acts 11:2, 21:20-21) and subsequently separated themselves, introducing heresy and the denial of the messianic and divine identity of Jesus. This very internal rupture is captured by the Evangelist John:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us" (1 John 2:19).

This departure and internal denial of the truth constituted the clear omen that the age of the Law of condemnation was drawing to a close. The judgment of God was approaching upon those who rejected Jesus and refused to be redeemed from their transgressions (cf. Heb. 9:15). By their stance, the antichrists activated the prophecy of Habakkuk (1:5), which Paul invokes in Acts, warning of the absolute destruction of the despisers:

"Let it be known to you therefore, men, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and from all things from which you could not be justified in the law of Moses, in this one everyone who believes is justified. See to it therefore lest what is spoken in the prophets come upon you: 'Behold, you despisers, and marvel and disappear, for I am working a work in your days, a work which you will by no means believe if anyone declares it to you.'" (Acts 13:38-41).

The Christological Error as an Indication of Natural Destruction

The error that characterized someone as an "antichrist" did not constitute a mere theoretical or philosophical mistake, but signified a clear indication of definitive, natural destruction (cf. Phil. 1:28). This destruction is understood as natural annihilation, as biblical anthropology approaches man holistically, as a single living entity, far removed from later trichotomous divisions (body, soul, and spirit). Whoever did not have Christ within them lacked the unique source of the "life which is indeed life" (1 Tim. 6:19) and was led to absolute natural destruction.

  This error was defined by specific biblical criteria:

a) Denial of Jesus Christ as Coming in the Flesh

This specific deviation concerned the radical denial of the present and living indwelling of Jesus Christ within the flesh of the believers. These deceivers rejected the reality proclaimed by Paul: "Or do you not examine yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?" (2 Cor. 13:5) and "just as God said: 'I will indwell in them...'" (2 Cor. 6:16). This inability to accept the operation of Christ in the inner man constitutes the quintessence of apostasy.

The apostolic text focuses on the historical person of Jesus, underlining His continuous presence within the body of the members of the Church: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2). The use of the given name "Jesus" confirms the tangible reality of this spiritual indwelling. Since the antichrists had never been baptized with the holy Spirit, they lacked Christ from the very beginning—"now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17). Consequently, those "causing divisions, worldly, not having the Spirit" (Jude 1:19) are identified with those who are unable to confess "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh; this is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 1:7).

b) Denial of the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus

The second fundamental aspect of the error consisted in the direct denial that Jesus is the true Messiah (the Christ) and the Son of God. This stance thoroughly characterized the Jewish nationalistic establishment of the era, which rejected the divine nature and the messianic office of Jesus. The Apostle John clarifies the matter with absolute lucidity:

"Who is the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22-23).

It is proven, therefore, that the delusion of the Antichrist was not a theory foreign to the biblical world. It was the direct denial of the identity of the "from heaven" Second Man, Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 15:47). This heavenly origin is affirmed by Jesus Himself, saying: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven […] and the bread that I shall give is my flesh” (John 6:51); Jesus equates His flesh with the heavenly manna, making it clear that His visible bodily presence lacks any earthly connection and stems exclusively from heaven. Since Christ had already declared that “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), whoever rejected the Son automatically lost all communion with the Father. By this denial of theirs, the apostates returned to a fruitless, fleshly Judaism, permanently deprived of the life-giving presence of God Himself.

c) The Spirit of the Antichrist as a Present Spiritual Reality

The Apostle John affirms to his contemporary generation that the spirit of the Antichrist and the apostasy were not vague future possibilities, but a present, active intra-church reality of the first century:

"Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us..." (1 John 2:18-19).

This internal schismatic movement was sealed by the refusal to confess Jesus Christ, a fact that detached its carriers from the source of eternal life, as he himself adds:

"And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is that of the antichrist, which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is in the world already." (1 John 4:3).

Reading the Epistles in Real Time

To understand the core message of the apostolic epistles, it is necessary to read them in their "real time." This means that we must examine them within the specific cultural, social, and religious-political environment of the 1st century AD.

In all the epistles, the apostles record the continuous and organized opposition they faced. This polemic originated from the Jewish legal establishment. The apostolic text uses a series of very powerful words to describe these deniers:

• The antitassomenoi (Strong's G498): those who array themselves hostilely against (Acts 18:6).

• The upenantioi (Strong's G5227): the overt enemies (Heb. 10:27).

• The antidiatithemenoi (Strong's G475): those who hold an opposing view and disposition (2 Tim. 2:25).

• The antikeimenoi (Strong's G480): those who stand opposite as adversaries (Phil. 1:28).

• The antipiptontes (Strong's G496): those who stubbornly resisted / fall against (Acts 7:51).

• The antilegontes (Strong's G483): those who are constantly contradicting / speaking against (Acts 28:19).

• The arnoumenoi (Strong's G720): those who denied the pure teaching of Jesus (2 Pet. 2:1).

This suffocating pressure and danger from the Jewish element is clearly captured in the anxious pleas of the Apostles and the historical records of the era: "Now I urge you [...] to strive together with me in your prayers on my behalf to God, that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea..." (Rom. 15:30-31).

"But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and spoke against the things being said by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming." (Acts 13:45).

The Polemic Within the Churches During the Apostolic Period

The examination of the texts proves that the struggle of the Apostles was not conducted in a vacuum, but against a systematic polemic. In particular, the opponents "from the circumcision" had infiltrated the assemblies, introducing "destructive heresies," creating schisms, and in practice denying the Master who bought them (2 Pet. 2:1).

Under these conditions of persecution and internal undermining, Paul encourages the believers to remain fearless, as they saw "the day drawing near" (Heb. 10:25) and anticipated "the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Tit. 2:13):

Phil. 1:28-29: "And not being frightened in anything by the opponents, which to them is a demonstration of destruction, but to you of salvation, and this from God; because to you it was granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf" — The apostolic encouragement to the firstfruits of the Church to fearlessly face the opposition, which signaled the coming judgment and destruction of the persecutors.

Etymological Note: Destruction (Apoleia) and Ruin (Olethros)

 The term destruction (ancient ἀπώλεια, attested already since the 5th century BC in Hippocrates; cf. On Affections 1.77-8: "to most people, the disease relapsing became the cause of destruction") is derived from the compound verb ἀπόλλυμι / ἀπολλύω ("to lose, destroy, annihilate, put to death"). This is formed from the preposition ἀπό and the verb ὄλλυμι (stem ὀλ-, whence also ὄλεθros > ὀλετήρας = the destroyer, the obliterator, or the annihilator).

Consequently, destruction and ruin, particularly in the apostolic texts, do not denote a simple, everyday loss of an object, nor are they exhausted in an external, material annihilation. On the contrary, they imply the nullification and collapse of human beliefs, according to the apostolic word:

"I will destroy [Grk. text: ἀπολῶ] the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside" (1 Cor. 1:19).

At the same time, these terms signal the historical abolition of the old legalistic system and the natural ruin of those resting complacently in it (cf. Rom. 2:17), as well as of its ministers themselves, concerning whom it is noted:

"whenever they say, 'peace and safety,' then sudden ruin comes upon them just as labor pains upon the one having in womb, and they shall by no means escape" (1 Thess. 5:3).

In biblical language, the prophetic judgment upon this opposing regime is prefigured through Idumea (in the Old Testament referred to mainly as Edom), which functions as the archetypal representative of all adversary powers. The term is used as a symbol of the "world of lawlessness," the enemies of the truth, and the religious-political systems that persecute the "saints called by God" (Acts 9:13, cf. Isa. 4:3). Isaiah uses the condemnation of Idumea to describe the universal judgment of God upon every system based on opposition to the truth, characteristically calling it the 'people of destruction' [Grk. text: λαὸν τῆς ἀπωλείας]:

“My sword was drenched in heaven; behold, it shall come down upon Idumea and upon the people of destruction with judgment” (Isa. 34:5, Grk. text).

This internal collapse, betrayal, and final departure from the body of believers is similarly personified in the case of the internal deniers of Christ. These carriers are cut off from spiritual protection and 'Life', Christ, as the Lord Himself confirms in His high-priestly prayer regarding Judas:

"when I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me, and I guarded them, and none of them perished except the son of destruction, that the scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12).

The use of this unique term—"the son of destruction"—is not accidental, as Paul uses the exact same title attributed to the traitor Judas in order to describe, within the eschatological framework of the abolition of the Law, the "man of lawlessness": "lest anyone deceive you by any means; because unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction [Grk.txt: ἀπωλείας]" (2 Thess. 2:3).

Through this verbal and conceptual identification, it is proven that the "son of destruction" does not constitute an external, worldly threat, but the product of an accomplished internal apostasy and betrayal in the 1st century. Just as Judas Iscariot acted subversively from within, as a member of the narrow circle of disciples, so also the "man of lawlessness" was born out of the apostasy of the early Church ("they went out from us," 1 John 2:19), led deterministically to the same natural ruin.

The Revelation of the "Man of Lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians (2:1-12)

To reinforce the positions developed and for a better understanding of the historical framework of the Antichrist, a brief explanation of the passage 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 will be attempted below, which sharply captures the internal collapse of the Jewish system.

1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship [Grk txt: σέβασμα, Strong's G4574], so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

6 And now you know what holds sway [Grk txt: καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε; literally “that which holds bound / holds sway”, cf. Rom. 7:6], so that he may be revealed in his own time.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only until the one who now holds sway emerges from the midst [Grk txt: μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται].

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Reading 2 Thessalonians from the perspective of its original recipients reveals that the first-century saints were fully aware of what was about to happen in their generation. Paul cleared up the landscape for them regarding the expectation of the Lord's coming and disorganized the false rumors about an "arrived day" (that the day of the Lord had already come), which caused turmoil among the believers. He set as prerequisites specific historical developments, which were unfolding within the still-active Jewish system and preceded the day of the Lord and their expected gathering together in Christ, such as:

• The Apostasy: The internal defection and movement away from the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 1:6), which was manifesting within the very body of the believers, drawing away disciples toward destruction (Acts 20:30). It was precisely out of this apostate part of the Church's body that the Antichrist emerged and was revealed. According to biblical testimony, this apostasy was identified with lawlessness. This is confirmed by the Pauline statement: "unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed" (2 Thess. 2:3), in absolute correspondence with the definition of the Evangelist John that "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4).
    On the opposite side of this retreat, the New Testament text clearly separated the position of those who persisted in faith: "but we are not of shrinking back unto destruction, but of faith unto preserving of soul" (Heb. 10:39), whereas the apostatizing faction resembled worthless ground, which, although watered many times, ultimately brought forth thorns and thistles, being led inevitably to a curse and burning (Heb. 6:8).

• The Man of Lawlessness / the Son of Destruction: The person or institutional system that encapsulated lawlessness, the "one opposing and exalting himself above every so-called God or object of worship," so as for him to sit in the temple of God, projecting himself that he is God, "demonstrating himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:3-4).
    The use of the term "object of reverence / veneration" (sebasma) contains a clear reference to the official state worship of the Roman emperors (the Sebastoi / Augusti). The Son of destruction was destined to exalt himself above every god and above this worship of the Roman emperors and the Goddess Roma. This fact excludes subsequent theories that the Antichrist could be a [later] religious or political figure [such as the Pope].

•  The Mystery of Lawlessness: The hidden and undermining activity of lawlessness, which was already in progress during the days of the Apostles: "for the mystery of lawlessness is already working" (2 Thess. 2:7). This biblical lawlessness was directly linked to the violation of God's commandments. It did not constitute an abstract moral laxity, but the substantial nullification of the divine Law from within the legalistic Jewish system itself and its people. The carriers of this system, while appearing as guardians of the Law, were acting subversively against the will of God, preparing the ground for the full revelation of the Lawless one from within.

The Divine Judgment and the Working of Delusion

The imminent destruction of the lawless one is described as a result of the direct intervention of the Lord: "whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the breath of His mouth and will nullify [Grk txt: καταργήσει, Strong's G2673] by the appearance of His coming" (2 Thess. 2:8).

[Note on "Nullify" / Katargesei]: In the original Greek text, the verb katargeo (καταργέω) fundamentally means to render entirely useless, to abolish a law, or to strip an official institution of its authority and power. This precise usage proves that the "lawless one" was not an external political enemy, but an institutional figure possessing official religious authority within the very people of God, fleshly Israel ("He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him," John 1:11).

The abandoning of the opponents to delusion constitutes a divine pedagogical and judicial verdict. Because they refused the love of the truth so as to be saved, they are permitted to believe the falsehood and the "wonders of falsehood" (2 Thess. 2:9-12). These wonders are directly linked to the practices of sorcery and magic diligently exercised by the secret circles of the Jewish leadership and the false prophets of that era, mobilizing deceptive signs to keep the people in delusion; in this manner, they caused the consumption and nullification of their very system by the appearance of the coming of the Lord Jesus (2 Thess. 2:8), which the early Church anticipated (Tit. 2:13). Jesus Himself had warned about that period, emphasizing that: "false christs and false prophets will rise and will give great signs and wonders" (Matt. 24:24).

That Which Holds Bound (Katechon) and The One Holding Bound (O Katechon) (2 Thess. 2:6-7) and Translational Interventions

The arbitrary assumption that that which holds bound (katechon, neuter) or the one holding bound (o katechon, masculine) is the Church or the Holy Spirit supposedly "hindering" the Antichrist from being revealed at the "end of time" comes into direct contradiction with the Apostolic Writings themselves. The Apostle John affirms that the antichrists were not future figures of global history, but their contemporaries who "went out from us" (1 John 2:19).

This dogmatic prejudice frequently leads translators and commentators to arbitrary interventions in the original text:

• Original Text (Textus Receptus): «καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.» (2 Thess. 2:6)

English translation: ‘And now you know that which holds [Grk: τὸ κατέχον – literally “that which holds bound”, see Rom. 7:6, “we were held by the law”], so that he may be revealed in his own time’.

Examples of Translational Interventions:

• Bible Society Translation (4 Professors):

"And now you know that which [HINDERS] him from being revealed BEFORE his time."

• Interpretative Rendering by I. Th. Kolitsaras ("Zoe" Brotherhood):

"And you know now what it is that [RESTRAINS AND HINDERS] the lawless one from being revealed EARLIER, so that he may be manifested in the time set for him by God."

The intrusive introduction of the terms "hinders," "restrains," and "before / earlier" is entirely unfounded in the Greek text of the Apostolic Letter. On the contrary, the use of the verb "κατέχω" (to hold / possess / prevail) signifies the present authority, the possession, and the prevalence of a structure or a person within the institution of the Temple and the Jewish legalistic system of that era.

The Historical Embarrassment of Commentators Regarding "That Which Holds Bound" (2 Thess. 2:6-7)

Modern research and the study of the proceedings of academic conferences—such as the 2nd Paulina (Holy Metropolis of Veria 1996, pp. 81-92)—record the plethora of perplexed and mutually conflicting interpretive versions that arise when researchers adopt as a "given truth" the dogmatic eschatological model of the Antichrist's manifestation at the end of time and the physical world. The detachment of the text from its historical early Christian framework leads to interpretive impasses.

According to the aforementioned study, some of the main versions that have been proposed historically are the following:

•  Augustine: He directly confesses his inability to understand the passage: "Ego prorsus quid dixerit me fateor ignorare" (= I confess that I truly do not know what he meant to say).

• John Chrysostom: "Some say it is the grace of the Spirit, others the Roman empire." He himself prefers the second view, namely that the katechon (neuter) and the kathechon (masculine) represent Roman authority.

• Irenaeus: Irenaeus agrees with Chrysostom: "[...] when the Roman empire is removed, then that one [the lawless one] will come..."

• Theodore of Mopsuestia: He disagrees with the aforementioned, stating: "this at least to me does not seem probable." He articulates his view as follows: "And he says 'that which holds back,' because though the devil desires to do this already from now, God holds him back for the present, because He has appointed the time for the consummation of the age, during which He allows even him (= the devil) to be manifested. This 'holding back,' the Apostle calls the counsel [the firm decision/decree] of God." This view was accepted by Theodoret and later by Photius the Great.

Note: Regarding a metaphysical evil being (the devil), see here.

• Newer Historical Approaches: They viewed Nero as the "man of lawlessness" and his advisor Seneca as the katechon.

• Angelological & Missionary Theories: Others pointed to the Angels or the Archangel Michael, while O. Cullmann argued that the katechon is the missionary preaching to the nations and the kathechon is the Apostle Paul himself.

This plethora of interpretations proves that turning the participle katechon into an "obstacle" or "restraint" creates an interpretive impasse. The apostolic epistle, when read in its real time, refers to existing dominant legal structures of Judaism, the collapse of which signaled the judgment of the age of the "ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor. 3:9).

Scripture Interprets Scripture": Philological and Syntactical Analysis of "That Which Holds Bound (Grk txt: κατέχω) (2 Thess. 2:7)

According to the ancient Alexandrian hermeneutical maxim "Explaining Homer by Homer", the safest method for understanding the apostolic word is the examination of biblical language and syntax itself.

1. The Meaning of the Verb Katechō («κατέχω») in the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament

The verb katechō (κατέχω) is a highly polysemous term in classical and biblical literature. According to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, when applied to rulers, authorities, or circumstances, it fundamentally means "to hold under one's power, to rule, to hold sway over, or to occupy." While in classical literature (e.g., Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus) it can occasionally mean "to restrain, bridle, or hold back," its scriptural and contextual usage must be determined by the biblical framework.

The assumption that in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 the term introduces the passive concept of an abstract or future "obstacle" collapses when its scriptural usage is examined. Throughout Scripture, the verb consistently denotes the active enforcement of power, jurisdiction, and dominion:

• Isaiah 40:22 (LXX):

«ὁ κατέχων τὸν γῦρον τῆς γῆς...»

 "The One who rules / holds sway over the circle of the earth..."

• Proverbs 18:22a (LXX):

«...ὁ δὲ κατέχων μοιχαλίδα ἄφρων καὶ ἀσεβής»

 " ...and he who keeps/holds an adulteress is foolish and ungodly."

Even if the secondary nuance of "holding back" were to be attributed to the verb, ancient and biblical usage always presupposes the existence of an active agent of authority who actively controls and determines the present state of affairs. Consequently, "the one who now holds sway" (ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι) is not a passive, metaphysical hindrance, but the existing, dominant institutional authority that held jurisdiction and control over the legalistic Jewish system during the actual time of writing (ἄρτι / "right now").

Therefore, the early Church—being fully aware of "what holds sway right now" (2 Thess. 2:6), a shared collective knowledge also echoed in John's "you know all things" (1 John 2:20), and experiencing firsthand the present dominion and authority of this system—understood that they were traversing the final days of the "ministry of death and condemnation" (2 Cor. 3:7–9). Within this framework, the spiritual hardening of their opponents (John 12:40) was leading directly to the inescapable judgment of a legalistic order in which "the power of sin was the Law itself" (1 Cor. 15:56, Rom. 7:9–10).

Amidst this transition, believers knew they had been definitively liberated from the legal binding and condemning hold of the letter («ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα» — "in which we were held fast," Rom. 7:6; cf. Gal. 2:19), passing from the realm of death into the newness of the life-giving Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). There, they were no longer under law but under grace, with Christ living in them (Gal. 2:20).

2. The Syntactic Choice: "Airo" (Strong's G142) / "Ekballo" (Strong's G1544) versus "Ginomai" (Strong's G1096)

If Paul wanted to state that the "one holding bound" is removed, expelled, or snatched out of the midst, he would have used verbs such as airo (αἴρω) or ekballo (ἐκβάλλω), as Holy Scripture consistently does:

• Col. 2:14: «...καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ» [“...and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross”] — It denotes the definitive removal and abolition of the handwriting.

• 1 Cor. 5:2: «...ἵνα ἀρθῇ ἐκ τοῦ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας» [“...so that the one who has done this deed might be taken away from your midst”] — It denotes the expulsion/removal of a person from the community.

• Isa. 57:1 (LXX): «...ὅτι ἀπὸ προσώπου ἀδικίας ἦρται ὁ δίκαιος» (cf. v. 2: «ἔσται ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἡ ταφὴ αὐτοῦ, ἦρται ἐκ τοῦ μέσου») [“...for the righteous one is taken away from the presence of evil (...) his burial shall be in peace, he is taken out of the midst”] — It denotes the removal/death of the righteous one from history.

• Jer. 12:14 (LXX): «...καὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα ἐκβαλῶ ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν» [“...and I will drive out the house of Judah from the midst of them”] — It denotes expulsion and violent displacement.

3. The Meaning of “Ek Mesou Genētai” and the Common Translational Error

To understand the profound philological distortion in modern versions, one must look at the complete text of 2 Thessalonians 2:7:

• Original Greek Text:

«τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται.»

• Αuthentic English Translation:

“For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only until the one who now holds dominion comes forth from the midst.”

• Conventional English Translations (e.g., KJV, ESV, NIV) — [Translational Error]:

“For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now [RESTRAINS] it will do so until he is [TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY].”

Ι. The Error Regarding «ὁ κατέχων» (Dominion vs. Restraint)

The traditional rendering of ὁ κατέχων as "he who restrains" is a foundational theological conjecture rather than a lexical translation. In Pauline usage, the verb κατέχω (katechō) consistently denotes holding fast, possessing, or exercising binding authority and jurisdiction—not preventive suppression.

This is explicitly demonstrated in Romans 7:6:

«νυνὶ δὲ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα...»

(“But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were held bound / held under dominion...”)

In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, ὁ κατέχων refers to the dominant authority (such as the legalistic/Mosaic covenantal framework) exercising jurisdiction until its transition occurs.

ΙΙ. The Error Regarding «ἐκ μέσου γένηται» (Emergence vs. Removal)

The conventional English rendering "taken out of the way" has no basis in the Greek text. It incorrectly introduces a passive expulsion or forceful removal, yet Paul deliberately avoids verbs of removal or banishment (such as airō [αἴρω] or ekballō [ἐκβάλλω]).

Instead, Paul selects the middle/deponent verb ginomai (γίνομαι, Strong's G1096), which fundamentally means "to come into being," "to become," or "to take place / happen" (rather than a passive state of being acted upon).

In the specific phrasing «ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται», the verb expresses an event, a manifestation, or an emergence into the foreground / public stage (cf. Skarlatos Byzantios, Lexicon of the Greek Language, p. 295). Literally, it translates to: "until he/it comes to be out of the midst."

Consider Paul and the Evangelists’ structural usage of ginomai:

• Matthew 24:20:

«Προσεύχεσθε δὲ ἵνα μὴ γένηται ἡ φυγὴ ὑμῶν χειμῶνος...»

(“And pray that your flight may not happen in winter...”)

It denotes the actualization or the historical occurrence of the event.

• Matthew 24:34:

«...ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται»

(“...until all these things take place”)

It denotes the fulfillment and public manifestation of the prophesied events.

Consequently, «ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται» does not mean that a person or entity is violently or passively removed from the scene. Rather, it signifies the culmination, actualization, and emergence of an entity (the covenantal/legalistic system and its authority) into the open arena from within the midst, thereby allowing the full manifestation of the mystery of lawlessness.

The Beast from the Sea and the Beast from the Earth: Rome, Israel, and the Jewish War

Having thus established these foundations, we will proceed in this study to examine how the Jewish-Roman war and the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple are described within the pages of the Book of Revelation.

The identification of the Antichrist with the seven-headed beast from the sea (Rev. 13:1) lacks biblical and historical foundation. Revelation, in absolute harmony with the vision of Daniel (Dan. 7:3), describes the conflict and cooperation of two specific authorities of the apostolic era:

• The Beast from the Sea (The Roman Empire): It represents the fourth kingdom of Daniel (the Roman), the dominant political and military power that occupied the land of Israel during the times of Jesus and the Apostles. The previous three were the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek empires. According to Daniel, these earthly kingdoms "shall be taken away, and the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess it forever and ever" (Dan. 7:17-18). 

• The Beast from the Earth (The Jewish Authority): The beast that ascends from the earth (of Israel) bears two horns "like a lamb," a fact that denotes an outward form of godliness but a denial of its power (cf. 2 Tim. 3:5). The two horns represent the dual—political and religious—leadership of theocratic Israel (the Sanhedrin, High Priests, Herodians), which was surrounded by flatterers, false prophets, and collaborators. Although appearing as a representative of God ("like a lamb"), it spoke "as a dragon," acting as a pro-Roman mechanism to maintain its power and the privileges it enjoyed under the tolerance of Rome: "of the beast that carries her" (Rev. 17:7).

The Historical Context of Imperial Worship (66–70 AD)

The events chronicled in Revelation (Rev. 13:11-12) do not concern the end of global history, but the dramatic conditions of the Jewish War that led to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the abolition of its legalistic system. The occurrences of that period center around specific historical axes:

• The enforced worship of Rome and the emperors: The enforcement of imperial worship (Rev. 13:11-12) functioned as a token of submission to the then-ruling world power, contributing to the political and religious cohesion of the Roman state. At the same time, it served as the means to unmask and punish the rebel Jews, as anyone who refused it was automatically branded an enemy of the Empire. 

• The geographical exception and the hypocrisy of the leadership: This measure concerned exclusively those dwelling in the land of Israel, who had previously been granted the legal privilege of not worshiping Caesar and the goddess Roma, but worshiping their own God. The enforcement of imperial veneration was essentially legislated by the political and religious authority of the "beast from the earth," with the sole purpose of maintaining its power and privileges.

• The institution of Neokorate in the other provinces: In contrast to Judea, the remaining provinces of the Roman Empire worshiped the goddess Roma as a protector and benefactor, and the respective Caesar with eagerness, actively and zealously seeking the title of the neokoros (temple warden) of the Augusti. The neokorate constituted the highest privilege of constructing an imperial temple, upon which the economic prosperity, as well as the cultural and social prospects of the provincial cities, directly depended.

    A similar measure was taken during the war in Antioch as well, as Josephus chronicles:

"When the war was declared, therefore, the Jews were hated by all. One of them named Antiochus, whose father was a ruler of the Jews in Antioch, renounced Judaism and his father, and accused the Jews before the assembly of conspiring to burn Antioch. The result was that the Antiochians burned the accused Jews to save their city. Subsequently, he forced the Jews to sacrifice in the Greek manner so that the conspirators might be revealed; some sacrificed, while others were put to death. Thus, with the consent of the Roman general, Antiochus became governor of the Jews, compelling them to work even on the Sabbath day. Soon, the abolition of this holiday spread to other cities as well" (The Jewish War, VII, 46-53). 

The same historian preserves that during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, the Jews of the leadership and the establishment who fled to the Romans "hailed Titus as a benefactor," persistently demanding the punishment of their rebel compatriots (The Jewish War, IV, 115 / V, 446).

• The Economic Blockade and the "Mark": The control of trade in the land of Israel through a strict economic blockade, where no one could buy or sell unless they bore the necessary certifications (the "mark"). This mark constituted tangible proof that the holder was a friend and ally of Rome, and not an adversary of the world empire of that era.

• The Method of Misinformation: The mobilization of misinformation and deception through actions of false signs and wonders by the instruments of the pro-Roman Jewish authority and the false prophets. The goal of this unique enchantment (sorcery) was, once again, the preservation at all costs of the privileges of the departing legalistic Jewish system.

The historical circumstances of that era brought the early Church face to face with its own confession: that Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life. The refusal to comply with the dictates of the pro-Roman Jewish faction drew the divine warning, but also the call to endurance:

"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice: 'If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, mixed undiluted in the cup of His anger...' Here is the endurance of the saints, those keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:9-10, 12; cf. 2 Thess. 1:7).

A multitude of Jewish-Christians and Gentile Christians, refusing to sacrifice and worship in the pagan Gentile manner, were put to death, being blessed by the Lord:

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying: 'Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, for their works follow with them'" (Rev. 14:13).

At the same time, those Jews who likewise refused to worship the image of the beast were put to death, remaining steadfast in a Judaism which, based on the biblical economy, was moving toward its complete abolition through the imminent tearing down of the Temple and its earthly symbols: "in saying a new, He has made the first old; and that which is becoming old and growing aged is near disappearing" (Heb. 8:13).

The Mark (Rev. 13:16): Old Testament Background and Historical Parallels

The "mark" on the right hand or on the forehead does not constitute a technological invention of the future, but a historical, religious, and political symbol of submission with deep roots in the Old Testament and antiquity. In the historical context of the Jewish War, it aimed at the denial of the monotheistic faith, the rejection of the Jewish national consciousness, and the violation of the keeping of God's commandments.

In the Old Testament, reference is made repeatedly to the obligation of the Hebrews to bear a sign on the hand and on the forehead, as a continuous reminder of the exodus from Egypt and as a token of faithfulness to the divine Law:

Deut. 11:18: "And you shall cast these words into your heart and into your soul, and you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and it shall be unmovable before your eyes" (cf. Deut. 6:8, Ex. 13:9, 13:16).

Based on these verses, later Jews placed upon their hand and their forehead the Tefillin (תפליν)—small leather pouches containing biblical words. In the Greek New Testament, the tefillin are called "phylacteries," with Jesus condemning their hypocritical display by the Scribes and Pharisees: "for they broaden their phylacteries..." (Matt. 23:5).

[Note: As an evolution of this biblical tradition, in modern Orthodox Judaism tefillin are mandatorily worn only by male Jews from the age of thirteen (religious coming of age "Bar Mitzvah"), whereas in Reform Judaism this practice has been extended to women as well during prayer].

Historical Models of Enforced Marking

• Numismatic seal or political token: Some researchers argue that the "mark" (charagma, Rev. 13:16) was perhaps a technical term referring to the official imperial seal on state documents or to the coin itself of the respective emperor, which bore his image. 

• The historical precedent of Ptolemy IV Philopator: A clear historical incident of enforcing a literal mark is delivered during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (222–204 BC). This ruler forbade the Jews of Egypt from entering their sanctuaries and worshiping their God. Instead, he forced them either to be demoted to the status of a slave, receiving on their body by fire the mark of the Dionysian symbol ("an ivy leaf"), or to be put to death. Those who chose to approach the pagan worship became equal citizens of Alexandria; some succumbed, others were put to death, while others sought by means of money to avoid their enrollment in the registers of slaves (3 Macc. 2:25-33).

• The Roman practice of branding under Caligula: The actual use of the mark as a means of enslavement and humiliation is confirmed also by the Roman historian and biographer Suetonius. He preserves that Emperor Caligula branded with a hot iron (stigmata) on the forehead those Senators and Knights who fell into his disfavor, condemning them to work in the mines, on road construction, or to be torn apart by wild beasts (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Gaius Caligula, 27).

•  The testimony of John Lydus regarding mysterial sealing: The Byzantine scholar John Lydus (6th century AD), examining Roman and Greco-Roman customs, preserves valuable information regarding the proprietary and religious "sealing" of dedicated individuals. He describes the custom of certain pagan cults (especially those of mystery origin, such as of Demeter, Dionysus, or the Syrian Goddess) to engrave or burn onto their skin with a hot iron specific symbols or sacred letters. This sealing declared the irrevocable submission of the initiate to the deity, functioning as a mark of ownership, by analogy with the brands (stigmata) of slaves or soldiers in the Roman administration (John Lydus, De Mensibus, IV, 53).

• The mandatory branding according to Lucian: This practice is confirmed by Lucian of Samosata, who mentions that all who were dedicated to the sanctuary of the Syrian Goddess were mandatorily branded on the wrists or the neck: "and all are branded, some on the wrists, others on the necks; and from this, all Assyrians bear brands" (Lucian, De Dea Syria, 59).

• The "sacred brands" according to Herodotus: Correspondingly, Herodotus refers to the sanctuary of Hercules in Egypt, noting that if a slave fled there and received the "sacred brands," surrendering himself to the god, he became from then on inviolable (sacrosanct) and no one could claim him, as he now belonged to the ownership of the deity (Herodotus, Histories, II, 113).

• The academic sealing of P. Bratsiotis: This interpretive direction is confirmed by Professor Panagiotis Bratsiotis, noting that the phrase "that they should give them a mark..." expresses the voluntary servitude of men, inasmuch as through such a sealing (branding), the complete subjection of these men to the beast is represented. He underscores, in fact, that this phrase recalls the old eastern custom of engraving or branding the name of a fleshly or spiritual master by means of a hot instrument upon the hand or the forehead of mercenaries or slaves, of men or of gods (P. Bratsiotis, The Revelation of John, p. 217).

Epilogue & Philological Restoration: The Number "Six Hundred Sixty-Six"

The completion of this historical-philological research requires the deconstruction of contemporary fictions around the number of the beast (Rev. 13:17-18):

•  The Spelling of the Text: The Apostle John never wrote the number "666" in its modern Arabic form, nor did he use three identical digits. In the original manuscripts and critical editions, the number is written out in full words ("ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ", cf. 1 Kings 10:14) or represented by the Greek alphabetic numerals χξς΄. As Eusebius Pamphili witnesses (Church History, V, 8.5) by invoking Irenaeus, the calculation was made "according to the reckoning of the Greeks" (κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων ψῆφον), meaning through the Greek alphabetic system of numerical calculation and isopsephy (gematria). 

• The Psephos (The Small Pebble): In antiquity, prior to the establishment of modern numerical symbols, mathematical operations were performed by placing and moving small pebbles (psephoi) upon an abacus. Thus, the word psephos meant numerical calculation, account, or counting. The attempt to identify the number with barcodes or technological systems constitutes an anachronism based on the much later introduction of Arabic numerals.

• The Paleographical Testimony of 616: The variant reading 616 (χις΄), preserved in ancient papyri—such as the significant \(P^{115}\) (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 4499)—and mentioned by Irenaeus, confirms that the number functioned as an isopsephic riddle concerning a specific historical figure of imperial Rome, adhering to the rules of Hebrew transliteration.

Philological and Isopsephic Substantiation

The Hebrew rendering of the name fully explains the alternation between the numbers 666 and 616, as in the Hebrew system each letter has a specific numerical value:

• For the number 666: It is derived from the transliteration of the Greek name "Neron Kaisar" into Hebrew characters (נרון קסρ – Nron Ksr). If we add the value of each letter, the following exact sum is obtained:

Neron (Nron): N [Nun] 50 + R [Resh] 200 + O [Vav] 6 + N [final Nun] 50 = Total for "Neron": 306

Kaisar (Ksr): K [Qof] 100 + S [Samekh] 60 + R [Resh] 200 = Total for "Kaisar": 360

Final Sum: 306 + 360 = 666 

• For the number 616: It is derived from the Latin form of the name Neron Kaisar, which is "Nero Caesar" (without the final letter "n" / N). This form, when transliterated into the Hebrew alphabet (נרו קסρ – Nro Ksr), removes the value of the final "Nun" which equals 50. Thus, the calculation yields exactly: 666 - 50 = 616.

The existence of the papyrus \(P^{115}\) confirms that this variation was not a later copyist's error, but reflected the Latin phonetic rendering of the name of the very same historical figure in the real time of the 1st century.

Final Conclusion

While contemporary religious rhetoric from pulpits and various confessions sustain a continuous fear, shifting the advent of the Antichrist to an indefinite future, the biblical writings themselves set unshakeable chronological limits. For the Apostles and the early Church, the appearance of the Antichrist was not a future threat for the end of the planet, but a present reality of the 1st century AD, inextricably linked to the end of the old economy of the Law, the destruction of the earthly Temple, and the parallel coming of the Almighty Jesus.

This religious delusion—namely, the expectation of a future cosmological destruction—is artificially maintained by futurists, man-made groups, and ecclesiastical structures. These structures, though self-proclaimed as divinely ordained, lack any biblical, philological, and historical foundation, transforming a historically accomplished event of the past into an illusionary threat of the future.

                                                                                              ---------------------------------

<< Back to Homepage