Was Apostolos Makrakis condemned by the Orthodox Church?
No. Makrakis was criticized, opposed, and controversial, but he was never formally condemned by an Ecumenical Council nor declared a heretic.
Why do some scholars call him “un-Orthodox”?
Because he challenged clerical corruption, emphasized apocalyptic interpretation, and spoke forcefully as a lay theologian. These traits are uncomfortable in modern institutional theology but are common in Orthodox history.
Did Makrakis invent his ideas?
No. His apocalyptic historicism follows earlier Greek Orthodox commentators such as Gordios, Koressios, John of Myra, and Pantazēs of Larissa.
What about his “failed prophecies”?
Orthodox tradition does not judge prophetic interpretation by modern predictive accuracy. The Fathers understood prophecy as progressive, symbolic, and pedagogical. However, looking backward to his commentary on Revelation, had Makrakis considered the Solar Year calculation of the “1260 days” times statements for “time times and a half of a time in Daniel and Revelation, he would have arrived to the year 1917 AD (6387/8AD + 1279 years), the year of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, not 1897 (637/8 + 1260 years), the dates his critics made fun of for a failed interpretaiton. Thus a major part of his eschatology about the immient fall of the Turkish Empire was absolutely correct.
Why is Makrakis being re-evaluated today?
Because modern scholarship has rediscovered the depth and continuity of Greek Orthodox historicism, revealing that Makrakis was part of a tradition—not an anomaly.
Apostolos Makrakis 