What do you think?
Rate this book
The Apocalypse: In the Teachings of Ancient Christianity
The Apocalypse--The Revelation of St. John the Theologian--is the only prophetic book of the New Testament. It is a book of mysteries--deep mysteries bound up with the beginning and end of all things, the ultimate purpose of the world and man, the opening of the eternal Kingdom of Heaven--which gives itself to a correct understanding and interpretation only with great difficulty. Originally appearing in Russian, THE IN THE TEACHINGS OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY by Archbishop Averky Taushev is the first complete Orthodox commentary on the book of Revelation to be published in the English language. The difficult images and symbols are best examined separately in a reliable commentary like THE IN THE TEACHINGS OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY based chiefly on the 5th-century commentary of St. Andrew of Caesarea. Archbishop Averky, a Holy Father of modern times, takes, verse by verse, the mystical writing of St. John, interpreting each passage with the help of Scripture parallels and Patristic references.
306 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1987
6 people are currently reading
173 people want to read
About the author
Averky Taushev
10 books12 followersArchbishop Averky (Taushev) (1906–1976) was the fourth abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery (Jordanville, NY). He was born in Imperial Russia, but had to leave the country with his family in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Living in Bulgaria, he was drawn to the monastic life, and soon became a monk and a priest. He taught and ministered in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Germany, before being assigned in 1951 to teach at the Holy Trinity Seminary. He was consecrated a bishop, and after the death of Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) became the abbot of the monastery. As abbot, he was also the rector of Holy Trinity Seminary and was heavily involved in the formation of its curriculum and daily life. He was also praised by converts to the Orthodox faith such as Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) for being a steadfast defender of traditional Orthodoxy. He wrote many commentaries on scripture and other works which are extensively read both in Russia and in the diaspora. He is best known in the English-speaking world for his commentary on the Book of Revelations, The Apocalypse in the Teachings of Ancient Christianity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 12, 2015
Averky saw our age as Age of Apostasy, as “the final preparation for the ‘man of sin’” (Rose 19).
Basic Hermeneutical Principles (these are from Rose, not Averky)
“As history proceeds to the end, the meaning of some of these symbols will become clearer” (Rose 31).
“The most correct commentary is the one that unites all these approaches, keeping in mind, as the ancient commentators and Fathers of the church clearly taught, the content of the Apocalypse in its sum is indeed directed to the last part of the history of the world (Averky 54).
Averky tentatively suggests (but does not finally endorse) the idea that the churches are seven epochs (101ff):
The Good
Averky stood in the tradition of the fathers and passed down the faith. This is a reliable, if sometimes lightweight, commentary on the Apocalypse. He helpfully summarizes each section and offers Scripture parallels at the end of each chapter.
Possible Criticisms (It might seem like I offer a lot of criticisms, but this shouldn't take away from the book's inestimable value).
*We see numerous references and exhortations that we seek out the “commentaries of the Holy Fathers” (Rose 27) to avoid Protestant errors, but besides Andrew of Caesarea we are almost never given any specific references. Averky does list some Russian-language resources (Averky 39-40).
*As a general rule, Averky doesn’t engage in exegesis (neither did St Andrew, for the most part).
*Averky says Protestants deny the necessity of good deeds for final salvation (201, Comm. 14:13). This is not true, nor is it clear exactly whom he has in mind. Classical Protestantism denies good deeds as the grounds or foundation of our salvation. We affirm good deeds as necessary for the final telos of our salvation. We can even say that good deeds are the final cause of our salvation, just not the material, efficient, or instrumental causes.
*Averky sees the thousand-year period as Christianity’s victory over paganism. The only problem with this interpretation is that the opening phrase of Revelation 20 sees it sequential with the events of Revelation 19. Averky says that the Illuminati held to chiliasm (256). He criticizes Chiliast belief but doesn’t seem to take into account that premillennialists get their teaching from the passage itself, which does say two resurrections (however that term is glossed).
He says that Chiliasm teaches two or three comings of Christ, but this isn’t necessarily true. A premillennialist can quite logically hold to the following timeline: 1st coming in humility, 2nd coming following the slaying of Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, the raising of the pious dead while the impious sleep, and then a final resurrection. But note that the final stage of the resurrection doesn’t logically demand another coming.
The problem with identifying Chiliasm with modern historic premillennialism is that the latter doesn’t see an ending to the millennial kingdom. It simply states, with Scripture, that Christ hands this kingdom over to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).
*His argument in the appendix “Neo-Chiliasm” threatens to come undone. He begins with a fine critique of Ecumenism, but he errs in saying that “Neo-Chiliasts” want to have this world and do not like Scripture’s warning of its destruction. Well, modern ecumenists probably don’t like passages about the world’s destruction, but they probably don’t like any passage from the Bible. The modern premillennialist, however, sees that God will create a new heavens and a new earth, so we are not warranted in seeing a complete destruction of the earth.
Normally “chiliasts” are incorrectly lumped with premillennialists, who are quite conservative and anti-liberal. Yet most of his criticisms seemed aimed at the unbelievers in the World Council of Churches. In any case he never identifies who these “Neo-Chiliasts” are.
Basic Hermeneutical Principles (these are from Rose, not Averky)
“As history proceeds to the end, the meaning of some of these symbols will become clearer” (Rose 31).
“The most correct commentary is the one that unites all these approaches, keeping in mind, as the ancient commentators and Fathers of the church clearly taught, the content of the Apocalypse in its sum is indeed directed to the last part of the history of the world (Averky 54).
Averky tentatively suggests (but does not finally endorse) the idea that the churches are seven epochs (101ff):
The Good
Averky stood in the tradition of the fathers and passed down the faith. This is a reliable, if sometimes lightweight, commentary on the Apocalypse. He helpfully summarizes each section and offers Scripture parallels at the end of each chapter.
Possible Criticisms (It might seem like I offer a lot of criticisms, but this shouldn't take away from the book's inestimable value).
*We see numerous references and exhortations that we seek out the “commentaries of the Holy Fathers” (Rose 27) to avoid Protestant errors, but besides Andrew of Caesarea we are almost never given any specific references. Averky does list some Russian-language resources (Averky 39-40).
*As a general rule, Averky doesn’t engage in exegesis (neither did St Andrew, for the most part).
*Averky says Protestants deny the necessity of good deeds for final salvation (201, Comm. 14:13). This is not true, nor is it clear exactly whom he has in mind. Classical Protestantism denies good deeds as the grounds or foundation of our salvation. We affirm good deeds as necessary for the final telos of our salvation. We can even say that good deeds are the final cause of our salvation, just not the material, efficient, or instrumental causes.
*Averky sees the thousand-year period as Christianity’s victory over paganism. The only problem with this interpretation is that the opening phrase of Revelation 20 sees it sequential with the events of Revelation 19. Averky says that the Illuminati held to chiliasm (256). He criticizes Chiliast belief but doesn’t seem to take into account that premillennialists get their teaching from the passage itself, which does say two resurrections (however that term is glossed).
He says that Chiliasm teaches two or three comings of Christ, but this isn’t necessarily true. A premillennialist can quite logically hold to the following timeline: 1st coming in humility, 2nd coming following the slaying of Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, the raising of the pious dead while the impious sleep, and then a final resurrection. But note that the final stage of the resurrection doesn’t logically demand another coming.
The problem with identifying Chiliasm with modern historic premillennialism is that the latter doesn’t see an ending to the millennial kingdom. It simply states, with Scripture, that Christ hands this kingdom over to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).
*His argument in the appendix “Neo-Chiliasm” threatens to come undone. He begins with a fine critique of Ecumenism, but he errs in saying that “Neo-Chiliasts” want to have this world and do not like Scripture’s warning of its destruction. Well, modern ecumenists probably don’t like passages about the world’s destruction, but they probably don’t like any passage from the Bible. The modern premillennialist, however, sees that God will create a new heavens and a new earth, so we are not warranted in seeing a complete destruction of the earth.
Normally “chiliasts” are incorrectly lumped with premillennialists, who are quite conservative and anti-liberal. Yet most of his criticisms seemed aimed at the unbelievers in the World Council of Churches. In any case he never identifies who these “Neo-Chiliasts” are.
December 21, 2018
Made me a qualified pre-millenialist again.
November 26, 2021
More than 80% percent of the book is a direct quote of the interpretation of St. Andrew of Caesarea.
Read
July 30, 2025That did indeed clear some things up. The authors here take 'chiliasm' to mean 'pre-millennialism' and chiliasts are misled and how? Because they don't see that things are not revealed in strictly chronological order. Fr. Rose tells us this. St John is said traditionally to have had four visions. It is clear that each vision ends roughly at the same last time (final battle or final judgment), each vision being a different rendering and different portion of the same historical-prophetic timeline. And after each of these first four, he picks up again at some point before the end.
Those visions are 1 - the seven churches, 2- the seven seals and the seven trumpets, 3 - the woman in travail to the final harvest, 4 - seven vials or plagues and the harlot until the final battle on horseback as well as Gog and Magog. Especially when you consider that within #4, after the horseback battle, he retraces (flashes back) to the beginning of the church, and then resumes to the end of times, we can see why even several of our saints were misled in their private beliefs about this into Chiliasm, including our beloved Sts Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. But like the authors say, today's pre-millennial 'Christians' don't have the same excuse, coming after the second ecumenical council condemnation of it, as they do. And so it is very true that these visions are not described in terms of chronologically ordered events. All four visions share reference to the same final judgment or preceding final battle, and end roughly there, but they do not all begin at the same time, the odd one out being the fourth because it begins in the last times. The fourth, as I said, is interrupted quickly by a flashback mention of Satan's binding which happens at the church's beginning. And the symbol of the beast that the harlot sits on, referring to Old Testament kingdoms, interrupts the third vision. So the third and fourth visions are both interrupted by flashbacks. And there are probably many people who have misinterpreted that too, attempting this without a saint's help of course. If you don't know there are these four visions, all ending roughly at the same time and beginning at different times, with two being interrupted by flashbacks, how are you going to even get a basic foothold on how this maps onto historical chronology and thus onto the meaning of the text? You won't.
Anyhow, this book also helps us locate very roughly where we are in the timeline, although it is indefinite in meaning: Who knows how long the durations are? No one. So no one knows the hour. I would agree with Fr. Rose we are in that time represented by the seventh church. The book also contains many references that defeat the false Western versions of Christianity, in their anti-Christ assumptions of worldly progress, optimism about the world, and prosperity gospel. 'The world' as a workshop for our creativity is still to be embraced. 'The world' as an external place controlled by Modern day states/corporations which are just vehicles for criminals in the 0.01% is more and more overlapping with the meaning of 'the world' meaning the nexus of fallen human passions.
Those visions are 1 - the seven churches, 2- the seven seals and the seven trumpets, 3 - the woman in travail to the final harvest, 4 - seven vials or plagues and the harlot until the final battle on horseback as well as Gog and Magog. Especially when you consider that within #4, after the horseback battle, he retraces (flashes back) to the beginning of the church, and then resumes to the end of times, we can see why even several of our saints were misled in their private beliefs about this into Chiliasm, including our beloved Sts Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. But like the authors say, today's pre-millennial 'Christians' don't have the same excuse, coming after the second ecumenical council condemnation of it, as they do. And so it is very true that these visions are not described in terms of chronologically ordered events. All four visions share reference to the same final judgment or preceding final battle, and end roughly there, but they do not all begin at the same time, the odd one out being the fourth because it begins in the last times. The fourth, as I said, is interrupted quickly by a flashback mention of Satan's binding which happens at the church's beginning. And the symbol of the beast that the harlot sits on, referring to Old Testament kingdoms, interrupts the third vision. So the third and fourth visions are both interrupted by flashbacks. And there are probably many people who have misinterpreted that too, attempting this without a saint's help of course. If you don't know there are these four visions, all ending roughly at the same time and beginning at different times, with two being interrupted by flashbacks, how are you going to even get a basic foothold on how this maps onto historical chronology and thus onto the meaning of the text? You won't.
Anyhow, this book also helps us locate very roughly where we are in the timeline, although it is indefinite in meaning: Who knows how long the durations are? No one. So no one knows the hour. I would agree with Fr. Rose we are in that time represented by the seventh church. The book also contains many references that defeat the false Western versions of Christianity, in their anti-Christ assumptions of worldly progress, optimism about the world, and prosperity gospel. 'The world' as a workshop for our creativity is still to be embraced. 'The world' as an external place controlled by Modern day states/corporations which are just vehicles for criminals in the 0.01% is more and more overlapping with the meaning of 'the world' meaning the nexus of fallen human passions.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews