But the Burning Bush, the Ark, the tale of Jonah, the Red Sea Parting, the dead rising in Matthew, the seven day creation, the virgin birth, the healing of a man who was blind from birth, the sky parting and God speaking are meant to be taken literally?
I would be interested in what parts are metaphorical and not to be taken literally vs. what is to be taken are in your estimation some time.
Context and critical analysis. The Bible isn't one book, but a collection of books, each text has context involving literary genre (epistle, gospel, apocalypse, history, proverb, poetry, etc), when it was written, where it was written, to whom it was written, who wrote it, for what reason it was written. In some cases a book may not have a single author, but instead several authors and which has come to us through redaction (the Psalms is a good example here).
The Revelation belongs to a literary genre known as apocalypse, which comes from the Greek word
apokalupto meaning "unveiling" or "revelation". It was a common literary form in the 2nd Temple period and beyond, Old Testament texts which more-or-less fit the genre include at least Daniel (or rather, parts of it), other apocalyptic texts from the period include the Apocalypse of Esdras, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Peter (there are two texts which bear this title, one is a Gnostic text and one isn't, the non-Gnostic text at one point was more popular among some churches than the Apocalypse of John, which you and I usually know as the Revelation), etc.
Apocalyptic literature contains cryptic, visionary, and highly graphic imagery and material to say what it's trying to say. So when St. John writes that he sees a beast with numerous heads and diadems and a harlot riding upon a scarlet beast, or monstrous locusts ascending out from the abyss, chances are the point isn't literal multi-headed beasts or monstrous locusts. As to what John is communicating requires that we look at the text critically, examining internal and external information.
Internally the introduction to the Revelation tells us the circumstances, there is persecution and John has been sent to the island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony off the coast of Asia. John is then, still in the introductory text, told by His vision of Christ, to write concerning events currently happening and what must soon take place thereafter. Thus it is entirely fair to understand that there is an immediate context, a reason and motivation to write. We are then introduced to the intended and original readership, seven churches located in Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, et al). This makes the text an encyclical, a letter intended to be circulated among the target churches.
That internal evidence suggest that
A) John is writing on Patmos, a prisoner there because of martyrdom.
B) John is writing primarily about current and soon-to-happen events.
C) John is writing to Christians living in Asia, suffering various trials and tribulations as evidenced in the epistolary material in chapters 2 and 3.
External evidence, such as from the histories we have, such as that from Eusebius of Caesarea who says that John wrote his apocalypse during the reign of Caesar Domitian, placing authorship in the last decade of the first century. We are also told that under Domitian's reign persecution broke out against both Jewish and Christian communities.
This further adds to the context of the Revelation, that it was written during a time of persecution, and that John is specifically writing to the churches in Asia enduring such persecution.
Additionally, while we cannot be certain which John wrote the Revelation, as there is some conflict as to whether St. John the Apostle is the same as John the Elder, or if they are different persons and whether or not either of them is the John of Patmos. Though it seems obvious that this John is intimate with the churches in Asia, perhaps making him an important person within the Christian communities there; possibly either the bishop or presbyter of Ephesus (which again, adds to the John the Apostle/John the Elder issue; in antiquity St. Justin Martyr says that John of Patmos is identical with St. John the Apostle and Evangelist, whereas Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome regard him to be John the Elder, a different John).
Given such a context, and that the text continually calls for Christians to endure until the end, it would make sense--therefore--to read it as a text for the persecuted communities in Asia and attempt to understand the cryptic language in light of that fact. That is, the underlying point of the text is to inspire hope and courage among the Christians in Asia, to point them toward the victory of God in Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, and who will come again at the end of all things and lay all enemies at His feet. The same violent nations and powers which now oppress will, in the end, be judged at the Lord's coming in power and glory.
This is how I approach the Revelation, and it is (thus far) the least offensive way I've been able to do so without doing great injury by trying to commit grave acts of eisegesis to the text.
-CryptoLutheran
