The Bible Is Not One Kind of Book
“The Bible was not meant to be read merely literally. It was meant to be read literarily.”
For many Christians, ‘taking the Bible literally’ is often seen as a sign of faithfulness. Questioning a literal reading can feel like doubting Scripture itself. But this idea quickly runs into trouble, since the Bible is not just one type of book, written in a single style or for a single purpose.
The Bible is a library. Even the word itself reflects this reality. It comes from the Greek phrase ta biblia, meaning “the books”. From the beginning, Scripture was understood as a collection of writings spanning centuries, cultures, authors, and literary styles.
Within its pages, we find poetry, wisdom literature, parables, prophecy, apocalypse, genealogy, narrative, law, and song. Some passages are historical. Others are metaphorical. Some invite reflection. Others provoke imagination.
Psalmists speak of rivers clapping their hands and mountains singing for joy (Psalm 98:8). Jesus says faith can move mountains (Matthew 17:20). Revelation describes beasts rising from the sea. Few Christians insist these are literal descriptions. We instinctively recognise genre.
The issue is not whether the Bible contains truth, but what kind of truth a passage is communicating.
Modern readers often approach Scripture with assumptions shaped more by post-Enlightenment Western culture than the ancient world. We expect precision, science, and factual reporting. Ancient authors were often doing something else.
Old Testament scholar John H. Walton argues that modern readers ask questions that the biblical authors were not trying to answer. These texts are often concerned with meaning, purpose, and theology more than technical description.
This becomes especially clear in books like Genesis, Job, the Psalms, and Revelation. They are not merely reporting information. They are inviting readers into reflection, wisdom, and participation in the story of God.
As Tremper Longman III notes, responsible interpretation requires attention to genre. Different kinds of texts communicate differently.
“Good interpretation asks not just what happened, but what the text is trying to say.”
Literalism, in its modern form, often flattens Scripture into something it never claims to be: a single genre document written with modern expectations in mind.
Biblical Interpretation Has Never Been As Simple As We Imagine
“Modern biblical literalism is often a reaction to modernity, not a reflection of historic Christianity.”
One of the great myths surrounding biblical literalism is that Christians have always interpreted Scripture in a single, straightforward way. History tells a different story.
From early Judaism through the Church, Scripture has been read with depth and diversity. Ancient interpreters saw layers of meaning. A passage could be historical and symbolic at the same time. Jewish traditions long before Christianity engaged Scripture through poetry, symbolism, and pattern. This continued into the early Church.
Origen argued that some passages were designed to push readers beyond surface meaning (On First Principles). Augustine warned against rigid readings that ignored reason and reality (The Literal Meaning of Genesis), even cautioning Christians against making foolish claims about the natural world.
Even the Reformers did not read Scripture the way modern literalism often assumes.
Martin Luther read the Song of Songs not simply as romance, but as a picture of Christ and the Church (Lectures on the Song of Songs). John Calvin argued that God accommodates revelation to human understanding (Commentary on Genesis). He noted that Moses described the world in ways people could grasp, not as a scientific explanation. When Scripture speaks of the sun rising, it uses ordinary human language, not astronomy.
For much of Christian history, interpretation included multiple layers:
- literal
- allegorical
- moral
- anagogical
Scripture was seen as capable of communicating on multiple levels at once.
This does not mean agreement. It means diversity has always existed.
“There has never been a single, universally agreed ‘plain reading’ of Scripture.”
Modern literalism often emerges as a response to scepticism, treating the Bible like a document that must defend itself through precision and certainty. Ironically, this imposes modern expectations onto ancient texts.
Even Jesus and the New Testament Do Not Read Scripture Hyperliterally
The New Testament authors often interpret the Old Testament in ways that do not fit modern literalism. This is not because they take Scripture lightly, but because they take it deeply. They see patterns, symbols, and trajectories pointing toward Christ.
Jesus regularly moves beyond surface-level readings. When he speaks of destroying the temple (John 2:19), his listeners think in physical terms. John tells us he meant his body. Literalism misses the point. Jesus also teaches through hyperbole and metaphor: mountains moving, camels through needles, eyes torn out. These are not instructions. They are invitations to deeper reflection.
Paul continues this pattern. He reads Sarah and Hagar allegorically (Galatians 4), and describes Christ as the rock in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4). These are theological readings, not literal ones.
Matthew does the same. He applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus, even though Hosea is clearly referring to Israel’s past. Matthew reads typologically, presenting Jesus as embodying Israel’s story. He does something similar with Jeremiah 31:15, applying it to Herod’s massacre (Matthew 2:17-18). This also echoes the Exodus narrative, where Pharaoh kills Hebrew children.
Matthew is not just quoting predictions. He is drawing patterns.
- Israel suffers.
- Israel comes out of Egypt.
- Israel enters the wilderness.
Jesus relives this story.
This was normal in the Jewish world of the first century. The issue is not seriousness. It is recognising the kind of reading Scripture invites.
Literalism Often Creates Fragile Faith
“Many people do not lose faith because Scripture failed, but because their framework for reading it could not hold.”
Modern literalism often tries to protect Scripture but ends up weakening faith. When every passage must function as science, history, or precision, the system becomes fragile. One challenge can feel like everything is collapsing. This is especially clear with Genesis.
Many were taught it must function as a scientific account of origins. When that clashes with modern knowledge, people feel forced to choose between reality and faith. But this is a false choice created by the framework, not the Bible.
John H. Walton argues that Genesis is concerned with function and meaning, not scientific mechanics.
The same issue appears elsewhere:
- Proverbs are treated as guarantees.
- Revelation is treated as a predictive code.
- Poetry is treated as science.
Literalism often shrinks Scripture, and when cracks appear, people feel betrayed. A richer understanding of Scripture does not weaken faith. It strengthens it.
When Literalism Becomes Harmful
“The question is not just what a text says, but what it produces.”
The problem with literalism is not just intellectual. It can become harmful. Throughout history, rigid interpretations have been used to justify abuse, control, and injustice. This is not a problem with Scripture itself, but with how it is read. A flat reading struggles with the Bible’s movement and development. Scripture is a story moving toward Christ.
Jesus consistently resists rigid interpretation. He prioritises mercy, restoration, and human flourishing. “The Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27). In the Sermon on the Mount, he deepens the law beyond behaviour into the heart. Literalism can confuse faithfulness with control. Texts become tools of enforcement rather than tools of transformation.
This is especially damaging around:
- shame
- power
- mental health
- fear
“People are often taught how to be afraid of being wrong, rather than how to love God.”
This raises a deeper question:
What kind of person is this interpretation producing?
Scripture points to Christ. And Christ becomes the lens through which Scripture is read. The goal is not information, but transformation.
Toward A Better Way Of Reading Scripture
“Scripture is not just meant to be understood. It is meant to form us.”
Rejecting literalism does not mean abandoning Scripture. It means reading it more faithfully. The Bible is not a modern textbook. It is a collection of human texts through which God reveals himself.
Reading well requires asking:
- What kind of text is this?
- What is it doing?
- How would it have been understood?
- How does it point to Christ?
It requires humility. No one reads Scripture neutrally. It requires comfort with mystery. The Bible does not offer simplistic certainty. It invites wisdom, trust, and transformation. Historically, Scripture was meditated on, not just analysed.
A healthy reading holds together:
- literary awareness
- context
- theology
- community
- formation
Its poetry deepens. Its tension becomes meaningful. Its humanity becomes part of its beauty. The Bible was never meant to produce certainty alone. It was meant to form a people capable of love, wisdom, justice, and communion with God. And perhaps that is not a departure from Scripture, but a return to reading it well.
Scribbling Theology 