What Is Literal and What Is Symbolic in Scripture?

Judaism has never been a tradition of purely literalistic reading. The classical rabbinic hermeneutic known as PaRDeS — an acronym for Peshat (plain/literal), Remez (allegorical), Derash (homiletical), and Sod (mystical/esoteric) — assumes that a single verse can carry all four levels of meaning simultaneously. The 12th-century scholar Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed, c. 1190 CE) argued forcefully that anthropomorphic descriptions of God must be read symbolically, since attributing a physical body to the divine would be theologically incoherent.

The Psalms themselves model this layered approach. Psalm 19:7 declares the Torah "perfect" and "sure" Psalms 19:7, yet the Talmudic tradition (Sanhedrin 34a) teaches that "a verse does not depart from its plain meaning" — while still insisting that deeper meanings coexist. Psalm 119:138 praises God's testimonies as "righteous" and "faithful" Psalms 119:138, language that rabbinic commentators like Rashi (1040–1105 CE) read both as a straightforward affirmation and as a pointer to deeper covenantal theology.

Where is the line? Broadly, legal material (halakha) in the Torah tends to be read with great literalistic precision — the details of Sabbath observance, dietary law, and ritual purity are binding as written. Narrative and poetic texts, by contrast, invite allegorical and homiletical readings. There's genuine disagreement: the Karaite movement (8th century CE onward) rejected rabbinic allegory and insisted on stricter literal readings, while Kabbalistic interpreters pushed symbolic readings to their furthest extreme.

Christianity inherited the Jewish interpretive tradition and immediately expanded it. Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 CE) proposed a three-fold sense of scripture — literal, moral, and spiritual — arguing in De Principiis that some passages are deliberately impossible to read literally in order to drive the reader toward deeper meaning. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) later refined this, insisting in De Doctrina Christiana that any interpretation that does not build love of God and neighbor is a misreading, regardless of whether it's literal or figurative.

The Protestant Reformation brought a sharp corrective. Martin Luther and John Calvin (16th century) championed the sensus literalis — the plain, grammatical-historical sense — as the primary and controlling meaning of scripture, pushing back against what they saw as Catholic allegorizing that obscured the text's actual claims. Yet even they acknowledged figures of speech, poetry, and prophecy as non-literal genres. 2 Timothy 3:16 grounds the whole enterprise: all scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16, which implies that every genre — including poetry and apocalyptic — carries authoritative content, even if not all of it is straightforwardly propositional.

Contemporary evangelical scholars like D.A. Carson and Gordon Fee (in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 1981) stress genre recognition: the Psalms are poetry and should be read as poetry; Revelation is apocalyptic literature; the Gospels are ancient biography. Fundamentalist traditions tend toward a more consistently literal reading, while mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars embrace a broader range of literary-critical tools. The disagreement is real and ongoing.

Islam is unique among the three traditions in that its scripture explicitly addresses this question from within the text itself. Quran 3:7 draws a direct distinction between two categories of verses: muhkam (clear, unambiguous) verses, described as "the substance of the Book," and mutashabih (allegorical or ambiguous) verses Quran 3:7. The passage warns that those with "doubt in their hearts" pursue the allegorical verses seeking to cause dissension, while those of "sound instruction" accept both categories as coming from God.

This internal Quranic framework has generated centuries of scholarly debate. Classical scholars like al-Tabari (839–923 CE) and Ibn Kathir (1300–1373 CE) catalogued which verses fall into each category. The muhkam verses — covering clear legal injunctions, articles of faith, and explicit moral commands — are to be followed as written. The mutashabih verses — including descriptions of God's "hand" or "face," certain eschatological passages, and the mysterious huruf muqatta'at (disconnected letters at the start of some surahs) — are either deferred to God's knowledge alone or interpreted allegorically by qualified scholars.

The Quran also repeatedly describes itself as a scripture "that maketh plain" Quran 44:2Quran 43:2, emphasizing clarity as a core quality. Sufi interpreters like Ibn Arabi (1165–1240 CE) pushed allegorical readings of the Quran to great lengths, while Salafi and Wahhabi scholars in the modern period insist on a more literal reading, particularly of divine attributes, though even they don't claim every verse is purely literal. The tension between zahir (outward/literal) and batin (inward/esoteric) meaning remains one of Islamic theology's most contested fault lines.

Jewish readers approach the Torah and Writings with confidence because “the law of the LORD is perfect” and “the testimony of the LORD is sure,” signaling a text that reliably guides life and wisdom, which affects judgments about what to read plainly versus more reflectively. Psalms 19:7

Likewise, “thy testimonies… are righteous and very faithful,” so claims are trusted as true and dependable even when style varies, anchoring interpretation in the text’s fidelity. Psalms 119:138

There’s acknowledgment among readers that applying these truths to decide literal versus symbolic readings can involve debate, but the baseline is the scriptures’ perfection, sureness, and faithfulness. Psalms 19:7 Psalms 119:138

Christians ground interpretation in the claim that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” and is profitable “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” which frames when passages are taken as direct teaching and when they function to correct and form readers. 2 Timothy 3:16

This usefulness for doctrine and instruction pushes many to read central claims straightforwardly while recognizing scripture’s role in reproof and correction can also guide non-literal moral application, yet the basis remains scripture’s God-breathed character and profit. 2 Timothy 3:16

Readers may disagree on specific cases, but they agree that these textual claims define the interpretive horizon. 2 Timothy 3:16

The Qur’an explicitly distinguishes “clear revelations” that are the substance of the Book from others that are allegorical, so Muslims treat unambiguous verses as foundational and approach allegorical ones with caution, acknowledging that their fullest explanation is known to Allah. Quran 3:7

At the same time, the Qur’an swears “by the Scripture which maketh plain,” underscoring that revelation aims at clarity, even while marking some passages as allegorical. Quran 43:2 Quran 44:2

Because of this internal distinction, discourse about literal versus symbolic readings is textually grounded in the Qur’an’s own categories of clear (muhkam) and allegorical (mutashabih). Quran 3:7