Selective Literalism
Selective literalism applies a literal reading to passages that support a community's theological commitments while applying figurative readings to passages that challenge them — with the choice of method driven by prior conclusion rather than by genre, context, or consistent hermeneutical principle.
Source: D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (1984) – Public Domain
Also known as: inconsistent literalism, hermeneutical inconsistency, theological selective reading, cafeteria literalism
Selective literalism is the inconsistent practice of reading some biblical passages literally and others figuratively based on theological preference rather than on consistent genre analysis, contextual interpretation, or authorial intent — applying the stricter interpretive standard to passages that support favored conclusions and the looser standard to passages that challenge them.
Every interpreter makes literal/figurative judgments in biblical reading — the question is what governs those judgments. Principled interpretation allows genre, literary context, and authorial intent to determine whether a passage operates literally or figuratively. Selective literalism allows theological conclusion to make that determination instead: passages that support what the interpreter already believes are read literally; passages that challenge it are read figuratively. The circularity is the problem: the method is chosen to reach the conclusion rather than the conclusion being reached by the method.
The inconsistency is most visible when the same interpreter who insists on a literal reading of Genesis 1 reads 'the mountains clap their hands' (Psalm 98:8) figuratively without comment — and who would reject any suggestion that Genesis 1's 'evening and morning' might be figurative with the same hermeneutical argument they never apply to the Psalms' cosmic imagery. Both Genesis 1 and the Psalms require genre-appropriate reading; the difference is that one touches a live theological controversy and the other does not. The method is not actually consistent — it is selectively applied.
This pitfall appears across the theological spectrum. The interpreter who reads 1 Timothy 2:12 ('I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man') with rigid literal force and reads Matthew 5:29 ('If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out') as obviously figurative is applying a different standard to each — in one case because the literal reading is theologically convenient, and in the other because it is not. The interpreter who insists that Revelation 20's 'thousand years' is figurative (amillennialism) while insisting that the resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15 is literal is making interpretive choices that require justification, not assumption. The honest interpreter names the hermeneutical principle being applied and applies it consistently, including to passages where it is inconvenient.
- 1Passages that support a community's positions are always read literally when challenged; passages that threaten those positions are always explained as figurative, cultural, or contextually limited
- 2The same author (Paul, Jesus, John) is read literally in some passages and figuratively in others, with no articulated principle governing which passages receive which treatment
- 3Challenging passages are addressed with hermeneutical sophistication (genre, context, cultural translation) while supporting passages are treated as self-evidently literal
- 4The interpreter cannot articulate a consistent principle for when to read literally vs. figuratively that would also apply to passages they currently read differently
- 5Readers from different traditions who apply the same hermeneutical method to the same texts consistently reach different conclusions — a sign that the method is being applied selectively
Consistent hermeneutics does not mean everything is literal or everything is figurative — it means that the same genre criteria, the same contextual sensitivity, and the same openness to evidence govern the reading of all passages, including those that touch live theological controversies. The interpreter's job is to serve the text's meaning, not to manage it. A community whose hermeneutic consistently produces readings that happen to confirm what the community already believed in every contested case should examine whether it is practicing exegesis (drawing meaning out) or eisegesis (reading meaning in). Intellectual honesty about interpretive method is a form of integrity before Scripture.
Articulate your hermeneutical principle
Ask: What is the principle that governs when you read a passage literally vs. figuratively? Can you state it clearly?
A testable principle might be: 'I read a passage literally unless the genre (poetry, apocalyptic, wisdom) or clear internal signals (explicit metaphor framing, impossibility of the literal sense) indicate otherwise.' Or: 'I allow the New Testament's own interpretation of Old Testament passages to guide whether they are read typologically or literally.' Whatever the principle, stating it explicitly makes it testable.
Apply the principle to challenging passages
Ask: Does the principle you articulated, applied consistently, produce the same result for passages that challenge your position as for passages that support it?
Take the principle you articulated in Step 1 and apply it to a passage that is currently inconvenient for your reading. If the principle that makes Genesis 1 literal also makes Psalm 98:8 literal (mountains clap), either the principle is wrong or the inconsistency is real. If the principle that makes 1 Corinthians 11:14 cultural also makes other Pauline gender passages cultural, follow the principle wherever it leads.
Identify the genre of the disputed passage
Ask: What genre is this passage, and what does that genre's conventions indicate about the relationship between its language and literal reality?
Genre is the most reliable guide to literal vs. figurative reading. Hebrew poetry uses parallelism, hyperbole, and cosmic imagery as conventions of the form. Apocalyptic uses symbolic vision language. Wisdom literature uses extreme cases to make general points. Legal texts in the Torah use casuistic (case law) and apodictic (absolute command) forms with different levels of generalization. Let genre analysis govern the reading, not the desired conclusion.
Consult interpreters from different traditions
Ask: How do interpreters from traditions that do not share your theological commitments read this passage? What does their reading reveal about the available interpretive options?
If every interpreter in your tradition reads the passage the same way, and every interpreter in other traditions reads it differently, this is not evidence that you are right and they are wrong — it is evidence that something other than the text alone is governing the reading. Identifying what that extra factor is (confessional commitment, cultural assumption, institutional tradition) is the first step toward honest hermeneutics.