What is 'Literal'? PaRDeS and the Art of Reading Scripture

Okay I had some more thoughts about the historical Adam question.  (Here's the immediately previous post on that, if you haven't read it; we're now up to three posts on this topic and I'm trying to keep them linked together for easy reading.)

Again…I’m not trying to push some agenda or interpretation–except to the point that I want you to see something that is maybe beyond what you see now and understand it.  If you reject it, I don’t care.  It’s not my purpose to try to land on any particular side, because I think multiple options are valid and frankly, I don’t feel the need to choose a single interpretation as “the one.”  Is Adam historical?  Are Genesis 2-3 completely "accurate" accounts?  Is it "only" allegorical or mythical or what?  Honestly, I think the text can sustain various ideas.  So I'm not landing my plane.  

Anyway, how do you know if you understand someone else's interpretation?  --If you can explain it like they'd accept it, and if you can lay out the strongest arguments for it.  That's what I'm trying to help you do.  The "historical" view is straightforward enough, so that means I'm more interested in talking about other views.  

Interpretation and the Assumption of Sameness

Here’s the thing I do know.  I do know that it’s really easy for us to presume that the past (or other people) are similar to ourselves.  That’s natural–we can’t help but interpret things through our own cultural lens.  And some things are inoperable if you don’t presume that.  You can’t do science if the past or the laws of nature are always changing, for instance.  You can’t do philosophy if you can’t understand someone else’s position.  You can’t meet someone’s standards if they’re constantly shifting or gaslighting you.  

Likewise, you can’t do Bible interpretation if you can’t operate within a hermeneutic that makes any internal sense to you.  

You know what that means, though?  The fact that our culture and ways of thinking have changed dramatically from those in the past means that whatever we mean by “literal” is probably not what ancient people meant when they thought “literal.”  

So forgive me for having my doubts when the “literal, historical Adam” is pushed to the forefront as THE interpretive option.  

Enter: Biblical Theology (and Why It Helps)

This is why I find biblical theology (--the methodology; remember, it’s not just “theology that’s biblical–) so engaging and necessary.  

Now, I also recognize that biblical theology is hardly the only way to interpret Scripture—and it’s certainly not the way the Church has, historically, done theology.  We need to come to grips with that and be okay with it.  That doesn’t mean biblical theology is a misguided approach.  But we now have tools and information that people in the past didn’t have and the fact is, I think we’d be foolish not to use them.   

Thinking Like the Ancients: Nonlinear Minds and Layered Meaning

Anyway…enough rambling.  With the goal of “contextual understanding” in mind, what I want to suggest is this:  even if first-century Jews were thinking in terms of a “historical Adam” (and I’d be willing to bet many would describe him as such, in whatever sense that meant), that doesn’t mean their idea of “historical, literal Adam” is just like ours.  

And part of the reason I’m advocating looking at different views of this today is because I think doing so will actually help get us in the mind of the ancient person, because I don’t think they had linear track minds as we tend to have.  

Let me explain.  No, there is too much.  Let me sum up.

Jewish Interpretation and the Four Levels: PaRDeS

Have you ever heard of PaRDeS?  

PaRDeS is an acronym.  It is a traditional (12th century onward) Jewish system of biblical interpretation that outlines four levels of understanding the text.  Each level offers a different way of engaging Scripture, and they all matter; you don't just "pick one":   

1. Peshat (פְּשָׁט) – Simple or literal meaning
   The straightforward, surface meaning of the text based on grammar, context, and plain sense.
   
   
2. Remez (רֶמֶז) – Hint or allegorical meaning
   A deeper, symbolic, or allegorical interpretation that "hints" at something beyond the literal.
   
   
3. Derash (דְּרַשׁ) – Inquire or interpretive meaning
   Midrashic interpretation; a homiletical or sermonic meaning drawn from intertextual connections or creative exegesis.
   
   
4. Sod (סוֹד) – Secret or mystical meaning
   The hidden or esoteric interpretation, often linked to Kabbalistic readings and divine mysteries.
   
   

Together, these form the acronym PaRDeS (פרדס), which also means "orchard" or "paradise" in Hebrew—a lovely metaphor for the richness of Scripture when explored on multiple levels.  (No, I'm not trying to promote mysticism or Kabbalah.  I'm simply the messenger here.)  

PaRDeS Applied to Adam and the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 2–3)

1. Peshat (Literal Level)

Adam is the first human, formed from the dust of the ground.  God places him in Eden with a command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  When Adam and Eve disobey, they are expelled from the garden.

This is the plain sense: a narrative about origins, obedience, and consequence, focused on real humans and their actions.

2. Remez (Hint/Allegorical Level)

The Garden and the Tree hint at moral development.  Adam's eating from the tree symbolizes the awakening of moral awareness—he moves from innocence to responsibility.

Philo of Alexandria and later allegorical interpreters (like some Church Fathers) would see Adam as a stand-in for every human soul, and the Garden as the soul’s ideal state or the mind's clarity before corruption.  This level interprets the story as a moral allegory—a “hint” about our nature.

3. Derash (Midrashic/Homiletical Level)

Adam is both a historical figure and a prototype of Israel.  Just as Adam is placed in a sacred space with a commandment and fails, so Israel is given Torah and fails.  The cherubim guarding Eden parallel the cherubim on the ark—both point to God’s presence and human failure to dwell with Him.

Here, Midrash builds a sermonic, theological interpretation:  Adam is Israel, the Garden is the Temple, and exile from Eden is exile from God’s presence.  This connects many passages across Scripture and is often used to make a pastoral or covenantal point.

4. Sod (Mystical/Esoteric Level)

Adam represents the primordial man (Adam Kadmon)—a cosmic archetype in Kabbalistic thought.  His fall fractures the divine unity, scattering divine sparks throughout the cosmos.  The goal of human action, especially through mitzvot and contemplation, is to restore that unity (Tikkun Olam).

This level, especially in Lurianic Kabbalah, views Adam not just as a person but as a mystical being whose spiritual anatomy reflects God’s sefirot (divine attributes).  His sin was not just moral but metaphysical—a disruption of divine order.

This style of reading is more common in post-biblical Judaism and becomes especially creative in Midrashic and Kabbalistic texts. Some Kabbalistic works like the Zohar do explore Adam, Eden, and the Fall at the Sod level quite extensively.

A Question for You

So here’s my question:  When you think, “Adam is historical,” are you also thinking through at least some of these layers?  

And maybe a second question (though this might be pushing my luck):  Which of these layers carries the most weight for you theologically?  Which one packs the most punch?  

But Wait—Isn’t PaRDeS a Tad Bit Late??

Now, yes, I can hear the objections…”But Carey, if that comes from the 12th century, it’s hardly biblical context!”

Very true.  But note the individual elements.  These go back a ways.  

While the PaRDeS interpretive framework in its full acronymic form likely emerged in the medieval period, particularly in Kabbalistic and rabbinic circles from the 12th century onward, the individual methods it names—Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod—are much older and rooted in earlier Jewish interpretive traditions:

• Peshat and Derash are found extensively in rabbinic literature from the early centuries CE, such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrashim. The tension between Peshat (plain meaning) and Derash (interpretive meaning) is already a major feature of early rabbinic exegesis.
  
  
• Remez (hint/allegory) can be seen in Hellenistic Jewish interpretation, particularly Philo of Alexandria (1st century CE), who favored allegorical methods influenced by Greek philosophy.
  
  
• Sod (mystical/secret) reflects mystical and esoteric traditions that were present in early Jewish apocalyptic literature (like parts of Enoch), but it becomes systematized in Kabbalistic texts, especially with the Zohar (late 13th century) in Spain.
  
  

So while PaRDeS as a four-level acronym is medieval, the components themselves are ancient, evolving from Second Temple-era interpretive methods through rabbinic tradition, and into medieval mysticism.  

Why This Matters for Adam

Later, rabbinic context is NOT first century Jew context.  But it has roots in that second temple/first century context, so it becomes useful to consider as we look at the Bible using the methodology of biblical theology.  Clearly the NT authors were thinking things like midrash.  That's not something evangelicals tend to have in mind.  Midrash and allegory and typology and...the list goes on.  How much of that do we have in mind vs. how much do we cling to the "plain literal meaning," and why do we give the weight to each that we do?  

My point is…don’t only stick with Adam as "merely" being a “literal, historical” figure.  There’s more to explore.  Personally, I don't see why, theologically, it really matters if Adam was historical or not.  I do see why his allegorical/midrashic interpretation matters a whole lot, though.  That doesn't mean that I'm dropping a historical meaning.  I will admit that I care more about one than the other, though, and I'm sure that has to do with my love of the method of biblical theology, being immersed in the meaning of the text.

That doesn't undo or even necessarily outdo a "literal" meaning.  I just find that one...boring, in comparison.  

So how about you?  --That's either a rhetorical or a real question, depending on your desire to hit me up to give me your thoughts on all this.