Literal History and Prophetic Poetry: Striking the Balance

By Robert E. Cruickshank, Jr. (February 22, 2026)

[4 ½ -Minute Read Time]

 

In the language of the Biblical prophets, the original creation narrative (Genesis 1) becomes a template for framing their own narratives of judgment and restoration. “In the beginning” (Gen. 1:1), God brought order (Gen. 1:3ff) out of chaos (Gen. 1:2). The prophets then use this literal account as a poetic device:

 

A return to sin = a return to chaos (de-creation language is used)

A return to the Lord = a return to order (re-creation language is used)

 

I’ve discussed this in several of my articles, including: Zephaniah at World’s End: A Modern Misunderstanding of an Ancient Motif,  A Walk Through Psalm 102, and the Isaiah’s New Heavens and Earth series with Daniel E. Harden.[1]

 

Avoiding Two Extremes

With that said, the literal language of the original creation account must not be sacrificed due to the later poetic use of that language in the prophets. At the same time, the poetic use in the later writings must not be sacrificed due to the original literal account.

In other words, a real historical event becomes a later rhetorical or symbolic device. We shouldn’t reverse-engineer the later symbolic use of the language back into the non-symbolic origin of the language. Likewise, we shouldn’t over-literalize the later symbolic usage and strip it of its rhetorical effect in the writings of the prophets.

An overly literal approach turns the Bible into a cartoon book, and an overly symbolic approach turns the Bible into a codebook. And neither approach captures the intent of Scripture.

We need to avoid the extremes on both sides and embrace the Biblical balance between the two.

 

Striking the Balance  

In no similar case, in any other piece of literature or in the usage of that literature, would we gravitate toward these extremes – even today. It is commonplace for historical facts to become figures of speech without dissolving into fiction or figures of speech being flattened into bare historical facts.

For example, the phrase “Remember the Alamo” has become a popular rallying cry. We wouldn’t argue that the original battle was merely symbolic because it later functioned as a symbol. “Crossing the Rubicon” is a phrase we use for passing a point of no return. But we don’t retroactively conclude that Caesar never literally crossed a real river. Today “Meeting your Waterloo” is metaphorical for a decisive defeat. For example, the lyrics in the Abba song:

 

My, my

At Waterloo,

Napoleon did surrender

Oh, yeah

And I have met my destiny in quite a similar way

The history book on the shelf

Is always repeating itself

Waterloo

I was defeated, you won the war

Waterloo

Promise to love you forevermore[2]

 

 

This doesn’t turn Napoleon’s defeat into mere poetry, diminish it into nothing but a lyrical trope in a song, or reduce it to a simple metaphor for a romantic relationship. It is still an actual event recorded in that “history book on the shelf,” as the Abba song itself says.

On the flip side, none of this means that a modern use of these phrases equates to literally being back at the Alamo, literally crossing the Rubicon, or literally reliving the Battle of Waterloo. The metaphorical reference is simply a thematic application of the core of the original historical event.

We don’t do this with our own language today, so why do we do it with the language of the Bible? Those who handle God’s word have an obligation to handle it accurately (2 Tim. 2:15), and the extremes on both sides should be avoided by those who endeavor to do just that.

In each case, the original event acts as an interpretive grid to process, frame, and give meaning to other events and ideas.

It’s no different with the Bible.

 

The Biblical Worldview Grid

 

James B. Jordan laid it all out very well. We would be wise to follow his balanced approach:

 

 

“The language of appearance accomplishes two things in Genesis 1. First, it gives a true description of the world as it is. It is not merely poetic to call the sun a ‘great light,’ for the sun is a great light. Nor is it merely poetic to refer to ‘creeping things,’ because the animals thus designated do, in fact, creep on the ground. Thus, provided we do not try to press the language of Genesis 1 into some scientific mold, ancient or modern, there is no reason not to take it literally.

 

“At the same time, however, the language of visual appearance in Genesis 1 serves to establish a visual grid, a worldview. By writing in terms of visual appearance, the Bible sets up categories of visual imagery. Unfortunately, modern readers often have trouble with this. We who live in the post-Gutenberg information age are unfamiliar with visual imagery. We are word-oriented, not picture-oriented. The Bible, however, is a pre-Gutenberg information source; while it does not contain drawings, it is full of important visual descriptions and imagery.

 

“This visual imagery is one of the primary ways the Bible presents its worldview. There is nothing to indicate that Genesis 1 is merely symbolic. At the same time, however, by using the language of visual appearances, Genesis 1 sets up a worldview grid that is used later on in Scripture for symbolic purposes.”[3]

 

In short, Genesis 1 is both historical fact and the foundation for the Bible’s symbolic language. It is the literal basis on which the later picturesque descriptions are built. The historical and literal foundation provides the background for the symbolic language, and understanding the historical context leads to a richer understanding of the poetic symbols.

 

History Shapes Imagery, and Imagery Reflects History

Scripture speaks in layers without one layer negating the other. The historical foundations of Genesis are not erased when later writers draw upon them symbolically, and the symbolic use of that language is not nullified because the foundation was real.

Instead, the original act of creation provides the categories by which Israel’s prophets describe judgment and restoration. Chaos and order, darkness and light, de-creation and re-creation are not arbitrary metaphors but Biblical patterns rooted in real history.

When we honor both the historical reality and the literary development of that reality, we honor the original intent of the Biblical writers. This helps keep us from getting knocked off balance and tipping to either extreme. In short, it keeps us grounded in the Bible’s center of gravity.

So, the next time crack open your Bible, make sure you maintain your footing!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[1] Many thanks to Dan for his input, editorial corrections, and helpful suggestions for this article.

[2] Waterloo by Abba | Lyric Genius https://bit.ly/3OwNmKQ

[3] James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes, 12.