by Matthew Verschuur
While presented as a push-back statement on various modernist and post-modernist positions on Bible interpretation, the pushback from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics is almost like modernist-influenced evangelicals fighting against even more progressive modernist and post-modernist positions.
It should be evident that those making the Statement were already turning away from the King James Bible, and were already beginning to weaken or fray at the edges in their view on the fundamentals. These were people who did believe in creation, in the plagues of Egypt, miracles of Jesus, the virgin birth and the resurrection.
This article evaluates key textual, translation and hermeneutical principles and the assumptions behind them in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1978). This article will particularly evaluate elements from Articles XV, XVI, XIX, XXII, and XXIV. It argues that the Statement reflects a capitulation to Enlightenment rationalism, naturalistic textual criticism and modernist translation practices that undermine historic, Spirit-led, ecclesiastical interpretation of the Scriptures. In contrast, the King James Bible as based on the Received Text and a believing Protestant approach is presented as the theologically consistent, providentially preserved and ecclesiologically grounded expression of Scripture for the world.
The modern shift toward the grammatical-historical method and the influence of the modern critical text theory and modern translation basis not only reflects an epistemological departure from the Reformation but also has long entered through the door of subjectivity, human autonomy and a diminished role for divine preservation in the transmission of Holy Writ. Most importantly, it denies the role of the Holy Ghost using the Scripture to speak to every man, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics was crafted in 1978 to respond to increasing theological liberalism and assault on the inerrancy of Scripture, with a focus on grounded, literal interpretation of Scripture. While its intent is commendable, its underlying framework and a good deal of its presupposition (including in the area of hermeneutics) ironically reflect the very modernist assumptions it sought to oppose. By embedding Enlightenment-born methodologies and promoting critical text theory, the statement effectively undermines the theological foundations of the Reformation and opens Scripture to priestly gatekeeping in the guise of scholarly interpretation. It only served to hasten the slide away from Christians actually relying on interpreting the Authorized Version (King James Bible) as the legitimate and providentially preserved Word of God in their hands.
In many ways the Statement is at war with proper, believing and sound Bible interpretation mythology.
So what is the grammatical-historical sense? This is a problematic approach arising in the 19th century out of the 18th century Enlightenment. In the grammatical part, it puts emphasis onto the original language, rather than to be able to trust the Scripture as has been properly translated, which is what the Westminster Confession of Faith even affirms is the word of God. If Scripture is not in English, and not to be interpreted in English, then it allows much subjectivity, priest-craft and confusion as to the alleged “real” meaning of words and language. Whereas God is actually speaking to the nations, and so we should trust the Scripture in English. Further, in the historical sense, this puts lopsided emphasis on the Bible in its original context, and on the human authorship and “first audience” readership, rather than on the Holy Ghost and on God speaking to believers today. It is deeply ironic that modern-influenced teachers, including the likes of the late John MacArthur, are people today telling us what it was like in Bible times, or how Bible times hearers understood the Bible. This again is priest-craft and can be done with bias-lenses of the modern, anachronistic and infidelity-influenced perspective.
As an aside, the Bible should be read literally, but obviously that should not excludes types, allegories, symbolism, figurative language, spiritual meanings, etc.
Article XVI is likewise troubling in its tethering to modernistic textual critical views which are necessarily set in battle array against the Reformation-era received text.
The endorsement of textual criticism further betrays the statement’s modernist commitments. The elevation of the eclectic critical text as composed from an unstable array of manuscripts using Enlightenment-based principles of internal and external evidence reflects a naturalistic view of Scripture’s preservation. Scholars such as Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger openly acknowledged that their work operated on scientific, not theological grounds (Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 1989).
This methodological shift is not merely academic; it has profound theological implications. The Received Text, which underlies the King James Version, reflects the providential preservation of Scripture as it was recognised and utilised by the believing Church across centuries. To abandon this textual foundation in favour of readings found in obscure or recently discovered manuscripts (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) is to prioritize archaeological novelty over ecclesial consensus and divine preservation.
Article XIX is damning against the statement, because a Deistic mentality is brought by these very people in how they view the transmission of Scripture, that they see God inspiring the autographs, but put very low and even a cessationist overlay on how the Scripture went from the first century to the Protestants since the 16th century. In other words, they have a completely naturalistic perspective in how the King James Bible came to be.
The Reformation doctrine of providentia specialis (special providence) affirms that the same God who inspired the text also preserved it through the church. The King James Bible, standing upon the Received Text tradition, represents the fruit of centuries of ecclesial usage, liturgical function and divine guidance.
In Article XXII, we find the inconsistency of how evolutionary, modernistic, secular humanistic thinking is allowed to effect their translation, for example, changing Bible words like “dragon” to “jackal”, and in Genesis 1 changing “heaven” to “heavens”, the Spirit “moved” to “hovered”, “firmament” to “expanse”, etc. etc.
Article XXIV is also not consistently followed, for huge emphasis is placed on the influence of modernist thinking in textual studies (e.g. modern critical text, for example Kurt Aland was driven by Enlightenment-based thought), lexicons (e.g. the infidelity of Thayers, BDAG, etc.) and hermeneutics, which is the subject matter at hand, there are huge problems as people like John MacArthur and so on rely on people like Ramm and especially Milton Terry, who himself was based on the work of arch-infidels as Ernesti.
While the Statement may have been noble in intent, it was fundamentally flawed and deeply compromised in execution. Its perpetuation of Enlightenment-based hermeneutics, critical text theory and modern translation ideology undermines the very inerrancy and divine holy write it seeks to defend. In contrast, the King James Bible, standing firmly on the Received Text and translated by spiritual men under the superintendence of providence, remains the most consistent and theologically sound expression of God’s Word in English.
To recover the authority and clarity of Scripture, the Church must return to the theological foundations of the Reformation, reject modernist intrusions into hermeneutics and textual studies, and affirm the King James Bible not merely as a historic artifact, but as the living, sufficient and preserved Word of God.
Most especially, in this time of darkness, believing study must prevail and understanding must increase. We should believe that we can come to right and proper understanding of Scripture, to interest correctly, and this will not be by continuing one step further down the road of the doubt- and human-based methodologies which have crept into the Church.
“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.” (Prov. 1:5, 6).
“Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” (Prov. 1:23).