The pink highlight are the commentaries on The Chicago
Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics by Norman L. Geisler.
WE AFFIRM that translations of the text of Scripture can communicate knowledge
of God across all temporal and cultural boundaries.
WE DENY that the meaning of biblical
texts is so tied to the culture out of which they came that understanding of the same meaning in other
cultures is impossible.
Simply because the truth of Scripture was conveyed by God in the original writings does not
mean that it cannot be translated into another language. This article affirms the translatability of God's
truth into other cultures. It affirms that since truth is transcendent (see Article XX) it is not culture-bound.
Hence the truth of God expressed in a first-century culture is not limited to that culture. For the nature
of truth is not limited to any particular medium through which it is expressed.
The Denial notes that since meaning is not inextricably tied to a given culture it can be
adequately expressed in another culture. Thus the message of Scripture need not be relativized by translation.
What is expressed can be the same even though how it is expressed differs.
WE AFFIRM that in the task of translating the Bible and teaching it in the context
of each culture, only those functional equivalents which are faithful to the content of biblical
teaching should be employed.
WE DENY the legitimacy of methods which either are insensitive
to the demands of cross-cultural communication or distort biblical meaning in the process.
Whereas the previous article treated the matter of the translatability of divine truth, this
article speaks to the adequacy of translations. Obviously not every expression in another language will
appropriately convey the meaning of Scripture. In view of this, caution is urged that the translators remain
faithful to the truth of the Scripture being translated by the proper choice of the words used to translate it.
This article treats the matter of functional equivalence. Often there is no actual or
literal equivalence between expressions in one language and a word-for-word translation into another language.
What is expressed (meaning) is the same but how it is expressed (the words) is different. Hence a different
construction can be used to convey the same meaning.
The Denial urges sensitivity to cultural matters so that the same truth may be conveyed, even
though different terms are being used. Without this awareness missionary activity can be severely hampered.
WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the
various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as
one of the many disciplines of biblical study.
WE DENY that generic categories which negate
historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.
The awareness of what kind of literature one is interpreting is essential to a correct
understanding of the text. A correct genre judgment should be made to ensure correct understanding. A parable,
for example, should not be treated like a chronicle, nor should poetry be interpreted as though it were a
straightforward narrative. Each passage has its own genre, and the interpreter should be cognizant of the
specific kind of literature it is as he attempts to interpret it. Without genre recognition an interpreter can
be misled in his understanding of the passage. For example, when the prophet speaks of trees clapping their
hands (Isa. 55:12) one could assume a kind of animism unless he recognized that this is poetry and not
The Denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of
passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is
presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person
and so referred to by Christ (Man. 12:40-42). This Denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use
genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture.
WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented
in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
WE DENY that any
event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions
This article combines the emphases of Articles VI and XIII. While acknowledging the legitimacy
of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to
historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.
The Denial is even more clear than the Affirmation. It stresses that any discourse, saying, or
event reported in Scripture must actually have occurred. This means that any hermeneutic or form of biblical
criticism which claims that something was invented by the author must be rejected. This does not mean
that a parable must be understood to represent historical facts, since a parable does not (by its very
genre) purport to report an event or saying but simply to illustrate a point.
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or
normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the
writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of
speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach
to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal
carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to
explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical
sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its
grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.
The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal
understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating
typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII,
WE AFFIRM that legitimate critical techniques should be used in determining the
canonical text and its meaning.
WE DENY the legitimacy of allowing any method of biblical
criticism to question the truth or integrity of the writer's expressed meaning, or of any other
Implied here is an approval of legitimate techniques of lower criticism or textual
criticism. It is proper to use critical techniques in order to discover the true text of Scripture,
that is, the one which represents the original one given by the biblical authors.
Whereas critical methodology can be used to establish which of the texts are copies of the
inspired original, it is illegitimate to use critical methods to call into question whether something in the
original text is true. In other words, proper lower criticism is valid but negative higher
criticism which rejects truths of Scripture is invalid.
WE AFFIRM the unity, harmony and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its
own best interpreter.
WE DENY that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest
that one passage corrects or militates against another. We deny that later writers of Scripture
misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.
Two points are made in the Affirmation, the unity of Scripture and its self-interpreting ability.
Since the former is treated elsewhere (Article XXI), we will comment on the latter here. Not only is the Bible
always correct in interpreting itself (see Article XVIII), but it is the best interpreter of itself.
Another point made here is that comparing Scripture with Scripture is an excellent help to an
interpreter. For one passage sheds light on another. Hence the first commentary the interpreter should consult
on a passage is what the rest of Scripture may say on that text.
The Denial warns against the assumption that an understanding of one passage can lead the
interpreter to reject the teaching of an-other passage. One passage may help him better comprehend another but
it will never contradict another.
This last part of the Denial is particularly directed to those who believe the New Testament
writers misinterpret the Old Testament, or that they attribute meaning to an Old Testament text not expressed
by the author of that text. While it is acknowledged that there is sometimes a wide range of application for
a text, this article affirms that the interpretation of a biblical text by another biblical writer is always
within the confines of the meaning of the first text.
WE AFFIRM that the Bible's own interpretation of itself is always correct, never
deviating from, but rather elucidating, the single meaning of the inspired text. The single meaning of a
prophet's words includes, but is not restricted to, the understanding of those words by the prophet and
necessarily involves the intention of God evidenced in the fulfillment of those words.
DENY that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.
This Affirmation was perhaps the most difficult to word. The first part of the Affirmation
builds on Article VII which declared that Scripture has only one meaning, and simply adds that whenever the
Bible comments on another passage of Scripture it does so correctly. That is, the Bible never misinterprets
itself. It always correctly understands the meaning of the passage it comments on (see Article XVII).
For example, that Paul misinterprets Moses is to say that Paul erred. This view is emphatically rejected
in favor of the inerrancy of all Scripture.
The problem in the second statement of the Affirmation revolves around whether God intended
more by a passage of Scripture than the human author did. Put in this way, evangelical scholars are divided on
the issue, even though there is unity on the question of single meaning. Some believe that this single
meaning may be fuller than the purview of the human author, since God had far more in view than did the prophet
when he wrote it. The wording here is an attempt to include reference to the fulfillment of a prophecy (of which
God was obviously aware when He inspired it) as part of the single meaning which God and the prophet shared.
However, the prophet may not have been conscious of the full implications of this meaning when he wrote it.
The way around the difficulty was to note that there is only one meaning to a passage which both
God and the prophet affirmed, but that this meaning may not always be fully evidenced until the prophecy
is fulfilled. Furthermore, God, and not necessarily the prophets, was fully aware of the fuller implications
that would be manifested in the fulfillment of this single meaning.
It is important to preserve single meaning without denying that God had more in mind than the
prophet did. A distinction needs to be made, then, between what God was conscious of concerning an affirmation
(which, in view of His foreknowledge and omniscience, was far more) and what He and the prophet actually
expressed in the passage. The Denial makes this point clear by noting that biblical authors were not always
fully aware of the implications of their own affirmations.
WE AFFIRM that any pre-understandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture
should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
WE DENY that
Scripture should be required to fit alien pre-understandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism,
evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
The question of preunderstanding is a crucial one in contemporary hermeneutics. The careful
wording of the Affirmation does not discuss the issue of whether one should approach Scripture with a particular
preunderstanding, but simply which kinds of preunderstanding one has are legitimate. This question is answered
by affirming that only those preunderstandings which are compatible with the teaching of Scripture are legitimate.
In fact, the statement goes further and demands that all preunderstanding be subject to correction by the
teaching of Scripture.
The point of this article is to avoid interpreting Scripture through an alien grid or filter
which obscures or negates its true message. For it acknowledges that one's preunderstanding will affect his
understanding of a text. Hence to avoid misinterpreting Scripture one must be careful to examine his
own presuppositions in the light of Scripture.
WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and
extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters
pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extra-biblical
data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty
WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or
hold priority over it.
What is in view here is not so much the nature of truth (which is treated in Article VI),
but the consistency and coherence of truth.
This is directed at those views which consider truth paradoxical or contradictory. This
article declares that a proper hermeneutics avoids contradictions, since God never affirms as true two
propositions, one of which is logically the opposite of the other.
Further, this Affirmation recognizes that not all truth is in the Bible (though all that is
affirmed in the Bible is true). God has revealed Himself in nature and history as well as in Scripture.
However, since God is the ultimate Author of all truth, there can be no contradiction between truths of
Scripture and the true teachings of science and history.
Although only the Bible is the nonnative and infallible rule for doctrine and practice,
nevertheless what one learns from sources outside Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation
of Scripture. For example, some have taught the world to be square because the Bible refers to the four
comers of the earth (Isa. 11:12). But scientific knowledge of the spherical nature of the globe leads
to a correction of this faulty interpretation. Other clarifications of our understanding of the biblical
text are possible through the study of the social sciences.
However, whatever prompting and clarifying of Scripture that extrabiblical studies may provide,
the final authority for what the Bible teaches rests in the text of Scripture itself and not in anything
outside it (except in God Himself). The Denial makes clear this priority of the teaching of God's scriptural
revelation over anything outside it.
WE AFFIRM the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical
teaching with the facts of nature.
WE DENY that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent
with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
This article continues the discussion of the previous article by noting the harmony of God's
general revelation (outside Scripture) and His special revelation in Scripture. It is acknowledged by all that
certain interpretations of Scripture and some opinions of scientists will contradict each other. However,
it is insisted here that the truth of Scripture and the facts of science never contradict each other.
Genuine science will always be in accord with Scripture. Science, however, based on
naturalistic presuppositions will inevitably come in conflict with the supernatural truths of Scripture.
Far from denying a healthy interchange between scientific theory and biblical interpretation,
the framers of this statement welcome such. Indeed, it is acknowledged (in article XX) that the exegete can
learn from the scientist. What is denied is that we should accept scientific views that contradict
Scripture or that they should be given an authority above Scripture.
WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history
or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come
under severe attack it is important to apply the literal hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question.
The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living
things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they
are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).
The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among
evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on
denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term creation was meant
to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.
WE AFFIRM the clarity of Scripture and specifically of its message about salvation
WE DENY that all passages of Scripture are equally clear or have equal bearing on the
message of redemption.
Traditionally this teaching is called the perspicuity of Scripture. By this is meant that
the central message of Scripture is clear, especially what the Bible says about salvation from sin.
The Denial disassociates this claim from the belief that everything in Scripture is clear or that
all teachings are equally clear or equally relevant to the Bible's central saving message. It is obvious to any
honest interpreter that the meaning of some passages of Scripture is obscure. It is equally evident that the
truth of some passages is not directly relevant to the overall plan of salvation.
WE AFFIRM that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the
expertise of biblical scholars.
WE DENY that a person should ignore the fruits of the
technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.
This article attempts to avoid two extremes. First, it affirms that one is not dependent
on biblical experts for his understanding of the basic truths of Scripture. Were this not true, then
a significant aspect of the priesthood of all believers would be destroyed. For if the understanding of
the laity is contingent on the teaching of experts, then Protestant interpretive experts will have
replaced the teaching magisterium of Catholic priests with a kind of teaching magisterium of Protestant
On the other hand, biblical scholars do play a significant role in the lay understanding of
Scripture. Even the very tools (Bible, dictionaries, concordances, etc.) used by laypersons to interpret
Scripture were produced by scholars. And when it comes to more technical and precise understanding of specific
Scripture the work of experts is more than helpful. Hence the implied exhortation in the denial to avail
oneself of the fruit of scholarship is well taken.
WE AFFIRM that the only type of preaching which sufficiently conveys the divine
revelation and its proper application to life is that which faithfully expounds the text of Scripture
as the Word of God.
WE DENY that the preacher has any message from God apart from the
text of Scripture.
This final article declares that good preaching should be based in good hermeneutics. The
exposition of Scripture is not to be treated in isolation from the proclamation of Scripture. In preaching
the preacher should faithfully expound the Word of God. Anything short of a correct exposition of God's
written Word is pronounced insufficient.
Indeed, the Denial declares that there is no message from God apart from Scripture. This
was understood not to contradict the fact that there is a general revelation (affirmed in Article XXI)
but simply to note that the only inspired and infallible writing from which the preacher can and must preach
is the Bible.