In recent years, a model of biblical inerrancy has gained traction in seminaries and among scholars that stands in contrast to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. One of the chief proponents of this model is John Walton, a well-known Old Testament scholar. His approach, which argues that the Bible may reflect mistaken ancient worldviews in its portrayal of cosmology or other elements, has stirred debate within evangelical circles. In this article, I will examine Walton’s model in contrast to the traditional understanding of inerrancy, particularly how his views undermine the clarity and authority of Scripture.

Walton’s Approach: The Separation of Locution and Illocution

John Walton’s model of inerrancy focuses heavily on the distinction between locution (the words used by the author) and illocution (the author’s intended message or purpose). Walton suggests that while the biblical authors may have used language that reflects the ancient cultural context—such as a belief in a solid sky or other mistaken cosmological views—their illocution, or intended message, remains authoritative and true.

Steve Hays critiques Walton’s view in his article “Inerrancy and Illocution,” arguing that this distinction between locution and illocution is unsustainable when applied to the biblical text. He writes:

“Assuming for the sake of argument that ancient Jews believed in a solid sky, this is not just a question of what the Genesis narrator believed.

Rather, according to Walton, the narrator is using locutions to express his belief. He is committing his belief to writing.

In that event, how can Walton drive a wedge between the narrator’s locution and his illocution? He chooses those words with the intention of expressing what he thought the world was like. ‘Asserting’ or ‘instructing.’

By Walton’s own admission, the reader has no direct access to the narrator’s illocution. Rather, the reader must access the narrator’s illocution via his locutions. He chose those words and sentences to express himself. Yet according to Walton, that’s erroneous.”

Hays’ critique brings out the core issue in Walton’s model: if the words chosen by the biblical author are seen as erroneous, how can the intended meaning of the text (the illocution) remain intact? Walton tries to separate what the author says from what he means, but this division leaves readers in an interpretive limbo, unable to trust the plain meaning of the text. If the words (locution) are culturally mistaken, then the message (illocution) is also compromised, since the author’s intent is expressed through those very words.

Undermining the Normative Force of Scripture

A second issue with Walton’s model is that it relocates the normative force of a passage. By normative force, I mean the content that we are to believe as authoritative and binding. Traditionally, when interpreting Scripture, we look at the historical and grammatical context of the text to understand the author’s intent. This is the basis of the historical-grammatical method, a method upheld by the Reformers and consistently used in evangelical hermeneutics.

Consider, for example, the case of John 8:58, where Jesus declares, “Before Abraham was, I am.” The immediate reaction of the Jewish audience is to pick up stones, seeking to kill Him for blasphemy. This reaction, rooted in the Jewish understanding of the divine name “I am” from the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14), provides crucial context for interpreting the passage. The charge of blasphemy indicates that Jesus’ audience understood His words as a claim to divinity.

However, Walton’s model introduces a disturbing possibility: what if the characters in the narrative, or even the author himself, are simply mistaken in their beliefs? In such a case, the normative force of the passage is diminished. No longer can we say that the audience’s response reveals something about Jesus’ divine claim, since both the audience and the author could be reflecting mistaken cultural views.

This is not a hypothetical issue but a serious concern for how we interpret Scripture. If Walton’s model allows for mistaken ideas to be embedded in the text, then it opens the door to questioning whether any passage truly communicates divine truth. This would fundamentally undermine the historical-grammatical method, as it relies on the assumption that the author’s words accurately convey the intended meaning and truth of the passage.

As Chris Matthew succinctly puts it:

“The historical-grammatical method requires the interpreter to uncover (1) the intent of the biblical author, and (2) what the original hearers would have understood. To uncover (1) and (2), we often have to look at the characters in the relevant historical context. We know that the Jewish audience in John 8, for example, was enraged because of the Hebrew connotations of Jesus’ words. But if we grant that the background ideas (expressed in the characters’ authoritative locution) may be mistaken, then we’ve lost the ability to uncover (1) and (2), and thus, we’ve lost the historical-grammatical method.”

In short, Walton’s model not only diminishes the authority of specific texts, it casts doubt on the entire interpretive process. If we cannot trust that the biblical authors conveyed truth accurately, then we lose the very method by which we come to understand Scripture.

The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and Its Defense of Biblical Truth

This is why the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy remains a vital safeguard for evangelical hermeneutics. The statement affirms that Scripture, being divinely inspired, is entirely without error in all that it affirms, whether that concerns matters of theology, history, or science. It upholds the belief that the biblical authors were guided by the Holy Spirit to write what is true, and therefore their locutions (words) faithfully convey the illocution (intended meaning) without error.

The Chicago Statement avoids the pitfalls of Walton’s approach by maintaining that Scripture is entirely reliable, regardless of the cultural context in which it was written. While it acknowledges that the Bible was written in specific historical and cultural settings, it asserts that God ensured the accuracy of the message conveyed by the human authors. This view preserves the normative force of the text, ensuring that the historical-grammatical method remains a valid and trustworthy approach to interpretation.

Conclusion

John Walton’s model of inerrancy may appeal to those who wish to reconcile modern scientific views with the biblical text, but it comes at the cost of undermining the authority and clarity of Scripture. By introducing the possibility that the biblical authors held mistaken beliefs, Walton’s model risks severing the connection between the words of Scripture and the truth they intend to convey. This, in turn, weakens the very method by which we interpret the Bible.

In contrast, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy offers a robust defense of the Bible’s reliability and authority, ensuring that we can trust both the words and the meaning of Scripture. Upholding this view is essential for preserving the integrity of biblical interpretation and for maintaining confidence in the truthfulness of God’s Word.