Discerning Charges of Arrogance in Biblical Interpretation

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man isn’t king, he’s an arrogant jerk. That’s because if no one sees what he sees then to boldly make a truth claim concerning the nature of reality is to be arrogant in the opinion of the masses if that truth claim should be contrary to what everyone else might believe.

Unfortunately, we are all the products of Enlightenment inclusivism whether we like it or not. What that means is that anyone claiming to know a truth that excludes the opinions of others will be seen as an arrogant tyrant who lifts himself up over others. This is especially true of religious knowledge.

This is because, in the Enlightenment, it was argued that religion cannot be known in any sort of objective manner. Hence, one could only subjectively take hold of what was religiously true based on his or her experience. Since no one could really know what was religiously true, anyone claiming to know it was arrogant, thinking that their subjective experience is better than someone else’s because they must be assuming that they are smarter, more spiritual, more righteous, or more important in some way.

In the Post-Enlightenment Era in which we find ourselves today, this assumption is deeply rooted in our ideas concerning religious truth claims and our concept of arrogance. Religious relativism is the religion of the humble. Exclusive dogma is the religion of the arrogant.

To make any sort of truth claim about religion that excludes and rejects the validity of the religious truth claims of others is to lift oneself up as superior. Hence, what is really important is how one speaks, not the content of what one says. One must speak in a manner that concedes to the validity of other religious truth claims that contradict one’s own. This is what the humble man does because, as said before, only the arrogant man would think that his subjective experience is better than another’s. He must never claim that he knows what is true if that truth should claim that others, especially the majority, are wrong.

Hence, to claim, for instance, that Christ is the only way of salvation will be met with accusations of arrogance toward the one who makes that claim. These accusations run something to this effect: “Who are you that you think you’re so special as opposed to all of these other people, the majority, who don’t believe what you do? You must think you’re better than they are. How could so many others be wrong? Most people in the world don’t believe that. You’re holding a minority view. If you personally believe that, that’s fine; but say it in a way that acknowledges that the ideas of others that contradict yours are just as valid.”

The same conversation can be repeated for virtually any religious belief, since all beliefs automatically infer an exclusion of any truth claims that contradict them.

Evangelicals, although willing to be labeled arrogant for what they consider essential, have largely adopted this stance toward any religious truth claim that falls outside of what they personally think is not only clearly true but in their minds universally held. Hence, to make the claim that one knows the right interpretation of a particular biblical text that falls outside what is considered essential is to be arrogant. The same types of arguments are made but within the framework of Christian essentials. “Who are you to say such and such is true. So and so has a different opinion and so do many others. You must think you’re better than them, smarter than them, godlier than them, but they are really smart and godly too. You must be arrogant for saying that you know what is true and that they are wrong.”

Now, let me say that it is possible that the accusation of arrogance toward such a person is true. However, it is often assumed to be true when, in fact, it is not. What must decide the matter for us are two essentials pieces of knowledge that must be considered first. These are (1) Is the person’s claim to know the religious truth claim that rejects the opinions of others as false based on subjective or objective criteria? And (2) Does the Bible condemn as arrogant exclusive truth claims made upon the basis of objective or only subjective criteria?

Let’s deal with the first question first. There is a stark difference in biblical interpretation when someone practices exegesis as opposed to what I would call “soundslikegesis.”

 Exegesis is when one looks at the objective evidence of lexicography, grammar, syntax, literary context, genre, audience background, and the objective reasoning of logical and linguistic principles in order to interpret a passage. There is no appeal to the self. The interpreter is not saying that he thinks this text says such and such because he is better in some way, smarter, godlier, more important, superior, etc. He is concluding what can and cannot be the correct interpretation of the passage based upon objective evidence and many times that objective evidence excludes other interpretations that have not taken into consideration everything above and have therefore concluded falsely.

Conversely, “soundslikegesis” is where someone believes that his or her interpretation of a passage is just as valid as someone who has used all of the objective tools above to discover the correct interpretation without him or herself using any of those objective tools above to do the same. In other words, this individual is merely looking at the passage and thinking that it sounds like it is saying something to him, and since he is who he is, his interpretation is just as valid as those of anyone else, learned or otherwise.

The first person is using an objective criteria that is outside of himself. The second person is using a subjective criteria that assumes that he has all that he needs to interpret the passage correctly since he is who he is. Whether this is because he is a Christian and he believes all Christians have some special spiritual insight into Scripture, or because his life experiences or traditions put him on par with the scholar using objective criteria, this person thinks that he should be included in the list of those with valid interpretations.

Now let’s answer the second question. What does the Bible consider arrogant? All of the above? None of the above? I would argue that it considers the last man arrogant and not the first. In order to claim this, let me briefly describe what the Bible considers arrogant.

One can be arrogant in one of two ways in the Bible.

The first way that one can be arrogant is that he can think that his opinions are linked to God directly and therefore the Bible is more of a suggestion book than a divine instruction that is absolute. In this regard, this person either ignores a biblical teaching because although he or she does believe it is right, he does not think it is necessary to hold, or he blatantly rejects a biblical teaching as wrong. This is to lift oneself up over God's Word in some way. This man is contrasted with the humble man who trembles at God’s Word (e.g., Isa 66:1-2).

The second way a mere human can be arrogant is by thinking that he is better than other people. He is superior in some way in that he is more important than another Christian (e.g., Phil 2). In this regard, I would say that the man using subjective rather than objective criteria is arrogant for thinking that his opinions and interpretations of Scripture are valid just because he holds them. Since he is just as good as anyone else and maybe even better, his opinions are just as good as anyone else's.

The one using objective criteria isn’t making a claim based on his equality or superiority in some way. It isn’t based on who he is. It is based on the objective criteria of exegesis. The objective criteria functions as an eye in the land of the blind, not some personal trait or quality that he inherently has.

Ironically, it is often the one practicing “soundslikegesis” who is calling the scholar using objective criteria “arrogant” because he is making a religious truth claim that excludes the views of others who may be just as godly, smart, or important. The mistake is in thinking that our biblical interpretations should be rooted in any of these subjective criteria in the first place. One might even say it is arrogant to assume that they are. But there I go again, arrogant jerk that I am, using that one eye of mine to describe reality.