Biblical Univocality
Adventist and fundamentalist Christian theology is largely built on the false assumption that the Bible contains zero contradictions. This is the dogma of univocality. Reading the Bible honestly and objectively shows that it does contain various contradictions.
Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible also tend to believe the Bible is univocal, defined as having only one meaning; a single, clear, and consistent message. If you grew up reading the Bible and believed it has zero contradictions, you grew up with univocality.
It's dishonest to claim the Bible has zero contradictions or different perspectives, especially because the books of the Bible were written by many humans across many different times, places, and cultures. Remember, the Bible is not one single book—it is essentially a library of dozens of books.
As a collection of various books, it is completely normal that the Bible contains different viewpoints and even direct contradictions. The authors of the Bible were human beings whose different perspectives were shaped by their unique circumstances, so we should expect to find contradictions and inconsistencies.
The Adventist church claims the Bible has no contradictions, while also admitting that the Bible was written "by more than 40 authors living on three different continents over a span of 1,500 years." In reality, there were way more than 40 authors. Bible scholars acknowledge that many books of the Bible actually have multiple anonymous or unknown authors.
As we noted earlier, some well-known Christians like author C. S. Lewis acknowledged that "naivety, error, [and] contradiction" can be found in the Bible. Martin Luther even questioned if the book of James is legitimate because of a major contradiction that we'll explore at the end of this section.
So why do many modern Christians insist the Bible has zero contradictions? The dogma of univocality mostly comes from belief in biblical inerrancy, popularized by mainstream American Evangelicals. If they admit the Bible has contradictions, they'd also have to admit it's not fully inerrant.
Adventists don't necessarily believe in total inerrancy, but univocality is central to the Adventist church’s major doctrines, especially their traditional interpretations of Daniel and Revelation.
For those of us who’ve heard traditional Adventist sermons or prophecy seminars, we’ve seen univocality in action. Bible verses in one book are often used to interpret verses in an entirely different book, without acknowledging the different intended audiences, time periods, and cultural contexts of each book.
Univocality is one of the most common, damaging, and distorting dogmas imposed on the Bible. When fundamentalists find a contradiction, they try to hide it by reinterpreting what the biblical text actually says. In a video on univocality, Bible scholar Dan McClellan said the following:
[Univocality] is telling the Bible what it is and is not allowed to say, and it is overruling the authors themselves. And the result is the meaning that readers generate with the text frequently has no relationship to what was intended by the authors or understood by the original audiences—it is what we have decided the text is allowed to mean. And that is fundamentally distorting.
As we explored in the section on Biblical Inerrancy, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all of the Jewish scriptures are "life-giving." However, there is no verse in the Bible that claims univocality. An honest, objective reading of the Bible shows that contradictions do exist.
Circumcision
Do Christian men have to be circumcised? Galatians 2:11-14 explicitly describes a strong disagreement between the apostles Paul and Peter (also called Cephas) on the treatment of Gentiles who didn’t follow certain Jewish practices like being circumcised.
There was an entire controversy in the early Christian church around circumcision and other Jewish practices. This conflict provides clear and direct evidence that the earliest Christians, including the New Testament authors and apostles, did not always agree.
Anti-circumcision | Pro-circumcision | |
|---|---|---|
Attitudes Towards Circumcision | What God has made clean, you must not call profane. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them… we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that, if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. There is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised… There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision… | So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” |
Can God Lie?
The Bible is not consistent in answering a simple yet important question: Can God lie?
Books in both the Old and New Testament contradict each other on this point. Some Bible verses say that God "never lies" or even that it's actually "impossible" for God to lie. But other verses give specific examples of God deceiving prophets, kings, and the Israelite people.
Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
Can God Lie? | ...the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets… ...the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets… ...Lord God, how utterly you have deceived this people and Jerusalem… You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived… If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet… …God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false… | God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. God, who never lies, promised before the ages began… Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear... it is impossible for God to lie... |
Who Knew God's Name?
This next contradiction is not obvious when reading the Bible in English or another translated language, but it's hard to ignore when reading the original Hebrew. According to the Book of Genesis, Abraham and the people who came before him knew God by the name YHWH (Yahweh).
Genesis 4:26 says people began to call upon YHWH at the time when Seth had a son (Seth is the third son of Adam and Eve). Genesis 15:7-8 quotes God telling Abraham "I am YHWH" and Abraham calls him YHWH. While YHWH is often translated as "the Lord" in English, the original Hebrew clearly says YHWH.
However in Exodus 6:3, God tells Moses that he was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name "God Almighty" or "El Shaddai" in Hebrew, and that they did not know him by the name "YHWH."
This is a significant and direct contradiction. Here are two Old Testament books—both supposedly written by Moses—which disagree with each other. Genesis quotes God telling Abraham "I am YHWH," and then Exodus quotes God telling Moses "by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them."
Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
Did Abraham know the name YHWH? | To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord [YHWH]. Then he said to him [Abraham], "I am the Lord [YHWH] who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess." But he [Abraham] said, "O Lord God [YHWH], how am I to know that I shall possess it?" | God also spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name 'The Lord' [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them." |
Bible scholar Dan McClellan explains the contradiction likely exists because the author of Exodus 6:3 only had a version of the patriarchal narratives where the patriarchs like Abraham did not know the name YHWH. It was either that, or they only considered that version to be authoritative or authentic.
Dr. McClellan highlights how this contradiction provides clear evidence that the Book of Genesis was edited at some point before the manuscripts were translated into the Bibles we have today:
Either way, there has been editing to the version of Genesis that has come down to us, so that either that other tradition has been combined with the author of Exodus 6's tradition, or the name YHWH has been added to the Book of Genesis in order to have Abraham be able to call explicitly on the name YHWH.
Has Anyone Seen God?
In ancient times, people viewed deities—including Yahweh—as having literal, physical bodies. That's why in Genesis 3:8, we read that Adam and Eve "heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden." There are also multiple stories from the Old Testament where people literally saw God in person, like Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and "seventy of the elders of Israel."
However, the Bible contains multiple contradictions on whether people can literally see God or not, and whether they can even survive seeing God. John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God," but Exodus 33:11 states "the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend."
Just a few verses later in Exodus 33:19-23—the very same chapter—we see yet another apparent contradiction: God's hand physically covers Moses so that Moses only sees God's back. Speaking to Moses, God says "you cannot see my face, for no one shall see me and live."
Throughout the Bible, there are multiple examples of humans seeing God, with different reactions and outcomes. Bible scholars have pointed out that by the time of the New Testament, biblical authors were partly influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Platonism.
Even though the Old Testament often portrayed God as having a literal, physical body that people could see, Greek philosophy eventually influenced and changed this belief. Thanks in large part to the philosopher Plato, people now believe God is incorporeal, leading to John 1:18 saying "no one has ever seen God."
Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
Has anyone seen God? | The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre... So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, yet my life is preserved." Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. | You cannot see my face, for no one shall see me and live. No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. |
Who Killed Goliath?
Bible scholars recognize the books of Samuel are a "patchwork of different sources" which sometimes repeat stories and contain contradictions. For example, 1 Samuel 17:31-38 describes David meeting Saul right before going to fight Goliath. Then for some reason, David is introduced to Saul again in verses 55-58.
The fact that these are separate, conflicting stories is made even clearer when you realize that in the previous chapter, 1 Samuel 16, Saul already knows David and his father, and David has been serving Saul as his trusted armor-bearer. In just two chapters, David is introduced to Saul at least three separate times.
So when we reach the story of David and Goliath, it's no surprise that there are conflicting accounts about who killed Goliath. In 1 Samuel 17, David kills Goliath—this is the popular version told to virtually every kid in Sabbath school, but it's not the only one, or even the original version of that story.
Giant's description | Goliath, of Gath... The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam | Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam | Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam |
Killer's description | David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah named Jesse... | Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite | Elhanan son of Jair |
In 2 Samuel 21, another person named Elhanan is given credit for killing Goliath. As if that weren't confusing enough, 1 Chronicles 20 credits Elhanan with killing the brother of Goliath, named Lahmi. The scholarly consensus is that 2 Samuel is likely the earliest version of the story, with 1 Chronicles being a later version.
This is further supported by the fact that the name "Lahmi" is likely a made-up name or mistake by the authors of 1 Chronicles. Lahmi, which means "my bread," appears to be a Semitic name—not a Philistine name—and it doesn't follow either Semitic or Philistine naming conventions from that time period.
An article from the Christian research institute Tyndale House explains why this name is likely a mistake:
(1) it only occurs in the Chronicles parallel, (2) it occurs in precisely the same place that the word ‘[Beth-]lehemite’ is found in the Samuel text, (3) it looks very similar in terms of its visual look in Hebrew (הלחמי vs. לחמי) and even its sound (hallaḥmî vs. laḥmî). On balance, these three factors should make us seriously consider the possibility that the name 'Lahmi' has accidentally entered the text of Chronicles as a scribal confusion of the (second half of the) place-name 'Bethlehemite'.
In other words, the story of David killing Goliath is a legend, possibly invented to make David into an even more heroic figure. Many of these points have been discussed openly by some Adventists, like professor Horace B. Alexander, who was willing to honestly explore the biblical text in a 2023 article:
Because the Bible is a compilation from multiple sources—sometimes multiple sources within the same book—vestiges of history and legend can be found in contradiction with each other. And this could well be the case with this beloved story.
Who Carried the Cross?
The New Testament gospels describe the life and death of Jesus, but some of their details contradict each other. This isn't surprising, because the New Testament was written by different authors at different times, decades after the date traditionally associated with the death of Jesus.
One simple example comes from the question "Who carried the cross of Jesus to Golgotha?" Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that Simon, a man from Cyrene, carried Jesus’ cross. But John, the newest or most recently written gospel, emphasizes that Jesus carried the cross by himself.
Some Bible scholars have noted that the Book of John places a noticeably greater emphasis on the divinity of Jesus than the other gospels. This contradiction between John and the other gospels is one of several examples where the author of John portrays Jesus in a more powerful and divine light.
Who carried the cross of Jesus to Golgatha? | "A man from Cyrene named Simon" | "Simon of Cyrene" | "Simon of Cyrene" | "Jesus… carrying the cross by himself" |
Women at the Tomb
The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all contain similar stories, as well as some information that is unique to each book. This has highlighted some glaring contradictions, including details from one of the most important claims of the Christian faith: that Jesus died, rose again, and his empty tomb proved it.
Instead of presenting a unified narrative about the empty tomb, the synoptic gospels disagree on how many women were at the tomb, who told the disciples, and when and how they told them.
Matthew 27 and 28 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Who was at the empty tomb? | 2 Women | 3 Women | # Unclear |
Who told others about the empty tomb? | 2 Women "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb" | Nobody (oldest manuscripts) ...or 1 Woman Mary Magdalene (newer manuscripts) | # Unclear "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them" |
How and when did the women tell others? | "So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples" | "They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (oldest manuscripts) | Timing unclear, but likely immediately: "...returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest" |
In Mark 16, the women who discovered the empty tomb trembled and "said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." In the oldest known manuscripts (handwritten copies of biblical texts), the story ends there.
Only newer manuscripts of Mark 16 contain verses 9-20, indicating these verses might have been added later by different authors. In those newer manuscripts, the story continues with Jesus appearing first only to Mary Magdalene. After that, Mary Magdalene goes by herself to tell others about it.
In contrast, Matthew 28:8 says both Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" were at the tomb, and "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples." Luke 24:9 is closer to Matthew, but describes even more women being at the tomb.
So, which version of the story is the correct one? Who witnessed Jesus’ empty tomb? Did the women initially say "nothing" to anyone because they were afraid, or did they "depart quickly," running to tell the disciples? And why do different manuscripts of Mark 16 contain completely different endings?
It is undeniable that the synoptic gospels have contradictions on these and other points. It is possible to understand the big picture of the story being told and get greater meaning and value from these texts, without falsely claiming that they have zero contradictions.
Faith vs. Works
Are Christians justified by faith alone, or do works matter? In Romans Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, the apostle Paul claims Christians are justified by faith without works and uses Abraham as evidence for the claim, saying "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
But in James 2:14-26, the author insists that "faith without works is dead." James also uses Abraham as an example, saying Abraham was "justified by works" by offering to kill his son: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"
Justified by faith alone or faith with works? | Faith without works | Faith with works |
Author’s supporting evidence | "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" | Abraham was "justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar" |
A common reinterpretation of James’ and Paul’s opposing views is that Christians are justified by faith and faith alone, but that having genuine faith will produce works. This is also the traditional Adventist position.
However, this is not what either Bible author wrote—it is an attempt to hide and harmonize their opposing views. Martin Luther acknowledged this contradiction, and even claimed the Book of James was not the work of any apostle because of it. Luther’s 1522 Bible contains this preface to the Book of James:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it… I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15… This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
Luther thought this was such a significant contradiction that he did not consider the Book of James to be a true work of an apostle. Today, we can still get meaning and value out of these clearly contradictory verses without reconciling them, but many Christians feel the need to insist there are zero contradictions.
Summary
Biblical univocality is one of the most distorting dogmas imposed on the Bible. Assuming the Bible speaks with one consistent and unified voice leads people to ignore and reinterpret what the original authors intended.
- Many Adventists believe the Bible is "univocal," speaking with a unified voice and having zero contradictions. But an honest, objective reading of the Bible shows that it does contain contradictions on both small details (e.g. who killed Goliath?) and larger theological questions (e.g. can God lie?)
- Contradictions have been acknowledged by prominent Christians from Martin Luther to C. S. Lewis. The books of Romans and James directly contradict each other regarding faith and works. This disagreement is so significant that Martin Luther did not believe the Book of James was written by an apostle.
- Some contradictions in the Bible are obscured by translation from the original language. For example, the original Hebrew in the books of Genesis and Exodus shows a direct contradiction about whether Abraham and others knew God by the name YHWH (Yahweh). Genesis says yes, Exodus says no.
- Human ideas about God have also shaped biblical contradictions. In ancient times, deities were viewed as having literal, physical bodies, so the Old Testament is full of examples where humans literally saw God in person. Over time, Greek philosophy—especially Platonism—influenced Bible authors to believe God is incorporeal (without a body), which is why John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God."
- Because the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all contain similar stories, we have numerous examples of contradictions about the story of Jesus. The discovery of the empty tomb, one of the most important claims in Christianity, is full of inconsistent details like how many women were present, who told others about the empty tomb, and how and when they told the others.
- Biblical univocality is a faulty assumption built upon belief in biblical inerrancy. Ultimately, these dogmas distort our understanding of what the Bible authors originally intended. Reading the Bible without these dogmas allows us to gain a greater appreciation for the different perspectives found in the Bible.