Elohim Clarified: Unmasking Missteps in Scripture’s Self-Interpretation

Just how are we supposed to go about interpreting Scripture? The Reformed Doctrine called analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture) is the interpretive principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. When a biblical text is ambiguous or difficult, it should be understood in light of clearer passages that address the same topic. The doctrine assumes Scripture’s unity and non-contradictory nature, so clearer texts provide the interpretive lens for obscure ones. But this leads to a question. Just what is it that makes a text clear or unclear?

The Challenge of Clarity in Biblical Interpretation

In exploring the biblical term elohim (often translated “God” or “gods”) in this series, we encounter texts that seem clear to one person, yet spark debate. Consider Isaiah 44:6: “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no elohim.” One reader might insist this clearly denies the existence of any other elohim, using it as a lens to interpret all related passages since it is “clear.” Another, equally committed to Scripture’s truth, might argue it speaks of God’s unrivaled rank, citing the KJV of this verse, “… and beside me there is no God” (besides refers to existence; beside refers to rank), along with texts like Psalm 82:1, where elohim appear in a divine council and as such is less clear. Still a third person who aligns with the first two on Scripture’s authority and even has the same traditional historic confessional theological background thinks that Isaiah 44:6 is in fact talking about how there is no other Elohim like God is Elohim, and yet other created elohim truly exist (ala Job 1:6; Ps 89:6-7; 97:7; 2Cor 4:4; etc.); thus curiously siding with both earlier views, since no contradiction is created. For this person, the issue of this passage being less or more clear is really a red herring.

Still, who determines clarity? Misapplying analogia Scripturae can lead to errors that obscure authorial (and Authorial) meaning and intent. Let’s examine common pitfalls using an analogy.

A Tale of Drew: Misinterpreting “First in Class”

Consider the following sentence about a student named Drew: “Early each morning, Drew arrived at school, eager to prepare for the day’s lessons.” Now suppose someone insists Drew is male because “Drew is a man’s name.” But someone else isn’t so sure because they watched E. T. as a kid and fell in love with Drew Barrymore. Is it proper to assume Drew is a man and then simply cite this sentence as “proof” because it is “clear?” Is this how the analogy of Scripture works?

Second, assume that our sentence comes in a larger context where Drew is called “first in class.” One person cites the above sentence to prove that “first in class” refers to time—Drew gets there first each morning. Another isn’t so sure and wants a little more proof. Is it proper to assume that “first in class” refers to time, simply because this one sentence lends itself to that interpretation? Have we proved that this is its “clear” meaning? Let’s consider the entire paragraph:

“Drew was undeniably the standout student, earning the title of ‘first in class’ through exceptional academic performance. Throughout the semester, she consistently topped every exam, achieving the highest grade point average in amongst her peers. Her dedication to studying late into the night paid off, as she outscored her colleagues in every subject. Early each morning, Drew arrived at school, eager to prepare for the day’s lessons. Teachers praised her intellectual rigor, noting her as the top-ranked scholar in their records. This distinction as first in class secured her a prestigious scholarship for college. Her peers, inspired by her discipline, celebrated her as the leading student of their graduating class.”

Even though the middle sentence, “Early each morning, Drew arrived at school, eager to prepare for the day’s lessons” was cited, the full paragraph in fact does clearly show “first in class” means academic rank, not arrival time. Clarity here comes through objectivity, not subjectivity. Every sentence reinforces Drew’s scholarly excellence, not punctuality. Even the sentence about punctuality is there to reinforce scholarly excellence. Assuming the time-based meaning ignores the broader context, much like claiming elohim in Isaiah 44:6 denies all other beings called elohim without considering a plethora of other passages where other elohim exist under God’s authority.

Similarly, we can look at the name Drew. Besides all of the feminine pronouns in the paragraph that clearly illustrate that Drew is a girl, there was actually a prior paragraph in our make-believe illustration that said,

“Drew’s radiant beauty was undeniable, her long, flowing auburn hair cascading over delicate shoulders, accentuating her graceful, feminine curves that turned heads wherever she went. Her sparkling emerald eyes and soft, flawless skin exuded a charm so distinctly womanly that no one could mistake her for anything but a stunning woman. Every gesture, from the gentle sway of her hips to the melodic lilt of her voice, embodied an effortless elegance that was quintessentially and unmistakably female.”

This clarifies Drew’s gender, yet a reader clinging to the assumption that Drew is male because that’s what he thinks the first sentence necessitates commits the same error as presupposing elohim always means “God” without defending it. Such assumptions lead to contradictions, like denying elohim can refer to demons (Deut 32:17) or angels (Psalm 8:5) and yet still truly be called elohim. These missteps—assuming clarity, presupposing meanings, ignoring context, and dismissing contradictions—distort analogia Scripturae.

Common Pitfalls in Applying Analogia Scripturae

1. Subjective Clarity: Assuming a text is clear because it aligns with one’s view is not exegesis. Clarity isn’t subjective. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:29 mentions “baptism for the dead,” a phrase that perhaps we have no idea what it means, but was certainly clear to Paul’s audience. Declaring it obscure because we don’t understand ignores the original context and misapplies analogia Scripturae.

   
   

2. Presupposing Meanings: Assuming elohim means only “God” (or another fixed meaning) without textual evidence is like assuming Drew is male despite clear context. It would be like a critic arguing that her “first in class” status means she alone possesses true intellect, dismissing any intellect for her peers because “brilliance” must be singular, not shared. Elohim’s meaning varies in the Bible—God (Genesis 1:1) is one meaning and only he is God in this sense. Other created beings that share in his communicable attributes such as the ability to rule and judge (Psalm 82:1) is another; thus the Scripture calls them gods hundreds of times. Context, not presupposition (no matter where you derive it from; see LBC 1.10),[1] determines meaning.

   
   

3. Ignoring Context: Cherry-picking verses, like citing Drew’s early arrival to prove “first in class” means time, mirrors proof-texting elohim passages. For instance, isolating Isaiah 44:6 to deny other elohim ignores Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where God assigns nations to other elohim or Exodus 12:12 where God judges the elohim of Egypt. The whole counsel of Scripture must guide interpretation.

   
   

4. Dismissing Contradictions: Insisting elohim can only mean God creates contradictions, like denying Drew can be female because “Drew is a man’s name.” Scripture’s unity allows elohim to describe God uniquely while applying to other beings with shared attributes, as clarified by comparing texts like Isaiah 45:5 and Job 1:6.

   
   

Doing Analogia Scripturae Right

Proper exegesis respects Scripture’s unity and context. If a text seems unclear, look to prior or later revelation. That’s how the analogy of Scripture is supposed to work. For example, Genesis 1:1 establishes God as elohim, the Creator, while Psalm 82:1 later clarifies other elohim exist in a divine council, subordinate to Him and Psalm 97:7 commands them to worship Yahweh-Adonai. And if something like Psalm 97:7 is later translated by the LXX as angels, don’t create a contradiction or a new “clarity” problem by presupposing that angel is what they “really” are while elohim isn’t. That’s not exegesis.

Conversely, a cryptic prophecy like Isaiah 7:14 (“a virgin shall conceive”) is clarified later by Matthew 1:23 as referring ultimately to Jesus, even if those in Isaiah’s day didn’t understand that “clearly.” Don’t assume clarity or meaning—prove it through careful comparison. Avoid “helicopter exegesis,” where a verse is plucked out of context to support a preconceived idea, like combining “Judas hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5) and “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37) to absurdly justify suicide.

Philosophical biases, like prioritizing monotheism over textual evidence, can distort interpretation. Yes, we all come to Scripture with our own biases, and these include traditions, experiences, and philosophy. But assuming God’s singular existence because that’s your tradition or philosophy and then superimposing this on all meanings of elohim negates other elohim’s existence is like claiming Drew’s academic brilliance excludes her peers’ educated contributions. Later context might reveal collaboration, just as Deuteronomy 32:17 shows other elohim as real created beings, not rivals to God.

Humility is absolutely key here. What seems unclear to me or clear to me may have been clear to the original audience or unclear to them. Don’t prioritize your own views just because they are yours and then say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because your view is clear. That is the opposite of humility. It is pride, and the interpretive process is as much a moral one as it is a scientific art.

Interpret the Scripture with the Scripture by going to prior revelation if it is present or to later revelation if it was cryptic. But don’t presuppose your conclusion and then tell me you are doing exegesis. That isn’t what the Reformers ever meant by the analogy of Scripture.

[1] The London Baptist Confession has as its foundational cornerstone, not tradition, not philosophy, and not even the Confession, but rather Scripture. Thus, everything in the document comes after the following: “The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved” (LBC 1.10). Doug Van Dorn August 21, 2025