The importance of reading scriptures in context is commonly noted, but still a recurring issue. There are several forms of context, but there is one I want to look at right now: topical. It is addressed less frequently than basic or historical context, and as a consequence it doesn’t seem to be highly acknowledged or relied upon. But it is crucial.
Topical context requires that when researching a scriptural topic, such as “faith,” you realize that one passage may not be a comprehensive or exclusive view of the scriptural teachings on faith. It is only a fraction, incomplete, a portion of a greater whole. In addressing any topic, the prophets are describing a part of an elephant; one describes the tail, another the ear, another the tusk. All are relevant and true descriptions, but they are only partial.
Using faith as an example, some churches have built their doctrines exclusively upon the words of Paul. Standing alone, his words on the topic can be taken as proclaiming that only faith matters to salvation, don’t worry about our works. In doing this, these churches necessarily exclude the words of James on the matter, for James made abundantly clear that faith is nothing if not coupled with works (James 2:14-26).
To hope for a full understanding of faith, you must begin by prayerfully taking the words of Paul, James, Alma and others all collectively into consideration together. They may be written by different hands, but they all come from the same mind (2 Peter 1:20-21; LoF 5:2).
Paul spoke true that “by grace ye are saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). It is also true that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). Alma also taught correctly that the focus of your faith must in fact be true, or what you have is not considered faith (Alma 32:21). Faith is all these things and more, and one aspect cannot be embraced to the dismissal of another.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTRADICTION IN INTERPRETATION
Topical context could be understood as being less about finding scriptures that support an interpretation or idea, and more about verifying that there aren’t scriptures contradicting it. This is a crucial difference. Almost any notion under the sun can find some verse somewhere which can be interpreted as supportive. Such practices are used by both men and the adversary.
Satan sought to lead Christ astray by using scriptures to make or support his propositions (Matt. 4:3, 5-6; Luke 4:3, 9-10). Satan managed this by taking the scriptures out of their topical context. He employs the same strategy now, with great success.
But Christ’s responses were simple: He only needed to refer to scriptures which contradicted Satan’s position (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Luke 4:4, 8, 12), until finally commanding Satan to depart. If the scriptures contradict a position, the only way to please God is to adjust the position. The scriptures are not up for alteration or dismissal, but our understandings should be.
Studying the topical context of a subject can be used as a method of diagnosing unbelief you may be unwittingly entertaining. Take your understanding of a topic and dive into the scriptures. See if your understanding can bear being scrutinized by the scriptures, rather than vice versa. If you find a scripture that contradicts your understanding of the topic, let the scriptures inform an adjustment to your understanding.
Accounting for topical context, we should know better than to take statements saying “any who desire to be baptized, should be baptized” (3 Nephi 27:20; Denver Snuffer, “Preserving the Restoration,” p.17), and to use them to set at naught other scriptural statements on baptism, which include the prerequisite of arriving at the age of accountability first (Moroni 8:22-23; D&C 18:42, 68:27). Taking scriptures and inspired statements out of their topical context is one way to wrest them from the scriptures. It is to cut off the elephant’s ear and say “this is the elephant.”
If we don’t read the scriptures within topical context, we limit our capacity to understand what they say, and to receive more from God. We also risk rejecting true aspects of a topic because they don’t support the paradigm that we’ve already accepted and wish to maintain. If there is conflict between your views and the scriptures, which one is more likely correct?
