Several years ago I did my bible study backwards: I read the Old Testament as the base from which Christ operated. From the chapters of OT, I referred to the NT to see how Christ changed what the OT told us. It amazed me! It changed me! Many things I “knew” to be true of God the Father were not true at all, I found. Many things I thought were changed remained unchanged by Christ. I learned principles of God that never changed, that I hadn’t been aware of before.
I have been scolded for this approach. They say it has made me a follower of the Jews because I now understand why God gave rituals. And why Paul was against teaching through them. They say it has caused me to not understand how terrible works are. When I suggest more reading of OT, they say they read it, not understanding my point at all.
I feel that this new approach to bible study has opened up new maturity in knowledge of God that approaching it from the NT backwards couldn’t give, and was a blessing.
Would you on CC think about this and critique it?
I have been scolded for this approach. They say it has made me a follower of the Jews because I now understand why God gave rituals. And why Paul was against teaching through them. They say it has caused me to not understand how terrible works are. When I suggest more reading of OT, they say they read it, not understanding my point at all.
I feel that this new approach to bible study has opened up new maturity in knowledge of God that approaching it from the NT backwards couldn’t give, and was a blessing.
Would you on CC think about this and critique it?