Should we study the Old Testament ?

[Christina]

There seems to be alot of teaching out there that it isn't necessary for a Christian to study the Old testament. I completely disagree with this but thought it a subject some of you might want to discuss.

 

[jessioverbey]

i think we should study the old testament, simply because that's where things began. and i've read the old testaments and they're like regular books to me. you wouldn't read volume two of a book you like without reading the first one , right. so to me why read the new testament without reading the old? there's a reason the old testament comes before the new, so that we get what went on in the old so we know what we're reading about in the new. i hope this makes sence. and this is coming from a daughter of a preacher, and in his bible studies they all startes with the old testament and then went to the new. and so i think to be able to know what's going on, study the old testament and then the new. this is what i think, jessica

 

[scott_baldwin29]

I think the way God reveals His message in the Old Testament is actually related to the message in the New Testament. Example:When Abel offered a "lamb", to him by the revelation of God, by FAITH, he was actually seeing JESUS CHRIST dying on the cross, as Jesus is symbolized by a "lamb" in:Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. That is why God accept his offering because the death of Jesus on the cross is victory for God in "opening the gate of heaven for salvation."Let not philosophy seep in thinking Abel killed Jesus Christ.

 

[n2thelight]

If you don't understand the beginning you won't understand the end.

 

[HammerStone]

I think you've all done a good job at highlighting some of the various reasons. Jesus quoted the Old Testament many times for more than simply fulfilling Scripture. If our Lord quoted from this OT then you can bet the bank he wants us to know it well. Particularly those elements of the OT prophecy which have not yet come to pass. Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the minor prophets are absolutely essential to understanding NT prophecy about the Lord's Day and the time leading up to it.

 

[SilentFlight]

It seems they are both different although, they are both relevent. Of course sometimes they show different things Jesus went into detail more in the new testiment on teachings and moved away from rituals where as the new concentrates more on ther ways of obeying and understanding. Although when learning we should perhaps if we choose to learn the old testiment to be sure to find any other text in the new testement that contributes to it.

 

[Fox]

Ignoring the Tanakh breaks the fundamental law of the harmony of the Old and New. The B'rit Hadashah does not repeat all the promises of the Tanakh because its writers and central characters presupposed the authenticity and accuracy of Moshe and the Prophets. Thus, in particular, the reason Yeshua did not spend time teaching that physical Israel would be living in the physical promised land in the last days was that He presupposed that all the Tanakh prophetic scriptures were valid and literally true. To ignore the Tanakh is also to misunderstand the way the New refers to the Old. The B'rit Hadashah makes a wider application of the same principles enunciated in the Tanakh, but never at the expense of the original meaning. The "spiritual" meaning is dependent on the "natural" because it flows from it. The B'rit Hadashah always speaks in terms of "even as, so also" rather than "instead of, now this".Thus with regard to Israel and the Church, the B'rit Hadashah teaches "even as" Israel, "so also" the Church, not "instead of" Israel, "now the Church". For example, "even as" G-d promised to deal with Israel in blessing and discipline, "so also" will He bless and discipline the Church. Spiritual fulfilment does not replace the natural, but hangs upon it, flows from it, and completes it. This is the meaning of the term "fulfil" when used by the New in relation to the Old.An example of this principle is seen in 1 Kefa 2:9 where Shaul is not saying that the Church has replaced Israel as the chosen race, royal priesthood or holy nation, but that "even as" Israel in the Tanakh was (and still is) chosen and called as G-d's special people to declare His glory (Sh'mot 19:5-6 etc), "so also" does the body of believers, the Church have a similar calling.

 

[betchevy]

I am so in love with the Word ...all the Word, how can you divide it. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God , the Word was God. How can you take only a part of God and reject another part.

 

[drew1986]

If you actually think about it; where did Jesus, matthew, paul, etc. take referance from? The Old testament!