This morning I had an informal debate, of sorts, with a friend online.
We don't read the words of Jesus "in the light of the Old Testament" because the OT has no light. Jesus is the light that has come into the world. He is the light. He shines on the Old Testament, the Old Testament does not shine on Jesus.
Jesus is the source. The Old Testament scriptures are the shadow. He is the light.
As Brian Zahnd says in his latest book, "The only thing the Scripture does inerrantly and infallibly is point us to Christ."
We can agree that, yes, the OT and the NT are inspired by the same Spirit, but with different purposes and audiences in mind.
It's about a process, I think. There are degrees of "knowing".
We know God best of all in Christ. He is the clearest picture we could ever have of what the Father is really like - and has always been like - and anything that conflicts with the image of the invisible God revealed in Christ must bow and conform to His image [not the other way around].
I think we can agree that my Flat Bible definition [in the book] isn't actually "flat" because in practice the OT scriptures are used to modify Christ's teachings [not the other way around].
The question is: When there is an apparent conflict between the teachings of Jesus and an OT scripture - who overrides who? Who "wins" in that conflict ?
If the words of Jesus are not the one and only standard by which all other scriptures are measured, that [to me] is a "Flat Bible" approach.