Not long ago, I wrote about Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 to justify the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, noting that the gospel writer uses this passage in such a way that many evangelicals would consider ridiculous today.
Well, I think scholar Peter Enns has a much better understanding of what Matthew may have been doing. Enns didn’t write my post (as far as I know), and he’s far too smart to need to borrow anything from me. But I think what he writes about here is related to my question regarding Matthew and Isaiah:
The very declaration “We need to read the Old Testament story in light of Christ” is an implicit acknowledgement that the Gospel-lens through which we read the Old Testament changes what we see; changes what is “there” on the plain-sense level. The Gospel drives Old Testament interpretation beyond what it means when understood in terms of its ancient tribal parameters.
Here is the irony: respect for the texts of the past was expressed in terms of transforming them to speak to present realities.
Read his post when you get the chance. It’s worth your time.