Typology fulfillment is the term used to describe fulfillment of OT prophecies in the NT that aren't "direct." I've heard 1/3 of NT fulfillments are of the direct variety vs 2/3 which are of typological.
Whatever the stats, I find typological fulfillment difficult to explain. In my journey of roughly 15 years, I accepted the OT as truth much more quickly than the NT. Why was I so slow to accept the NT? Mainly, because of the claims of fulfillment that frankly to this day I have difficulty making any sense of whatsoever.
Two samples:
Maybe Matthew would have great answers to both, but unfortunately, he never gives any in his book. As it stands, these two "fulfillments" and many others in the NT seem to frankly sound like nonsense (to me at least).
My question is how can sense be made of these so-called fulfillments?
Whatever the stats, I find typological fulfillment difficult to explain. In my journey of roughly 15 years, I accepted the OT as truth much more quickly than the NT. Why was I so slow to accept the NT? Mainly, because of the claims of fulfillment that frankly to this day I have difficulty making any sense of whatsoever.
Two samples:
- Matthew claims the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Jesus (Matt 1:22-23). If I could converse with Matthew I'd ask, "aren't you missing the fact that the Immanuel prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah's own son Immanuel?"
- Matthew claims that the "out of Egypt I called my son" prophecy (Hosea 11:1) was fulfilled when Jesus and his parents returned from Egypt. I would like to say to Matthew, "do you not realize that Hosea 11:1 isn't a prophecy at all, but rather a recollection of a historical event? There was never any expectation of fulfillment at all."
Maybe Matthew would have great answers to both, but unfortunately, he never gives any in his book. As it stands, these two "fulfillments" and many others in the NT seem to frankly sound like nonsense (to me at least).
My question is how can sense be made of these so-called fulfillments?
