Typology is a literary technique which was used by the early Church to help understand the patterns in Scripture. Typology mixes the literary techniques of “foreshadowing” and “allegory”. It was originally used by the Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD). He was an influential Jew and even met with the Roman Emperor Caligula, in order to argue for Jewish interests. Philo likely knew of Jesus and there is an old tradition which tells of how Philo met with St Peter in Jerusalem before he died. there is no record of him becoming a Christian, though he is honoured by some Orthodox Churches.
Additionally to the comments of it being essential to refer to others being a type of Christ, rather than the other way around, I will also say that I see something that I have not heard others comment on. Some people will try to claim that Mordecai is like a type of Christ. I could not disagree more strongly. I absolutely believe that Esther is the type of Christ. Gender need not be an issue. There was never any evidence of Jesus being hung up on gender as far as what a woman could do. He just did not go into it within a culture that was tone deaf to it.
I am not convinced you have it the right way round. The OT characters were to foreshadow the coming Christ, that is to say, the earlier folks were there to show the form and shape of the later one to come - they are the mere shadow on the ground - not the true upright form. Those who came earlier were the type of the later fuller form - that is the Christ. Vorbild and Nachbild in the German help make this distinction. Cookie cutter and cookie are a useful if limited illustration when teaching this principle.
Thanks for your insights. Does typology extend to the times of Noah and of Babylon in relation to today, or does that fit better under some other rubric?
Additionally to the comments of it being essential to refer to others being a type of Christ, rather than the other way around, I will also say that I see something that I have not heard others comment on. Some people will try to claim that Mordecai is like a type of Christ. I could not disagree more strongly. I absolutely believe that Esther is the type of Christ. Gender need not be an issue. There was never any evidence of Jesus being hung up on gender as far as what a woman could do. He just did not go into it within a culture that was tone deaf to it.
I am not convinced you have it the right way round. The OT characters were to foreshadow the coming Christ, that is to say, the earlier folks were there to show the form and shape of the later one to come - they are the mere shadow on the ground - not the true upright form. Those who came earlier were the type of the later fuller form - that is the Christ. Vorbild and Nachbild in the German help make this distinction. Cookie cutter and cookie are a useful if limited illustration when teaching this principle.
Jesus, being God, is a type of no one.
They are types of Him.
Sorry if you think this is being a bit pedantic.
But it is important to not be careless with the truths of scripture.
Thanks for your insights. Does typology extend to the times of Noah and of Babylon in relation to today, or does that fit better under some other rubric?
I love finding Messianic prophecies/typology of Yeshua the Messiah thruout the old Testament. It reassures me that He has the plan.