Knudson: "The typological relation is the central means by which particular epochal horizons are linked with later horizons in redemptive revelation"

“The canonical horizon is the continuity between the promises of God and his fulfillment of them. This is the glue that holds the diverse epochs together. The promise-fulfillment motif is the key to understanding the Scriptures. Promise-fulfillment speaks of God’s promising something in the past and fulfilling it in the future. This becomes the claim of the biblical authors; that as God has been faithful in the past, he will be faithful in the future. The primary way to understand promise-fulfillment is by typology.

“Typology is symbolism grounded in the text with a prospective reference to be fulfilled in a later epoch in biblical history (it is both necessary and essential in character). Typology involves recognizes the organic relationship between events, persons, and institutions. The early event, person, or institution is a “type” and the later is the “anti-type.” The typical relationship between the first person, event, institution and second is fundamental (necessary) and essential in some way. The typological relation is the central means by which particular epochal horizons are linked with later horizons in redemptive revelation. It links the present to the past and the future. It is found within the organic nature of Scripture that God promises and fulfills these promises.

“We find in Scripture a difference in quality between former acts of God and new ones (temple). In other words, the fulfillment of God’s promises would be even greater than the original recipients of the original promise could have foreseen. In addition, typology allows for the promises of God to often have two or more fulfillments, one relatively immediate and the other at some distance point in the future (prophetic literature). However, some may object to this notion of typology as allegory (fanciful interpretation). The difference is that typology is textually and historically warranted (found in the text). In other words, it takes a legitimate idea, person, event, institution in Scripture and traces its movement from promise to fulfillment, whereas allegory is not textually based, but finds some unrelated point and seeks to create an illegitimate connection (scarlet cord of Rahab).” – Chad Knudson, Cornerstone Bible Church, Aurora, CO; The Necessity of Biblical Theology

Horton: Christ is the "pioneer of the new world"

“...Vos wrote in the early twentieth century, “Biblical religion is thoroughly eschatological in its outlook.”...At the center of this eschatological motif is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which, Gaffin argues, “is nor simply a guarantee; it is pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event.” Based on the Pauline analogy of “firstfruits,” Gaffin emphasizes the eschatological implications of the resurrection. At this point, the contrast with the notion of “timeless truths” is most evident: “Only as he himself is one ‘from the dead’ is Christ ‘firstborn.’ Only as he is part of that group which is (to be) raised does he enjoy this exalted status.” Jesus Christ is not eternally “firstborn from the dead,” but became so at a datable moment in history. Ridderbos put it this way: “With him the great Resurrection became reality. . . . He ushers in the world of the resurrection. ‘

“So it is not only a historical event in which the future is proleptically projected (Pannenberg), much less the future leveling the present and rendering the importance of the past questionable (Moltmann). It is “the age that is to come” actually brought into “this present evil age” by the first stage in the “new creation.” The Holy Spirit establishes this link by baptizing into Christ those who “were dead through the trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), raising them together with Christ in newness of life, awaiting the resurrection of their physical bodies in which the whole creation will participate (Rom. 8:18—25).

“The source of this New Creation does not lie immanently within the past (old liberalism), the present (existential theologies), or the future (neo-Hegelian theologies), but is “coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:2). It is not that the new creation does not admit an individual and subjective aspect, but that the foreground belongs to the fact that the New Creation has objectively dawned (eschatologically) in the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent descent of the Spirit, this time not to confuse and to scatter—as at Babel, when humanity sought autonomy—but to enlighten and to gather all things together in Christ, who is in truth already the New Creation, the firstfruits of the harvest, the pioneer of the new world.

We really are, then, moving toward the future; it is not merely moving toward us.” – Michael Horton, Covenant and Eschatology, pp. 230-231