Correct me if I'm wrong, but, there seems to be two viable schools of thoughts on when a type is a type and when it is not. One view is that an OT type is only a type if it is a specific analogy in the NT making a reference to the OT. Examples would be: Jonah (Luke 11:30), Solomon (Luke 11:31), the high priest (Heb 9), and Melchisedec (Heb. 7), as types of Christ; the wilderness journey being a type of the Christian life (1 Cor. 10), etc., etc. etc. The other view is much broader in scope. An OT type is a type as long as there is a specific antitype in the NT (with or without a specific OT analogy). Types in this group that are not in the first group would include: just about the entire lives of Joseph and Isaac as a type of Christ, the slave [in the law, Ex. 21:1-11] as a type of Christ, etc., etc., I think that those that hold to the first view are really missing out...on a lot. What say ye?