Can typology be supported by those who advocate for so-called literal interpretation of the bible? For example, Isaac being brought to the alter for sacrifice and God subsequently providing the lamb in place of Isaac is not explicitly stated in the bible as having ante-typical fulfillment in Christ. (If I am wrong, consider the other many typologies that Christians take for granted). But most evangelicals interpret this historical event as being prophetic. But nowhere are we given explicit evidence that it is prophetical. So, again, is so-called literal interpretation "allowed" to interpret this event as anything other than a historical event? (Not the best example I'm sure so please be charitable).