Chapter 2
Definitions

The statement from chapter 1 regarding extravagances and vagaries begins with the recording of the "abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction" in the Bible, but ends with a warning of "extravagances" due to "vagaries" regarding their interpretations. This danger is no greater, and perhaps far less dangerous than the study of prophecy. Many Bible teachers today have over stepped their ability to justify their own words with those in the prophecies contained in the Bible, yet there certainly is no shortage of prophecy teachers in our own time.

I believe the lack of typological teaching in our own era is again associated with the wholism of the Bible. Very few preachers today preach expository sermons, simply because they do not know God's Word well enough to rightly divide the word and produce an expository sermon. I have been astounded to find out that most ministers, priests, and preachers I have spoken with during the past twenty-five years have yet to hear the word "typology".

Many logical, historical, narrative, prophetic, and cultural threads twist and turn throughout all of the books in the Bible, with perfect balance and connection. Typology is but one of these logical threads.

Because typology is a word, and a word is merely a representation of an idea, event, thing, or person, we must be careful to be explicit in our definitions of these representations. A type has been defined, as similar situations occurring within the scriptures, on two different occasions that have similar characteristics to each other.

This definition is quite faulty in that this term describes the type as the forerunner of the antitype. In this definition, the type represents a softer thing that has been marked by the antitype, which represents a harder thing. It is very confusing to readers when the word type is used to designate both the singular part of a type, namely the second part of this narrative relationship, as well as the general study of both parts as a whole, the type and the antitype.

The term type is generally usually used in each way several times in Bible typology studies. This is quite confusing, and nearly always leads to a disorganized presentation of the material. I believe that the term typology is a much better way of describing the sum of these two parts than the term type, and the term typology is a better term than the word type for the later element of the sum as well.     

The definition of science determines the outcome of any scientific study. It is true that Celsus, Plotinus, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Voltaire, Rousseau, Goethe, Melville, Jefferson, Shaw, Russell, Franklin, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud and Skinner ⁽¹⁾, all rejected the teachings of the Bible.

However, it is also true that Paul, John, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Bonaventura, Scotus, Luther, Calvin, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Berkeley, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Newman, Lincoln, Pasteur, Kierkegaard, Shakespeare, Dante, Chesterton, Lewis, Solzhenitsyn, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Tolkien, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, T. S. Eliot, Dickens, Milton, Spenser and Bach ⁽²⁾ all supported the teaching of the Bible.

Acceptance of the Bible's teaching is not a matter of intelligence; it is rather a matter of spirit, and categorization.

A typology may be made up of an anti-type and a type that are related to each other, but this is not always the case. There is also some confusion when there are several anti-types that match a single type.

Most typologies have been traditionally studied singularly as a kind of prolegomenon, from the Greek "to say before", as the "type" which announces or prefigures the "antitype", of the fulfillment of the type. Many typologies however, have more complicated structures and applications. The traditionally used term anti-type/type is simply inadequate to describe this situation, where many anti-types match a single type. This will also be called a (compound) typology in this paper.

Still other Bible scholars differentiate between statements being "fully prophetic" or "typical-messianic".  The early Christian Church found it difficult to make a clear determination of what constituted a "type" as one school of allegorical exegesis flourished at Alexandria, while another at Antioch emphasized typology.  Augustine's famous treatise on biblical hermeneutics, On Christian Doctrine, set forth ground rules regarding Bible study, which developed into the Quadriga, by the Middle Ages.  The Quadriga ⁽³⁾  proposed a fourfold sense of Scripture, the literal, allegorical, tropological (or moral), and the anagogical (or spiritual).

Thomas Aquinas affirmed the inspiration of Scripture, but taught that the true meaning was often obscured by excessive allegorizing, while Fairbairn, who by my own opinion has written the most comprehensive book to date on typology (The Typology of Scripture) ⁽⁴⁾, was a convinced Calvinist.

Is it then, any wonder that the varying views presented by respected and well-studied scholars have left confused the topic of typology even to today?

There are historically different kinds of types. Augustine taught that four kinds of types existed, History, Fact, Preaching, and Sacraments ⁽⁵⁾.  

The Encarta Dictionary defines ty•pol•o•gy [ti póll?jee] as a noun, which constitutes the study or systematic classification of types, or in the study or religious texts for the purpose of identifying episodes in them that appear to prophesy later events. This definition is probably the most average, and the most used definition that I have read from the numerous definitions available. There are many whose decision-making procedures include "averaging" as a viable means of determining the "true" definition of a word. This "averaging" philosophy is flawed, however, due to being influenced by the philosophy of evolution as well as the philosophy of democracy. We are told that "things evolve", therefore language also evolves. Many also desire that everything in the universe be "fair", therefore we desire to have a voice in everything, that is to have a "vote'. 

The result of these two philosophies colliding into one hybridized philosophy is the belief that since things evolve anyway, we might as well have a say in how they evolve. This is not a good mindset when trying to determine the meaning of words already written many centuries ago. To be honest in our approach in understanding what the Bible has to say, we must determine what the words meant to the authors who wrote them, and what the words meant to God who uttered the words to those authors that wrote them.   

Marsh advocated, and was supported by the writer of the American biblical Repository (January 1841), what has become known as the "Marsh Rule", regarding the definition of typology.

…no person, event, or institution, should be regarded as typical, but what may be proved to be such from the Scriptures, meaning by that their explicit assertion in regard to the particular case. American Biblical Repository (January, 1841)⁽⁶⁾

Easton 's Bible Dictionary tells us that the word

"type" "occurs only "once in Scripture (1 Cor. 10:11, A.V. marg.). The Greek word _tupos_ is rendered "print" (John 20:25), "figure" (Acts 7:43; Rom. 5:14), "fashion" (Acts 7:44), "manner" (Acts 23:25), "form" (Rom. 6:17), "example" or "ensample" (1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12). It properly means a "model" or "pattern" or "mould" into which clay or wax was pressed, that it might take the figure or exact shape of the mould. The word "type" is generally used to denote a resemblance between something present and something future, which is called the "antitype". Easton's Bible Dictionary

Yet the word "type" is associated with the words print, figure, fashion, manner, form, example/ensample, pattern, and mold. Traditionally, all of these words imply a relationship between one object and another, yet I have found this mindset to be very limiting. I believe types are related to several other objects not just one, and that types are also related to numerous types.

Once our categorization process is expanded, a new mind set is born, and we begin to understand this broader definition of typology.

So then from now on we acknowledge no one from an outward human point of view. Even though we have known Christ from such a human point of view, now we do not know him in that way any longer. 2 Corinthians 5:16 (NET Bible)
 

So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away—look, what is new has come! Galatians 5:16-17 (NET Bible)  

The definition of the word typology has never been adequately determined despite the palimpsestic remnants we find in Bible dictionaries and commentaries. This fact demonstrates our lack of understanding regarding typology.

(a.) Henry A Virkler states;

a type is the preordained representative relationship which certain persons, events, and institutions occurring at a later time in salvation history. Probably most evangelical theologians would find themselves in basic agreement with this definition of biblical typology.

(b.) Virkler also states,

Typology is based on the assumption that there is a pattern in God's work throughout salvation history. God prefigured His redemptive work in the Old Testament, and fulfilled it in the New; in the Old Testament there are shadows of things which shall be more fully revealed in the New.

(c.) Virkler also states,

Three primary characteristics of types can be identified. The first of these is that there must be some notable point of resemblance or analogy between the type and its antitype. This does not imply that there are not many points of dissimilarity as well: Adam is a type of Christ, yet Scripture speaks of more points of dissimilarity than similarity (see Rom. 5:14-19).

Virkler also states,

Typology is the search for secondary and hidden meanings underlying the primary and obvious meaning of a historical narrative. Typology rests on an objective understanding of the historical narrative, whereas allegorizing imports subjective meanings onto it.

From these four passages, we can see that Virkler arrived at the table with several categorizations already in place. In passage (a.), Virkler has included persons, events, and institutions in his own conceptual systematicity. I submit that things can also reflect typological conceptual structures. In passage (b.), Virkler demonstrates that his conceptual structure of typology also includes a kind of dispensationism, (which he may consider to be either informational, spiritual, or spiritually informational), as well as a time factor relationship with the typological elements in his examples.

Virkler also explains that three determinate factors must exist for a typology to exist, the first is discussed in passage (c.), "there must be some notable point of resemblance or analogy", with the two others being; "there must be evidence that the type was appointed by God to represent the thing typified.", and; third is that the type "must prefigure something in the future."

Finally, in (d.), Virkler states that typology is a "search for secondary and hidden meanings".

My research has shown that a search for hidden meanings is perhaps a backwards way to approach things that are hidden. I do not believe that they are hidden, in as much as we are unaware. If they are indeed hidden, then God has hidden them directly in front of our eyes. We, as Christians, mature spiritually, and as our spiritual eyes develop, we see more and more things that are spiritual. This does not mean that they were hidden, for they were always in front of us, it is that we have developed the ability to see these things. As I have discovered more and more of these hidden things, I have discovered that everything is typological, and that I must search to find something that is not typological. I believe the difference between Virkler's perspectives and my own has to do with the conceptual systematicity of our own categorizations. This has been an extremely exciting and thought provoking process for me, and I feel that I have only scratched the surface of the study of biblical typology.

A type is “the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New”⁽⁷⁾

“A type is a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the New Testament revelation”⁽⁸⁾

It is possible to read too much into Old Testament expressions; the tendency at the present time would seem to be to read a great deal too little. ⁽⁹⁾

A type may be defined as an exceptional Old Testament reality which was specially ordained by God effectively to prefigure a single New Testament redemptive truth.⁽¹⁰⁾

Metaphorical comparison is irreducibly cognitive. We have two eyes, one which is the dominant eye, and one which a subdominant eye. Our dominant eye acquires a target, and our other eye defines the periphery. Our brain takes the image from one eye, and compares it with the image from our other eye, and we call the difference depth perception.

We have two ears. Our brain measures the sound wave characteristics from one ear (the organ of Conti) against those of the other ear, and we can determine the direction and distance of the sound. We have only one nose, but two nostrils, which give us the ability to determine the direction scent comes from.

God also provided us with two hands, so that we can observe differences between objects in one hand with those in the other. We even like to measure the different weights by comparing objects in each hand. Our measurements are taken in inches, the space between each digit, and feet, the length of our feet.

The reason I have two eyes rather than one is to help determine the depth of field of all that I see. The reason I have two ears is to help me determine the direction of sounds that I hear as well as the distance. Merely having two eyes, or having two ears, does not tell the whole story. Having two eyes and two ears that work in unison, provides a synergetic benefit and is a lot like having an additional sensory organ because these organs confirm the information the other organs receive. If you take your hands and cup them backwards over your ears so that the sound can only enter your ears from behind you, it severely impedes your ability to hear properly and affects your understand of the sounds you can hear. I believe that limiting our understanding of the Scriptures by limiting the senses that provide our understanding is a mistake. I believe it dishonors God, when we limit our acceptance of the gifts He has provided to us to aid in our understanding of Him.

The benefit of a complex system of organs provides information whose total sum and diversity is greater than the individual parts by far. Typology is different from allegorical interpretation because the sense of understanding does not interfere with any other sense of understanding, but rather enhances it. It is a mistake to understand typology as kind of interpretation in competition with some other kind of interpretation. Typology does not compete with interpretation, which would serve to confuse the reader; typology enhances interpretation, confirms interpretation, and provides a deeper level of understanding in the reader.

The definition of the word type is unnecessarily ambiguous.

The various definitions for the word "type" are not universal or unified, nor are they used consistently. This is true of a great many other words as well.

The word "model", for instance, has around 48 different definitions. We can use the word "model" as a noun, as in a fashion model. We can use the word "model" as a verb, such as having someone model an article of clothing. We can use the word "model" to mean a copy of something else. A "model" can be a simplified version of something else that is more complex, or a "model" can be the subject of an artists work. A "model" could describe a specific version of a particular manufactured item. A "model" can also be an intellectual framework used to determine the logical outcome of an argument. We can "model" something with our hands. We could be the "model" if we were the superlative example within a group of things or people. One animal or plant could "model", or replicate, a particular trait of another, to gain an advantage already gained by the original example.  Some real confusion and ambiguity can occur when these different definitions are linked together, and only the specific context of each use, can determine the original meaning of the writer or speaker. We could be the model model, of a model, of a model, used to determine the model of a model, used by a model of a model, in a model model, of a model. 

The use of the word type is no less complex, or confusing. Several intellectual disciplines use the word typology to mean the categorization of things within groups. The use of the word "type" within a Biblical context has more to do with an allegorical statement resembling a physical device used to make a mark, such as a piece of type used to print a printed page. For those that felt completely comfortable with the previous "model model", they should feel free then to engage in all of the typology of typology they wish to. For the rest of us, some serious, concrete, and easily defined terms need to be determined and stabilized for us to understand the true intent and meaning of both the original writers of the Scriptures, as well as the original intent and meaning of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the original writers. 

Certainly, our understanding of typology will never be absolute. God is indescribable, so perhaps His language is also indescribable… to a degree. An attempt will be made here to unify the use of typology, as well as to disambiguate the definition. 

The word "type" comes from four different Greek words ôýðïò, tuñpos, óêéÜ, skia,  ñ ðáñáâïëÞ, paraboleô,and ›ðüäåéãìá, hupoñdeigma.

ôýðïò, tuñpos occurs 16 times in the New Testament. The various translated words in the King James Version of the Bible are "print" (John 20:25), "figure" (Acts 7:43, Romans 5:14), "pattern" (Titus 2:7, Hebrews 8:5), "fashion" (Acts 7:44), "manner" (Acts 23:25), "form" (Romans 6:17), and "example" (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11, Philippians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 3:9, 1 Timothy 4:12, and 1 Peter 5:3.

Perhaps the best definition that can be derived from these translated uses is the word "likeness".

óêéÜ, skia is translated to "shadow" (Hebrews 10:1), and ðáñáâïëÞ, parabole is translated as "parable" (Hebrews 9:9), while ›ðüäåéãìá, hupoñdeigma?(Hebrews 9:23) is translated as "copy" or "pattern".

A type is a person, event or thing that resembles or corresponds to another in a very special way. That is to say, there is a common likeness involving both things. Each element involved in this "typology" has traditionally been assigned a name showing their correspondence and chronology to each other; traditionally known as the "type" and "anti-type". This technique does not always work, ignores many different kinds of "types", and is quite restrictive.

Traditional typesetting and the corresponding printed word, provided a rich visual representation of the relationship of each hand placed piece of type, and the printed page created by the application of ink to the type, and the resulting product of a piece of printed material. The printed word was a direct representation of the type (ôýðïò, tuñpos) that was imprinted on paper. Computerization of the printing industry has removed this strong visual reminder of a centuries old technique. It is more difficult for modern readers to understand what the classical technique used to entail. This has also resulted in a loss of some of the understanding of what typology was, and is.

The historical definition of the words "type" and "typology" within Biblical context, is unnecessarily vague, and is wrought with confusion. The confusion surrounding the definition of typology, as well as a lack of modern typological research has caused a decline in the study of typology by modern Bible scholars. This lack of typological resources further extends the void of available resources for Bible students, by restricting their research to old, out of print or missing books and manuscripts.

Confusion regarding the use of typology or even the existence of typology is not a new phenomenon. This confusion began with the early Christian Fathers.

We naturally begin with the Christian Fathers. But their typological views were of a somewhat indeterminate kind, and are rather to be inferred from the use of occasional examples, than to be found in any systematic principles of interpretation. Some exception might, perhaps, be made in favor of Origen. And yet with such vagueness and dubiety has he expressed himself regarding the interpretation  of Old Testament Scripture, that by some he has been understood to hold, that there is a fourfold, by others a threefold, and by others again only a twofold sense, in the sacred text. The truth appears to be, that while he advocated usually a threefold use or application of scripture, he regarded it as susceptible of only a twofold sense.

Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture ⁽¹¹⁾

As stated above, Origen (the student of Clement of Alexandria) usually taught that typology should have a threefold meaning in use or application, but regarded it as susceptible of only a twofold sense. Origen's application of types however was subject to error as he interpreted many scriptures to be of an allegorical nature rather than a typical nature. There is however a significant and specific difference between the two which is not difficult to discern.

An allegory is a narrative, which describes the facts that really took place (in that particular example), and is used to represent certain higher truths or principles by conveying this meaning above or beyond its literal meaning. The literal or ostensible representation by the writer can be either real or fictitious; however, the application of this representation needs to be categorized into two possibilities. Either of two possibilities must occur. The writing has no foundation in real fact, was clearly meant to be understood as either myth or analogy, and was invented to demonstrate or convey a higher truth or principle than the literal meaning could have presented. The second possibility is when the representation appears to be literal in sense, but no adequate or satisfactory literal understanding can be made of it, and it appears to have been used precisely as if was meant to convey some higher truth or principle. 

Typology requires an additional element to be considered a type, namely the antitype, as well as other considerations. The Greek Fathers tended more to allegorical interpretations of the entire Bible than to typical, and more in the second sense than the first. They did not, however, attempt to discredit the truth or reality of statements made in the Old Testament, which should be considered true and real. They rather considered some of these statements to be so meager that the ethereal meaning was clearly the intended meaning. Origen however, expressly denied (in his Principia) that many things in the Old Testament had any real existence and that they "did not" and "could not have" taken place. Such an example is found in Genesis where Origen describes the clothing of man with the skins of dead animals as "absurd, ridiculous, and unworthy of God" ⁽¹²⁾. Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture

The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken.  When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:20-23 (NET Bible)

Origen ascribed many difficult or confusing passages, as well as some plain and simple passages, to the device of hyperbole, epauxesis, hyperoche, or hyperthesis. The era of interpretational inaccuracy Origen lived in has become known as the "allegorical fury". Other writers attempting to villanize typology have called this zeitgeist of over-allegorizing “parallelomania”. Interpretational inaccuracy was rampant because of the prevailing attitude that the literal sense of the Bible was "carnal" and "puerile", while the mystical sense was espoused by those who had become acquainted with "true wisdom". The resulting interpretations of the Scriptures from that era tended to be pareidolic, (the erroneous or fanciful perception of a pattern or meaning in something that is actually ambiguous or random).

Some of the cause for this false interpretational error was due to the socialization of Christianity by academia, which pressured theologians to cultivate philosophy and a study of the liberal arts before wholly giving themselves to the study of the Bible (and other divine wisdom) ⁽¹³⁾. This same kind of pressure from our own social structure is responsible for much of our modern interpretational error. In our present era, the ethereal meanings have been lost in favor to either overly literal or overly scientific interpretations. In many cases, we have simply succumbed to cultural pressures to accept those things that are acceptable to our modern secular views, such as homosexuality, casual sex, situational ethics, dishonesty, misrepresentation, etc, yet these very things are strictly forbidden in the Bible. We suffer from verisimilitude due to our attempts at synchronizing the Bible with the ever-growing pool of information (so called) science produces each year, that contradicts the information produced just the year before.  This appears to be at least partially due to the fact that in recent years, science has become more of an art than a science, with many of our new discoveries being accomplished in silico rather than in vito. Each dramatic mountebank discovery is hailed as a great achievement of science, disproved, and then lost in the hinder pages of some obscure scientific publication, fully leaving its mark on the minds and memories of the public.

Some (such as Nazianzen) have taught that the anti-type occurs somewhere in the Old Testament, and the type is found in the New Testament. While this statement may hold no great arguments for some, others (Keach, Bullinger, and many early Church fathers) have also stated in very traditional terms that the type is found in the Old Testament, and the anti-type is found in the New Testament. If this disorder were not complicated enough, there is very little written material regarding typology where there are more than two components to the typology, or in other words, where there are several types (O.T.) which point towards one anti-type (N.T.). 

Perhaps the best indication of what typology is all about, can be summed up by a short description by Benjamin Keach in his book "Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible", page 227.

Consult Heb. X:1, where you will find a metaphor taken from painters, who first with a charcoal are wont to draw askiagrafia, that is, a rude a lumberation or delineation of the thing they intended to paint, and afterwards perfect it with true and lively colours, till they make a fair picture." Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (page 227)

Now that a mental picture is formed, this preliminary framework can be built upon, or as Benjamin Keach might say, "perfected" with more information regarding typology.

For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have no further consciousness of sin? Hebrews 10:1-2 (NET)

There is no actual or formally existing term that describes an anti-type and its match, (or opposite) the type, other than the possibility of simply using both terms redundantly. This is a faulty and inefficient means of communication as it leaves confusion in the mind of the reader when speaking of several different anti-type/type sets.

Some Bible teachers maintain that the Old Testament is represented by night, or darkness, and the New Testament is represented by day, or face to face. While the views of these teachers seem appropriate in many places, this blanket statement is not totally correct in many other places. While I must reject this statement in scope, I do accept this statement where it logically applies to typological situations.

While Calvin is considered the founder of modern grammatico-historical exegesis, and this designation should not be taken from him, he did teach, "A passage may have a literal or a figurative sense, but cannot have two senses at once". This clearly is not true. I recently saw a bright new green Jaguar with the license plate, "PURRFCT". I understood this license plate to mean "purr" like a cat, which related to the name "jaguar". I also understood this license to mean "perfect" like the fine piece of machinery a Jaguar is. I also understood "perfect" to mean the driver choose that particular color of bright metallic green paint, and the camel leather interior, and the other amenities to make this car "perfect" for the owner's particular tastes.

I also understood that this license was issued by the state in which I live because it had the correct number of letters or numbers required to issue a license plate. Certainly if a human being can concoct a license plate that demonstrates four distinct meanings, it is possible for God to provide many more senses of meaning from the writing that He inspired!

We tend to restrict the meaning God intends to present to us in His Word because we run it through our own personal filters. We need to understand that this is His Word, not "our" word.

Calvin is said to have succeeded admirably in keeping with a genuine exegetical method except for the occasional biased interpretation to support his favorite dogma of "double predestination", or to voice his antagonism to Rome and the Pope.

To illustrate the fact that the Scriptures accurately record history, while simultaneously presenting allegory, I will use Galatians 4:21-31.

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law?  For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. But one, the son by the slave woman, was born by natural descent, while the other, the son by the free woman, was born through the promise. These things may be treated as an allegory, for these women represent two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren woman who does not bear children; break forth and shout, you who have no birth pains, because the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than those of the woman who has a husband.” But you, brothers and sisters, are children of the promise like Isaac. But just as at that time the one born by natural descent persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? “Throw out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the son” of the free woman. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Galatians 4:21-31 NET Bible

Virkler tells us that we must "search for secondary and hidden meanings" but I assert that there are no secondary meanings or hidden meanings, as this is not hidden. It is the very structure of the Gospel, throughout the entire structure of the Gospel.

This meaning is also not any secondary meaning, as the entire structure of the Bible, the typologically complete Bible, is the cognitive structure of salvation, or as Virkler rightly states, "salvation history".

The Bible is not a book of "normal" or non-typological writing with little fractions of typology strewn throughout, but rather the entire structure of the Bible IS typology.

This same pattern can be shown with clay, dust, wood, water, wine, bread, wind, sand, and hundreds of other words (conceptual metonymic representations of ideas) that the writers of the Bible, throughout the hundreds and hundreds of years it took to write the Bible, used to write this "salvation history". Clearly, this is far beyond the ability of only-man. God must have inspired man to write this masterpiece we call the Bible that represents the cognitive structure of God.

Typical Persons

Typical Places

Typical Things

Typical Events

Typical Offices

Typical Actions

Typical Institutions ⁽¹⁴⁾

The specific requirements of how typologies are identified differ from writer to writer as well as the individual list of requirements.