Doctrine First, Typology Last
 

For twelve years of preaching and Bible teaching, one problem I see in Bible interpretation (even among Bible believers) is this:

Trying to fit doctrine into typology

It ought not be. We need to get the plain statement and plain doctrine first of all, before getting any typological applications.

This is the practice I observe all over the Bible, especially whenever Jesus uses parables. There are times that the figure doesn't fit the literal, but Jesus Himself gives the interpretation.

For example, in Matthew 13, Jesus said the "FOWLS" (plural) is that "wicked ONE" (singular).

In one verse, He said that the "SEED" is the Word of God, yet in another verse, He said that the "SEED" is the children of the kingdom.

Now, in the issue being discussed in the thread "Body or Bride", a lot of Bible Believing Baptists err in that they try to fit the figure into plain doctrine. These problems will be eliminated if we simply believe the Bible "as it says it, where it says it".

If Ephesians tells me that the Church is as a "wife", I believe it.
If Revelation tells me that the "wife" is the "Holy City, New Jerusalem", I believe it.

If 2 Corinthians tells me that the church is "as a virgin", I believe it.
If Matthew 25 tells me that the KINGDOM is likened to "ten virgins", I believe it.

If Romans 7 tells me that we are "married" to Christ, I believe it.
If Isaiah tells me that Israel will be "married", too, I believe it.

The key here is CONTEXT.
Is the passage talking about the Church? or the Kingdom?
Is the passage talking about the Body? or a City?

I believe that typology supports doctrine, and I understand what you are saying about doctrine coming first and typology last (or second). The fact is that many of the types in the Bible existed well BEFORE the doctrines they support were even established, so sometimes it is difficult to get the two in the right order.

I'm not wanting to get into the "Body or Bride" debate again here, but in your post above you said "a lot of Bible Believing Baptists err in that they try to fit the figure into plain doctrine". If that statement is referring to the doctrine of the body of Christ being espoused to marry Jesus Christ, I just want to remind you that no Bible Believing Baptist in this forum, except you and Chette, has admitted any 'error' on their part, therefore your statement is your opinion only. If the statement was a general one relating to other doctrines, then I can agree with you.

God be with you brother.

Truth is truth and error is error, whether one admits it or not.

Kiwi,

from the wording of Paul Espoused (past tense) and the context of Eph 5 of a mystery. we would already be united. the only thing we raised was that the body of Christ is not the Bride of Rev 21. and there are many Bible Beleiving Baptist that agree with our view don't think it is just Biblestudent and I.