This item should help us understand why it is that:
1, we must realize the prophets introduced a new era that would be totally different from their past in the old covenant...but the only way they could introduce it was in terms of that old covenant
2, the Gospel era is that new era
3, Judaism has as much trouble with the prophets as with the Gospel
4, futurism is reckless confusion about the progression introduced by the prophets
Judaism's trinity, to quote R. Prager, is torah--'eretz--Israel (the Law, the land and the people). In this view, the 'writings' are not considered to be the Bible, or divine. That means the history, the Psalms and the prophets. Useful, yes; divine, not. So what the prophets actually introduced was not understood, and that partly due to the veil of the law which would cause Judaism's followers to think in terms of a plain restoration somewhere on the continuum of Moses or David. There would not be wholesale changes that would be accessible to all nations.
The nations could come to the re-energized Mosaic-Davidic worship system, but there would be no such thing as a message that could transport all over the world. This is reflected in Jn 12:34.
So when futurists use the prophets directly and plainly--without the sense supplied by the NT--they are trying to make a system work that is embedded in the torah and its worship system and which is not trying to find the new era 'hidden' in the prophets, though now clearly expressed in Christ in such passages as Eph 2B-3A.
This is one of the things that drives the view that there 'needs' to be another era of Judaism, usually in a millenium, to resolve all this--because the NT doctrines are not seen as a resolution; that's for sure!
1, we must realize the prophets introduced a new era that would be totally different from their past in the old covenant...but the only way they could introduce it was in terms of that old covenant
2, the Gospel era is that new era
3, Judaism has as much trouble with the prophets as with the Gospel
4, futurism is reckless confusion about the progression introduced by the prophets
Judaism's trinity, to quote R. Prager, is torah--'eretz--Israel (the Law, the land and the people). In this view, the 'writings' are not considered to be the Bible, or divine. That means the history, the Psalms and the prophets. Useful, yes; divine, not. So what the prophets actually introduced was not understood, and that partly due to the veil of the law which would cause Judaism's followers to think in terms of a plain restoration somewhere on the continuum of Moses or David. There would not be wholesale changes that would be accessible to all nations.
The nations could come to the re-energized Mosaic-Davidic worship system, but there would be no such thing as a message that could transport all over the world. This is reflected in Jn 12:34.
So when futurists use the prophets directly and plainly--without the sense supplied by the NT--they are trying to make a system work that is embedded in the torah and its worship system and which is not trying to find the new era 'hidden' in the prophets, though now clearly expressed in Christ in such passages as Eph 2B-3A.
This is one of the things that drives the view that there 'needs' to be another era of Judaism, usually in a millenium, to resolve all this--because the NT doctrines are not seen as a resolution; that's for sure!
