In the context, "forever" has the same sense as "permanent".

"Throughout your generations" can justly be called a modifier of "forever/permanently" when such terms are used together. So, the question would then become: are there any more of these generations? From a temporal perspective, I would argue that after Jesus' "generation" he brings the Old Covenant order to a decisive conclusion. Permanence, therefore, is not unconditional.

The Exile certainly "suspended" permanence, and even being brought back to the land did not result in full restoration of the Old Order. The Law itself included curses for disobedience that culminated in utter destruction. Something has to give--regardless of the circumstances, the "permanence" and "throughout generations" is not absolute. If one should insist that the days of exile did not break the "throughout your generations" cycle, and that it might be "resumed" at any time, I see that simply as special pleading.

An additional note on breaking the covenant: Israel broke the covenant at the foot of Mt Sinai, practically as soon as they agreed to it. And it was such a breach that God was ready to start over again with Moses. The restitution came with Moses mediation and a renewal of the covenant. God promises renewal of the covenant after the Exile too (Jeremiah 31). However, that does not take place nationally, but in Christ. The restoration cannot be complete until the Messiah arrives. The Days of Indignation (Daniel) do not become the Days of Grace until Christ.

From the eternal perspective, since Jesus perfectly fulfills every Old Covenant type and shadow--since he IS Israel, IOW--one may legitimately say that these regulations have achieved a "permanence" that transcends even the most optimistic, earthly nationalistic dreams.

As for Ezekiel's Temple, obviously a dispensational proponent will disagree here, but it seems quite clear to me that physical geography and perhaps even architectural physics are all but meaningless in Ezekiel's idealized vision. Quite simply he is not talking about a "thing" or a "place" that is "of this world," but rather of the next.

I know guys like MacArthur, Archer, Bock, and others have made much about the "level of detail" and how this amount of space granted to the description is alone enough of an indicator that this construction is definitely slated for this world. But the reintroduction of types and shadows seems manifestly incongruous with the principle of fulfillment in Christ. Even the notion of an earthly, physical "capital" and cultic center literally reverses the "expansion" effect that Jesus describes to the woman at the well (Jn 4). So, I don't buy the "detail demands it" argument.

Anyway, hope these thoughts are useful.

Look for a PM from me, btw.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --